Guyana may need to consider the USA deal in build that military base in that region ...Salute to Granger for having a pair of balls to stand up against Venezuela .
I would like to know what Guyana is doing about all the legal immigrants in this country right now like wtf An all money Guyana is making right now why are they not upgrading there military assets Who agrees with me?
@@Lev_ZTG We barely affording to construct modern roads and bridges. we can't maintain normal road vehicles. We can't manage multiple helicopters.How on earth are we managing jets.
Porque no le dices a los guyaneses que mientras este vigente el acuerdo de ginebra guyana no puede tomar ninguna decisión en el esequibo hasta que la controversia este resuelta mientras tanto guyana no puede robar riquezas de nuestro esequibo y mucho menos el mar que no se ha delimitado así que estan por fuera de la ley
Hello from England. Iwas born in England of Guyanese parents Indian origin and proud of it. I be been visiting Guyana since 1989 and briefly in my childhood. I agree with Mr Carl Dindilal and others who are committed to Guyana and people’s. I love this country, and Guyana Government should stop bowing down to the Chinese and other countries to entice government with their proposals to gain riches for themselves. The Chinese are good at this, and if you are drawn in hard to exit. You are right best to ask help from England, Germany, Netherlands, Finland, Norway, US and Canada. These countries can set up sewage and water treatment plants like Thames water, Free medical (UK) Norway and Finland forestry protection & management, Germany all roads, road bridge rebuilds, complete recycling plant and reusable energy, Netherlands for all sea defence, canals, land reclamation from the sea and sluice gates. India can help with the sugar cane industry modernisation and agricultural sector. All this can also be achieved by using Guyanese work force and engineers, and at the same time getting countries with a wealth of expertise and providing training for the future of Guyana and Guyanese people. One other comment STOP illegal people entering Guyana and sent them back. Carrying or the import of illegal substance like cocaine, heroin, cannabis etc which ruins lives should be dealt with severely as they do in Singapore. Keep Guyana drug free. Caricom countries welcome as long they have legal documents and skills that will benefit Guyana.
Some facts: The Dutch settled the land first but as a result of the Papal Bull of 1493 S. America was assigned to be divided up by Spain and Portugal outside of the land of Bernice and Demerara. The Dutch continued to expand territory however for nearly 100 years without Spanish protest. In 1834, the British (after inheriting the 3 colonies) wanted to demarcate the borders of British Guiana and had Robert Schomburgk, a German geographer, to mark the colony's borders - hence that diagonal line border with Venezuela (called the Schomburgk line). Venezuela disputed the line. USA (Grover Cleveland) got involved issuing the Monroe Doctrine and appointed attorney William L. Scruggs, who was later hired by the Venezuelan Government to negotiate on its behalf. Two Brits, two Americans on the behalf of Venezuela, and one Russian formed the tribunal. On October 3, the tribunal announced its award upholding Great Britain’s ownership of most of the claimed territory west of the Essequibo River but denying the British entitlement to the upper Cuyuni basin and an area of land on the eastern bank near the mouth of the Orinoco River. It was a unanimous vote. In 1949 (after his death) the memorandum by Mallet Prevost, one of the American jurists was published where he stated that the decision was unfair and that one of the judges were biased. This letter is used by Venezuelans (the jumbie they caught, to reignite the controversy). After Guyana gained independence and was a new state, now militarily weaker than Venezuela, Venezuela invaded Guyana’s half of Ankoko island and built a military airstrip. Things were generally peaceful thereafter until 2015 when Exxon struck liquid gold.
I will refute your alleged facts, with documented and contrasted data: 1) The Captaincy General of Venezuela, created by Charles III in 1777, included the territories of the former province of Guayana, which occupied the same Esquiba region. The struggle against Spain to penetrate the Caribbean and the north of the continent by the Dutch was tenacious in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, the 1791 Treaty of Extradition between Spain and the Netherlands recognised the "Orinoco colony" as part of the Hispanic territory bordering the Essequibo. 2) These areas are those that made up the colony of British Guiana, prior to its independence, for which Britain recognised the Essequibo River as its western boundary, mapped politically in its favour in 1938. For its part, Venezuela has included the territory within its dominions since its first constitution of 1811, whose last reform was given in 1999, declaring in Article 10 that: "The territory and other geographical spaces of the Republic are those that corresponded to the Captaincy General of Venezuela before the political transformation initiated on 19 April 1810, with the modifications resulting from treaties and arbitration awards not vitiated by nullity." 3) In 1814 Britain came into possession of the Dutch colonial territories of Demerara, Berbice and Essequibo. In 1822 Venezuela was forced to protest the continuous invasions of English colonists into Venezuelan territory. The Venezuelan Minister in London, Dr. José Rafael Revenga, on instructions from the Liberator Simón Bolívar, presented the official complaint to the British authorities in the following terms: "The settlers of Demerara and Berbice have usurped a large portion of land which according to the latest treaties between Spain and the Netherlands belongs to us on the side of the Esequibo River. It is absolutely indispensable," the Venezuelan diplomat concluded, "that these colonists either place themselves under the jurisdiction and obedience of our laws, or withdraw to their former possessions. Two years later, José Manuel Hurtado was appointed Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Colombia to the United Kingdom, replacing Dr. Revenga, with the special mission of obtaining British recognition. In 1831, British Guiana was established by order of King William IV of the United Kingdom. From that moment on, the British government encouraged the advance and establishment of settlers in the lands west of the Esequibo River, favoured by depopulation and the precarious situation of Venezuela, which was just beginning its institutional organisation after a long war of independence. Another factor was Britain's role as the world's hegemonic power in the second half of the 19th century, which gave it international and even military backing for its colonial expansion. 3) In 1835, Robert Hermann Schomburgk drew a boundary line between Venezuela and British Guiana from the Moruca River to the Essequibo covering 4290 km². In 1839, he drew a second line called North-South from the mouth of the Amacuro to Mount Roraima, covering some 141,930 km². The migration of British settlers to territories beyond the left bank of the Essequibo led to Venezuela's first claim against the UK. Negotiations began in 1844 with the proposal made by the Venezuelan representative, Alejo Fortique, based on the territory of the Captaincy General of Venezuela and the principle of uti possidetis iure, to recognise the Essequibo River as the boundary line, claiming with documents Venezuelan jurisdiction over those lands that had formed part of the former Province of Guiana. The British government proposed that the boundary line begin at the mouth of the Moroco River and continue along the Barima and Aunama rivers. This implied a border to the west of the Essequibo, and was not accepted by the Venezuelan government. To Venezuela's protests Daniel Florencio O'Leary responded, arguing that the Schomburgk Line was provisional, and still subject to review by the parties. On 22 November 1861, representatives of the Caracas oligarchy such as Nicomedes Zuloaga, Pedro Gual, Manuel Felipe Tovar, Juan José Mendoza, Francisco La Madrid, Federico Núñez Aguiar and others formed a commission with the aim of requesting the intervention of England to bring order to the uprising in exchange for handing over Essequiba Guyana, which General Páez firmly opposed. The conspirators had to go into exile in the West Indies. The greatest British expansion took place in 1888, when they claimed 203,310 km². The British always tried to penetrate Venezuelan territory as far as the Orinoco River.
