Mostly under the radar to the rest of the world, but very much on the minds and attitudes of the people of Guyana and on the Venezuelan political class, the long simmering Venezuelan claim over a vast, oil rich area of the Guiana Highlands is dangerously close to erupting.
The highlands are “a heavily forested plateau and low-mountain region north of the Amazon and south of the Orinoco River. This extensive natural border, coupled with nonexistent infrastructure and insufficient political willingness to cooperate from both sides, has left Guyana — and its institutions, customs, culture, and people — as an enigma to the majority of Venezuelans [Caracas Chronicles, February 2, 2024]”. No doubt the same can be said about the Guyanese people’s perceptions about Venezuela.
Two months ago, on December 3, 2023, the Maduro regime claimed an overwhelming “victory” in a referendum where over 95% of the Venezuelan people in effect voted to take over the region and to reject any past or future international arbitration agreements. Of course, since the early naughts any results from “elections” or “referendums” in Venezuela are trusted only by those who believe in the tooth fairy.
Nevertheless, the Maduro regime is proceeding as if an invasion is the “will of the people” (Rousseau is very much with us, no?).
As noted by the Caracas Chronicles, “In the slums of Caracas and in towns closer to the border with Guyana, people remain focused on their many other problems and see the chauvinistic campaign as a bad thing.”
As well they should.
Since the referendum, the people and authorities of Guyana see the 20,000-plus Venezuelan immigrants as Trojan Horse infiltrators and are making life increasingly difficult for them. These are not “military age single men” such as are being seen in the United States southern border, but rather very poor people who escaped Venezuela in search for a way to feed their families. Guyana has historically never refused them entry.
Brief Background
British Guiana was a possession of England since long before Venezuela had come into existence in the 19th Century. It was only after the terrible revolutionary wars of South America that Venezuela, seeing that the British region contained gold deposits, claimed much of the British colony for herself.
The British were not impressed; however, they were willing to settle the controversy. As far back as 1840 they commissioned Sir Robert Schomburgk to ascertain the true boundary. He made a careful survey which the Venezuelans promptly dismissed.
Then, in 1895, the Venezuelans turned to the United States whose Anglophobe Secretary of State, Richard Olney, wrote a fierce letter to England’s Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, who replied several months later, correcting Olney’s interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which barred European powers from imposing their systems of governance onto the Americas but did not enter into border disputes. His reply also had the air of a college professor correcting a freshman student’s obvious grammatical errors.
Salisbury was undoubtedly correct; however, he was diplomatically unwise, not having read the American mood at the time, which was not very pro-British. Lord Salisbury turned his attention to England’s far flung empire, no doubt figuring the Americans would not bother further over that jungle-matted territory.
He figured wrong. President Grover Cleveland sought approval from Congress to appropriate funds for American arbitration of the border dispute, which request was approved unanimously, with a whoop and a holler, by both houses of Congress. The mood was of war with England, should it be necessary.
This was, of course, foolish on the part of the jingoists. England’s navy alone could wreak havoc on America’s coasts. Also, most American’s did not even know where British Guiana was on the map and could not care less, meaning enthusiasm was only temporary.
Across the ocean, similar sentiments prevailed. Most Englishmen agreed that a mosquito-infested piece of the South American jungle was not worth any war, no matter how many gold reserves it might have; after all, England had a corner of the world’s gold without counting the disputed highlands. Besides, the British were far more concerned with the rising power of Germany and also the obstreperous Boers in South Africa, which Germany was cheering on.
Europe’s discords continued to work to America’s advantage.
So the British agreed to arbitration and provided the Americans with massive amounts of documents and data which helped greatly in the push towards a reasonable and fair settlement. The Americans persuaded the Venezuelans to sign a treaty with England which called for the submission of the border dispute to international arbitration. This was a significant concession by England who knew that arbitrations tended to “split the difference”. The concern was that Venezuela, most unreasonably, claimed most of British Guiana, while England claimed far less of Venezuela.
