The Essequibo dispute benefits Exxon Mobil and the Pentagon while crushing anti-imperialist solidarity.
On Monday, May 11, 2026, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard two rounds of oral arguments from Guyana and Venezuela regarding the Essequibo border dispute. The acting President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, attended the hearings at the Hague and presented arguments – not regarding the border dispute, but to reject wholesale the jurisdiction of the ICJ for settling the dispute.[1] While Guyana pledged to abide by the Court’s judgement whatever it may be, Venezuela shared that it would not abide by the Court’s judgment, even if it ruled in its favor.
The acting President of Venezuela explained: “There is no legal way of recognizing a decision resulting from this process, whatever that may be.”[2] Rodriguez’s preferred avenue is to resolve the dispute “politically,” through direct negotiation rather than judicial or international settlement – which she claims is what is asked in the 1966 Geneva Agreement.[3] Rodriguez is not unique in her stance regarding the dispute revival, how it should be pursued, and how the 1966 Geneva Agreement should be interpreted. This was also the interpretation of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, when he revived the 1962 dispute in 2015 after oil discoveries in the Stabroek Bloc by Exxon Mobil.
From the outset, I want to be very clear that I do believe that the Essequibo belongs to Guyana and not Venezuela. The Essequibo border dispute is a long-standing dispute between the two countries, in which over 2/3rds of Guyana’s territory – rich in minerals and oil – is under contention by Venezuela. As I have discussed at length before, the Venezuela-Guyana Essequibo border dispute is not a naturally unfolding one; its historical basis is founded in the colonial history of the region, and the post-colonial ruminations of this dispute has been, and remains, heavily influenced by US imperialist, anti-communist, and geopolitical strategic designs.[4] US intervention is thus a fundamental part of the ongoing dispute between Venezuela and Guyana over the Essequibo, and unsurprisingly, remains a factor given heightened global US imperial aggression. Thus, how the US views the border dispute between Venezuela and Guyana changes depending on the solution that exerts the most leverage for its corporations when dealing with both countries.
Today, the current iteration of the Venezuela-Guyana Essequibo border dispute is being opportunistically weaponized to uplift a neocolonial government in Guyana, and rally nationalism in Venezuela. This in light of Venezuela’s neocolonial capitulation to the US for/over oil resources – disgustingly to the benefit of the US and its corporations, which is not different from the Guyanese government. The beneficiaries of the dispute will continue to be the US and its corporations. Though the Guyanese government is rightly critiqued as a stooge of US imperialism, it is also the case that Venezuela, reviving this dispute, is doing so to grant itself leverage vis-a-vis the US – not in opposition to US imperialism, but in support of it.
Venezuela Pushed for Dispute Settlement Mechanisms it now Rejects
The Essequibo Border dispute is not new and is frequently aggravated by external European and US interests in the region's resource extractive sectors.[5] The modern controversy surrounding the dispute has its roots in 1962 – which is also why the Geneva Agreement of 1966 to establish a mechanism for bilateral talks between Guyana and Venezuela occurred. Very briefly, in 1899 the borders between an independent Venezuela and British Guiana were considered settled via an Arbitral Award – in which Venezuela, Great Britain, the United States, and (what is now) Guyana were all signatories. The United States forced the British to concede to arbitration of gold-rich Guyana in 1895, and an “international” tribunal of judges – namely two from the United States, two from Great Britain itself, and a Russian law professor – passed judgment on the shared border of Guyana in 1899. Both the Venezuelan ruling class and the British colonists in Guyana accepted those boundaries as “full, perfect, and final'' in 1899.[6] However, 63 years after arbitration, Venezuelan President Rómulo Betancourt – a staunch anti-communist – revived the dispute in 1962 given the communist orientation of Guyana’s independence movement.
