December Tensions
Long-standing tensions between Venezuela and its eastern neighbor, Guyana, escalated over the course of December 2023. An ongoing land dispute over the border area of Essequibo, an oil and mineral-rich territory which covers two-thirds of Guyana, has strained the relationship between the two countries for over a century. However, tensions have resurfaced since 3 December, when Venezuelans voted in favor of a referendum claiming sovereignty over the disputed territory. According to the referendum, voters approved its transformation into a Venezuelan state, where current and future residents would be granted Venezuelan citizenship. In the eyes of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, the referendum has given him the “green light” to order state-owned oil companies to immediately begin exploration within Essequibo. He has also since threatened international companies who have received concessions from Guyana. When publicly signing the referendum on 8 December, Maduro pronounced, “Long live the complete map of Venezuela… born on 3 December, 2023.”
Meanwhile, Irfaan Ali, president of Guyana, has “made it very clear that on the issue of the border controversy, Guyana’s position is non negotiable.” This position has been clear since 2018, when Guayana began calling on the UN’s International Court of Justice to legitimize the Arbitral Award 1899, which officially incorporates Essequibo as part of Guyana, as legally binding. During the UN ICJ’s hearings held last month, Guyana called the upcoming referendum – and Venezuela’s recent behavior in general – to be an “existential threat.” As a result, this hearing led to the ICJ’s 1 December ruling which barred Venezuela “from taking any action which would modify that situation that currently prevails in the territory in dispute, whereby the Co-operative Republic of Guyana administers and exercises control over that area.” However, this ruling did not specifically outlaw the 3 December referendum from being carried out. Yet, despite this loophole, Guyana accuses Venezuela of defying the ICJ’s orders and continues to question the legitimacy of Venezuela’s referendum. In addition to taking legal defense, Guyana has also taken military measures and turned to the aid of the United States’ Southern Command, claiming sovereignty and security is their “primary concern.” Concerned by the possibility of war, both Venezuela and Guyana have mobilized troops towards their shared border. However, despite such precaution, both countries have vocalized their shared commitment to peace by signing an agreement not to use force on 14 December.
Furthermore, Venezuela and Guyana are not alone in their concern by the growing tension between them. In preparation for the 3 December referendum, the United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on 1 December. While no immediate action was taken after the meeting, diplomats confirmed a general backing of Guyana. At the meeting, they also emphasized that Venezuela must respect not only the ICJ’s orders but also the UN charter’s legal requirement of its 15 members to respect each other’s sovereignty. The regional organization and trade bloc Caricom (Caribbean Community) also called a private meeting on the same day, calling for a bilateral discussion between Maduro and Ali as well as emphasizing their support for Guyana. Bordering both Venezuela and Guyana, Brazil was quick to send troops to Boa Vista (a city near Venezuela) soon after 3 December to “guarantee the inviolability of the territory.” The United States also jumped to emphasize their “unwavering support” for Guayana, saying they would conduct flight operations alongside the Guyanese military. Thus, given the general support on his side, President Ali stated in an interview with the BBC on 12 December, “Guyana is not alone and our friends are not going to allow Guyana to be trampled on.”
While much of the international community has braced for worsened tensions, continued dialogue and peaceful negotiations appear to be the current strategy between the two disputing countries. This was made apparent during the 14 December meeting hosted in the Caribbean nation of St. Vincent and chaired by its prime minister, Ralph Gonsalves. The meeting – proposed by both Gonsalves and Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva – resulted in a three-page agreement declaring neither Venezuela nor Guyana would “threaten or use force against one another in any circumstances” and “will refrain, whether by words or deeds, from escalating any conflict or disagreement.” The agreement also included the establishment of a joint commission to address any further concerns regarding Essequibo and the promise to continue discussions in Brazil sometime within the next three months. On the same day, President Maduro took to X, thanking President Ali for “his candor and willingness” and calling the meeting an “excellent day of dialogue”.
A Century-Old Debate
Although the land dispute between Venezuela and Guyana has garnered recent international attention, it is certainly not a new concern, as it stems from the two country’s histories as Spanish and British colonies. Venezuelans have considered Essequibo to be part of their country ever since their independence from Spain in 1811. However, Essequibo became official land of British Guiana when arbitrators from Britain, Russia, and the United States drew up the boundary in the Arbitral Award of 1899. Thus, Guyana considers the 1899 decision to be “a total and complete agreement for our border.” President Ali also argues that “Brazil, Caricom, CELAC (the Community of Latin American States), the United States, the Western Hemisphere, and the international community” respect the legitimacy of the original 1899 decision. The Organization of American States backs his claim, saying the 1899 boundary is “in force and legally binding on all parties under international law.”
