Historical Hypocrisy: Greenidge Exposes Venezuela’s “Volte-Face” at the World Court
By: Antonio Dey | HGP Nightly News|
THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS — In a day of intense legal scrutiny at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Guyana’s agent, Carl Greenidge, laid bare what he termed a glaring historical contradiction in Venezuela’s territorial claim. On Monday, May 4, 2026, Greenidge told the bench that Venezuela is currently attacking the very legal mechanism it once championed, celebrated, and relied upon for more than half a century.
As the hearings on the merits of the border controversy move into high gear, Greenidge’s submissions provided a deep dive into the archives to prove that the 1899 Arbitral Award was not a British imposition, but a Venezuelan victory at the time.
The 1883 Initiative: Venezuela as the Architect of Arbitration
Greenidge’s testimony focused on correcting the historical record regarding who exactly wanted arbitration in the 19th century.
- Venezuela’s Demand: Historical records show that as early as 1883, it was Venezuela—not Great Britain—that initiated the call for arbitration. After failing to reach a diplomatic solution, Caracas sought a binding decision from a neutral third party.
- The 1887 Diplomatic Break: Tensions escalated when Venezuela severed ties with Britain in 1887 and actively lobbied the United States to intervene.
- U.S. Pressure: Greenidge noted that Venezuela successfully secured U.S. support to pressure a reluctant Britain into accepting the 1897 Treaty of Washington, the very document Venezuela now seeks to invalidate.
Celebration vs. Rejection
The most damning part of the submission highlighted Venezuela’s long-standing satisfaction with the results of the 1899 process.
- Decades of Compliance: For over 60 years, Venezuela accepted the boundary as legitimate. Greenidge pointed out that the 1899 Award granted Venezuela control over the strategically vital Orinoco River mouth, a result Caracas celebrated at the time.
- The 1963 Reversal: It was only in 1963—66 years after the treaty was ratified and on the eve of Guyana’s independence—that Venezuela began to “find fault” with the award, claiming collusion between the British and Russian arbitrators.
- The Inconsistency: Greenidge argued that this “complete reversal” contradicts Venezuela’s own historical conduct and “strains credulity.”
A Pivotal Juncture
For Carl Greenidge and the Guyanese legal team, the evidence shows that Venezuela is attempting to escape a binding agreement simply because it no longer finds the outcome convenient. By underscoring that Venezuela “actively sought and secured” the arbitration it now discredits, Guyana is asking the ICJ to hold Caracas to its own historical commitments. As the hearings continue, the Court will now weigh these documented facts against Venezuela’s more recent claims of a fraudulent process.