4) On 2 February 1897 Venezuela and the United Kingdom signed the Arbitration Treaty of Washington D.C. by which they undertook to resolve the boundary problem through international arbitration. In 1899, the Paris Arbitral Tribunal was set up ad hoc and ruled in favour of the UK. The five-member Arbitral Tribunal should have been composed of two representatives of Venezuela, two representatives of the United Kingdom and a fifth member as a neutral party. However, Venezuela - at the UK's request - had to accept that its representation would be in the hands of the United States; the US Congress chose the American jurists Melville Weston Fuller, Severo Mallet Prevost and Davis Josianh Brewer. The United Kingdom was represented by jurists Charles Baron Russell and Sir Richard Henn-Collins. The fifth member, who was to serve as an impartial party, was appointed by the four previous members and the Russian, Fyodor Martens, a professor at the British universities of Cambridge and Edinburgh and a permanent member of the Council of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire, was elected. On 3 October 1899, the tribunal, by unanimous decision, ruled in favour of the United Kingdom after six continuous days of sessions, within the two-month period provided for in the Treaty. The ruling only favoured Venezuela in keeping the mouths of the Orinoco River and a portion of territory adjacent to it, while the UK was to take a large portion west of the 1,000-kilometre-long Esequibo River as far as the Venamo and Cuyuní Rivers. On 4 October, José María Rojas, the only Venezuelan lawyer on Venezuela's defence team, protests the decision, along with four other US lawyers; on 7 October, Venezuelan President Ignacio Andrade protests. However, Venezuela only protested the final result of the arbitration without denouncing it (which it did much later, only in 1962) because it feared it would lose the mouths of the Orinoco River (Britain's greatest aspiration) and more territory in the event of an armed conflict if it did not accept the lines that had been resolved in the Award. Venezuela at that time was suffering a political and social crisis and its military strength was notoriously inferior to that of the United Kingdom, the world's leading colonial power at the time. Subsequently, a Joint British-Venezuelan Boundary Commission was formed between 1900 and 1905 for the final demarcation of the boundaries between Venezuela and the colony of British Guiana and signed in September 1907. In 1932, Venezuelan dictator Juan Vicente Gómez signed the triple confluence point at Mount Roraima as the border between Brazil, British Guiana and Venezuela. However, after the death in 1948 of Mallet Prevost, one of Venezuela's American defence lawyers, his legal representative made public a document revealing the secret negotiation that led to the dispossessory judgment. With this discovery, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Marcos Falcón Briceño went to the highest international instance of the UN in 1962 and denounced to the world that he considered the decision of the Paris Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 to be null and void. The claim was admitted and the Venezuelan contention was recognised at the international level, which led to the signing of the Geneva Agreement of 17 February 1966 between Venezuela, the United Kingdom and its colony of British Guiana (now Guyana), in which the latter two (the British metropolis and colony) recognised Venezuela's territorial claim. The Geneva Agreement is currently in force, in which the current governments of Guyana and Venezuela have agreed to use the figure of the good officiant to mediate between the two governments and find a satisfactory solution for the parties. Subsequently, the Jamaican Norman Girvan was chosen as mediator, who was accepted by the UN, but he died on 9 April 2014 without the figure of a good officiant currently existing between the two countries. 5) In 1962, Venezuela officially claimed the territory west of the Essequibo River as its own for the first time at the United Nations, alleging invalidity defects and what is known in international law as acts contrary to good faith on the part of the British government, as well as an alleged deal made by some of the members of the Paris Award. On 12 November 1962, the Venezuelan government presented the London government with ten points on which it based its claim: Excess of power (ultra petita), by decreeing freedom of navigation on the Amacuro and Barima rivers, which, according to international law, invalidates any arbitration award. Presentation of adulterated maps, according to Venezuela, by Great Britain in the Arbitral Tribunal. Absence of Motivation in the Arbitral Decision. The Tribunal awarded 17,604 km² to Great Britain, recognised as Venezuelan by the British government itself. The boundary line was allegedly imposed on the judges by the British government. The President of the Arbitral Tribunal coerced the judges to accept the British demarcation. This demarcation was a "compromise", as some British officials described it, according to Venezuela. Venezuela was deceived and the UK acted contrary to the good faith of international law. Venezuela was informed after the Arbitral Award made the decisions. The composition of the member countries of the Arbitral Tribunal. For the British, the Venezuelan argument was untenable because: All those who participated in the arbitral award had already died. Venezuela had accepted the arbitral award as "a full, factual, legal and conclusive settlement" Study of the documents revealed, according to the British, that Venezuela had no valid reason. Venezuela did not even attempt to prove its reasons for invalidating the Arbitral Award. On 2 February 1965, the Venezuelan State officially published for the first time the Political Map of the Republic of Venezuela, at Scale: 1:4,000,000, with the territories to the west of the Esequibo River known as the Esequiba Guayana, Zona en Reclamación, Territorio Esequibo as an unequivocal sign of its claim, recovery, vindication, unification, integration or annexation to the national territory from which it was severed by the Paris Award according to the judgement of 3 October 1899. 6) The Geneva Agreement was signed between Venezuela and the United Kingdom (on behalf of its then colony British Guiana) in Geneva (Switzerland) on 17 February 1966. It is a transitional agreement to reach a definitive solution to the boundary dispute, many define it as "an agreement to reach an agreement" and although in the Venezuelan interpretation it invalidates the 1899 arbitral award, the status quo derived from it is maintained. Therefore, the area under claim is under the authority of the Guyanese government until something different is resolved in accordance with the treaty. The first article of the document recognises Venezuela's contention that the decision of the tribunal that defined its border with British Guiana is null and void. By signing the document, the United Kingdom acknowledged Venezuela's claim and disagreement and agreed to find a practical, peaceful and mutually satisfactory solution. When Great Britain decided to grant independence to British Guiana, within the Commonwealth, on 26 May 1966, and named it Guyana, it would be a State Party, as established in Article 7 of the Geneva Agreement. Guyana therefore ratified the Geneva Agreement on the same day of its independence, thus recognising the Venezuelan claim to the territory on the western bank of the Essequibo River.