The decision was issued about two years later and generally followed the Schomburgk line, with two important exceptions. “First, Venezuela secured a considerable area at the southern end; secondly, and much more significantly, she obtained control of the mouth of the Orinoco River [A Diplomatic History of the American People].”
It was Venezuela who had sought “Yankee intervention”. And when Cleveland died in 1908, Venezuela lowered her flags to half mast.
Current Situation
And now, Venezuela has moved “light tanks, missile-equipped patrol boats, and armored carriers to the two countries’ border in what is quickly turning into a new security challenge…. [Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2024].”
Historically, “revolutionary” regimes, which emphatically include Communist and Socialist inspired governments, seek confrontations and conflicts as they point fingers to “the other” as excuses for their own failures. History has ample evidence of this, from the French Revolution and it’s progeny throughout the earth, including the South American revolutionary wars of the 19th Century, the Russian Revolution and its progeny in the 20th, and the thirst for wars of the “free” governments of the 21st.
Essequibo refers to the name of a major river in Guyana. Venezuela aims to push their territorial claims to that river as they seek to take over most of her neighbor’s territory.
Pray for the peoples of Venezuela and Guyana.
Sir Robert Schomburgk, 1804-1865
Lord Salisbury, 1830-1903
United States Secretary of State Richard Olney, 1835-1917
United States President Grover Cleveland, 1837-1908
(A speech delivered at the Men’s Club of the Prospect Street Congregational Church in Cambridge, Mass., June 7, 1898, less than two months after the United States’ Congress had declared war against Spain. Despite his “progressive” credentials, Professor Norton’s remarks reflect a cautionary and even conservative temperament. His speech deserves careful reading today. Thanks to the Mises Institute which reprinted the speech in 1999.)
There are moments in every man’s life, in the life of every nation, when, under the excitement of passion, the simple truths which in common times are the foundation upon which the right order and conduct of life depend are apt to be forgotten and disregarded. I shall venture tonight to recall to you some of these commonplace truths, which in these days of war need more than ever to be kept in mind.
There never was a land that better deserved the love of her people than America, for there never was a mother-country kinder to her children. She has given to them all that she could give. Her boundless resources have lain open to them, to use at their will. And the consequence has been that never in the history of man has there been so splendid a spectacle of widely diffused and steadily increasing material welfare as America has displayed during the last hundred years.
Millions upon millions of men have lived here with more comfort, with less fear, than any such numbers elsewhere in any age have lived. Countless multitudes, whose forefathers from the beginning of human life on earth have spent weary lives in unrewarded toil, in anxiety, in helplessness, in ignorance, have risen here, in the course of even a single generation, to the full and secure enjoyment of the fruits of their labor, to confident hope, to intelligent possession of their own faculties. Is not the land to be dearly loved in which this has been possible, in which this has been achieved?
But there is a deeper source of love of country than the material advantages and benefits it may afford. It is in the character of its people, in their moral life, in the type of civilization which they exhibit. The elements of human nature are indeed so fixed that favorable or unfavorable circumstances have little effect upon its essential constitution, but prosperity or the reverse brings different traits into prominence. The conditions which have prevailed in America have, if broadly considered, tended steadily and strongly to certain good results in the national character; not, indeed, to unmixed good, but to a preponderance of good.
The institutions established for self-government have been founded with intent to secure justice and independence for all. The social relations among the whole body of the people, are humane and simple. The general spirit of the people is liberal, is kindly, is considerate. The ideals for the realization of which in private and public conduct there is more or less steady and consistent effort, are as high and as worthy as any which men have pursued. Every genuine American holds to the ideal of justice for all men, of independence, including free speech and free action within the limits of law, of obedience to law, of universal education, of material well-being for all the well-behaving and industrious, of peace and good-will among men. These, however far short the nation may fall in expressing them in its actual life, are, no one will deny it, the ideals of our American democracy.