Betancourt, at this time, was facing staunch left opposition to his rule in Venezuela – particularly from communist groups – and even claimed that Guyana was helping to arm them. Betancourt vowed that communists would not ever get power in Venezuela,[7]and enacted a campaign of mass suppression against them, while also aligning himself with US imperialism in Guatemala and Cuba. When Betancourt declared the 1899 Arbitral Award – that legally defined Venezuela’s border with Guyana – as “null and void,” he did so to prevent communists from leading Guyana’s independence from Great Britain and to rally nationalism around his challenged tenure. Betancourt advocated that Guyana not become independent from Great Britain, and that if it did – with communists like Cheddi Jagan leading the charge – Betancourt estimated that once British troops left, Venezuela’s military advantage could take the Essequibo region and push communism away from its borders.
For Betancourt, this would be justified given the “communist threat” in Guyana, and due to a 1949 posthumous memorandum by a US lawyer on the Venezuelan legal team (Severo Mallet-Prevost) during the 1899 arbitration – alleging that the Russian jurist in 1899 had collaborated with Great Britain to rule in its favor on the border. It was this latter piece of information that Betancourt brought to the United Nations in 1962 to formally revive the border claim with Guyana, resulting in the establishment of the 1966 Geneva Agreement.
The 1966 Geneva Agreement establishes a mechanism for bilateral talks between Guyana and Venezuela through a mixed commission, rather than settling the territorial claim. In the event that the mixed commission was unsuccessful at reaching a resolution to the dispute, after a period of 4 years, both Venezuela and Guyana were expected to choose a peaceful settlement option as outlined in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations. Here it is important to highlight that it was Venezuela, in 1962 under President Betancourt, that first brought the dispute into the realm of international organizations and international law. Hence, after the failure of the mixed commission in 1970, Article 33 of the UN charter posits that:
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Venezuela's uncompromising claim to the entirety of Essequibo belongs to it has made Guyana conclude that direct negotiation cannot be pursued as a rightful path for peaceful dispute settlement as outlined in the Charter. Here it should be noted that during the Presidential tenure of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela the late 1990s until his passing in 2013, both Guyana and Venezuela worked together on mediation, conciliation, and regional arrangements for peaceful settlement to the border dispute – also in line with the Charter. It was not until Nicolás Maduro’s revival of the border dispute in 2015 – mirroring the aggressiveness of Betancourt from the 1960s – that Guyana, in 2018, sought arbitration and judicial settlement as its preferred avenue for peaceful resolution.
Chauvinist Annexation is not Anti-Imperialist and Harms Regional Unity
Today, the claim from Venezuela is that it wants direct negotiations with Guyana – while also declaring itself the sole owner of Essequibo. Venezuela features the Essequibo on its maps and teaches Venezuelans that it is its territory. The Essequibo border dispute frequently, and successfully, rallies nationalism in Venezuela across all political leanings in Venezuelan society. So, when you ask how the dispute can be settled peacefully, there is no response. This too echoes Betancourt’s estimation: with a larger population and a substantive military, Guyana must accept that the Essequibo belongs to Venezuela or be subject to direct military transgression. This is the unspoken fact regarding how Venezuela hopes to “settle” the dispute that all Venezuelan leaders – except Hugo Chávez – abide by.
In 2004, Chavez declared the border dispute between Venezuela and Guyana as a legacy of colonialism and a byproduct of Western intervention,[8] committing Venezuela to a diplomacy process that would involve the UN to settle the dispute through a good officer mechanism.[ii] Jamaican economist Norman Girvan served as the good officer to help both countries reach a settlement from 2010 until his passing in 2014. With Girvan’s passing, no settlement of the controversy between the two countries was reached. Though Chavez also viewed the Essequibo as stolen from Venezuela, he also understood that the dispute stemmed from a colonial era where Guyana – nor the masses in Venezuela – had any power in settling the dispute. For Chavez, anti-imperialist unity and regional arrangements were the answer to peacefully resolving the border dispute.