Finally, Severo Mallet Prevost and the other American lawyers who represented Venezuela were not "contracted" by the Venezuelan government, but rather put in place by the American government as mediators because the British government refused to allow Venezuela to have direct representation. Venezuela could not oppose, because that would have meant going directly to war with the UK, and the country was already worn out from its independence campaign against Spain. Unlike Guyana, Venezuela was not given independence as a gift, the people of Venezuela had to shed blood to achieve it. It would be interesting for you to read an excerpt from the controversial letter of Severo Mallet Prevost, which helped the international community to recognise the annulment of the Paris Arbitral Award and the recognition of the annulment by the United Kingdom and later by the government of Guyana in order to reach the agreement, still in force, of the Geneva agreement. MEMORANDUM BY SEVERO MALLET-PREVOST (Excerpt) "...Before going to Paris, Judge Brewer [American lawyer for Venezuela] and I stopped in London, and while there Mr. Henry White, Chargé d'Affaires of the United States, gave us a little lunch to which Lord Justice Major Russell [British lawyer] was invited. ...in the course of the conversation I ventured to say that decisions in international arbitrations should be based exclusively on legal considerations. Lord Russell immediately replied: "I entirely disagree with you. I believe that international arbitrations should be conducted on a broader basis and take into account international political issues. From that moment I realised that we could not count on Lord Russell to decide the border question on the basis of strict law. When we met in Paris ... I met Lord Collins [British lawyer] .... it appeared clearly that Lord Collins was sincerely interested in getting a full account of all the facts of the case and in determining the law applicable to them .... his whole attitude and the numerous questions he asked were critical of the British claims and gave the impression that he was leaning towards the side of Venezuela. Then ... the two British arbitrators returned to England and took Mr. Martens [Russian lawyer, judge in the arbitration] with them. When we resumed our posts ... the change in Lord Collins was visible. ... It seemed to us (I mean, to the Venezuelan defence) as if something had happened in London to produce such a change. ... one afternoon I received a message from Judge Brewer telling me that he and Judge Fuller [US lawyer for Venezuela] wished to speak to me. ... ... Judge Brewer got up and said to me very excitedly: "Mallet-Prevost, it is useless to continue any longer this charade of pretending that we are judges and you are a lawyer. Judge Fuller and I have decided to reveal to you in confidence what has just happened. Martens has come to see us and informs us that Russell and Collins are prepared to decide in favour of the Schomburgk line which, starting from Barima Point on the coast, would give Great Britain control of the main mouth of the Orinoco; and if we insist on starting the line from the coast at the Moroco River, he will side with the British and approve the Schomburgk line as the true boundary." "However," he added, "he, Martens, was anxious to obtain a unanimous judgment, and if we accepted the line he proposed, he would obtain the acquiescence of Lord Russell and Lord Collins....". What Martens was proposing was that the line... should begin at some distance south-east of Barima Point, so as to give Venezuela the dominion of the mouth of the Orinoco.... This is what Martens has proposed. (...)What we have to decide is whether we accept Martens' proposition or subscribe to a dissenting opinion. (...)From what Magistrate Brewer had just expressed and from the change we had all observed in Lord Collins, I became convinced ... that during Martens' visit to England a settlement had taken place between Russia and Great Britain. ... and that pressure had been brought to bear, in one way or another, on Collins to follow that course. (...)When I disclosed to General Harrison [American adviser] what had just happened ..., he described the conduct of Britain and Russia in terms which it is useless for me to repeat. His first reaction was to ask Fuller and Brewer to submit a dissenting opinion, but when he calmed down and studied the matter from a practical point of view, he said to me: "... if it should ever be known that it was in our power to preserve the mouth of the Orinoco for Venezuela and that we did not do it, we would never be forgiven. What Martens is proposing is iniquitous, but I don't see how Fuller and Brewer can do anything but agree. I agreed with General Harrison and let the magistrates know so.... The decision of the tribunal was, accordingly, unanimous; but, while it is true that it gave Venezuela the most strategically important sector in dispute, it was unjust to Venezuela and deprived it of a very large and important territory over which Great Britain had, in my opinion, not the slightest shadow of a right....".
NULLITY OF TREATIES (Extract) (a) Domestic law provisions concerning competence to conclude treaties. 1. The fact that the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law relating to competence to conclude treaties may not be invoked by that State as a defect in its consent, unless that violation is manifest and affects a rule of fundamental importance in its internal law. 2. A breach is manifest if it is objectively evident to any State proceeding in the matter in accordance with customary practice and in good faith. (b) Specific restriction on a State's powers to express consent If the powers of a representative to express the consent of a State to be bound by a given treaty have been subject to a specific restriction, the non-observance of that restriction by that representative may not be invoked as a defect in the consent expressed by it, unless the restriction was notified, prior to the manifestation of that consent, to the other negotiating States. (c) Error 1. A State may invoke an error in a treaty as a defect in its consent to be bound by the treaty if the error relates to a fact or situation which was assumed by that State to exist at the time of the conclusion of the treaty and constituted an essential basis of its consent to be bound by the treaty. 2. Paragraph 1. does not apply if the State concerned contributed by its conduct to the error or if the circumstances were such as to put it on notice of the possibility of error. 3. An error which concerns only the wording of the text of a treaty does not affect the validity of the treaty; in such a case article 79 applies. (d) Fraud If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, it may invoke fraud as a defect in its consent to be bound by the treaty. (e) Corruption of the representative of a State If the manifestation of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty has been obtained through the corruption of its representative, effected directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, that State may invoke such corruption as a defect in its consent to be bound by the treaty. (f) Coercion of a State's representative A manifestation of the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty which has been obtained by coercion of its representative by acts or threats directed against him shall be devoid of any legal effect. (g) Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force A treaty the conclusion of which has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter is void. (h) Treaties which are in conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens) A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it is in conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognised by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character. ("From the Treaty on the Law of Treaties". Vienna Conference of 23 May 1969, pp. 315 and 316).
Guyana needs to invest in expanding foreign relations with Caribbean, USA, Canada, England, Norway, Finland, and Sweden. Stop relation with china. Guyanese do not go to china, yet china has more influence in Guyana than western partners. Invest in reaching out to the Guyanese who settled abroad. If relations and investment in infrastructure is not forged, Venezuela with strong backings from china, Russia, and Iran will take over Guyana. Remember china and Russia own more than a substantial, over 90% of Venezuelan oil due to loans, concessions obtained. If incremental thoughtful steps are not taken, Guyanese will be forced again to settle abroad causing an irreparable brain drain. Anyways….future/destiny is in your hands.
