Guyana dismantles Venezuela’s ‘mythological narrative’ at World Court

Guyana’s legal team on Friday strongly rejected Venezuela’s claims before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, with renowned international lawyer Paul Reichler describing Venezuela’s arguments as a “mythological narrative” built on distortion of history and unsupported allegations.

Presenting Guyana’s second round of oral pleadings during the third day of public hearings in the case concerning the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, Reichler argued that Venezuela has sought to portray itself as a victim of colonialism while attempting to justify its claim to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s sovereign territory.

“Venezuela… is in historical reality the aggressor, having obstructed and delayed Guyana’s independence and threatened it ever since,” Reichler told the court.

He said Venezuela’s narrative falsely depicts Britain and the United States as having conspired in the late 19th century to deprive Venezuela of territory through the 1897 Treaty of Washington and the 1899 Arbitral Award.

“This is nothing more than a cynical inversion of history,” Reichler stated.

He said the evidence presented by Guyana earlier in the week remains “unchallenged”, noting that Venezuela failed to provide contemporaneous documentation supporting its allegations of coercion, fraud or conspiracy.

Reichler told the court that historical records show Venezuela itself had sought arbitration with Britain and requested the support of the United States to secure that process.

“Venezuela accepted the agreement, freely and without compulsion, as serving its best interests,” he argued, citing statements from Venezuelan officials and President Joaquin Crespo at the time.

He further dismissed claims that the 1897 treaty was negotiated behind Venezuela’s back, saying documentary evidence demonstrated that Venezuelan representatives were fully consulted throughout the process.

Reichler also rejected Venezuela’s argument that the 1966 Geneva Agreement nullified and replaced the 1899 Arbitral Award.

Calling Venezuela’s interpretation “a novelty,” he said the argument only emerged recently despite the agreement being signed nearly six decades ago.

“Their claim is frivolous,” Reichler declared.

He pointed specifically to Article 5 of the Geneva Agreement, which he said preserved all previously asserted territorial claims and rights, including those arising from the 1899 award.

Reichler argued that Venezuela’s own contention that the award is “null and void” demonstrates that there remains a dispute over the validity of the award, a matter properly before the court.

He cited the ICJ’s 2020 ruling, which recognised that the Geneva Agreement concerns the controversy arising from Venezuela’s claim that the 1899 award is invalid.

Turning to Guyana’s independence struggle, Reichler rejected Venezuela’s portrayal of itself as a supporter of decolonisation.

“The historical record shows that Venezuela was an obstacle to Guyana’s independence, not a facilitator,” he said.

According to Reichler, Venezuela revived its territorial claim in the 1960s to exploit what it perceived as a vulnerable, soon-to-be independent Guyana.

“It was to acquire the Essequibo at a time when newly born Guyana would be powerless to maintain it,” he argued.

Reichler concluded by reaffirming Guyana’s position that the 1899 Arbitral Award remains legally valid and binding, while indicating that additional submissions would be made regarding the 1905 Boundary Treaty between Venezuela and Great Britain.

The public hearings before the ICJ are continuing in The Hague.