Nonetheless, the overall friendly relations between the two states under Chavez downplayed the severity of the controversy. It was initially assumed after Chavez’s passing that Maduro would continue friendly relations with Guyana. In fact, after Chavez’s passing Guyana Foreign Affairs Minister, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett stated, “I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that our relations with Venezuela under President Maduro would continue to flourish… Guyana is willing to work with any government of Venezuela for the advancement of our two peoples.” However, this was not to be the case given oil exploration in Guyana in 2013, US sanctions against Venezuela which made it hard to fulfill its regional arrangements (including with Guyana), and the eventual oil find in May 2015. Together, these events would see Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro not only revive Venezuela’s border controversy with Guyana but also reject diplomatic settlement of the controversy – given that any diplomatic settlement would probably not be in Venezuela’s favor to annex the region now rich in oil resources.
It is Venezuela’s play at annexationist chauvinism – for no other reason than empowering nationalist forces within Venezuela at a time of heightened imperialist attacks against the country – that Maduro’s 2023 referendum on the Essequibo[9] must be understood. The 2023 referendum by Maduro on the Essequibo did not consult Guyanese or anyone living in the Essequibo region. Instead, Maduro presented the referendum as an anti-imperialist one, due to Guyana’s political co-option by US multinational oil giants – such as Exxon – and a nationalist one, given political interventions and external manipulations surrounding the Venezuelan electorate. Instead of reinvigorating the revolutionary processes in Venezuela, to guard the people against imperialist propaganda and build a popular base of unity between Venezuelan and Guyanese working classes – Maduro opportunistically weaponized the border issue.
By weaponizing the border issue, Maduro granted his government nationalist legitimacy, while simultaneously granting the Guyanese government repressive legitimacy as it aligned with US imperialism and militarism. Guyanese, who at the time were engaged in daily and weekly protests against the Guyanese government and Exxon, were relentlessly attacked by the Guyanese government – given Maduro’s referendum – for not caring about Guyana’s sovereignty and self-determination. Maduro’s claim allowed the Guyanese government to utilize a reactionary understanding of self-determination to suppress Guyanese critical of its imperial alignment, given the perceived threat on its territory by a larger neighbor.
Ultimately, the referendum not only escalated the border tension between Guyana and Venezuela, but it also further isolated Venezuela in the Caribbean region. Caribbean states, namely St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Dominica, brought both Venezuela and Guyana together to temporarily halt the dispute; but right-wing forces in the region – namely the opposition in Trinidad and Tobago at the time – who already distrusted Venezuela, strengthened their claims against Venezuela. It would be these same right-wing forces in the Caribbean, emboldened by electoral victories in 2025 and 2026 (with the help of US electoral interference), that would aid in the illegal US bombing campaign against boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific.[10] US support from right-wing forces in the Caribbean would also aid the US land assault and aerial bombings on Venezuela that resulted in mass murders, injuries, and the kidnapping of the Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
Chauvinist Annexation Uplifts US Interests Behind Dispute Maintenance
Today, the US is extremely concerned about global energy supplies and its own access to critical mineral supply chains.[11] The Caribbean region remains extremely important for the US, both as an important site for the development of US imperialism and as an integrated military and economic zone.[12]
Over the past decade, a major concern for US imperialist strategy in the region has mostly been to limit China’s influence for the benefit of US corporations,[13] and to secure energy (oil) and critical mineral supplies. In this, Guyana and Venezuela are very important for US oil corporations, given the very deep and long history that US oil corporations have in Venezuela — where they have built strong oil infrastructures. In Guyana, where US corporate involvement is more recent with oil discovery beginning only a decade ago and extraction only within the past 5 years, a lot of the oil infrastructure for US corporations is still developing. Given that oil infrastructure capacity and development in Guyana is not as strong as it is in Venezuela, the US Trump administration, while interested in controlling all of the oil resources in the entire region, has settled for the resources of Venezuela, especially since the invasion and abduction of the Venezuela President and First Combatant, Nicolas Maduro and Cilia Flores.