Guyana need to shut out all these wicked nations . So that her and her citizens could live well and at peace with our resourses. We sit on a gold mine for a country. If yall think this is about china alone u still in slumber
The people of Nicaragua support Guyana 🇬🇾 in its territorial dispute. Venezuela cannot continue with this expansionist desire and let Guyana 🇬🇾 and the world know that if Venezuela attacks, Nicaragua will defend Guyana 🇬🇾 and its integral territory.
DE QUE DIABLOS HABLAS! Ese territorio le pertenece a Venezuela, cuando Venezuela se independizó de los españoles el esequibo le pertenecía y luego fue invadido por los británicos, así como hicieron con las Malvinas, Belice, etc.
Eres descerebrado o que? Cómo que expansionista? Expansionista les dirás a los británicos que ROBARON el territorio de Venezuela, porque en los tiempos españoles le pertenencian a la capitanía general de Venezuela, a ver si agarras un libro
😂😂No creo que toda Nicaragua piense así Primero hay que educarse, leer, investigar antes de opinar en un tema de cual se ignoran mucho detalles históricos
During may years of attending secondary school in Essequibo it was quite clear to me and I would assume that most of my colleagues have extensive knowledge of the dispute between our two countries, I could remember there was 3 maps of the the territory permanently displaced in the Academic building with some explanation…
Key words by veteran army Brigadier David Granger: 1/ PNC/APNU Dictator Burnham visited Venezuela and Venezuela President visited GUYANA in 1978. 2/ PNC/APNU Desmond Hoyte visited Venezuela. 3/ Cheddie went to Venezuela 4/ Janet went to Venezuela. Conclusion: All GUYANESE president visited Venezuela.
The Venezuelan State must understand that the bilateral dialogues and the good offices of the Geneva agreement have been exhausted and that the dispute is at another level, that is, Venezuela and Guyana will resolve the territorial dispute over the Essequibo with the ruling of the ICJ that is takes place in The Hague.
@@RichEKaye yeah the brits were the powerhouse back then. Yeah also a lot of Guyanese don't realise that the cuffy statue is actually commemorating a Dutch slave rebellion and not a British one.
YES, BUT YOU TELLING THEM "NOT A BLADE A GRASS" AND YOU ALLOWING THESE FUCKERS TO COME HERE IN LARGE NUMBERS AND YOU GIVING THEM FREEDOM AND TOO MUCH FREEDOM??? AND YOU GOT THIER FOODS AND AND CULTURE BEING SHARED HERE???? ITS MORE SERIOUS THAT WE THINK. They FEEL WE HAVE A RIGHT TO LET THEM IN.
Asians did it! 100 Chinese store in each Zip code. Lots of 99 stores in all states. All cell phones (most of them) connected to Asia Communist. TV shows pics two way cameras - no privacy in the home - bedrooms forget it. Security equipment yours where is it made and where is it from. Apps connected to street lights, home lamps, and other gadgets where were they made. Cars a zillion in all streets. Driving Communist in New York. Your watch might be the only good thing, unless that too was made in Communist China. Watch out for the MSG!
All of the oil wells & refinery allocated on the coastline so they know the wealth and riches is there but don't want Guyana to discover much less benefit from it. Venezuela is much larger richer well developed on populated militarized country compared to Guyana. They can easily invade take ownership willingly. The question is will the US protect or defende? Guyana 🇬🇾 much less so-called leaders Wil the stay & fight 🧐🤨🙄🤔😳 one thing for sure Uncle Sam will never enter a war knowing their enemy is just as powerful as they are with nuclear weapons that create mass destruction of life.
*THE crypto🚀 market has been favourable in the past weeks, I keep missing out on this opportunity, I'm most certainly very impatient how can I ever make a profit in the crypto market.*
@Freddie Gibbs Wow I know Mr Andrew Michael. I met him at a conference in carlifornia 2019 where he introduced us his business strategy, he helped me cover my student loans
After watching so many TH-cam tutorial videos about trading I was still making losses until Mr Andrew Michael started managing my investment now, I make $7200 weekly. God bless him his been a blessing to my family.
Querido Mudwata, eres bienvenido en Venezuela para que te informes un poco acerca del reclamo venezolano sobre nuestro Esequibo. Dear Essequiban, 🇻🇪 loves you all, hope to meet you soon, and remember #ElSolDeVenezuelaNaceEnElEsequibo !
Dear Venezuelan, I hope Maduro feeds you instead of spending Venezuelans money on weapons of mass destruction and coveting another country's natural resources
We evicted. Guyies. Gipsies from anakoko island very easy with mortar fire . We will come back for the rest or ezewuibo. Go home guyies to Pakistan India or Bengal. Or go to England
Guyana may need to consider the USA deal in build that military base in that region ...Salute to Granger for having a pair of balls to stand up against Venezuela .
I would like to know what Guyana is doing about all the legal immigrants in this country right now like wtf
An all money Guyana is making right now why are they not upgrading there military assets
Who agrees with me?
I want knw the same they gotta buy jets
@@Lev_ZTG We barely affording to construct modern roads and bridges. we can't maintain normal road vehicles. We can't manage multiple helicopters.How on earth are we managing jets.
Guyana don't even have a national Air line..do you know the cost to maintain a fighter aircraft fleet.. expensive
Me
@@jordonnelson5002 true
Yes we need to know what going on in our country too because this is a crucial time
It's great that Mud Wata is using his platform to share such an important issue that Guyanese should properly understand.
Porque no le dices a los guyaneses que mientras este vigente el acuerdo de ginebra guyana no puede tomar ninguna decisión en el esequibo hasta que la controversia este resuelta mientras tanto guyana no puede robar riquezas de nuestro esequibo y mucho menos el mar que no se ha delimitado así que estan por fuera de la ley
President Granger is right about lot of things
Thanks for the rundown Mud. Not one blade a grass skunt!
Hello from England. Iwas born in England of Guyanese parents Indian origin and proud of it.
I be been visiting Guyana since 1989 and briefly in my childhood. I agree with Mr Carl Dindilal and others who are committed to Guyana and people’s. I love this country, and Guyana Government should stop bowing down to the Chinese and other countries to entice government with their proposals to gain riches for themselves. The Chinese are good at this, and if you are drawn in hard to exit. You are right best to ask help from England, Germany, Netherlands, Finland, Norway, US and Canada.
These countries can set up sewage and water treatment plants like Thames water, Free medical (UK) Norway and Finland forestry protection & management, Germany all roads, road bridge rebuilds, complete recycling plant and reusable energy, Netherlands for all sea defence, canals, land reclamation from the sea and sluice gates. India can help with the sugar cane industry modernisation and agricultural sector. All this can also be achieved by using Guyanese work force and engineers, and at the same time getting countries with a wealth of expertise and providing training for the future of Guyana and Guyanese people.
