
Beyond Borders: An In-Depth Exploration of the Implications of the Dispute between Venezuela and Guyana Over the Essequibo Region
This article provides a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the territorial dispute between Venezuela and Guyana over the Essequibo region, capturing its historical roots, evolution, and current situation. The research focuses on the influence of natural resources discovered in shaping the politico-economic interests that perpetuate instability, employing a multidisciplinary approach that unveils diplomatic interventions and the dynamics of international involvement. The article specifies the economic implications for each state and offers a perspective for a peaceful resolution, emphasizing regional stability, economic development, and bilateral cooperation. The conclusions of the article highlight the necessity of resolving this dispute, providing an analysis with practical implications for decision-makers, diplomats, or international organizations addressing similar challenges in other disputed territories.
Introduction
According to international law, territorial sovereignty implies that only a state has the authority to exercise jurisdiction within its boundaries, forbidding intervention of any kind by other states. When two or more governments legally assert their rightful control over a certain area, territorial conflicts result (Heintschel von Heinegg, 2013, p. 124). Due to the competing political and economic interests of both countries, the territorial dispute between Venezuela and Guyana over the Essequibo region is a complicated and lengthy geopolitical struggle. Essequibo has developed into a strategic battleground where the ambition to mine oil (black gold) intertwines with regional dominance, with roots in colonial legacies and competing claims over territory rich in natural resources. The Venezuela-Guyana dispute is diplomatically managed through the involvement of international organizations, and mediations, bilateral and multilateral negotiations, reveal the ways in which economic agendas are intertwined with global politics. This article aims to capture the nuances and facets of this conflict, outlining the history of the dispute, the current situation, the economic considerations of both nations, and providing a diplomatic perspective as a resolution. This territorial claim poses a persistent and complex geopolitical challenge in South America, necessitating the resolution of the dispute to ensure regional stability and economic development.
Literature review
The technical literature on border disputes explores the roles of borders in international relations dynamics, providing stability and protection. Peaceful conflict resolution is rooted in numerous conventions, constituting a customary legal principle. The realist perspective underscores the importance of territorial conquests to maximize economic and strategic interests within the anarchic international system (Gilpin, 1981, p. 23). States now behave differently as a result of globalization, fostering collaboration and creating interdependencies, which makes it necessary to apply existing dispute resolution procedures in state agreements (Nye & Keohane, 1987, p. 731). However, some states choose to maintain territorial disputes based on the importance held by the disputed territory (Wiegand, 2011, p. 2). In the case of the Essequibo region, the technical literature has analysed the historical, economic, and politico-diplomatic complexities, particularly through Eldon Kenworthy’s work: “The Venezuela-Guyana Border Dispute: Britain’s Colonial Legacy in Latin America,” meticulously describing decisions during the colonial period and the impact of the British imperial legacy in this dispute. Ambassador Odeen Ishmael, through the three volumes of “The Trail of Diplomacy: The Guyana-Venezuela Border Issue,” offers a historical perspective based on diplomatic archive materials, providing a valuable resource for understanding the chronology of events in this conflict. An economic analysis based on Hugo Chávez’s foreign policy reveals the role of oil in pursuing Venezuela’s interests, describing the influence of the Essequibo region in inter-state relations dynamics through Ralph Clem’s work: “Venezuela’s Petro-Diplomacy: Hugo Chávez’s Foreign Policy.” All these works offer a comprehensive and diverse geopolitical analysis, unveiling multiple perspectives on the Venezuela-Guyana territorial dispute, ranging from economic and diplomatic dimensions to international implications.
History of the Conflict
In November 1840, Robert Hermann Schomburgk was appointed by the British government to demarcate the borders of British Guyana, and this demarcation is known as the “Schomburgk Line.” The proposal was based on evidence from the colonial period, but Venezuela considered the line arbitrary, asserting that the extension of the British Guyana border encompassed a large part of the Essequibo region, thus not accurately reflecting its historical and geographical characteristics. Venezuela’s challenge to the established border became a focal point of diplomatic disputes that intensified over the years (Ishmael, 2013, pp. 78-103). Relations between Britain and Venezuela escalated in 1887, leading to the suspension of diplomatic relations. Venezuela suggested arbitration to settle the border dispute, but the US declined to become involved since it was more focused on the growth of the Monroe Doctrine and transcontinental railroads (Donovan, 2004, p. 673). However, the American Congress unanimously decided to arbitrate this dispute in 1895 in order to further the country’s goal of expanding its influence in Latin America. The arbitration of the Venezuela-British Guyana border aimed to clarify the Schomburgk Line, and an Arbitration Tribunal was established in Paris in 1899. Both parties presented their arguments before the five arbitrators, and the decision rendered in October exhibited a predilection towards British Guyana, consequently allocating most of the contested territory in its favour. Despite dissenting opinions, a boundary commission was instituted between 1901 and 1905 to supervise the implementation of the mutually agreed-upon border (Ishmael, 2013, pp. 407-410).