In the context of the Essequibo dispute, the US is seeking to make the best deals for its oil corporations. I suspect that the US may try to get both Venezuela and Guyana to agree to “resource sharing,” so that US corporations could extract oil from both under a singular “rules” and “rights” framework. This would allow US oil corporations to utilize the oil infrastructure in Venezuela, without granting either state (Venezuela nor Guyana) the ability to control in full the massive offshore oil reserves that they have. This means that the US would not take a strong stance on the territorial dispute itself, even as both states “beg” for its support, as the US would not try to legitimize the governance structure in either Venezuela or Guyana as it frequently seeks concessions from both. The US views both countries to be politically fickle and recognizes that it extracts economic benefits from both with the current border-disputed arrangement.
No Winners: Imperialist Distraction and Chauvinist Annexation
I have discussed neocolonial governments like Guyana in the Caribbean previously[14] – so here some time will be taken to discuss Venezuela’s insistence on the Essequibo dispute. Venezuela’s continuation of the dispute should be considered a form of neocolonial capitulation in that it maintains a process of structural regional underdevelopment to the benefit of US oil corporations, US global financial architecture, and US imperialism. Nicolás Maduro’s opportunistic betrayal from Chavez, to undermine regional unity in favor of electoral nationalism, paved the way for this kind of US resource encroachment. This is now laid bare, and aggressively so, under acting President Delcy Rodriguez – currently presiding over the US receiving full control of Venezuela’s oil royalty arrangements. This is the sad result of Venezuela’s play at annexationist chauvinism – for no other reason than empowering nationalist forces within Venezuela itself. And, in this respect, it is also a betrayal of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist solidarity.
Venezuela’s “referendums” on the Essequibo have never consulted people living in the Essequibo.[15] After I made this critique 3 years ago, about the lack of Venezuelan support for struggles against Exxon in Guyana, Maduro came to the 2023 Joint Declaration of Argyle for Dialogue and Peace meeting to calm tensions with news clippings of protests in Guyana which was also quite distasteful.[16] At the Declaration of Argyle, and in a move to ease tensions, both Venezuela and Guyana agreed to not threaten the use of force over the border dispute, to de-escalate inflammatory rhetoric in their countries regarding the dispute, and to commit to finding peaceful settlement of the dispute using mechanisms outlined in the 1966 Geneva Agreement. All of which was the situation prior to Maduro reigniting the dispute. Hence, the only way to properly analyze Venezuela’s continuation of this dispute, is to understand it as a chauvinist annexation.
According to Lenin (1927):
“It is clear that not every attachment of “foreign” territory can be called annexation […] It is clear that not every infringement of the status quo can be considered annexation […] It is clear that not every attachment by force, that is, war, can be considered annexation […] It is clear that only the attachment of territory against the will of its population can and must be deemed annexation. In other words, the concept of annexation is organically bound up with the concept of self-determination of nations.”[17]
Lenin’s point here is important because it provides clarity on when something should accurately be regarded as annexation and, the part that I have bolded for emphasis, highlights the importance of national liberation and self-determination as critical (or crucial) for socialists combating imperialism. It places imperialism at the fore as the primary contradiction and refocuses our task (as socialists and communists) to ensure self-determination and integration only with consent. In fact, Lenin (1927) continues:
“If socialists are not to transform “the struggle against annexations” into an empty phrase or into revolting hypocrisy, they should, first, […] liberate oppressed nations and effect the coming together and integration of nations, not on the basis of force but on the basis of the equal rights and consent of the proletariat and working people of all nations; secondly, immediately mount the widest propaganda and agitation against the veiled chauvinism and annexationism of the official socialist parties…”[18]
Here Lenin again points out that the primary contradiction should be placed at the forefront – what or whose purposes is justified by the veiled chauvinism and annexationist claim? Including when it is being pushed by chauvinist socialist parties.