One other comment STOP illegal people entering Guyana and sent them back. Carrying or the import of illegal substance like cocaine, heroin, cannabis etc which ruins lives should be dealt with severely as they do in Singapore. Keep Guyana drug free. Caricom countries welcome as long they have legal documents and skills that will benefit Guyana.
Some facts: The Dutch settled the land first but as a result of the Papal Bull of 1493 S. America was assigned to be divided up by Spain and Portugal outside of the land of Bernice and Demerara. The Dutch continued to expand territory however for nearly 100 years without Spanish protest. In 1834, the British (after inheriting the 3 colonies) wanted to demarcate the borders of British Guiana and had Robert Schomburgk, a German geographer, to mark the colony's borders - hence that diagonal line border with Venezuela (called the Schomburgk line). Venezuela disputed the line. USA (Grover Cleveland) got involved issuing the Monroe Doctrine and appointed attorney William L. Scruggs, who was later hired by the Venezuelan Government to negotiate on its behalf. Two Brits, two Americans on the behalf of Venezuela, and one Russian formed the tribunal. On October 3, the tribunal announced its award upholding Great Britain’s ownership of most of the claimed territory west of the Essequibo River but denying the British entitlement to the upper Cuyuni basin and an area of land on the eastern bank near the mouth of the Orinoco River. It was a unanimous vote. In 1949 (after his death) the memorandum by Mallet Prevost, one of the American jurists was published where he stated that the decision was unfair and that one of the judges were biased. This letter is used by Venezuelans (the jumbie they caught, to reignite the controversy). After Guyana gained independence and was a new state, now militarily weaker than Venezuela, Venezuela invaded Guyana’s half of Ankoko island and built a military airstrip. Things were generally peaceful thereafter until 2015 when Exxon struck liquid gold.
I will refute your alleged facts, with documented and contrasted data:
1) The Captaincy General of Venezuela, created by Charles III in 1777, included the territories of the former province of Guayana, which occupied the same Esquiba region. The struggle against Spain to penetrate the Caribbean and the north of the continent by the Dutch was tenacious in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, the 1791 Treaty of Extradition between Spain and the Netherlands recognised the "Orinoco colony" as part of the Hispanic territory bordering the Essequibo.
2) These areas are those that made up the colony of British Guiana, prior to its independence, for which Britain recognised the Essequibo River as its western boundary, mapped politically in its favour in 1938.
For its part, Venezuela has included the territory within its dominions since its first constitution of 1811, whose last reform was given in 1999, declaring in Article 10 that:
"The territory and other geographical spaces of the Republic are those that corresponded to the Captaincy General of Venezuela before the political transformation initiated on 19 April 1810, with the modifications resulting from treaties and arbitration awards not vitiated by nullity."
3) In 1814 Britain came into possession of the Dutch colonial territories of Demerara, Berbice and Essequibo. In 1822 Venezuela was forced to protest the continuous invasions of English colonists into Venezuelan territory. The Venezuelan Minister in London, Dr. José Rafael Revenga, on instructions from the Liberator Simón Bolívar, presented the official complaint to the British authorities in the following terms: "The settlers of Demerara and Berbice have usurped a large portion of land which according to the latest treaties between Spain and the Netherlands belongs to us on the side of the Esequibo River. It is absolutely indispensable," the Venezuelan diplomat concluded, "that these colonists either place themselves under the jurisdiction and obedience of our laws, or withdraw to their former possessions. Two years later, José Manuel Hurtado was appointed Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Colombia to the United Kingdom, replacing Dr. Revenga, with the special mission of obtaining British recognition. In 1831, British Guiana was established by order of King William IV of the United Kingdom. From that moment on, the British government encouraged the advance and establishment of settlers in the lands west of the Esequibo River, favoured by depopulation and the precarious situation of Venezuela, which was just beginning its institutional organisation after a long war of independence. Another factor was Britain's role as the world's hegemonic power in the second half of the 19th century, which gave it international and even military backing for its colonial expansion.
3) In 1835, Robert Hermann Schomburgk drew a boundary line between Venezuela and British Guiana from the Moruca River to the Essequibo covering 4290 km². In 1839, he drew a second line called North-South from the mouth of the Amacuro to Mount Roraima, covering some 141,930 km². The migration of British settlers to territories beyond the left bank of the Essequibo led to Venezuela's first claim against the UK. Negotiations began in 1844 with the proposal made by the Venezuelan representative, Alejo Fortique, based on the territory of the Captaincy General of Venezuela and the principle of uti possidetis iure, to recognise the Essequibo River as the boundary line, claiming with documents Venezuelan jurisdiction over those lands that had formed part of the former Province of Guiana. The British government proposed that the boundary line begin at the mouth of the Moroco River and continue along the Barima and Aunama rivers. This implied a border to the west of the Essequibo, and was not accepted by the Venezuelan government. To Venezuela's protests Daniel Florencio O'Leary responded, arguing that the Schomburgk Line was provisional, and still subject to review by the parties. On 22 November 1861, representatives of the Caracas oligarchy such as Nicomedes Zuloaga, Pedro Gual, Manuel Felipe Tovar, Juan José Mendoza, Francisco La Madrid, Federico Núñez Aguiar and others formed a commission with the aim of requesting the intervention of England to bring order to the uprising in exchange for handing over Essequiba Guyana, which General Páez firmly opposed. The conspirators had to go into exile in the West Indies. The greatest British expansion took place in 1888, when they claimed 203,310 km². The British always tried to penetrate Venezuelan territory as far as the Orinoco River.
4) On 2 February 1897 Venezuela and the United Kingdom signed the Arbitration Treaty of Washington D.C. by which they undertook to resolve the boundary problem through international arbitration. In 1899, the Paris Arbitral Tribunal was set up ad hoc and ruled in favour of the UK.
The five-member Arbitral Tribunal should have been composed of two representatives of Venezuela, two representatives of the United Kingdom and a fifth member as a neutral party. However, Venezuela - at the UK's request - had to accept that its representation would be in the hands of the United States; the US Congress chose the American jurists Melville Weston Fuller, Severo Mallet Prevost and Davis Josianh Brewer. The United Kingdom was represented by jurists Charles Baron Russell and Sir Richard Henn-Collins. The fifth member, who was to serve as an impartial party, was appointed by the four previous members and the Russian, Fyodor Martens, a professor at the British universities of Cambridge and Edinburgh and a permanent member of the Council of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire, was elected.
On 3 October 1899, the tribunal, by unanimous decision, ruled in favour of the United Kingdom after six continuous days of sessions, within the two-month period provided for in the Treaty. The ruling only favoured Venezuela in keeping the mouths of the Orinoco River and a portion of territory adjacent to it, while the UK was to take a large portion west of the 1,000-kilometre-long Esequibo River as far as the Venamo and Cuyuní Rivers.