This conflict seemed resolved at the beginning of the 20th century, but Mallet Prevost’s memorandum in 1949 reignited Venezuela’s interest in reclaiming the territory. Prevost’s claims suggested a political agreement between Britain and Russia to influence the 1899 decision. Subsequent examinations into the influences exerted on the American members of the Tribunal failed to disclose any substantive evidence of partiality towards Britain. Nevertheless, the legitimacy of the arbitration ruling was subject to contestation. Venezuela’s territorial reassessment coincided with the exploitation of resources such as iron, manganese, oil, diamonds, and bauxite, with American capital being involved in these ventures. Significant oil discoveries amplified the right-wing policy aimed at reclaiming the West Essequibo region (Ishmael, 2015, pp. 13-30).
Tensions between the two states escalated as British Guyana moved toward independence. In 1962, Venezuela officially contested the Paris arbitration decision by addressing a memorandum to the Secretary-General of the UN, reaffirming its claim to the Western disputed region. The Geneva Agreement, signed in 1966 by Britain, British Guyana, and Venezuela, established a joint commission consisting of two Guyanese and two Venezuelan representatives to resolve the territorial dispute. Over the course of four years, the commission faced challenges, particularly in October 1966 when the Guyanese military discovered that Ankoko Island was occupied by Venezuela. Given Guyana’s economic and military inferiority, Ankoko Island was illegally occupied, and diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute were stalled (Ishmael, 2015, pp. 128-144).
As the territorial dispute remained unresolved, Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister, Eric Williams, considered mediating, and in 1970, the Port of Spain Protocol was signed. A twelve-year moratorium was instituted, and the protocol facilitated bilateral discussions, with its most crucial aspect being its automatic renewal if territorial claims were still valid (Donovan, 2004, p. 679). However, the protocol was not renewed after 1981. A pivotal point that could have altered the trajectory of the conflict was the Mazaruni hydroelectric project, initially an unexpected collaboration between the two governments. The proposal by Guyanese President Burnham was treated optimistically by Venezuela, offering British Guyana an OPEC loan in 1977. However, technical challenges in transmitting energy to Venezuela’s industrial centres, and potential demographic, ecological, or economic changes in the Essequibo region materialized as arguments opposing the project. President Perez’s advisors discouraged financial support, leading to the project’s abandonment due to a lack of international funding in the mid-1980s (Ishmael, 2015, p. 405). Tensions rapidly increased between 1981 and 1983, marked by frequent violations of Guyanese airspace, with 83 incidents reported by mid-1982. Venezuela strengthened its naval presence near the border, while Guyana conducted military exercises and issued bonds to fund defence efforts (Braveboy-Wagner, 2019, pp. 231-242).
The territorial dispute between the two states underwent diplomatic resolution attempts in the 1990s, involving three UN good offices processes (Ishmael, 2015, pp. 102-103). Venezuela opted for bilateral negotiations, while Guyana’s initial optimism transformed into a desire for a legal resolution by the International Court of Justice. The three UN good offices processes that were conducted until 2013 failed to bridge the gap between the two states, with Venezuela and Guyana’s extreme positions hindering any substantial progress (Ishmael, 2015, pp. 177-183).
In 2011, Guyana submitted a request to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (UNCLOS) to extend its continental shelf by an additional 150 nautical miles. Venezuela strongly opposed, claiming that Guyana included disputed territories west of the Essequibo River, violating diplomatic protocols. Tensions escalated a year later when Guyana granted exploration licenses to the American company Andarko Petroleum Corporation, and in 2013, the incident involving the MV Teknik Perdana led to accusations of violating Venezuela’s exclusive economic zone (BBC News, 2013).
The ExxonMobil discovery in May 2015 of substantial hydrocarbon reserves profoundly destabilized the geopolitical landscape. Venezuela contested the legality of the explorations, asserting that the newfound reserves were in disputed maritime areas. Guyanese President David Granger intensified efforts for a legal resolution of the border dispute, leading to heightened regional tensions. In 2017, Dag Halvor Nylander was appointed by António Guterres to resolve the territorial conflict. For all the attempts made, the lack of progress led to the case being brought before the International Court of Justice in 2018. Guyana’s filing at the ICJ accentuated bilateral conflictual relations, and Venezuela declared the 1899 arbitral award null. The discovery of oil in the disputed region outlines the economic interests of both states, posing a challenge to their development and stability (ExxonMobil, 2015).