As it regards the Venezuela-Guyana Essequibo dispute – there is no anti-imperialist or “left” justification for it. Though the dispute has been used to rally nationalist sentiment in both Guyana and Venezuela, the dispute instead serves US imperialism and corporate oil interests and distracts people away from the struggle against US imperialism, militarism, and resource theft in our region. The dispute allows Venezuela to assert its sovereignty via its ability to threaten weaker states like Guyana in the hemisphere – granting legitimacy to the neocolonial government in Guyana’s claim of needing further US military alignment given the “Venezuelan threat.” This dispute cannot also be understood as an assertion of Venezuela’s sovereignty, as it only serves US imperialism. In short, the Essequibo border dispute, is a neocolonial and imperialist distraction that prioritizes US capital accumulation in the region, a region rich in ecological diversity and home to many recognized Guyanese communities and Amerindian and Maroon communities.[19] The main contention underlying Venezuela’s revival of the dispute in 2015 — and guiding its maintenance of the dispute today in 2026 — is who will be the minor receiver of the rents and/or sanctions relief from US exploitation in the Essequibo, Guyana or Venezuela.
Conclusion: We All Lose When US Imperialism Wins
In the current manifestation of the Guyana-Venezuela Essequibo border dispute there are essentially two sides. On the one hand, there is the neocolonial government in Guyana which is at the beck and call of the US. On the other hand, there is the Bolivarian government attempting to hold onto power and rally nationalism – but with a proverbial US gun to its head. Together, the actions of both governments benefit US imperialism and economic control over regional resources. The dispute therefore decreases the likelihood of regional unity, necessary for building up an anti-imperialist front.
As it stands, Venezuela has no justification for continuing the Essequibo border dispute. Venezuela maintains that the 1899 Arbitral Tribunal Award is null and void and that the mechanisms for resolve outlined in the1966 Geneva Agreement are also void. Venezuela proclaims a hollow adherence to the 1966 Agreement to obscure its commitment to non-peaceful settlement of the dispute; and in this case, non-settlement is effective at rallying nationalism within Venezuela. The border dispute highlights that aligning with US imperialism – either through neocolonialism (Guyana) or reactionary chauvinism (Venezuela) – will not aid sovereignty and self-determination for the region. Both only empower US imperialism.
We must work to solve internal political problems, in Venezuela and in Guyana – and pursue anti-imperialist domestic and foreign policies capable of building a regional unity that can defend against the ravages of US imperialism. Neither of the countries, in pursuing oil development dominated by US corporations, are seeking to delink from US imperialism. Iran is a good guide on this front.
Tamanisha J. John is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics at York University.
________________
[1] CMC. (2026, May 13). Guyana Remains Optimistic as ICJ Concludes Hearing in Border Dispute with Venezuela. Caribbean Today. https://www.caribbeantoday.com/sections/politics/guyana-remains-optimistic-as-icj-concludes-hearing-in-border-dispute-with-venezuela
[2] Ibid.
[3] Stewart, M. & L. F. S. Burnham. (1966). Agreement to resolve the controversy over the frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana. In 1966 Nations Unies — Recueil Des Traités (No. 8192). United Nations. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20561/volume-561-I-8192-English.pdf
[4] John, T. J. (2023, November 29). Guyana and Venezuela: The Crisis of Imperialism Currently Unfolding on South America’s Caribbean Coast | Black Agenda Report. Black Agenda Report. https://www.blackagendareport.com/guyana-and-venezuela-crisis-imperialism-currently-unfolding-south-americas-caribbean-coast
[5] Felix, Winston. 2015. The Shifting Foreign Policy of Venezuela Toward Guyana, p. 31
[6] Cummings, A. R. (2018). “How Guyana’s Oil Discovery Rekindled a Border Controversy.” Journal of Latin American Geography, 17(3), p. 194
[7] Guyana Chronicle. (2013, April 8). “Guyana/Venezuela good relations would continue with inauguration of new head in Venezuela –Foreign Affairs Minister.” Guyana Chronicle, Web: https://guyanachronicle.com/2013/04/08/guyanavenezuela-good-relations-would-continue-with-inauguration-of-new-head-in-venezuela-foreign-affairs-minister/
[8] Felix, Winston. 2015. The Shifting Foreign Policy of Venezuela Toward Guyana, p. 31
[9] During the 2023 Referendum, Venezuelans were asked: whether they rejected the 1899 arbitration ruling that awarded the territory to Great Britain and supported the 1966 Geneva Agreement? Whether they support establishing a state in the disputed territory, known as Essequibo, and granting citizenship to current and future area residents? Whether they rejected the jurisdiction of the United Nations' top court (ICJ) in settling the disagreement? Venezuela Analysis. (2023, December 4). Venezuela: Referendum Delivers Overwhelming Backing for Essequibo Claim.
