Border controversy: ‘‘Maduro is wrong’’ – Guyana responds to Venezuelan President’s letter to UN SG

The Government of Guyana has firmly rejected recent claims made by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a letter addressed to United Nations (UN) Secretary-General (SG) António Guterres, dated March 19, 2025. In the letter, President Maduro asserted that the territorial issue of Essequibo was dragged into the International Court of Justice (ICJ) without Venezuela’s consent, in open violation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement.
In a statement to the media on Tuesday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation in Guyana rejected the assertions made by the Venezuelan President.
The Ministry stated, “President Maduro is wrong. His interpretation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement was thoroughly rejected by the International Court of Justice, in its ruling of December 18, 2020.”
The statement explained that in that ruling, the World Court determined that the Agreement provided for the controversy between Guyana and Venezuela, over the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award which established the boundary between the two countries, ultimately to be resolved by the Court.

ICJ has clear jurisdiction
The Ministry reminded that the Geneva Agreement, signed by the United Kingdom (UK) and Venezuela in February 1966, and joined by Guyana upon its independence in May 1966, called for a four-year period of diplomatic negotiations to resolve the controversy created by Venezuela’s challenge, asserted for the first time in 1962, to the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award that fixed the boundary between the two countries.

The Agreement further provided that, in the event diplomatic negotiations failed to resolve the controversy within four years, the parties would attempt to agree on one of the means of settlement listed in Article 33 of the UN Charter, which includes judicial settlement. In the event they could not agree on the next means of settlement, the Agreement stipulated that they would leave the choice of that means of settlement to the SG of the UN who would choose the means of settlement and this choice would be binding on the parties.
The Ministry further reminded that in accordance with the Agreement, diplomatic negotiations were held over a four-year period without success. Subsequently, Guyana and Venezuela were unable to agree on a means of settlement and in accordance with the Agreement, referred the matter to the UN SG who proposed a Good Offices Process under his supervision for resolving the controversy. This procedure was followed for more than 20 years, but it failed to yield any progress toward a resolution.
On 30 January 2018, having received the final report on the Good Offices Process, with enhanced mediation during 2017, UN SG António Guterres concluded that the Good Offices Process had failed to achieve progress toward a resolution of the controversy, and he decided, in accordance with the Geneva Agreement, that the next means of settlement would be judicial settlement by the ICJ. The UN Secretary-General wrote letters to both parties informing them of his decision.
The World Court has since determined that it has jurisdiction to hear the matter, Guyana further reminded.
Following the Court’s Judgment on Jurisdiction, it has proceeded to hear the parties’ cases on the merits of the controversy. Guyana has filed two written pleadings on the merits, and Venezuela has filed one, with its second pleading due in August 2025. Oral hearings are expected in the first half of 2026, following which the Court will deliberate on the case and issue its final Judgment on the Merits, which will be binding on the parties.
Guyana has pledged to accept the World Court’s Judgment whatever it might be.

Maduro ignores binding ruling
Meanwhile, Venezuela continues to violate orders from the World Court and continues to threaten Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, with the most recent event being the unlawful entry of a Venezuelan Coast Guard vessel into Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
The said vessel approached a tanker near the Prosperity Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) that is operating in the Stabroek Block, Offshore Guyana, which has discovered over 11 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) and is currently conducting production and other exploration activities.
During its incursion, the Venezuelan naval vessel communicated threateningly via radio to the Prosperity FPSO that it was operating in Venezuela’s EEZ, before continuing in a southwestern direction towards other FPSOs in Guyana’s waters, to which it delivered the same message.
Venezuela is also seeking to hold elections for leaders within Guyana’s Essequibo region; these elections are scheduled for May 25.
Guyana has since written the World Court seeking orders to block Venezuela from proceeding with such actions.
The World Court, which is currently hearing a case to settle the decades-long border controversy between the two South American neighbours, has already asked Venezuela to explain its actions, which violates a December 2023 order issued by the ICJ to refrain the Spanish-speaking nation from threatening Guyana.

Consequences
The United States of America (USA) has constantly pledged its support for Guyana in the border controversy with Venezuela- the most recent being delivered by US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio who during his recent visit to Guyana sternly cautioned the Nicolás Maduro regime of consequences should there be an attack on Guyana / US oil major, ExxonMobil.
“It will be a very bad day for the Venezuelan regime if they were to attack Guyana or attack ExxonMobil or anything like. It would be a very bad day, a very bad week for them. And it would not end well for them,” Rubio declared.
He went onto say, “I’m not going to get into details of what we’ll do; we’re not big on those kinds of threats. I think everybody understands, and I want it to be clear – we’ve made this clear repeatedly – I think the US Navy today is making it clear and demonstrating our ability …we have a big navy and it can get anywhere in the world. And we have commitments that exist today with Guyana. We want to build on those and expand on those. And we’ll leave it for the appropriate time, but suffice it to say that if that regime were to do something such as that, it would be a very bad move. It would be a big mistake for them.”