Current Situation
On December 1, 2023, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) mandated Venezuela to refrain from any actions concerning the border with Guyana. However, just two days later, Venezuelans engaged in a referendum on the Essequibo region, responding to five questions that gauged their support for the state leadership’s arguments and rejection of the ICJ’s jurisdiction. The contested area, Essequibo, constitutes approximately two-thirds of Guyana. The endorsement of the referendum, marked by a reported voter turnout of 10.5 million—a more substantial participation than seen during Hugo Chávez’s 2012 election—was a strategic move by Maduro within the context of next year’s upcoming elections (Seibt, 2023). This territorial dispute has undergone an international transformation, shifting from a legal matter to an ideological one rooted in anti-imperialist and anti-American rhetoric. Economic considerations highlight Maduro’s strategic exploitation of this conflict as leverage against oil companies operating in profitable offshore reserves in Guyana. An important detail of the conflict is Chevron’s acquisition in October of Hess’s stake (35%) in the consortium led by ExxonMobil. This acquisition is susceptible to potential extortion, as Chevron is a crucial partner for Venezuela, thereby altering the power dynamics (Ellis, 2023). On December 14, 2023, during the meeting of Caribbean presidents on the island of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a decision was made to abstain from threatening or using force. A joint commission was established to address this conflict, with an update expected in three months (Le Monde, 2023).
On the Fast-Track to the Major Oil League: Implications for Guyana
Guyana occupies a geostrategically significant position in Northern South America, gaining heightened international attention following the discovery of oil in 2015. In line with the geopolitics of natural resources, nations blessed with abundant resources and marked by internal conflicts become vulnerable to foreign interests (Le Billon, 2005). The substantial oil deposits in Guyana are examined within the framework of power competition involving the United States, China, and Russia, each vying to assert control and ownership over these strategic resources.
Guyana’s oil sector attracted a $20 million loan from the World Bank and substantial investments from private oil companies seeking high returns and avoiding bureaucratic obstacles. After the 2015 discoveries, especially the Liza 1 field, Guyana became a major player in the oil industry, with the consortium led by ExxonMobil holding 45%, alongside Hess Guyana Exploration (30%), and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) / Nexen Petroleum Guyana (25%) (ExxonMobil, 2020). Guyana’s economy has experienced remarkable growth since the initiation of oil extraction in 2019, tripling in size, and its oil reserves exceed 11 billion barrels, placing the country among the highest per capita levels in the world. In addition to existing oil reserves, the production is expected to expand with four new fields to be exploited by the end of 2028. Furthermore, increased government investments in human capital, infrastructure development, and initiatives for climate change are anticipated (International Monetary Fund, 2023, pp. 5-11). In spite of the spectacular economic growth, the territorial dispute represents an element of uncertainty that can influence the investment climate, posing a major challenge to the oil industry. Resolving the dispute is crucial for regional stability, ensuring an upward economic trajectory, and creating a more attractive and secure environment for investors.
The Petro-Emperor with No Clothes: Implications for Venezuela
Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, being one of the oil-rich nations that has faced numerous internal challenges: dependence on fossil fuel revenues, extractive political-economic institutions, and widespread corruption. This excessive reliance on natural resource exports makes a state’s economy vulnerable, resulting in the Dutch disease phenomenon. Venezuela’s economy suffered after the 2014 oil price decline, with the GDP contracting by approximately three-quarters from 2014 to 2022. Additionally, the country grapples with hyperinflation, the burden of government debt, and the autocracy of President Nicolas Maduro. The “resource curse” highlights Venezuela’s situation—a country that experienced spectacular economic growth after the discovery of oil in 1922, transforming from having the highest per capita income in Latin America in the 1970s to an economy in collapse (Cheatham, Roy, & Labrador, 2023). In October 2023, the Biden administration lifted sanctions pertaining to international trade in oil, gas, minerals, and secondary bonds, following the signing of agreements in Barbados by the Maduro regime addressing electoral conditions. However, these agreements were promptly breached through actions such as censorship, harassment, and intimidation of journalists. The initially granted sanction reduction, valid until April 2024, had the potential to generate up to 10 billion dollars (Berg, 2023, p. 2). However, there was no discernible change in Maduro’s conduct, particularly owing to a lack of comprehension of his motivations, which include economic collapse and an ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity (Kurmanaev, 2019). The President of Venezuela seized this opportunity not to address internal issues but as a means to suppress opposition, notably by reigniting territorial disputes with Guyana.