Meanwhile, Venezuela argues that Americans and Europeans cheated their country out of their claim to the disputed territory. At the negotiation table determining the Venezuela-Guyana border in 1899, Guyana (then known as the colony British Guyana) was represented by its colonial power, Britain. Meanwhile, the United States stood in place of Venezuela due to the lack of diplomatic ties between Venezuela and Britain. Thus, rather than being able to argue for their own border, Venezuela claims the global superpowers that spoke for them ultimately took advantage of their absence. For this reason, Venezuelan officials point to the 1966 Geneva Agreement made amongst themselves, Britain, and British Guiana “as the only valid legal instrument” which they believe nullified the original 1899 boundary. This is why as part of the 3 December referendum, Venezuelan voters were specifically asked whether they “agree to reject by all means, in accordance with the law,” the 1899 agreement and support the 1966 agreement instead. Furthermore, this question is clearly strategic on President Maduro’s behalf, as he hopes to resolve Venezuela’s declining oil industry and guarantee reelection in 2024.
Resurfacing the Debate
Recent realization of Essequibo’s profitability as an oil and mineral-rich territory explains why the land dispute between Venezuela and Guyana has resurfaced. In 2015, major oil deposits were discovered by Exxon-Mobil off of Essequibo’s shore. The company then began pumping oil in the area around December 2019. This has transformed the small agrarian country of 800,000 people into a thriving petrostate, becoming the world’s fourth-largest offshore oil producer and generating $1 billion a year. On the other hand, Venezuela’s state-owned oil industry has been hurting over the past few years due to mismanagement and economic sanctions (the United States only eased its oil sanctions on Venezuela this October). Thus, Venezuela has necessarily kept a close eye on its neighbor’s recent success. By resurfacing the historical dispute, it is clear Venezuela wants in on Essequibo’s resources and economic potential. Venezuela’s Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, reiterated Venezuela’s century-old belief that they were “cheated out of” Essequibo’s land during the ICJ’s hearings last month claiming, “Guyana has put its institutions and its territory in the service of the major powers that have always aspired to destroy Venezuela in order to grab some of the largest world reserves of oil, gold and gas.” Yet, bringing up the dispute is not only a means to lay claim to Essequibo’s resources. It is also being used by President Maduro as a political strategy to garner support for his reelection next year.
Discontent with Maduro’s presidency and his United Socialist Party was made clear by the recent success of the opposition party’s self-organized primary elections. Held back in October, the opposing party’s primary election garnered over 2.4 million votes. Thus, to combat opposing sentiment expressed by the general population of Venezuela, Maduro has turned to the land dispute to fuel patriotism and boost support for his campaign. In the weeks leading up to the 3 December referendum, Venezuelans reported an increased use of patriotic propaganda including Essequibo-themed reggaeton, rallies, and nationally televised history lessons. This strategy is ultimately two-fold, serving as a way to garner support while simultaneously distracting the public’s attention from guaranteeing a fair election. Maduro is also resurfacing the debate over Essequibo to shift the international gaze away from U.S. pressure to release political prisoners and “wrongfully detained” Americans. Thus, while Venezuela’s government has prided itself on the supposed 10.5 million votes approving the 3 December referendum, Essequibo’s use as a political strategy undermines any apparent support for Maduro that the referendum implies. Additionally, Associated Press journalists and witnesses have brought the voter turnout into question, reporting few voters actually appeared at polling sites on 3 December.
Old News with New International Concerns
In regards to the dispute, Brazilian president Lula da Silva expressed his concern on 7 December, saying, “We do not want and do not need war in South America.” His sentiment reflects that of the international community at large. The military mobilization and verbal threats made by both Venezuela and Guyana as well as talk of foreign military aid has caused international concern over a potential war. President Ali has gone as far as to say Venezuela’s recent behavior parallels Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, arguing, “we cannot tolerate this type of reckless behavior in the Western Hemisphere.” He has also made clear that “we have to prepare for any eventuality because of the rhetoric that is coming out of Venezuela.” Meanwhile, in regards to a Guyanese helicopter crash on 6 December, President Maduro threatened, “I convey my condolences to the people of Guyana and to the military forces, but this is a message from beyond: do not mess with Venezuela. Whoever messes with Venezuela, dries up.” Despite such tense rhetoric, however, both countries have also made promises of peace and negotiation. Venezuela went along with negotiations in Saint Vincent with “the aspiration to maintain Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone for peace, without interference from external actors.” President Ali has also said, “we are ready for peace and stability, but we are also not naive.”
These promises are no coincidence; rather, they are grounded in international pressures for peace that are keeping the dispute at bay. In light of ongoing hostilities in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, preserving peace in South America is a priority for many within the international community. It is unlikely that either Venezuela or Guyana, and particularly not their allies, actually want war to unfold in the region. Nevertheless, tensions are nowhere near resolved. Temporary promises of peace and pending negotiations to be held in Brazil within the next few months highlight how uncertain it is to find tangible long-term solutions for this dispute. In the meantime, the risk of further hostility ultimately depends on how far Venezuela is willing to push its attempts to regain Essequibo – especially as the country’s 2024 presidential elections come closer – and how seriously Guyana takes their neighbor’s strides. For now, however, any military and legal action taken by both Venezuela and Guyana appears to be more talk than action as their land dispute shows strong signs of prevailing.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own, and may not reflect the opinions of The St Andrews Economist.
Image Courtesy of Marcelo Garcia, Getty Images
