Attorney Paul Reichler, appearing for Guyana before the International Court of Justice, has accused Venezuela of presenting what he described as a false and self-serving version of history in the ongoing border case.
In a forceful submission before the World Court, Reichler said Venezuela is attempting to portray itself as the victim of colonial injustice, while casting Guyana as the beneficiary of British imperial expansion. He rejected that narrative, arguing that the historical record shows the opposite.
“This is nothing more than a cynical inversion of history,” Reichler told the Court.
According to him, Venezuela’s case is built around a story that claims the country was forced into the 1897 arbitration agreement, made to accept an unjust 1899 Arbitral Award, and then kept silent for decades by fear and ignorance.
Reichler said Venezuela has now used that narrative to justify its attempt to claim more than 70 per cent of Guyana’s territory, while presenting itself as a champion of decolonisation.
He argued that the real historical position is that Venezuela, not Guyana, has acted as the aggressor by delaying Guyana’s independence, threatening it over the years, and more recently adopting legislation to annex Essequibo in defiance of the Court’s orders.
Reichler said Venezuela had a chance to answer the documentary evidence presented by Guyana earlier in the proceedings but failed to do so.
“They had a chance to respond. They did not,” he said.
He argued that Venezuela’s claims collapse when tested against the historical record. Reichler said there is no evidence before the Court showing that Venezuela, or Spain before it, ever occupied the territory between the Essequibo and Orinoco rivers that was later awarded to Great Britain.
He said Venezuela presented no such evidence in the current case, and also failed to present such evidence during the 1899 arbitration.
By contrast, Reichler said the documentary record points to continuous Dutch and later British occupation in the territory. He referred to maps and historical records showing Dutch settlements extending from the Essequibo toward the Orinoco, including areas that still carry Dutch place names.
Reichler also pointed to a map produced by the United States-Venezuela Boundary Commission, which he said showed no Spanish occupation east of the boundary later fixed by the 1899 Award.
He stressed that while the Court’s main task is to determine the legal validity of the 1899 Award, this historical evidence is important because it undermines Venezuela’s broader claims about the treaty, the award and the 1966 Geneva Agreement.
Turning to the 1897 Treaty, Reichler rejected Venezuela’s argument that it had been defrauded or coerced by Great Britain and the United States into signing the arbitration agreement.
He said the evidence shows that Venezuela wanted arbitration and repeatedly urged the United States to pressure Britain into accepting it.
According to Reichler, the United States took up Venezuela’s position, invoked the Monroe Doctrine, and even threatened conflict with Britain if it refused arbitration.
He said Venezuela later expressed gratitude to the United States for securing the agreement.
Reichler also rejected the claim that the treaty was negotiated behind Venezuela’s back. He said Venezuela preferred to have the United States negotiate on its behalf because it believed Washington had greater influence with Britain.
He said then U.S. Secretary of State Richard Olney consulted closely with Venezuelan representatives, shared drafts, received proposals, and incorporated positions that Venezuela considered important.
Reichler argued that Venezuela accepted the 1897 agreement freely and without coercion, and that its own officials at the time confirmed this.
He said Venezuela’s present-day arguments are not supported by the documents from the period, but by claims developed decades later after Venezuela began challenging the 1899 Award.
The attorney also criticised Venezuela’s lawyers for relying on what he described as passionate rhetoric rather than contemporaneous evidence.
“Loyally reciting a client’s narrative is not evidence,” Reichler said.
He maintained that Guyana’s case rests on documentary proof, while Venezuela has relied on unsupported assertions.
Reichler’s submissions formed part of Guyana’s response to Venezuela’s challenge to the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, which fixed the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.