On 4 October, José María Rojas, the only Venezuelan lawyer on Venezuela's defence team, protests the decision, along with four other US lawyers; on 7 October, Venezuelan President Ignacio Andrade protests. However, Venezuela only protested the final result of the arbitration without denouncing it (which it did much later, only in 1962) because it feared it would lose the mouths of the Orinoco River (Britain's greatest aspiration) and more territory in the event of an armed conflict if it did not accept the lines that had been resolved in the Award. Venezuela at that time was suffering a political and social crisis and its military strength was notoriously inferior to that of the United Kingdom, the world's leading colonial power at the time.
Subsequently, a Joint British-Venezuelan Boundary Commission was formed between 1900 and 1905 for the final demarcation of the boundaries between Venezuela and the colony of British Guiana and signed in September 1907. In 1932, Venezuelan dictator Juan Vicente Gómez signed the triple confluence point at Mount Roraima as the border between Brazil, British Guiana and Venezuela.
However, after the death in 1948 of Mallet Prevost, one of Venezuela's American defence lawyers, his legal representative made public a document revealing the secret negotiation that led to the dispossessory judgment. With this discovery, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Marcos Falcón Briceño went to the highest international instance of the UN in 1962 and denounced to the world that he considered the decision of the Paris Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 to be null and void. The claim was admitted and the Venezuelan contention was recognised at the international level, which led to the signing of the Geneva Agreement of 17 February 1966 between Venezuela, the United Kingdom and its colony of British Guiana (now Guyana), in which the latter two (the British metropolis and colony) recognised Venezuela's territorial claim.
The Geneva Agreement is currently in force, in which the current governments of Guyana and Venezuela have agreed to use the figure of the good officiant to mediate between the two governments and find a satisfactory solution for the parties. Subsequently, the Jamaican Norman Girvan was chosen as mediator, who was accepted by the UN, but he died on 9 April 2014 without the figure of a good officiant currently existing between the two countries.
5) In 1962, Venezuela officially claimed the territory west of the Essequibo River as its own for the first time at the United Nations, alleging invalidity defects and what is known in international law as acts contrary to good faith on the part of the British government, as well as an alleged deal made by some of the members of the Paris Award. On 12 November 1962, the Venezuelan government presented the London government with ten points on which it based its claim:
Excess of power (ultra petita), by decreeing freedom of navigation on the Amacuro and Barima rivers, which, according to international law, invalidates any arbitration award.
Presentation of adulterated maps, according to Venezuela, by Great Britain in the Arbitral Tribunal.
Absence of Motivation in the Arbitral Decision.
The Tribunal awarded 17,604 km² to Great Britain, recognised as Venezuelan by the British government itself.
The boundary line was allegedly imposed on the judges by the British government.
The President of the Arbitral Tribunal coerced the judges to accept the British demarcation.
This demarcation was a "compromise", as some British officials described it, according to Venezuela.
Venezuela was deceived and the UK acted contrary to the good faith of international law.
Venezuela was informed after the Arbitral Award made the decisions.
The composition of the member countries of the Arbitral Tribunal.
For the British, the Venezuelan argument was untenable because:
All those who participated in the arbitral award had already died.
Venezuela had accepted the arbitral award as "a full, factual, legal and conclusive settlement"
Study of the documents revealed, according to the British, that Venezuela had no valid reason.
Venezuela did not even attempt to prove its reasons for invalidating the Arbitral Award.
On 2 February 1965, the Venezuelan State officially published for the first time the Political Map of the Republic of Venezuela, at Scale: 1:4,000,000, with the territories to the west of the Esequibo River known as the Esequiba Guayana, Zona en Reclamación, Territorio Esequibo as an unequivocal sign of its claim, recovery, vindication, unification, integration or annexation to the national territory from which it was severed by the Paris Award according to the judgement of 3 October 1899.
6) The Geneva Agreement was signed between Venezuela and the United Kingdom (on behalf of its then colony British Guiana) in Geneva (Switzerland) on 17 February 1966. It is a transitional agreement to reach a definitive solution to the boundary dispute, many define it as "an agreement to reach an agreement" and although in the Venezuelan interpretation it invalidates the 1899 arbitral award, the status quo derived from it is maintained. Therefore, the area under claim is under the authority of the Guyanese government until something different is resolved in accordance with the treaty. The first article of the document recognises Venezuela's contention that the decision of the tribunal that defined its border with British Guiana is null and void. By signing the document, the United Kingdom acknowledged Venezuela's claim and disagreement and agreed to find a practical, peaceful and mutually satisfactory solution.
When Great Britain decided to grant independence to British Guiana, within the Commonwealth, on 26 May 1966, and named it Guyana, it would be a State Party, as established in Article 7 of the Geneva Agreement. Guyana therefore ratified the Geneva Agreement on the same day of its independence, thus recognising the Venezuelan claim to the territory on the western bank of the Essequibo River.
Finally, Severo Mallet Prevost and the other American lawyers who represented Venezuela were not "contracted" by the Venezuelan government, but rather put in place by the American government as mediators because the British government refused to allow Venezuela to have direct representation. Venezuela could not oppose, because that would have meant going directly to war with the UK, and the country was already worn out from its independence campaign against Spain. Unlike Guyana, Venezuela was not given independence as a gift, the people of Venezuela had to shed blood to achieve it.
It would be interesting for you to read an excerpt from the controversial letter of Severo Mallet Prevost, which helped the international community to recognise the annulment of the Paris Arbitral Award and the recognition of the annulment by the United Kingdom and later by the government of Guyana in order to reach the agreement, still in force, of the Geneva agreement.
MEMORANDUM BY SEVERO MALLET-PREVOST (Excerpt)
"...Before going to Paris, Judge Brewer [American lawyer for Venezuela] and I stopped in London, and while there Mr. Henry White, Chargé d'Affaires of the United States, gave us a little lunch to which Lord Justice Major Russell [British lawyer] was invited. ...in the course of the conversation I ventured to say that decisions in international arbitrations should be based exclusively on legal considerations. Lord Russell immediately replied: "I entirely disagree with you. I believe that international arbitrations should be conducted on a broader basis and take into account international political issues. From that moment I realised that we could not count on Lord Russell to decide the border question on the basis of strict law.
When we met in Paris ... I met Lord Collins [British lawyer] .... it appeared clearly that Lord Collins was sincerely interested in getting a full account of all the facts of the case and in determining the law applicable to them .... his whole attitude and the numerous questions he asked were critical of the British claims and gave the impression that he was leaning towards the side of Venezuela.
Then ... the two British arbitrators returned to England and took Mr. Martens [Russian lawyer, judge in the arbitration] with them. When we resumed our posts ... the change in Lord Collins was visible. ... It seemed to us (I mean, to the Venezuelan defence) as if something had happened in London to produce such a change.
