May 13, 2026 - TEMPO Networks

By Ron Cheong

News Americas, Tues. May 12, 2026: Guyana has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade, following the discovery of vast offshore oil reserves, and has emerged as the world’s fastest-growing economy. President Irfaan Ali has expressed confidence that the coming decade could prove even more extraordinary, driven by rapid advances in infrastructure, energy, technology, and national development. Yet, amid this unprecedented progress, a serious shadow remains: the Guyana-Venezuela border battle continues. Venezuela continues to lay claim to nearly two-thirds of Guyana’s territory, including the resource-rich Essequibo region. Although Venezuela maintains that it does not recognize the International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction, the long-running border controversy has finally come before the Court for adjudication.

The Law, Historical Record, And Established Practice Favor Guyana

Based on the evidence presented so far, it appears highly likely that Guyana will prevail in the case now before the International Court of Justice at the Peace Palace. This may not be the end, but hopefully it might at least be the beginning of the end.

The law, the historical record, and decades of established state practice all strongly favor Guyana’s position. Venezuela itself celebrated the 1899 Arbitral Award as a victory at the time, having secured control of both banks of the strategically vital Orinoco River – a settlement that remained effectively uncontested for more than sixty years.

Since then, Guyana’s engagement with Venezuela, including during the 1966 Geneva Agreement process, has consistently reflected the posture of a responsible neighbor: acknowledging Venezuela’s differing position while steadfastly maintaining its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Venezuela’s Two-Pronged Gambit: Invoking Post-Colonial Injustice

Despite its claims and periodic provocations, including the recent brooch controversy, Venezuela increasingly appears to understand that its legal position before the Court is weak. As a result, Caracas seems to be pursuing a parallel strategy aimed at shaping international perceptions – not only through legal submissions before the ICJ, but also through a broader diplomatic and public-relations campaign rooted in the language of colonial injustice.

Venezuela argues that the 1899 arbitral process was tainted by manipulation and that the country, weakened and vulnerable at the time, was effectively overpowered by the then-dominant British Empire. That narrative carries emotional and political resonance, particularly across the Global South, where many nations still bear the scars of colonial exploitation and unequal power relations.

Moreover, Venezuela’s diplomatic and public relations offensive appears to be entering a more aggressive – yet far more polished and strategically disciplined phase. Ironically, the removal of Nicolas Maduro, whose administration was widely associated with international isolation, confrontation, and criticism, may have created an opening for a recalibrated Venezuelan leadership to refine its messaging and international posture. The tone is now more measured and sophisticated, crafted to appeal to global audiences and diplomatic institutions, but the substance remains every bit as strident, uncompromising, and expansionist in advancing Venezuela’s longstanding claims over Guyana’s Essequibo region.

On Saturday, Venezuela’s acting President made a dramatic televised announcement declaring that she was traveling to The Hague to personally represent Venezuela in the case before the International Court of Justice, asserting that it was her duty to defend what she described as Venezuela’s “inalienable rights.” The highly choreographed declaration underscored Caracas’ increasingly assertive diplomatic campaign – one designed not only to challenge Guyana’s position legally and politically, but also to project confidence, legitimacy, and resolve on the international stage.

Guyana’s options are therefore either to actively, though discreetly, counter this international public-relations offensive or to allow the eventual ICJ ruling to speak for itself.

Venezuela’s acting President, appeared personally before the International Court of Justice on Monday in what many viewed as an unusually
confrontational and another highly choreographed public relations offensive. Her extraordinary personal appearance before the Court – despite Venezuela’s repeated claims that it does not recognize the ICJ’s jurisdiction, carried an unmistakably defiant and “in- your-face” message aimed as much at the international audience as at the judges themselves.

In a strikingly dismissive and unapologetic closing statement, Rodríguez declared that Venezuela would not accept any ruling by the Court affirming the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award that definitively settled the boundary with Guyana. “Even if the Court were to declare
the award valid, Venezuela would be unable to comply with such a ruling,” she argued, insisting that any decision contrary to Venezuela’s position would itself violate the Geneva Agreement and international law.

The spectacle of Venezuela’s acting President personally delivering such a blunt repudiation of the Court’s authority appeared designed to project strength and nationalist resolve. Yet to many observers, it also reflected a government increasingly aware of the legal fragility of its
case and therefore turning to political theatre, diplomatic pressure, and media spectacle to compensate for weaknesses in the historical and legal record.

Building A Global South Narrative Of Its Own

Guyana would likely be better served by not allowing Venezuela to monopolize anti-colonial language. Guyana itself is a post-colonial state: a small developing country of fewer than one million people and approximately 83,000 square miles, facing sustained pressure from a neighbor of roughly 28.6 million people and more than 384,000 square miles in size.

This reality significantly undermines Venezuela’s attempt to invalidate the 1899 Award on the basis of power imbalance. If historical asymmetry alone were grounds to reopen settled borders, countless international frontiers across the developing world could become vulnerable to revisionist claims.

Guyana’s diplomatic messaging should therefore emphasize a central principle: post-colonial justice cannot mean overturning settled international borders whenever historical grievances are invoked.

At the same time, Guyana would benefit from quietly deepening relations not only with Caribbean states – where it remains a leading voice for regional unity, but also with members of the African Union, ASEAN states, and moderate Latin American governments. The broader framing should be clear: this is not “Britain versus Venezuela”; it is about protecting small-state sovereignty, international stability, and the sanctity of international law.

