The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has unanimously affirmed its decision of 1 December 4 whereby it ruled as follows: “Pending a final decision…Venezuela shall refrain for taking any action which would modify the situation that currently prevails…whereby…Guyana exercises control over that area,” meaning Essequibo. On 1 May, 2025, on application by Guyana, the Court ruled that: “Pending a final decision… Venezuela shall refrain from conducting elections, or preparing to conduct elections in the territory… [over which] Guyana currently exercises control,” again referring to Essequibo. The three judges who opposed the latter order merely argued that it was not necessary because the order of 1 December, 2023, “in our view… fully and clearly addresses the concerns raised by Guyana…” It should be emphasized that, by the above finding, that China, India and Germany, the three dissenting countries, did not rule against Guyana. They merely argued that the Order of 1 December 2023 sufficiently constrains Venezuela in relation to Guyana’s complaints against Venezuela in relation to the latter’s proposed elections.
The bombast from Venezuela was expected. It described Guyana’s request for orders from the ICJ as “abusive and interventionist.” Despite participating in the case that Guyana filed with the ICJ, Venezuela declared that it “will never recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, nor will it comply with any decision issued by it to settle the territorial dispute… in a process that has been rigged… and manipulated by anti-Venezuelan corporate interests…” In its communique, Venezuela once again, ad nauseam, argued that the controversy is governed by the 1966 Geneva Agreement that established an obligation that the parties settle the controversy through “a practical and mutually acceptable arrangement.” The Venezuela Government demanded that Guyana should stop delaying direct negotiations and comply with the Geneva Agreement as the “sole valid path to a definitive, peaceful and satisfactory settlement” of the controversy.
In these pages I have dealt repeatedly and extensively with Venezuela’s spurious and unfounded claim that the Geneva Agreement mandates the settlement of the controversy by negotiation between Guyana and Venezuela. The persistence of this fiction has prompted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to publish a tract, “The Correct Interpretation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement.” It states: “President Maduro is wrong. His interpretation of the Geneva Agreement was thoroughly rejected by the International Court of Justice in its ruling of December 18, 2020. In that ruling the Court determined that the Agreement provided that the controversy between Guyana and Venezuela, over the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award which established the boundary between the two countries can ultimately be determined by the Court.
In these pages I have also pointed out that discussions have taken place between Guyana and Venezuela in three different formats for over twenty-five years, namely, in the Mixed Commission, in the United Nations Good Officer Process and in the UN brokered Enhanced Mediation Process. Despite these highly publicized events, our purported ‘friend,’ China, which is reaping gargantuan benefits from Guyana’s petroleum exploitation, infrastructure expansion and retail trade, refuses to clearly state that Guyana’s sovereignty should be respected. Instead, in efforts to appease Venezuela’s aggression against Guyana, when called upon, China says that it respects the sovereignty of all countries. Well, Venezuela says it has sovereignty over Essequibo. In the Venezuelan statement referred to earlier, it said: “The Guayana Essequiba is an inalienable part of the Venezuelan territory and a legacy of our liberators.” China’s support for the territorial integrity of all countries means that it also supports Venezuela’s claim that Essequibo is an inalienable part of Venezuela. Clearly, China cannot support both Guyana and Venezuela, so it resorts to evasion instead of calling out Venezuela’s unlawful claim to the Essequibo and its aggression against Guyana, including in the Stabroek Block, in which China has a vested interest. China appears to know that Venezuela’s aggression will spare its oil interests and that it can afford to play a cat and mouse game with Guyana. No one is fooled.
Venezuela’s fulminations against Guyana needs to be taken seriously, having regard to its frequent acts of aggression against Guyana, and its rejection of the decisions of the ICJ so far. To counter these positions of Venezuela, the Guyana Government needs to step up its educational, public relations and diplomatic work, its outreaches and its engagement with experts who reject Venezuela’s contentions. Also, determined efforts must be made by the Government to eliminate contentious political issues that are solvable while the Opposition should not contaminate the Venezuelan issue with internal disputes.
The work needs to be done at this time in preparation for the day when the ICJ gives its decision. If, as expected, the ICJ rules in favour of Guyana, we must be in a position where world opinion can be immediately mobilized by Guyana to be able to thwart any aggressive behaviour by Venezuela, if it has not already taken the ultimate steps. Guyana should not find itself in a position where it then has to go out in the world, explain the controversy, defend the decision of the ICJ and seek support. By then, Venezuela would have already made off with our dinner.