And it is because America represents these ideals that the deepest love for his country glows in the heart of the American, and inspires him with that patriotism which counts no cost, which esteems no sacrifice too great to maintain and to increase the influence of these principles which embody themselves in the fair shape of his native land, and have their expressive symbol in her flag. The spirit of his patriotism is not an intermittent impulse; it is an abiding principle; it is the strongest motive of his life; it is his religion.
And because it is so, and just in proportion to his love of the ideals for which his country stands, is his hatred of whatever is opposed to them in private conduct or public policy. Against injustice, against dishonesty, against lawlessness, against whatever may make for war instead of peace, the good citizen is always in arms.
No thoughtful American can have watched the course of affairs among us during the last thirty years without grave anxiety from the apparent decline in power to control the direction of public and private conduct, of the principles upon regard for which the permanent and progressive welfare of America depends; and especially the course of events during the last few months and the actual condition of the country today, should bring home to every man the question whether or not the nation is true to one of the chief of the ideals to which it has professed allegiance.
A generation has grown up that has known nothing of war. The blessings of peace have been poured out upon us. We have congratulated ourselves that we were free from the misery and the burdens that war and standing armies have brought upon the nations of the Old World. “Their fires” — I cite a fine phrase of Sir Philip Sidney in a letter to Queen Elizabeth — “Their fires have given us light to see our own quietness.”
And now of a sudden, without cool deliberation, without prudent preparation, the nation is hurried into war, and America, she who more than any other land was pledged to peace and good-will on earth, unsheathes her sword, compels a weak and unwilling nation to a fight, rejecting without due consideration her earnest and repeated offers to meet every legitimate demand of the United States. It is a bitter disappointment to the lover of his country; it is a turning-back from the path of civilization to that of barbarism.
“There never was a good war,” said Franklin. There have indeed been many wars in which a good man must take part, and take part with grave gladness to defend the cause of justice, to die for it if need be, a willing sacrifice, thankful to give life for what is dearer than life, and happy that even by death in war he is serving the cause of peace. But if a war be undertaken for the most righteous end, before the resources of peace have been tried and proved vain to secure it, that war has no defense; it is a national crime. And however right, however unavoidable a war may be, and those of us who are old enough to remember the war for the Union know that war may be right and unavoidable, yet, I repeat the words of Franklin, “There never was a good war.”
It is evil in itself, it is evil in its never-ending train of consequences. No man has known the nature of war better than General Sherman, and in his immortal phrase he has condensed its description — “War is hell.” “From the earliest dawnings of policy to this day,” said Edmund Burke, more than a hundred years ago, “the invention of men has been sharpening and improving the mystery of murder, from the first rude essays of clubs and stones to the present perfection of gunnery, cannoneering, bombarding, mining, and all these species of artificial, learned and refined cruelty in which we are now so expert, and which make a principal part of what politicians have taught us to believe is our principal glory.”
And it is now, at the end of this century, the century in which beyond any other in history knowledge has increased and the arts of peace have advanced, that America has been brought by politicians and writers for the press, faithless to her noble ideals, against the will of every right-minded citizen, to resort to these cruel arts, these arts of violence, these arts which rouse the passions of the beast in man, before the resources of peace had been fairly tested and proved insufficient to secure the professed ends, which, however humane and desirable, afford no sufficient justification for resorting to the dread arbitrament of arms.
There are, indeed, many among us who find justification of the present war in the plea that its motive is to give independence to the people of Cuba, long burdened by the oppressive and corrupt rule of Spain, and especially to relieve the suffering of multitudes deprived of their homes and of means of subsistence by the cruel policy of the general who exercised for a time a practical dictatorship over the island. The plea so far as it is genuine deserves the respect due to every humane sentiment. But independence secured for Cuba by forcible overthrow of the Spanish rule means either practical anarchy or the substitution of the authority of the United States for that of Spain. Either alternative might well give us pause. And as for the relief of suffering, surely it is a strange procedure to begin by inflicting worse suffering still. It is fighting the devil with his own arms. That the end justifies the means is a dangerous doctrine, and no wise man will advise doing evil for the sake of an uncertain good. But the plea that the better government of Cuba and the relief of the reconcentrados could only be secured by war is the plea either of ignorance or of hypocrisy.