... one afternoon I received a message from Judge Brewer telling me that he and Judge Fuller [US lawyer for Venezuela] wished to speak to me. ...
... Judge Brewer got up and said to me very excitedly: "Mallet-Prevost, it is useless to continue any longer this charade of pretending that we are judges and you are a lawyer. Judge Fuller and I have decided to reveal to you in confidence what has just happened. Martens has come to see us and informs us that Russell and Collins are prepared to decide in favour of the Schomburgk line which, starting from Barima Point on the coast, would give Great Britain control of the main mouth of the Orinoco; and if we insist on starting the line from the coast at the Moroco River, he will side with the British and approve the Schomburgk line as the true boundary." "However," he added, "he, Martens, was anxious to obtain a unanimous judgment, and if we accepted the line he proposed, he would obtain the acquiescence of Lord Russell and Lord Collins....". What Martens was proposing was that the line... should begin at some distance south-east of Barima Point, so as to give Venezuela the dominion of the mouth of the Orinoco....
This is what Martens has proposed. (...)What we have to decide is whether we accept Martens' proposition or subscribe to a dissenting opinion. (...)From what Magistrate Brewer had just expressed and from the change we had all observed in Lord Collins, I became convinced ... that during Martens' visit to England a settlement had taken place between Russia and Great Britain. ... and that pressure had been brought to bear, in one way or another, on Collins to follow that course. (...)When I disclosed to General Harrison [American adviser] what had just happened ..., he described the conduct of Britain and Russia in terms which it is useless for me to repeat. His first reaction was to ask Fuller and Brewer to submit a dissenting opinion, but when he calmed down and studied the matter from a practical point of view, he said to me: "... if it should ever be known that it was in our power to preserve the mouth of the Orinoco for Venezuela and that we did not do it, we would never be forgiven. What Martens is proposing is iniquitous, but I don't see how Fuller and Brewer can do anything but agree.
I agreed with General Harrison and let the magistrates know so.... The decision of the tribunal was, accordingly, unanimous; but, while it is true that it gave Venezuela the most strategically important sector in dispute, it was unjust to Venezuela and deprived it of a very large and important territory over which Great Britain had, in my opinion, not the slightest shadow of a right....".
NULLITY OF TREATIES (Extract)
(a) Domestic law provisions concerning competence to conclude treaties.
1. The fact that the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law relating to competence to conclude treaties may not be invoked by that State as a defect in its consent, unless that violation is manifest and affects a rule of fundamental importance in its internal law.
2. A breach is manifest if it is objectively evident to any State proceeding in the matter in accordance with customary practice and in good faith.
(b) Specific restriction on a State's powers to express consent
If the powers of a representative to express the consent of a State to be bound by a given treaty have been subject to a specific restriction, the non-observance of that restriction by that representative may not be invoked as a defect in the consent expressed by it, unless the restriction was notified, prior to the manifestation of that consent, to the other negotiating States.
(c) Error
1. A State may invoke an error in a treaty as a defect in its consent to be bound by the treaty if the error relates to a fact or situation which was assumed by that State to exist at the time of the conclusion of the treaty and constituted an essential basis of its consent to be bound by the treaty.
2. Paragraph 1. does not apply if the State concerned contributed by its conduct to the error or if the circumstances were such as to put it on notice of the possibility of error.
3. An error which concerns only the wording of the text of a treaty does not affect the validity of the treaty; in such a case article 79 applies.
(d) Fraud
If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, it may invoke fraud as a defect in its consent to be bound by the treaty.
(e) Corruption of the representative of a State
If the manifestation of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty has been obtained through the corruption of its representative, effected directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, that State may invoke such corruption as a defect in its consent to be bound by the treaty.
(f) Coercion of a State's representative
A manifestation of the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty which has been obtained by coercion of its representative by acts or threats directed against him shall be devoid of any legal effect.
(g) Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force
A treaty the conclusion of which has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter is void.
(h) Treaties which are in conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it is in conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognised by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.
("From the Treaty on the Law of Treaties". Vienna Conference of 23 May 1969, pp. 315 and 316).
Love history of my people!!
I'm not seeing prices for the hoodies and the rest of the items in your store and do you ship to the UK🇩🇲
Big up to mud wata knowing Guyana history👍!real PRESIDENT David A Granger dont negotiate with terrorists
Guyana needs to invest in expanding foreign relations with Caribbean, USA, Canada, England, Norway, Finland, and Sweden. Stop relation with china. Guyanese do not go to china, yet china has more influence in Guyana than western partners. Invest in reaching out to the Guyanese who settled abroad. If relations and investment in infrastructure is not forged, Venezuela with strong backings from china, Russia, and Iran will take over Guyana. Remember china and Russia own more than a substantial, over 90% of Venezuelan oil due to loans, concessions obtained. If incremental thoughtful steps are not taken, Guyanese will be forced again to settle abroad causing an irreparable brain drain. Anyways….future/destiny is in your hands.
Guyana need to shut out all these wicked nations . So that her and her citizens could live well and at peace with our resourses. We sit on a gold mine for a country. If yall think this is about china alone u still in slumber
China owns Guyana too through contracts, with all of those loans and construction they are doing in Guyana.
@@elisabethbenjamin2203 very true china owns 🇺🇸 too
We don't want no foreign relations with them. They need to come out of caribbean business
Good work we need to know what is going on
hell no we ain't giving up no mountain.. we ain't giving no tree we ain't giving up no river that belongs to we. I'm going to fight ...
The people of Nicaragua support Guyana 🇬🇾 in its territorial dispute. Venezuela cannot continue with this expansionist desire and let Guyana 🇬🇾 and the world know that if Venezuela attacks, Nicaragua will defend Guyana 🇬🇾 and its integral territory.
🇹🇹💪
DE QUE DIABLOS HABLAS! Ese territorio le pertenece a Venezuela, cuando Venezuela se independizó de los españoles el esequibo le pertenecía y luego fue invadido por los británicos, así como hicieron con las Malvinas, Belice, etc.
Eres descerebrado o que? Cómo que expansionista? Expansionista les dirás a los británicos que ROBARON el territorio de Venezuela, porque en los tiempos españoles le pertenencian a la capitanía general de Venezuela, a ver si agarras un libro
😂😂No creo que toda Nicaragua piense así Primero hay que educarse, leer, investigar antes de opinar en un tema de cual se ignoran mucho detalles históricos
Thanks for sharing
During may years of attending secondary school in Essequibo it was quite clear to me and I would assume that most of my colleagues have extensive knowledge of the dispute between our two countries, I could remember there was 3 maps of the the territory permanently displaced in the Academic building with some explanation…
Say what you want about Granger but his one of guyana's most educated leaders.
