The longstanding Guyana-Venezuela land boundary dispute occupies a distinct place in the annals of regional geopolitical conflicts. For Guyanese citizens, it has posed an existential threat, looming ominously especially since independence exhibited in military hostility from Venezuela, decades and decades of diplomatic skirmishes, and ongoing border tensions.

The roots of this conflict lie deep in the colonial past, where European imperial powers casually drew borders across the New World, often indifferent to local realities and sensibilities. In the case of Guyana and Venezuela, competing historical narratives emerged, each staking claims to territories defined by imperial arbitrariness rather than geographical or cultural coherence. This intensified dramatically in the 1960s when Venezuela formally contested the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award (which Venezuela had accepted as a “final settlement” at least until 1905) that had established the boundary with then British Guiana.

A tribunal of five arbitrators resolved the 1899 controversy between British Guiana and Venezuela, awarding most of the contested territories to Britain (now Guyana). The arbitration relied on international reputation and diplomatic pressures for enforcement rather than coercive mechanisms. The arbitrators representing Great Britain were Lord Justice Richard Henn Collins, a prominent British judge and jurist, and initially Lord Herschell (Farrer Herschell), who died early in 1899 and was replaced by Charles Russell, Baron Russell of Killowen, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. Represent-ing Venezuela, arbitrators appointed by the United States on Venezuela’s behalf were Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller and Associate Justice David Josiah Brewer, both from the United States Supreme Court. The tribunal’s neutral arbitrator and president was Professor Friedrich Martens (Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens), a Russian diplomat, international jurist, and scholar.

From independence Guyana’s case had to be marshalled through several mechanisms, the Geneva agreement, the UN process, the ICJ and the Joint Declaration at Argyll.

Faced with persistent territorial claims from Venezuela, education becomes a vital instrument of soft power that can include mobilizing classrooms, textbooks, and public fora to fortify national consciousness and defend territorial integrity.

Through informed public education, successive Guyanese governments have aimed to dispel misinformation, clarify national positions, and advance public dialogue. However, is this a sufficient approach? Effective public education at all societal levels must transcend being merely the government’s responsibility. It must become a strategic tool intentionally deployed to strengthen and promote national unity, particularly on issues where unity already exists. The soft power approach—emphasizing that moral, legal, and historical evidence firmly supports Guyana’s claim to the Essequibo—is a crucial and enduring element in the nation’s diplomatic strategy.

One issue is whether the historical border matter between Guyana and Venezuela is best classified as a controversy, dispute, or problem. The terms controversy and dispute are often used interchangeably in discussions on the issue. Although the term controversy appeared before the 1960s, it became particularly prominent during the period surrounding the Geneva Agreement. However, the term dispute is perhaps the most formal and precise designation. Indeed, dispute is legally recognized internationally as describing formal disagreements between states, particularly those related to territory or sovereignty. International law frequently refers to such disagreements explicitly as border disputes. Both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the United Nations (UN) officially classify the Guyana-Venezuela issue as a border dispute, underscoring the presence of formal competing claims and significant questions under international law.

The literature on the Guyana and Venezuela boundary controversy, like the legal material in general supporting Guyana’s claim over the Essequibo is huge, ranging from official documents, seminal diplomatic assessments, academic articles published in journals, newspaper editorial commentary, and assembly of parliamentary debates dating back to the 19th century and of course the photographs and maps that continue to proliferate on the ongoing dispute.

In the late 19th century, the Daily Chronicle frequently published letters addressing the boundary question, a territorial dispute concerning British Guiana (now Guyana) and Venezuela. These discussions appeared as early as 1887, nearly a decade before the official Arbitration Award of 1899, which ultimately favoured British Guiana.

The issue continued to captivate public and political attention, particularly in the 1960s as Guyana approached independence. During this pivotal period, the press, including editorials, letters to the editor, and feature columns, actively engaged with the border controversy. Public debate intensified, reflecting growing national consciousness and the importance placed on clearly defining the nation’s territorial sovereignty prior to independence. The robust coverage by the press played a crucial role in informing the public discourse and shaping the emerging national identity around issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity.