Venezuela held an election for an oil-rich region. The main problem is it belongs to another country
Venezuelans on Sunday for the first time elected a governor and other lawmakers for Essequibo, an oil-rich region that Venezuela has laid claim to even though it is widely recognized as being part of neighboring Guyana.
Essequibo's 125,000 inhabitants, who account for more than 15% of the English-speaking country's population, did not take part in Sunday's election.
The vote, which was widely criticized by Guyanese officials, instead saw Venezuelans pick a new governor, six deputies to the National Assembly of Venezuela, and seven to a regional legislative assembly. It is unclear how the officials, once elected, plan on running the territory, which Guyana governs.
The election is the latest provocation in a long-running territory dispute between Venezuela and Guyana.
It comes more than a year after Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro ordered the creation of a new state within the territory, which is roughly the size of Florida, called 'Guayana Esequiba,' following a referendum that saw Venezuelan voters approving the move.
Guyana had called Venezuela's actions a step towards annexation and an 'existential' threat as the specter of armed conflict loomed over the region.
Maduro first announced in January that a vote would be held for the region as part of a larger election for governors and lawmakers across the country. 'I call for freedom of conscience for the people and for the people to elect the best for the governorships of the 24 states,' Maduro said on Telegram ahead of Sunday's election, referring to Essequibo as the nation's 24th state.
The vote has put Guyana on high alert, with its President Irfaan Ali on Saturday calling the poll 'scandalous, false, propagandistic (and) opportunistic.'
Guyana is home to vast oil reserves and is on track to become the world's highest per capita oil producer. It, however, has an army estimated to be less than 5,000 soldiers, and lacks the hardware or manpower to face possible Venezuelan aggression.
The country in the meantime has sought closer military cooperation with the United States amid the threats from Venezuela.
On Sunday, the US State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs called the election a 'sham' on X. 'The United States rejects all attempts by Nicolas Maduro and his illegitimate regime to undermine Guyana's territorial integrity, including this latest sham election in the Essequibo region,' it wrote.
Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López pushed back against the criticism on Sunday, saying, 'We are supported by historical, legal, and moral grounds regarding that territory.'
Venezuela has claimed Essequibo as its own for decades, arguing that it was within its borders during the Spanish colonial period. It has dismissed an 1899 ruling by international arbitrators that set the current boundaries when Guyana was still a British colony.
Guyana has controlled the region since gaining independence in 1966. The recent discovery of vast offshore oil fields in the area has heightened the stakes in the dispute.
In 2018, Guyana filed an application with the International Court of Justice to try to validate the 1899 decision. The case is still under review. Pending a final decision, the court ordered earlier this month that Venezuela refrain from holding elections in the territory. But Caracas has rejected the court's jurisdiction over the matter.
On Saturday, the night before Venezuela's election and two days ahead of Guyana's Independence Day, Guyanese officials held a National Patriotic Concert in Essequibo to affirm their sovereignty over the land.
The event drew thousands of people who were seen waving the Guyanese flag and wearing shirts that read: 'Essequibo is Guyana's.'
'Essequibo belongs to Guyana and we are going to do everything to ensure that Essequibo will forever be part of our 83,000 square miles,' President Ali told crowds of cheering supporters.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Epoch Times
38 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Ukraine Says It Attacked Crimea Bridge With Underwater Explosives
Ukraine's SBU intelligence service says it has severely damaged the Kerch Bridge, which links Russia with Crimea. On its Telegram channel, the service said: 'The SBU conducted a new unique special operation and struck the Crimean Bridge for the third time—this time underwater!'


UPI
39 minutes ago
- UPI
Ukraine claims successful strike on Crimean Bridge
A photo made available by the Ukrainian Security Service Tuesday shows people looking at damages caused by an explosion at the Crimea bridge. EPA-EFE/UKRAINIAN SECURITY SERVICE / HANDOUT HANDOUT EDITORIAL USE ONLY/NO SALES June 3 (UPI) -- Ukraine said Tuesday it successfully carried out a military strike on the Crimean Bridge, the culmination of an operation that took several months to execute. The Security Service of Ukraine, or SBU, posted to Telegram that it struck the bridge, which connects Russia and Crimea, in an underwater attack. The aquatic assault, the third strike on the bridge by Ukraine, involved SBU agents who mined the bridge's pillars over a period of several months. The first explosive device was detonated early Tuesday morning, and SBU officials claim no civilians were harmed in the attack. The SBU said the structure's submerged support system was "severely damaged at the bottom level," with the equivalent of over 2400 pounds of TNT used, which ostensibly left the bridge is in disrepair. SBU Lieutenant General Vasyl Maliuk, who was in charge of the operation, said via the Telegram report that "the Crimean Bridge is an absolutely legitimate target, especially given that the enemy used it as a logistical artery to provide its troops." Ukraine also suffered a major attack Tuesday as its president Volodymyr Zelensky posted to social media around an hour after the assault on the Kerch Bridge happened. He posted videos that purportedly showed bodies on the ground of the northeastern city of Sumy and confirmed that three people were killed and many were injured. "The Russians launched a savage strike on Sumy, directly targeting the city and its ordinary streets with rocket artillery. It was a fully deliberate attack on civilians." said Zelensky. He did not mention the Kerch Bridge attack in his post.