The Search for Silver Linings: Possibilities for Conflict Resolution
The imperative for a diplomatic resolution to the territorial dispute arises from the need to unlock the economic potential inherent in the region. There exists a prospect for regional collaboration, facilitated by the membership of both nations in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Bilateral cooperation focusing on infrastructure development, trade, or energy stands as an incentivizing mechanism for fostering stability and facilitating economic growth. Furthermore, the ongoing democratization endeavours in Venezuela offer a potential avenue for conflict mitigation, particularly in light of Maria Corina Machado’s prospective candidacy in the forthcoming 2024 presidential elections.
Conclusions
In summary, the territorial dispute over the Essequibo region between Guyana and Venezuela is a complex and delicate matter, deeply rooted in colonial histories, making a clear and final resolution challenging. The economic and political consequences of this conflict are significant, impacting both nations’ economies and regional stability. The focal point of the disagreement is the abundant natural resources in Essequibo, with President Maduro aiming to seize Guyana’s offshore oil wealth to boost Venezuela’s oil production and financial gains, a move that has drawn strong international criticism. Concerns about the potential for military conflict exist as,Venezuela’s military superiority notwithstanding, Guyana may receive support from the United States and other allies. Leading up to Venezuela’s 2024 elections, this dispute emerges as a pivotal factor shaping the political landscape. Maria Corina Machado has cautioned that escalating this territorial conflict could jeopardize democracy, potentially serving as a distraction or leading to the suspension of the 2024 presidential elections. Resolving this dispute offers an opportunity to unlock the region’s economic potential through international diplomatic efforts focused on dialogue and cooperation. The reestablishment of democratic principles in Venezuela via the 2024 elections could turn this dispute into a catalyst for regional stability, cooperation, and economic development.
Photo source: Wikimedia Commons.
References:
BBC News. (2013, October 12). US ship detained by Venezuela in Guyana disputed waters. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-24500362.
Berg, R. (2023). Restricting Rogue-State Revenue: Strengthening Energy Sanctions on Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2-4.
Braveboy-Wagner, J. A. (2019). The Venezuela-Guyana Border Dispute: Britain’s colonial legacy in Latin America. Routledge.
Cheatham, A., Roy, D., & Labrador, R. (2023, March 10). Venezuela: The Rise and Fall of a Petrostate. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/venezuela-crisis.
Donovan, T. (2004). Challenges to the Territorial Integrity of Guyana: A Legal Analysis. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 32, 673.
Ellis, R. E. (2023, October 2023). Would Venezuela Really Invade Essequibo? Retrieved from Revanellis: https://revanellis.com/would-venezuelas-military-really-invade-essequibo.
ExxonMobil. (2015, May 20). ExxonMobil announces significant oil discovery offshore Guyana.
ExxonMobil. (2020). Guyana Project Overview. Retrieved from Exxon Mobil: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/locations/guyana/guyana-project-overview#PayaraProject%E2%80%93Description.
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heintschel von Heinegg, W. (2013). Territorial Sovereignty and Neutrality in Cyberspace. International Law Studies, 124.
International Monetary Fund. (2023). IMF Country Report No. 23/379: Guyana. International Monetary Fund.
Ishmael, O. (2013). The Trail of Diplomacy, the Guyana-Venezuela Border Dispute Vol. One, Colonization, Boundary Dispute and Arbitration. Xlibris.
Ishmael, O. (2015). The Trail of Diplomacy, the Guyana-Venezuela Border Dispute Vol. Three, United Nations Involvement, and Active Bilateral Relations (1982-2015). Xlibris.
Ishmael, O. (2015). The Trail of Diplomacy, the Guyana-Venezuela Border Dispute Vol. Two, Renewed Claims, New Treaties and Diplomatic Outreach (1901-1982). Xlibris.
Kurmanaev, A. (2019, May 17). Venezuela’s Collapse Is the Worst Outside of War in Decades, Economists Say. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/world/americas/venezuela-economy.html.
Le Billon, P. (2005). The Geopolitics of Resource Wars. New York: Routledge.
Le Monde. (2023, December 15). Venezuela and Guyana agree to not use force to settle territorial dispute. Retrieved from Le Monde: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/12/15/presidents-of-venezuela-and-guyana-meet-to-defuse-tensions-over-oil-rich-region_6344885_4.html.
Nye, J., & Keohane, R. (1987). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. International Organization, 731.
Seibt, S. (2023, December 2). Essequibo referendum: Is Venezuela about to seize part of Guyana? Retrieved from France 24: https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20231203-essequibo-referendum-is-venezuela-about-to-seize-part-of-guyana.
Wiegand, K. (2011). Enduring Territorial Disputes: Strategies of Bargaining, Coercive Diplomacy, and Settlement. Studies in Security and International Affairs Series, 2.