Guyana, Venezuela, and Colonialism
Image by Heather Doram, Antigua and Barbuda
Blog post by L.E.M / Lucia E. Murray, Intersect Antigua
On December 14, 2023, presidents Ifraan Ali of Guyana and Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela met in Argyle, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, to sign a “Joint Declaration of Argyle for Peace and Dialogue.” This declaration was crafted as a direct response to the recent re-escalation of tensions between Guyana and Venezuela – engendered by Maduro’s continued invocation of the Guyana-Venezuela territorial dispute and his insistence that Venezuela has claim to the Essequibo region of Guyana. This issue first arose in the late 1800s due to the colonisation and subsequent partitioning of the region by European powers – namely, the Spanish, British, and Dutch. Since then, in spite of repeated efforts to arrive at a resolution, the dispute still persists and has been reignited several times throughout the years. In her article, “Guyana and Venezuela: The Currently Unfolding Crisis of Imperialism,” Dr. Tamanisha John underscores a key, inciting incident in this controversy:
“In 1899, the borders between an independent Venezuela and British Guiana were considered settled via an Arbitral Award – in which Venezuela, Great Britain, the United States, and (what is now) Guyana were all signatories . . . and both parties accepted those boundaries as ‘full, perfect, and final’ (Felix 2015, 6). It would not be until August 18, 1962, that Venezuelan President Romulo Betancourt – given the knowledge that Guyana would soon become independent from Great Britain – declared the Arbitral Award ‘null and void’ (Felix 2015, 10). This date marks the discursive controversy of Venezuela and Guyana border tensions – as legally, the border is considered settled.”
Following continued claims for Essequibo from Venezuela, it was agreed through the 1966 Geneva Agreement – signed by the “United Kingdom [as Guyana was still under British rule at this time], Venezuela and, upon attaining independence, Guyana” (Joseph) – that a peaceful settlement of the matter would be attained through legal means, which includes referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the Venezuelan government has also refused to recognize the ICJ – leaving any further proceedings regarding Essequibo at an impasse. Ultimately, this conflict is one of colonial inheritance and, consequently, completely ignores the sovereignty of the indigenous people native to Essequibo. The potential for this region to be annexed persists beneath conditions created by capitalism, imperialism, and chauvinism – all of which are interlinked as vestiges of colonialism.
The Venezuelan government’s motivation for the annexation of Essequibo is manifold; however, two key factors are the discovery of oil and U.S. presence in the region. In 2015, ExxonMobil – an American oil company and one of the wealthiest in the world – confirmed the existence of massive oil reserves in Essequibo. Not only had Exxon been permitted to explore particular areas of Guyana prior to this, but they were also present in Venezuela until 2007 – when the “last remaining oil production sites . . . under foreign company control” (Wilpert) were nationalised. In a capitalist world that rewards the exploitation of land and labour, as well as exponential resource extraction, whoever is in possession of the oil reserves in Essequibo would gain access to substantial wealth and power. This means that both Venezuela and Exxon – and the U.S., by extension – stand to gain a great deal from the region, far more than Guyana, whose government struck a notoriously unfavourable deal with Exxon in 2016 (Sanzillo). Hence, it is no surprise that following the company’s 2015 announcement regarding the discovery of oil in Essequibo, tensions surrounding the territorial dispute rose once again (John). Furthermore, Venezuela’s interest in the region’s oil is corroborated by recent orders from Maduro to “‘immediately’ explore and exploit the [area’s] oil, gas and mines” (“Venezuela orders state companies to exploit oil and gas mines in Guyana territory”). Whether done by the U.S. or Venezuela, the plundering of Essequibo is a colonial practice that is at odds with and infringes upon the indigenous peoples living in the area.
Maduro’s push to annex Essequibo is also propelled by a desire to secure his position in Venezuela’s upcoming elections through appealing to longstanding, nationalistic sentiments. In an interview with Black Power Media, Dr. Tamanisha John underlines the connection between calls for annexation, (re-)elections, and nationalism. Asserting that Essequibo is a part of Venezuela is essentially equated as being pro-Venezuela – at least within the country’s political sphere. John also adds that part of what is fueling the continuation of this dispute is the persistence of an ideology that frames Spanish colonisation as more legitimate than British, French, or Dutch colonisation – despite the fact that colonisation, in all of its forms, is egregious and unjust. It is along these lines of thought that Maduro held a referendum on December 3, 2023, “to mobilise public support” regarding the dispute. However, “[t]he turnout appeared so underwhelming that the Venezuelan government has been widely accused by analysts of falsifying the results” (“Maduro vote to claim Guyana’s territory backfires as Venezuelans stay home”). The actions of the Venezuelan government to this end are authoritarian, and consequently, colonial in nature. Imposing the Venezuelan identity on the people of Essequibo ignores their right to self determination. In an interview with Agence France-Presse (AFP), Thomas Devroy, “a former village chief” in the village of Arau, Essequibo, says that “Essequibo was ‘the land of the Akawaio’ Indigenous people who live across Guyana, Venezuela, and Brazil.” He states, “This is our land. Before the Spaniards were here, since time immemorial. For us there are no borders, but with the politics now, there is one. And Essequibo belongs to Guyana.” Although the current lines dividing South America and the Caribbean were drawn by colonial powers and do not reflect the reality of the indigenous residents prior to colonisation, it is nevertheless important to recognise that the indigenous Caribbean people – in addition to the afro-Caribbean and indo-Caribbean people – living in the Essequibo region consider themselves Guyanese. This fact alone should warrant an end to the dispute.
““This is our land. Before the Spaniards were here, since time immemorial. For us there are no borders, but with the politics now, there is one. And Essequibo belongs to Guyana.””
It is clear, through their threats of annexation, that Venezuela – while also a victim of colonialism – is engaging in colonial violence against Guyana, as this acquisition would entail exerting dominion over a smaller, less powerful territory to exploit its resources at the expense of those living there. Intersect stands in support of the people most affected by this dispute – this being the people of the Essequibo region, especially the indigenous people to whom this land truly belongs, and the people of wider Guyana. In the face of colonial and imperial interference, we call for their sovereignty to be respected.
