|En contra del|
|Por un nuevo orden|
|Por la Integración|
latinoamericana y Caribeña
|COMPELLING EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE|
VENEZUELA'S SOVEREIGNTY IN THE ESEQUIBA GUAYANA
It is very clear that this territory, now in dispute, has belonged to us unquestionably since colonial times. This is clearly demonstrated by analyzing the tradition of its ownership.
In fact, already at the end of the 18th century, Spain and Portugal defined the borders of their colonies in the American continent and, as can be clearly seen in the corresponding delimitation map, copies of which are kept in the archives of historical documents of European and American countries, the Captaincy General of Caracas extended its territory to the northwest bank of the Esequibo River, which served as a boundary with the territories of the then Dutch Guiana. Thanks to the subsequent British-Dutch treaties of 1814 and 1824 for the redistribution of their colonial possessions, a small part of Dutch Guiana, bordered on the north by the Esequibo River, became the property of the English crown, thus giving birth to British Guiana.
The British Empire did not care that its space in Guyana was reduced, since its original idea was to expand it to the northwest side of the Essequibo River at the expense of Venezuelan territories, an action that began shortly after the signing of the aforementioned treaties.
Evidence of them is seen in the writing, "Inducements to the colored people of the United States to emigrate to British Guiana" written by Mr. Edward Carbery, an official of the United States. Edward Carbery, official of the "British Guiana Immigration Society", published in Boston in 1840 by Kidder and Wright, which rests in the archives of the Library of Congress of the United States of America, and in which he invited to send "colored people" to populate the territory, arguing that it was rich in natural resources and fertile land, noting that its boundary with Venezuela to the north was marked by the Moroco Creek, not far from the west bank of the Essequibo River.
In the following map we show the location of this ravine, very close to Georgetown, its capital, and far from the limits that they intend to impose on our country.
Furthermore, in the same document he expressly pointed out that his nation had an area of some 40,000 square miles, approximately 103,000 square kilometers, almost double the 55,427 square kilometers of the territory obtained by Great Britain from Holland, but considerably less than the more than 214,000 square kilometers that Guyana has today. This difference between the latter figure and the original territory with which British Guiana was born, is a product of the progressive dispossession of Venezuelan territory. Any ICJ ruling in favor of Guyana would legalize the theft of territory from one nation to another.
Likewise, numerous maps and documents published before the 20th century, which are also kept in the General Archives of many nations, show the southeastern boundary of Venezuela at the Essequibo River. For reasons of space, apart from the above, we show only two of them that are kept in the Official Archives of the Republics of Colombia and Ecuador.
Therefore, the historical titles that show the justification of our claim are indisputable. This is the origin of the Guyanese strategy of seeking that in the trial before the International Court of Justice, a preliminary ruling be issued declaring the Paris Arbitral Award of 1899 to be in force, which if produced, would determine that valuable evidentiary documents would be excluded from our case, from this process and from any other in the future on the matter, because they constitute res judicata,
An extremely worrisome fact has been the position taken publicly by the United States of giving Guyana the right in this litigation, which could be understood as an order to the ICJ, in violation of what is clearly established in the OAS Charter on the prohibition of its member states to intervene in the affairs of others.
Venezuela, by validating the competence of the ICJ to deal with this matter, must abide by its decision, and therefore this attempt to "legally" take away the territory of Guayana Esequiba from us must be aborted, disclosing to our people and to the other countries of the world, and particularly to those of the Latin American and Caribbean area, the accumulation of documents, graphics and maps that support our position, to firmly refute the attempts to present our claim as lacking legitimacy or fanciful.
Likewise, internally, we must build a powerful support movement that transcends the narrow limits of partisan positions, and that declares as traitors to the homeland those who, for petty political and economic calculations, co-sponsor within our country any decision of the ICJ against us, repeating aberrant behaviors that we have already lived, such as the attempt of some oligarchs, in the 19th century, to hand over Essequiba Guyana to the English empire in exchange for support to take power, or the military adventure of Manuel Antonio Matos, financed by a North American oil company, or the genuflecting attitude assumed by Gomezism to silence the issue of the Essequibo, moved by greed for the substantial resources promised by the oil income.
This is why we find it sad, but at the same time worrying, that in the recent dialogues between the government and the opposition, this very important and vital issue has not been addressed.