And hé have walked on his éducation.
@@persaudandre1280 A weak but the only PATRIOTIC President Guyana has ever had in the person of David Granger.
GN who else is here on time😍🇬🇾🇬🇾🇬🇾🙈😝😂😂
🇬🇾
Nah meh skunt
@@1mrshadow434 Really is joke u making or u serious🙂
@@odessadouglas2948 nah nigga
Thank you Mud ❤
All that mr granger said is true know your country
Really good content Mud.
Guyana need to take note
Key words by veteran army Brigadier David Granger:
1/ PNC/APNU Dictator Burnham visited Venezuela and Venezuela President visited GUYANA in 1978.
2/ PNC/APNU Desmond Hoyte visited Venezuela.
3/ Cheddie went to Venezuela
4/ Janet went to Venezuela.
Conclusion: All GUYANESE president visited Venezuela.
Not a blade of grass they getting ☄️☄️☄️☄️☄️
Thanks for the info
That’s should be a question to people in the streets
Good work Mud. Kudos.
I get cancer listening to granger voice .....he make sense and made great decisions
The Venezuelan State must understand that the bilateral dialogues and the good offices of the Geneva agreement have been exhausted and that the dispute is at another level, that is, Venezuela and Guyana will resolve the territorial dispute over the Essequibo with the ruling of the ICJ that is takes place in The Hague.
Certainly mud water is no dunce. Gt ppl need to pull they head out the sand and know these things
Queen Elizabeth should just come & solve this problem 🤔 since she colonized
leh maduro kerr he skunt
Who else thought mud was talkin about doggy
🇨🇦🇨🇦🇬🇾🇬🇾👍👍👍🙏🙏
We need a part 2
The British were called in to quell a slave rebellion that the dutch and Spaniards couldn't handle and
That's how the brits got a piece of the pie.
@@RichEKaye yeah the brits were the powerhouse back then.
Yeah also a lot of Guyanese don't realise that the cuffy statue is actually commemorating a Dutch slave rebellion and not a British one.
💥🤯 boom
We needs push people to like not just watch the vids
Venezuelan carry yoi skunt, not one blade of grass.
YES, BUT YOU TELLING THEM "NOT A BLADE A GRASS" AND YOU ALLOWING THESE FUCKERS TO COME HERE IN LARGE NUMBERS AND YOU GIVING THEM FREEDOM AND TOO MUCH FREEDOM??? AND YOU GOT THIER FOODS AND AND CULTURE BEING SHARED HERE???? ITS MORE SERIOUS THAT WE THINK. They FEEL WE HAVE A RIGHT TO LET THEM IN.
Good looking out mud
Guyana 🇬🇾 God bless you all Venezuela very bould face
Ready for some skunts🤟🆙
One man already sell out Essequibo and he pocket already full.
One man already sell out Essequibo and he pocket already full.
Hope Venezuela dont do to Guyana as Russia to Ukraine over this.
Expect us, we will you better live near the border with suriname
Venezuela can't do a thing. US is watching Guyana with the oil. That includes NATO! Not a good idea!
*Essequibo Belongs to Guyana 🇬🇾*
You dreamin
Real talk
Big up mud
Asians did it! 100 Chinese store in each Zip code. Lots of 99 stores in all states. All cell phones (most of them) connected to Asia Communist. TV shows pics two way cameras - no privacy in the home - bedrooms forget it. Security equipment yours where is it made and where is it from. Apps connected to street lights, home lamps, and other gadgets where were they made. Cars a zillion in all streets. Driving Communist in New York. Your watch might be the only good thing, unless that too was made in Communist China. Watch out for the MSG!
3 counties not colonies I think
I can't remember doh 😂🤣
All of the oil wells & refinery allocated on the coastline so they know the wealth and riches is there but don't want Guyana to discover much less benefit from it. Venezuela is much larger richer well developed on populated militarized country compared to Guyana. They can easily invade take ownership willingly. The question is will the US protect or defende? Guyana 🇬🇾 much less so-called leaders Wil the stay & fight 🧐🤨🙄🤔😳 one thing for sure Uncle Sam will never enter a war knowing their enemy is just as powerful as they are with nuclear weapons that create mass destruction of life.
Pídanle la bendición ah los gringos...y ni crean q será así de fácil es todooopoo
Hot jumbi lash gotta share.
the government of venezuela does not like what guyans hate them
Guyanese people get ready just in case
Hi! I'm latino learning about both sides of the story to understand it a lil better
te lo resumo venezuela siempre fue due~No
Boom in
🤣🤣🤣
what an irritating voice to hear
This is rich lol
Good ☝🏾mud
Talk de things we nah watch face
Skunt🤣🤣🤣
Thieves around the table
Lol
I think i didn't hear granger too well did he just say he wants to give half of Guyana to Venezuela?
Sounds great to me! Either that or war you decide
Wam u fine skunt wa going on
Second
????? Venezuela can invade Guyana you know first you need go to UN
First
They can try. State watching GUYANA oil. Too much for Venezuela to risk. Surrounded by US military bases already!
*THE crypto🚀 market has been favourable in the past weeks, I keep missing out on this opportunity, I'm most certainly very impatient how can I ever make a profit in the crypto market.*
There are platforms where you can invest and they trade your money. Then pay you profit either weekly or monthly. That's investing.
@Freddie Gibbs Wow I know Mr Andrew Michael. I met him at a conference in carlifornia 2019 where he introduced us his business strategy, he helped me cover my student loans
@Dave Mandell He's availability is on What's app⏬
😷😷†𝟷𝟺𝟸𝟹𝟹𝟿𝟽𝟷𝟻𝟻0
After watching so many TH-cam tutorial videos about trading I was still making losses until Mr Andrew Michael started managing my investment now, I make $7200 weekly. God bless him his been a blessing to my family.
Essequibo is from Venezuela
In your dreams
@@sarrannauth7660 in your dream
Querido Mudwata, eres bienvenido en Venezuela para que te informes un poco acerca del reclamo venezolano sobre nuestro Esequibo.
Dear Essequiban, 🇻🇪 loves you all, hope to meet you soon, and remember #ElSolDeVenezuelaNaceEnElEsequibo !
Dear Venezuelan, I hope Maduro feeds you instead of spending Venezuelans money on weapons of mass destruction and coveting another country's natural resources
Misión imposible ,Maburro abandono éso
First
Firsttt😎
Essequibo region was stolen from Venezuela by British thugs. Return the Essequibo to Venezuela.
We evicted. Guyies. Gipsies from anakoko island very easy with mortar fire . We will come back for the rest or ezewuibo. Go home guyies to Pakistan India or Bengal. Or go to England
Lol