But the war is declared; and on all hands we hear the cry that he is no patriot who fails to shout for it, and to urge the youth of the country to enlist, and to rejoice that they are called to the service of their native land. The sober counsels that were appropriate before the war was entered upon must give way to blind enthusiasm, and the voice of condemnation must be silenced by the thunders of the guns and the hurrahs of the crowd.
Stop! A declaration of war does not change the moral law. “The ten commandments will not budge” at a joint resolve of Congress. Was James Russell Lowell aught but a good patriot when during the Mexican war he sent the stinging shafts of his matchless satire at the heart of the monstrous iniquity, or when, years afterward, he declared, that he thought at the time and that he still thought the Mexican war was a national crime? Did John Bright ever render greater service to his country than when, during the Crimean war, he denounced the Administration which had plunged England into it, and employed his magnificent power of earnest and incisive speech in the endeavor to repress the evil spirit which it evoked in the heart of the nation?
No! the voice of protest, of warning, of appeal is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum, echoed by the press and too often by the pulpit, is bidding all men fall in and keep step and obey in silence the tyrannous word of command. Then, more than ever, it is the duty of the good citizen not to be silent, in spite of obloquy, misrepresentation, and abuse, to insist on being heard, and with sober counsel to maintain the everlasting validity of the principles of the moral law.
So confused are men by false teaching in regard to national honor and the duty of the citizen that it is easy to fall into the error of holding a declaration of war, however brought about, as a sacred decision of the national will, and to fancy that a call to arms from the Administration has the force of a call from the lips of the country, of the America to whom all her sons are ready to pay the full measure of devotion. This is indeed a natural and for many a youth not a discreditable error. But if the nominal, though authorized, representatives of the country have brought us into a war that might and should have been avoided, and which consequently is an unrighteous war, then, so long as the safety of the State is not at risk, the duty of the good citizen is plain.
He is to help to provide the Administration responsible for the conduct of the war with every means that may serve to bring it to the speediest end. He is to do this alike that the immediate evils of the war may be as brief and as few as possible, and also that its miserable train of after evils may be diminished and the vicious passions excited by it be the sooner allayed. Men, money, must be abundantly supplied. But must he himself enlist or quicken the ardent youth to enter service in such a cause? The need is not yet. The country is in no peril.
He is to help to provide the Administration responsible for the conduct of the war with every means that may serve to bring it to the speediest end. He is to do this alike that the immediate evils of the war may be as brief and as few as possible, and also that its miserable train of after evils may be diminished and the vicious passions excited by it be the sooner allayed. Men, money, must be abundantly supplied. But must he himself enlist or quicken the ardent youth to enter service in such a cause? The need is not yet. The country is in no peril.
My friends, America has been compelled against the will of all her wisest and best to enter into a path of darkness and peril. Against their will she has been forced to turn back from the way of civilization to the way of barbarism, to renounce for the time her own ideals. With grief, with anxiety must the lover of his country regard the present aspect and the future prospect of the nation’s life. With serious purpose, with utter self-devotion he should prepare himself for the untried and difficult service to which it is plain he is to be called in the quick-coming years.
Two months ago America stood at the parting of the ways. Her first step is irretrievable. It depends on the virtue, on the enlightened patriotism of her children whether her future steps shall be upward to the light or downward to the darkness.
[A week after Norton’s speech, on June 15th, the New England anti-imperialists met at Boston’s Faneuil Hall…. This meeting resulted in the formation of the Anti-Imperialist Committee of Correspondence, which bloomed into the Anti-Imperialist League that November. Norton was one of the original eighteen honorary vice presidents of the League (along with Charles Francis Adams and Grover Cleveland).]
