top of page


Alvaro Enrique Saldivia Lopez

Dec 16, 2023

Will Guyana respect the Geneva agreement of 1966? Will it abandon the ExxonMobil and Comando Sur imperial plot against Bolivarian Venezuela? Will it cooperate in a mutually beneficial agreement?

Rising Tensions over Territorial Dispute

The need for dialogue between the Governments of Presidents Nicolás Maduro and Irfaan Ali was expressed in the highest-level meeting held on Thursday, December 14, in Kingstown, the capital of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, with the participation of CELAC and CARICOM Stroika members.

The meeting took place within the framework of tensions that have been accumulating in recent years, especially with Comando Sur and ExxonMobil in recent months. This comes after the delivery of illegal oil concessions to ExxonMobil and other Imperial Corporations in waters to be delimited between Venezuela and Guyana. The ExxonMobil puppet regime in Georgetown tried to use the ICJ, which they don't recognize, against Venezuelan sovereignty and the massive popular support of the Consultative Referendum. A total of 10,554,320 voters said "Yes" five times on December 3, as announced by the CNE and convened by the Venezuelan National Assembly.

With the results of the Consultative Referendum, the Venezuelan State began to delimit its navigation chart to carry out actions in defense of the historical and legitimate rights that Venezuela has over Guayana Esequiba. This issue pressured the Ali government to finally engage in dialogue with the Venezuelan administration to resolve the territorial controversy, following numerous calls from President Maduro.

Although Guyana has been ambiguous regarding the existence of the controversy, stating that the fraudulent Arbitration Award of 1899 delimited the borders between both countries and hoping that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will approve it as legitimate, it admits that the Agreement of Geneva of 1966 is the mechanism with which the dispute must be resolved.

The Geneva Agreement: Path to Resolution or Unilateral Actions?

This was accepted in the joint statement published and read at a press conference after the meeting between both Presidents. Point 2 states that Venezuela and Guyana "agreed that any dispute between the two states will be resolved in accordance with international law, including the Geneva Agreement of February 17, 1966."

Let us remember that the aforementioned agreement establishes that the countries involved must agree on the solution that will be reached in a manner "that is acceptable to both parties," which has not been fulfilled unilaterally by Guyana, wanting to resolve the controversy through a third actor (the ICJ, an entity to which Venezuela does not recognize mandatory jurisdiction).

But the Argyle joint statement forces Guyana to return to the path of the Geneva Agreement and puts pressure on it to comply with what is established there. The facilitators (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Dominica) and interlocutors (those mentioned plus Brazil) of the Binational Dialogue, together with the observers (UN, Colombia, and Honduras), have the role of protecting what the text refers to.

The delivery of illegal oil concessions to ExxonMobil in waters to be delimited in the projection of the Atlantic façade of the Essequibo directly violates the Geneva Agreement in its Article V, second section. However, Ali declared in a press conference, before and after the meeting with President Maduro, that Guyana had the right to exploit the resources of the Essequibo and its maritime projection because this is dictated by the 1899 Award, which, as signed in 1966, is "null and void" since it was a ruling mediated by a political compromise between the United States and the United Kingdom, the latter also being a signatory of the Geneva Agreement and refusing to participate in the dispute.

Until now, all of Venezuela's steps correspond to the historical position of the State since 1966: the diplomatic path is the option that all the governments of the Fourth and Fifth Republic have taken. The Argyle joint statement infers this and confirms, therefore, the possible practical return of Guyana to the Geneva Agreement would honor the efforts of Venezuelan diplomacy and give force to another of the points of the text issued on December 14: the third, which states that both countries are "committed to the pursuit of good neighborliness, peaceful coexistence, and the unity of Latin America and the Caribbean."

From The Revolution Report, we indicate that the principle of good neighborliness is a way that could satisfy both parties, as it would give rise to effective cooperation in the economic and commercial fields. The example of the agreements signed last September between Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago, governed by this principle, is a peaceful roadmap that would undermine the geopolitical conflict derived from the management of cross-border resources. In the aforementioned analysis, it was stated that "UN studies show that more than 40% of armed conflicts in the last 60 years have been related to natural resources. The Secretary-General of that body commented in 2018 that 'the United Nations recognizes the potential of shared management of natural resources as a means to prevent conflicts and improve regional cooperation."

Cooperation vs. Corporate Rule: The Road Ahead

Would Guyana really be willing to cooperate with Venezuela, taking into account that ExxonMobil has refused to abandon its projects in the Stabroek block, where a good part of the northwestern section is established in waters to be delimited between the two countries?

Furthermore, the influence of the Imperial Corporation ExxonMobil in Guyanese politics is public and notorious. It is a company characterized by its corruptive and interfering methods in countries where its interests are not fully met. ExxonMobil is usually accompanied by the diplomatic and military power of the State Department and the Department of Defense, respectively, in which it also exerts historical influence.

The corporate formula of "divide and conquer" continues to be the roadblock to carrying out effective binational cooperation. It is preferable for the AngloZionist Company to pay royalties or taxes to a single national entity.

From the perspective of good neighborliness, cooperation is the best way for both countries to develop their natural resources because it serves as a catalyst for stability and economic recovery in the region.

In any case, Guyana has two options that emanate directly from the meeting between Presidents Maduro and Ali: stick to some agreement in a good-neighborly scenario as a mechanism to resolve the territorial dispute over the Essequibo or follow the dictate of the American oil company that violates the Geneva Agreement.

Until now, the measures that the Bolivarian Government has taken after the consultative referendum of December 3 do not violate any letter of what was signed in 1966; Georgetown, on the contrary, has taken unilateral actions that dishonor that document. Will regional pressure together with Bolivarian Peace Diplomacy get the Guyanese State to take actions within the fold of cooperation and friendly negotiation, or will it continue with its disruptive agenda?

In the year 2024, we will have an answer. Unidos Venceremos! Multipolarity BRICS 🌍🌏🌎⭐⚖️📜

bottom of page