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
He launched modern conservatism, but what do we really know about William F. Buckley?
The sixth of 10 children born to a self-made Texan oilman and his wife, a New Orleans patrician and ardent Anglophobe, Buckley spent his early years abroad until the clan settled into a Connecticut estate, Great Elm, tended to by a retinue of servants. He later claimed he spoke Spanish and French before English; his trademark lockjaws blended Romance inflections with a Southern drawl inherited from his parents, and elocution lessons. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Related : Throughout the Roaring Twenties William F. Buckley Sr, or Will, raked in a fortune on Wall Street, diversifying his portfolio wisely; the family navigated the Depression in suburban comfort. A skinny, sickly boy with a passion for music, Bill stood out with his gift for gab and yen for combative debate. The Buckleys were adamant isolationists, anti-New Deal, scorning financial regulations and programs for the poor. Bill followed his older brothers to Millbrook, a boarding school, then a stint in the military at the tail end of World War II, which entrenched his commitment to caste. At Yale he soared as scholar and impresario, a quick study. 'Those who got to know Buckley noticed the disjunction between Buckley the ideologue and Buckley the friend,' Tanenhaus notes. 'He was unsparing in debate, harsh, even malicious, but during those contests 'he got rid of all his aggressions, said a classmate. And what was left over, among friends, was very mellow.'' Advertisement From these opening chapters the narrative flows briskly: Tanenhaus streamlines decades of research and interviews, punctuated by episodes such as Bill's courtship of Vancouver heiress Pat Taylor: taller (in heels), wealthier, and more right-wing than her husband, the Anglican queen to his Catholic king. The author's account of their extravagant wedding carries a whiff of the society columnist, dutifully chronicling the soirées that bookended the ceremony. Their son Christopher, born in 1952, rounded out the family. Journalism beckoned: in 1955 Buckley debuted the National Review, a weekly free-markets doppelganger to the Communist-adjacent Partisan Review and forum for exchanges on government, economics, foreign policy, and what the founder envisioned as the voice for a proper hierarchy. As befits a former editor of the New York Times Book Review, Tanenhaus meticulously depicts the high tide of postwar print reportage, writers poised for celebrity, ready for their close-ups — Buckley protégés like The lavish set pieces are all there, familiar yet graced with fresh insights: Buckley's espousal of Related : Advertisement The Kennedy administration offered novel assaults on liberalism. The reactionary Buckleys mirrored the progressive Massachusetts dynasty — Wall Street tycoons as patriarchs, a rough-and-tumble household, heated discourse on global events — but with conflicting views on public service. (Bill was just four days younger than Robert F. Kennedy, a champion of racial equality.) When the Republican center of gravity migrated toward the Sun Belt, Buckley embraced Barry Goldwater, sensing the Arizona maverick was shifting the Overton Window. Those Great Elm affectations did not always fit amid a party whose emerging power brokers tried to connect with middle- and working-class white voters. As Tanenhaus writes, 'Bill Buckley had been a great figure. But that time had passed. A new ideological battle was forming — rather, a new cultural battle' among the ranks of the GOP, the genteel National Review 'outmoded,' 'Blue Bloods' receding before 'Blue Collars.' Yet this realignment presented unexpected opportunities for the ruling caste, 'through pro-business policies of deregulation and reduced corporate taxes.' Advertisement Tanenhaus's Buckley is less an ironclad ideologue than a professional contrarian, performative to his core. His beliefs evolved; after the Six-Day War he walked back overt antisemitism, for instance, and fervidly advocated for Israel. Clear-eyed about its protagonist's merits and moral defects, 'Buckley' is, of course, a biography not just of a prominent influencer but also of a potent movement, fomented in both National Journal and Bill's long-running PBS show, Firing Line, a precursor to podcasts . He remained vigorous until his death in 2008, and if alive today would no doubt opine fulsomely on divisive issues, as Tanenhaus links the Cold War's disinformation campaigns with social media, Buckley's brand of blacklists and censorship with the current pall over prestigious institutions such as Yale, Harvard, and Columbia. Related : At his best Buckley was an audacious provocateur, a shock to a complacent system; yet his story is incomplete without the rancor he spread like gospel. Tanenhaus is fair to this complicated pundit — more than fair — and the payoff is worth it. 'Buckley' is a milestone contribution to our understanding of the American Century. BUCKLEY: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America By Sam Tanenhaus Random House, 1,040 pages, $40 Hamilton Cain is a book critic and the author of a memoir, 'This Boy's Faith: Notes from a Southern Baptist Upbringing.'