Guyana’s Posture: Dignified And Committed To International Law

If the ICJ rules decisively in Guyana’s favor, as many observers expect, Venezuela’s political establishment, regardless of ideology, may still find it domestically difficult to abandon the claim immediately.

For that reason, Guyana’s post-ruling messaging should avoid framing the outcome as a humiliating defeat for Venezuela. A measured, statesmanlike approach would lower the political cost for Venezuelan leaders to gradually moderate their positions over time. By contrast, triumphalist rhetoric could unintentionally harden Venezuelan nationalism for generations.

Any future provocations should continue to be addressed through the ICJ, the United Nations, CARICOM, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organization of American States, and established diplomatic channels.

Guyana must continue to position itself, as it largely has throughout the dispute, as calm, lawful, restrained, and principled – thereby retaining the moral and diplomatic high ground as a defender of the rules-based international order while Venezuela risks being viewed as revisionist.

Going Forward: Reinforced Sovereignty And Greater Diplomatic Influence

Guyana could ultimately emerge from this dispute with internationally reinforced sovereignty, enhanced investor confidence, stronger diplomatic stature, greater regional influence, and recognition as a mature defender of international law.

A successful outcome before the ICJ would also significantly stabilize the environment for offshore energy development and long-term economic planning. In doing so, Guyana could become a modern example of how small states can successfully defend their sovereignty not through force, but through law, diplomacy, and international legitimacy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ron Cheong is a frequent political commentator and columnist whose recent work focuses on international relations, economic resilience, and Caribbean-American affairs. He is a community activist and dedicated volunteer with extensive international banking experience. Now residing in Toronto, Canada, he is a fellow of the Institute of Canadian Bankers and holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Toronto.

The Long Siege Of Cuba: CARICOM At Last Begins Pooling Cash For Cuba Relief Supplies

The Long Siege Of Cuba & Caribbean Geopolitics: The Prequel To King Kong And The Island

King Kong And The Island: America’s Moral Collapse And Cuba

By Dr. Isaac Newton

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, May 12, 2026: A democracy weakens when leadership is mistaken for entitlement or when readiness is ignored in favor of assumption. If ordinary citizens are trusted to vote, then leadership must remain open to ordinary citizens who have been properly prepared to serve. This is a synopsis of the current situation in Antigua & Barbuda.

A child born into poverty is not a burden on a nation. That child is a possibility in motion. Yet, poverty alone does not prepare anyone to lead. In the same way, wealth alone does not prepare anyone either. Leadership is never inherited through circumstance. It is formed through discipline, learning, and character.

There is a danger on both ends of the spectrum. A poor and unprepared child will struggle to lead. A wealthy and self focused child will also struggle to lead. One may lack access to knowledge and training. The other may lack empathy and responsibility. Both conditions can produce failure. Leadership requires more than background. It requires readiness.

A nation suffers when emotion replaces evaluation, when status replaces skill, and when popularity replaces preparedness. Societies often send mixed messages about success. They elevate individuals based on family name, wealth, or influence while overlooking whether they are actually prepared to govern. At the same time, they romanticize struggle as though hardship alone guarantees leadership ability. Neither is true.

Education should produce wisdom, humility, and competence. It should not produce arrogance or resentment. A qualification may open a door, but character determines what a leader does once they enter. A strong country entrusts leadership to those who are prepared and disciplined, regardless of their background. Preparedness means understanding how to solve real problems, how to manage resources responsibly, how to serve people fairly, and how to make sound decisions under pressure. It also means emotional control, patience, and the ability to think beyond personal gain.

Without these qualities, leadership becomes unstable and harmful. Passion alone is not preparation. Many movements struggle because they focus on complaints without building solutions. It is easy to name problems. It is far harder to design systems that solve them.

Real leadership asks difficult and necessary questions. How will jobs be created. How will schools improve. How will corruption be prevented. How will decisions serve the entire population rather than a select few.

This truth is especially important for young leaders. Popularity is not preparation. Visibility is not readiness. Influence without discipline becomes risk rather than strength. A leader must think clearly under pressure, listen carefully, work with others, and carry responsibility for outcomes that affect an entire nation.

This challenge is not unique to Antigua and Barbuda. It is the challenge of every democracy. The question is never simply who has power or who has suffered. The real question is who is prepared, who is disciplined, and who is capable of selfless service.

Leadership must not remain trapped among the privileged. It must also not be handed to the unprepared simply because they have endured hardship. Strong democracies choose leaders based on readiness. Not background alone. Not emotion alone. Not popularity alone.

Poor and unprepared individuals cannot lead effectively. Wealthy and self centered individuals cannot lead responsibly. But those who are trained, disciplined, and morally grounded can rise from any circumstance and serve with excellence.

Leadership is not defined by where a person begins. It is defined by how they develop in wisdom, responsibility, and service to others. A nation becomes stronger when it chooses leaders who are prepared rather than merely passionate, disciplined rather than merely popular, and responsible rather than merely privileged.

When leadership is earned through preparation and character, democracy becomes stable, fair, and capable of lasting progress. Leadership is not inherited. It is built. Popularity is not preparation. Hardship does not qualify a leader. Character does. A nation is judged by how it chooses those who lead it.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Isaac Newton is a leadership strategist and governance expert in ethical leadership. He was educated at Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia. He advises leaders, educators, and institutions across the Caribbean and internationally on leadership, accountability, and human development.

Guyana-Venezuela Border Battle: The Battle For Global Narrative