Principled framework and criteria
To establish our position regarding the referendum of alleged “defense” of Venezuelan sovereignty over the territory of Essequibo, we are guided, first, by class criteria, and we consider the original population of said territory since ancient times, in addition to uplifting the historical rights of the Venezuelan nation upon independence from Spain.
Beyond the claims and differences between the two bourgeois states (both neocolonial), controlled by their respective bourgeoisie: Venezuela and Guyana; we must consider the indigenous peoples who already inhabited Essequibo when the conquerors arrived, long before the independence struggle led by the rich and creole Mantuanos, descendants of Spaniards, with the participation of indigenous people, Afro-descendants and mestizos who they also subjugated
What does this population feel, think and want? How is the life on either side of those living under Venezuelan or Guyanese administration? Is their situation being considered? What is offered to them? What relevance does their condition as indigenous peoples have in the concept of “sovereignty”? Is the well-being of these peoples or the exploitation of other’s resources being disputed?
On both sides, under both Venezuelan and Guyanese administrations, these peoples find themselves oppressed and neglected by the ruling elites in both Guyana and Venezuela. Any warlike confrontation between the two nations would be a disgrace and would not benefit the residents of Essequibo (or those of either country) because in addition to the blood and destruction that a war implies, we are sure that what these elites (both of them) seek is not for the benefit of their people, but rather the capitalist dispute over lands and natural or mining resources, both for themselves and for transnational corporations (be it Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco or others).
Historical background and the question of sovereignty
From the perspective of historical background, we do not question the arguments that our country, Venezuela, has to claim national sovereignty over a territory that was part of the Spanish colony. The Venezuelan independence leaders (predominantly slaveholders and Mantuano landowners) considered it as part of the Venezuelan nation upon achieving independence, but Spain granted it to Holland, and the latter then gave it to England as part of the arrangements, businesses and impositions between rival colonial powers. When Guyana gained independence, Essequibo continued under its administration, without Venezuela achieving an effective exercise of territorial sovereignty.
In 1897, the United Kingdom committed to Venezuela to resolve the dispute in international courts, after mediation by the United States government, and an arbitration award was issued on October 3, 1899, in a court in Paris, which leaned blatantly in favor of England and granted it the territory that goes from the mouth of the Orinoco River to the Essequibo River.
Venezuela rejected the 1899 Paris Arbitral Award that favored the British Empire, arguing that it was the result of a fraudulent arbitration process and contrary to international law. However, as a result of diplomatic efforts, in February 1966 the Geneva Accord was reached with the United Kingdom, according to which the parties should amicably define the geographical limits of Guayana Esequiba.
In May 1966, Guyana gained an independence negotiated with the United Kingdom, ending direct British rule. British Guiana remained as a sovereign and independent state that we know today as Guyana, but which continues to have very close ties with its former colonial owner, being part of the Commonwealth or British Commonwealth of Nations. However, the dispute over the Essequibo continues and Guyana has been advancing with economic projects for the exploitation of the territory under claim and in demarcated waters that involve transnational companies, mainly North American. The government of Guyana intends to use said territory just as the government of Venezuela does with other transnational companies in the Orinoco Petroleum Belt or with the bureaucratic and military mafias in the Orinoco Mining Arc (OMA), at the service in both cases, as we have already stated, of their Creole elites and imperialist interests.
By the way; the Essequibo region that is aspired to be administered has 160,000 square kilometers of extension, and in the OMA the government has made 120,000 square kilometers (12% of Venezuelan territory) available for mining depredation, much of it illicit and criminal, where embezzlement and corruption, environmental destruction and pollution, abuse of indigenous Venezuelans prevail… as has been widely denounced and proven. So, we do not defend “sovereignty” for this; we defend the sovereignty exercised by and for the people.
By reactivating in their own way the dispute over the Essequibo territory, the Maduro bureaucracy and the so-called “boliburguesía[1] ” are also aiming to catch something from the oil boom that Guyana is beginning to experience with the discovery of delicious reservoirs, when in Venezuela, the production and sale of oil continues to suffer the ravages of Maduro’s mismanagement and corruption, along with the effects of international sanctions imposed by the USA that are still being felt.
