Venezuelans Vote To Authorize Take-Over of Oil-Rich Region of Neighboring Guyana

Venezuelans Vote To Authorize Take-Over of Oil-Rich Region of Neighboring Guyana

This Sunday, a small number of Venezuelans went to the polls to approve a referendum called by the government of President Nicolás Maduro to claim sovereignty over a resource-rich area of neighboring Guyana, arguing that the region was stolen when the border was drawn more than a century ago.

The National Electoral Council claimed to have counted more than 10.5 million votes even though few voters could be seen at polling sites throughout the voting period for the five-question referendum. The council, however, did not explain whether the number of votes was equivalent to each voter or if it was the sum of each individual answer.

Venezuelan voters were asked whether they support establishing a state in the disputed territory, known as Essequibo, granting citizenship to current and future area residents and rejecting the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ top court in settling the disagreement between the South American countries.

The origins stem from both nations’ once being part of the vast Spanish colonial empire. Here is where it gets interesting for American history buffs: Settling the border in its current location resulted from President Grover Cleveland using the Monroe Doctrine.

In 1841 Venezuela disputed the British delineation, claiming territorial delineations established at the time of their independence from Spain. Venezuela claimed its borders extended as far east as the Essequibo River—an effective claim on two-thirds of British Guiana’s territory. When gold was discovered in the disputed territory, Great Britain sought to further extend its reach, claiming an additional 33,000 square miles west of the Schomburgk Line, an area where gold had been discovered. In 1876 Venezuela protested and appealed to the United States for assistance, citing the Monroe Doctrine as justification for U.S. involvement. For the next 19 years Venezuela repeatedly petitioned for U.S. assistance, calling on its neighbor to the north to intervene by either sponsoring arbitration or intervening with force. The United States responded by expressing concern, but did little to facilitate a resolution.

In 1895, invoking the Monroe Doctrine, newly appointed U.S. Secretary of State Richard Olney sent a strongly-worded note to British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Lord Salisbury, demanding that the British submit the boundary dispute to arbitration. Salisbury response was that the Monroe Doctrine had no validity as international law. The United States found that response unacceptable and in December 1895, President Grover Cleveland asked Congress for authorization to appoint a boundary commission, proposing that the commission’s findings be enforced “by every means.” Congress passed the measure unanimously and talk of war with Great Britain began to circulate in the U.S. press.

Great Britain, under pressure in South Africa with the Boers and managing an empire that spanned the globe, could ill afford another conflict. Lord Salisbury’s government submitted the dispute to the American boundary commission and said nothing else of the Monroe Doctrine.

The dispute was ultimately decided in Guyana’s favor, which brings us to today.

It is conjectured this “vote” was a campaign stunt for Maduro, which got out of control. Maduro is unpopular, and this was intended as a move to rally support for his government.

Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at the London-based foreign policy think tank Chatham House, told VOA that the referendum in Venezuela had all the hallmarks of a publicity stunt that got out of control, and which now threatens to degenerate into serious conflict.

“This was mostly for domestic consumption, but basically, the Maduro government has pulled the trigger on something and we don’t know where it’s going to go,” Sabatini told VOA.
…. With a new election scheduled for 2024, the Essequibo referendum was seen as an effort to galvanize voters behind the government.

Now, despite evidence of poor turnout and low voter engagement with the referendum, Sabatini said, the Maduro government is doubling down.

Maduro struck out in 3 ways in his attempt to annex the oil-rich region owned by Guyana.

Strike 1: The vote backfired, showing low voter enthusiasm for the takeover.

The government of Guyana has breathed a sigh of relief after a referendum intended to rubber-stamp Venezuela’s claim to about two-thirds of the tiny South American country’s territory appeared to have backfired.

Nicolás Maduro had hoped to leverage his country’s century-long claim to the disputed Essequibo region to mobilise public support but voting stations across the country were largely quiet on Sunday as most voters shunned the issue.

The turnout appeared so underwhelming that the Venezuelan government has been widely accused by analysts of falsifying the result.

Strike 2: Guyana is having none of it.

On Monday, Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo said that Guyana would remain vigilant after a Venezuelan referendum rejected an international court’s jurisdiction over a territorial dispute between neighboring countries.

“The leadership in Guyana cannot just take assurances from the Maduro government that they will not invade the country,” Jagdeo told local media in an interview from Dubai, where he is attending the Conference of the Parties (COP28) climate summit. “We have to be prepared for any eventuality.”

“We have to be very vigilant in this upcoming period because the Venezuelan leadership has shown itself to be very unpredictable,” Jagdeo said, urging Guyanese to remain calm and saying the country has ramped up defense coordination with allies.

Strike 3: The United Nations’ top court ordered Venezuela to stop any action that would alter Guyana’s control over a disputed territory. {Though it is hard to say how effective this threat is).

While war does not appear to be coming to the Venezuela – Guyana border yet, it is undoubtedly a potential hot spot to watch in 2024.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.