Lands awarded to Venezuela in 1899 should be returned to Guyana

Dear Editor,

Historian Thomas Bailey in his book American Diplomacy, with requisite evidence, established a very important observation about the Guyana –Venezuela issue. He pointed out that it was really a British – American issue resulting from the Monroe Doctrine. In 1823, US President Monroe declared that the Americas are for Americans. His government officially embarked on a policy of destabilizing all European colonial presence in the Americas. In the case of British Guiana (Guyana), the Americans fed Venezuela’s psyche for territorial expansionism as part of a strategy to force the British out. This psyche is seemingly shaped by nationalistic-romanticism with Spanish expansionism and a sense of entitlement to the legacies of Spanish colonialization. When we look beyond Bailey’s arguments and examine evidence specifically relating to Spanish colonization and Spanish relationships with the Amerindians of the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname and Cayenne), we would realize that Venezuela has no legitimate claim to Essequibo- Guyana’s territory it was awarded in 1899- nor the Ankoko Island it annexed in October 1966. It is important to note that the Spanish, neither before nor after the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, which divided the New World between the Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, never succeeded in having settled influence from the Mouth of the Orinoco River to Cayenne (French Guiana). The Spaniards had no clear idea of the geography of the area; not even of the New World which they sought to divide with Portugal. But the Amerindians from the Orinoco region to Cayenne, though not as developed as the Aztecs and Incas of Central America, had a brisk trade network throughout the area which they defended. They never allowed themselves to be conquered by the Spaniards. Besides, every attempt by the Spaniards to establish any presence along the Orinoco River were destroyed by Caribs or abandoned due to epidemics. So much so that for 129 years, the meaningful presence of the Spanish was delimited to Santo Thome between the lower Orinoco and the Amazon rivers, while the Amerindians who delimited them, acquiesced to Dutch governance and alliance. This is an essential reason, though not argued by Britain at the tribunal, why the eastern third of Venezuela’s Bolivar State, including the Cuyuni River’s drainage basin is rightfully part of the Essequibo. That is also a viable premise for application of international law. Instead Britain relied on the 1814 Convention of London which settled the transfer of Dutch colonies the Britain. Unlike the Spanish, the Dutch succeeded in establishing colonies in Essequibo, Berbice and Suriname. This was no accident. The Dutch, who were basically traders, and whose 80 year war with Spain for their independence, involved building alliances and attacking Spain in her colonies, succeeded in most cases because they became allies of the Amerindians against the Spanish, protected them against European enslavement and became adjudicators in inter-ethnic and other conflicts. This relationship is critical for understanding why the boundaries of the Essequibo should really be based on the Amerindian span of presence and response to Dutch governance. Furthermore, even though territorial boundaries were not precisely defined, the Treaty of Munster in 1648 which granted Holland independence from Spain and ended the 80 years’ war of independence also established that both countries mutually recognize their possessions in the Americas. By 1596 the Dutch had a settlement in the Pomeroon that was destroyed. By 1616 Dutch colonist Joost van der Hooge established Kyk-Over-Al as a replacement and administrative centre of the colony.  On arrival Adrian Groenewegen the first governor (1616-1624) succeeded in getting the Amerindians to accept him as their commander. The relationship was mutual. The Dutch depended on the Indians for food supplies etc. The Indians depended on the Dutch to aid their defense against the Spanish. Groenewegen consolidated that relationship by marrying an Amerindian woman and starting a family. As an imperative, he and the Amerindians began to define the territorial boundaries of the Essequibo, which included that piece of territory East of the Orinoco (approximately 5000 square miles) which was granted to Venezuela at the 1899 tribunal. The Venezuelan legal representative Severo Mallet-Provost, whose posthumous memorandum claimed that the Arbitral Award of 1899 was flippant and unjust, and formed the  basis for Venezuela’s renewal of claims to the Essequibo since the 1940-50s, could be right. When the context of the award is analyzed, it is detectable that the award was more an act of appeasement to the Venezuelans and the Americans rather than any just basis for doing so. The British government had three weaknesses. In the first place when the Dutch colony of Essequibo, Berbice and Demerara became consolidated as one colony under British rule by the Articles of Association of 1803, and became known as British Guiana, the relationship between the British and the Amerindians became very restive. The Amerindians who are so critical to the territorial definitions of Guyana became alienated and up to now dependent on trans-border identities for their survival. Secondly, maybe because Demerara was the soul of the British presence here, they were not as vigilant as the Dutch about the territorial boundaries of Essequibo and Berbice. Hence the persistent territorial disputes with both countries. Thirdly, the tribunal only arrived at a decision when the British withdrew its claims apparently to improve relations with America. While the Geneva Agreement of 17 February1966 was apparently an error, since it reopened an issue that should have been closed by the 1899 agreement, it also presents an opportunity for Venezuela to return lands to Guyana. Perhaps even more just would be an Amerindian country between Guyana and Venezuela. Lin-Jay Harry-Voglezon