In 2020, the International Court of Justice issued a ruling according to which it is considered “competent” to rule in the case relating to the Arbitral Award of October 3, 1899, regarding the Guyana-Venezuela controversy (a lawsuit filed by Guyana), but Venezuela does not recognize and rejects such “competence” that the Court attributes to itself to decide on the validity of the award and the land border between Guyana and Venezuela, while insisting on proceeding according to the Geneva Accord of February 17, 1966, that leaves the matter as a result of negotiations between the two nations. The Accord established the creation of a negotiation commission between the parties, which, in four years, had to have a proposal for a satisfactory, practical and friendly solution. However, the commission was unable to reach an agreement within the established deadline and Venezuela continues to claim sovereignty over the western bank of the Essequibo River, although for a long time successive Venezuelan governments left the issue almost forgotten in concrete terms, apart from including the Claim Area on the maps.
The character of the States, regimes and governments of Venezuela and Guyana, as well as their policies towards the territory and its population, is essential to base a position in this conflict and in the current situation: today, both Venezuela and Guyana are, as we said, two bourgeois States with neocolonial or semi-dependent characteristics. Guyana is a member of the Commonwealth, so it maintains close relations with the United Kingdom and although the Venezuelan government of Nicolás Maduro proclaims itself “nationalist” and even “anti-imperialist”, despite the friction with North American imperialism, it has actually been practicing policies that involve the dispossession of the nation’s heritage and clear mistreatment of its population (in both socioeconomic and political terms), in addition to increasing its dependence on emerging imperialism (China and Russia). The nations that became independent from colonial empires should continue to fight together now against imperialist domination in global capitalism, instead of confronting each other to favor diverse imperialist interests or their local elites, alien to the interest of their own people. They should direct their efforts around this objective and try to prevent tragic situations for their people.
Even considering the intertwining between Guyana and the United Kingdom, Venezuela’s current problem is not directly with the British nation, but with Guyana as an independent country, under the semi-colonial conditions that the countries have in the face of global imperialism. It is evident that imperialist interests are moving on both sides after the Essequibo dispute.
The context and true purpose of the referendum
Speaking of the interests of the bourgeoisies or national elites around the territorial dispute, we must see the context in which the call for a referendum in Venezuela appears today to ask the Venezuelan population about the “defense” of Guayana Esequiba. Why now and not in previous years? And this question leads to another: why does the Maduro leadership want control of Essequibo, and what is it really seeking with the consultative referendum for the Venezuelan population, which does not include the residents of Essequibo?
Today, the Geneva Accord continues to be the only valid instrument supposedly recognized by both parties for the resolution of the controversy, but Guyana says that it is not going to give an inch and in Venezuela, we already see how the pressure is increasing, while transnational capital tries to develop its own projects on both sides with the sponsor of governments.
The call for the referendum to consult Venezuelan voters on the handling of the Essequibo claim occurs in a framework preceded by the “dialogue” with “moderate” sectors of the opposition and negotiations on the loosening of the sanctions of US imperialism on Venezuela and the Maduro government. It occurs while the operations of companies such as Chevron and towards the oil market with the United States are developing with new momentum. At the same time, another majority part of the traditional right-wing opposition (for us the Maduro-military-PSUV government is a new right-wing) has just held primary elections to attempt a unitary opposition candidacy against Maduro.
The result of the primaries greatly favored one of the most extreme figures, such as María Corina, disqualified by the State from running in the presidential elections, but who moved a significant number of voters. The TSJ did not recognize the validity of these primaries and the government is trying to ensure that the national elections planned and announced for the end of 2024 – if they happen – are held with an opposition that is as divided, disqualified or weakened as possible, to ensure continuity of madurismo or the bureaucratic regime of the PSUV with the military.
The government is preparing a preventive resource, similar to the one it used with the 2017 Constituent Assembly, to eventually paralyze, postpone or manipulate the upcoming elections, and that is, as we see, the underlying purpose of the referendum regarding Essequibo. If we analyze the content of the questions, we can more easily realize this. And, incidentally, it seeks to compensate for its weaknesses with a bath of “nationalism.”