https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/venezuela-referendum-delivers-overwhelming-backing-for-essequibo-claim/
[10] Edwards, Z., Gilkes, C. and John, T. (2025, December 12) Imperialism by invitation: Murder, mafioso politics and Caribbean-Venezuelan futurity, Imperialism by Invitation: Murder, Mafioso Politics and Caribbean-Venezuelan Futurity | Pambazuka News. https://www.pambazuka.org/Imperialism
[11] U.S. Department of State. (2026, May 12). “Under Secretary Helberg’s Travel to Guyana, Panama, and Costa Rica from May 12-16. During his visit, Under Secretary Helberg will attend bilateral meetings and events to advance American interests and strengthen partnerships on energy security and critical mineral supply chains in our region.” United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/05/under-secretary-helbergs-travel-to-guyana-panama-and-costa-rica/
[12] Anti-Imperialist Scholars Collective. (2026, May 8). No More Bombs, Blockades, or “Backyards.” Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/live/gVt7VVyYchE?si=kg5jrBl1_9aD3EVN
[13] John, T. J. (2025, June 10). Resisting Dependency: U.S. Hegemony, China’s Rise, and the Geopolitical Stakes in the Caribbean. Council on Hemispheric Affairs. https://coha.org/resisting-dependency-u-s-hegemony-chinas-rise-and-the-geopolitical-stakes-in-the-caribbean/
[14] John, T. J. (2025a). The Historical and Contemporary Role of Neocolonial Caribbean Governments in Supporting US Militarism and Imperialism in the Region | Black Agenda Report. Black Agenda Report. https://www.blackagendareport.com/historical-and-contemporary-role-neocolonial-caribbean-governments-supporting-us-militarism-and
[15] Though the referendum presented to Crimea by Russia can be critiqued, at minimum, a referendum was still presented there – so Venezuela’s Essequibo aspirations cannot be compared to Crimea, as some left chauvinists have attempted to do. It is not an understatement to note that Venezuela treats Guyanese in Essequibo as non-existent within their annexationist chauvinist claims.
[16] Ibid.
[17] V.I. Lenin. (1927, November). Lenin: INITIAL VARIANT OF R.S.D.L.P. C.C. PROPOSALS TO THE SECOND SOCIALIST CONFERENCE. Marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/mar/00.htm
[18] Ibid.
[19] John, T. J. (2025c, November 30). Anti-Imperialist Scholars Collective. Anti-Imperialists.com. https://www.anti-imperialists.com/magazine/dependency-and-geopolitics-how-development-and-security-support-us-and-western-imperialism-in/
There is nothing mysterious about Trump’s effort to curb legal immigration. White supremacy is the explanation.
“Cuba ... a free and sovereign state with no chains binding it to anyone...with no proconsuls directing its policy, can speak with its head held high.”
Minnesota pushed back against ICE until its visible presence seemed cut in half, but Trump does not forgive or forget, and it’s a time to be organized.
The party that installed its presidential candidate without a primary vote now blames its 2024 loss on everything except its own contempt for its base and allegiance to neo-liberal policies.
"SONNY" is the latest from BAR's Poet-in-Residence.
