Prey strategy
The plunder of the empires on the Essequibo follows a classic method, applied in Haiti and Hispaniola by French filibusters and later in the dispossession of more than half of Mexico's territory by the United States: 1) Illegal establishment of enclaves 2) Infiltration systematic of outlaws, marginals or settlers in the illegitimately occupied territory 3) Military brute force and diplomatic pressure to give legitimacy to territorial dispossession.
Advanced towards the Orinoco
The Dutch West Indies Company builds a fort in Kykover between XNUMX and XNUMX, and tries to expand through Berbice, Demerara and the Essequibo River, but does not go beyond the coasts, because due to its low demography the Netherlands in Europe itself must import workers to maintain their productive industries and the Treaty of Munster established in XNUMX the Essequibo River as the western frontier of the Dutch colony (Goslinga XNUMX, XNUMX-XNUMX).
Such weakness is exploited by English traffickers, who infiltrate the same area west of the Essequibo River, populating it with African slaves. They are interested in coffee and sugar cane plantations, they are encouraged by the secular greed for the strategic domination of the mouths of the Orinoco and access to the legendary riches of Venezuelan Guiana. Such enduring interest, that already in 1796 the English controlled part of the accesses to the Essequibo territory, and in 1797 they seized Trinidad and Tobago, islands that strategically dominate the mouths of the Padre de las Aguas.
The English impersonate the Dutch
All usurpation seeks diplomatic consecration. With the fall of Bonaparte in 1814, in the subsequent Anglo-Dutch treaty, Holland renounces the territories occupied by its colonies of Demerara, Berbice and Essequibo east of the Essequibo River, in favor of England, the main author of the defeat of the Great Corso. The extension that Holland gives to England does not exceed 20.000 square miles: all east of the Essequibo River. The Congress of Vienna ratified this assignment in 1815. European powers seek to legitimize ambitions over territories located at immeasurable distances, without consulting their inhabitants.
Territorial sovereignty of Venezuela in Guyana
Since our Independence, four historical processes operate in the controversy over Guyana. The first, the defense of the territorial integrity of Venezuela. The second, the policy of the imperial powers to seize the remnants of Spanish rule. The third, the use of international bodies to legitimize territorial dispossession. The fourth, the use of Guiana as a pledge or merchandise to consolidate relations between foreign powers.
Let us refer to the borderline defense. By declaring its Independence, Venezuela reiterates its sovereignty over the territory of Guyana, already occupied for three centuries by the Spanish domination that instituted the Captaincy General of Venezuela. In the Constitution of 1811, the provinces that formed said Captaincy appear as members of the territory of the political body. The Magna Carta of 1819 reiterates that the territory of the Republic is the same as that of the former Captaincy General, in the following terms: “The territory of the Republic of Venezuela is divided into ten Provinces, which are: Barcelona, Barinas, Caracas , Coro, Cumana, Guayana, Maracaibo, Margarita, Mérida, and Trujillo ”. The territory to the west of the Essequibo is recognized as the frontier of Spanish domination since the Treaty of Munster in 1648. The Constitution of 1821, which governs the so-called Gran Colombia, in its article 5 provides: “The territory of the Republic of Colombia will be the comprised of the limits of the former captaincy general of Venezuela, the viceroyalty and captaincy general of the New Kingdom of Granada ”. The remaining Constitutions reiterate the continuity of the limits of the former Captaincy General of Venezuela.
On the traditional territorial integrity, the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in Agreement of July 15, 2015 ruled “that it could never, could or can be understood that the area of lands located west of the Essequibo River was or is susceptible to legitimate occupation, nor the sea that faces it, because Spain never gave title to it and Venezuela never recognized the occupations that, in fact, the government of the British crown carried out and, on the contrary, protested energetically and constantly before British authorities and in international forums (…). (Directive of the Supreme Court of Justice, 2015 http://www.tsj.gob.ve)
Under jurisdiction and obedience to our laws
Meanwhile, the onslaught of the empires continued. In 1821, the new Republic was forced to protest the continuous invasions of Venezuelan territory by English settlers. Following instructions from the Liberator, the Venezuelan Minister in London, Dr. José Rafael Revenga, filed a complaint with the British Crown: “The settlers of Demerara and Berbice have usurped a large portion of land that, according to the latest treaties between Spain and Holland, belongs to us on the Essequibo River. It is absolutely essential that said settlers either place themselves under the jurisdiction and obedience of our laws, or withdraw to their former possessions” (Weiss, 1896, 6). The complaints are innumerable; the lack of response, constant.
In 1824 José Manuel Hurtado, who replaces Revenga, as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Greater Colombia, addresses a Report to the government of the United Kingdom requesting the recognition of Independence, in which he points out once again that we limit with the Essequibo: “ This beautiful and rich country stretches across the North Sea, from the Essequibo River or the confines of the Guayana province to the Culebras River, which separates it from Guatemala ”(Rojas, 1965, 6). The English government does not object or refute this demarcation, because it has no way to do it. Usurpation is their only argument.