The referendum has trick questions[2]
When voters are asked… “Do you agree to reject by all means, in accordance with the law, the line fraudulently imposed by the Paris Arbitral Award of 1899, which seeks to deprive us of our Guayana Esequiba?” And is asked…
“Do you agree to oppose by all means, in accordance with the law, Guyana’s claim to unilaterally dispose of a sea pending to be delimited, illegally and in violation of international law?”; That “by all means” hides the possibility of attempting to use military force or triggering a pre-war situation, to decree some type of state of exception, as provided for in Art. 338 of the Constitution; for example, “the state of internal or external commotion in the event of internal or external conflict, which seriously endangers the security of the Nation, its citizens, or its institutions.” In such case, the guarantees may be temporarily restricted (except those referring to the rights to life, prohibition of solitary confinement or torture, the right to due process, the right to information and other intangible human rights). The initial period of 90 days could be used and extended to postpone elections or prevent social protests. Voting yes to these questions with the government we have and, in the conditions, prevailing in Venezuela, would be like giving them a blank check to further cut democratic freedoms, although ultimately, they do what they want. We should not risk this with a government like the one we have.
So: Does the government now want Essequibo to plunder it like the rest of the country? Or is it a political ploy?
When we ask ourselves what the government now wants to use the Essequibo issue for, we must also ask ourselves: Will this perhaps improve the living conditions of Venezuelans plunged more than ever into misery by this government? Are they going to guarantee better and more dignified living conditions for the inhabitants of Essequibo, given how we live in Venezuela? Could the Warao of Essequibo have what their mistreated brothers of the Amacuro Delta have never received? Are they going to put Essequibo’s resources to better use, knowing that the madurismo is the culprit of enormous embezzlement and the worst corruption known in the country? Are those who stripped us of our salaries, pensions, benefits and labor rights going to guarantee these or other conditions to the people of Essequibo? No; they use the Essequibo claim to manipulate, to have excuses, or in the last case, as another option for profit. And they are absolutely hypocritical because while they complain to the government of Guyana for delivering gas and oil to Exxon, here they once again deliver ours to Chevron, under conditions that do not respect the Hydrocarbons Law, nor the Constitution. So, their so-called “anti-imperialist” arguments are false.
Another surprising thing is that they have suddenly become so “democratic” to consult now regarding Essequibo, but they have never asked us if it is okay for us to have no salary, to repress the workers, to rob the public treasury freely, to prevent left-wing parties critical of the Executive from operating legally… nor on all the issues that affect and interest us and on which they, the civil-military bureaucracy and the lumpenbourgeoisie of the PSUV always decide according to their liking and their pockets.
As our popular singer-songwriter Alí Primera used to say: “The Homeland is the Man” (Humanity) and not the ambitions or the system of life imposed by the Creole oligarchies, the same ones as always and the current ones. That is why we place first and foremost the interests and unity between human beings, the working class and the people, and below, whatever side they are on, between the lines drawn by the empires that have dominated us.
Our position regarding this referendum is: Do Not Vote or Vote Null, and continue the struggle to achieve the sovereignty of the people
For all these reasons, from Marea Socialista we denounce that this referendum called by the government is a maneuver and represents a danger, which is why we cannot answer their tricky questions. Our task is not to accompany their patriotic “Show” but to organize ourselves day by day for the workers’ and popular struggle, convinced that the people of Venezuela and Guyana will only be able to solve their problems and dignify their lives in unity and peace, when both countries have governments that truly express the working class and the popular sectors, together with their indigenous ethnic groups, and not under the dictates of the oligarchies in power and imperialist interests. In consequence, for us, the option is not to vote or a null vote, to resist continuing to support this government and to protest against political manipulation.
The Homeland is the people and not the pockets or the power ambition of the corrupt
or bolibourgeoisie
Sinteticé la expresión: Las preguntas del referendo tienen «concha e’ mango» que no hay que pisar