In the mid 1880s gold was discovered in the disputed area and the controversy rose quickly to world-class status with Venezuela demanding that their claims be honoured. Britain, in return, made it very clear that she had no intention of removing herself from the disputed land.
This terse dismissal pushed Venezuela into an impassioned plea to the United States to defend a fellow American republic against this European bullying. In the view of Venezuela the Monroe Doctrine had pledged the United States to just such a defence, more so, what reason could there be for them not enforcing it?
Despite its refusal to be involved in the issue in 1877, the policy of the United States by 1886 began to take a decisive turn when it offered advice to the British Government to solve the issue. By then, the United States had achieved great economic strength and international political stature, and many leading American politicians viewed their country as a major competitor to Great Britain in the field of international politics.
In 1895, Grover Cleveland, who was then serving a second term as President, realised that his administration was losing popularity especially among western and southern farmers and workers everywhere in the country. He and his Secretary of State, Richard Olney, in an attempt to divert attention from the domestic problems that faced the country, decided to adopt a vigorous foreign policy. They agreed, amongst other things, to support the Venezuelan side in the boundary dispute with Great Britain.
In February 1895 an act passed unanimously through the Houses of Congress urging Venezuela and Britain to settle the dispute by arbitration. This act by the US Congress gave the Venezuelans what they had wanted since 1877 – full American support of Venezuela.
With Cleveland’s approval, Olney prepared a statement of the case in July 1985 which was presented to the British Government. In his statement Olney protested vehemently against the enlargement of Guyana at the expense and defiance of Venezuela. Implicit in his text was the assertion that Britain had already violated the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. (The Monroe Doctrine declared that any attempt by a European power to control any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the U.S.) Olney stated, with no justification, that the Monroe Doctrine had the full status of international law.
Britain, already occupied with colonial problems in South Africa, finally responded in December of 1895. The Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, countered Olney’s contentions, refuting Olney’s assertion that the Monroe Doctrine was applicable to the border dispute. Going further he asserted that the only parties competent to decide whether arbitration was "a suitable method of procedure ... are the two parties whose rival contentions are in issue. The claim of a third nation, which is unaffected by the controversy, to impose this particular procedure on either of the two others, cannot be reasonably justified and has no foundation on the law of nations".
Buoyed by the support at home for American intervention in the dispute Cleveland responded with a special address to the United States Congress in which he dealt with the border dispute.
He appointed a commission to determine "what is the true divisional line between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana and declared that following the report of the commission, "it will, in my opinion, be the duty of the United States to resist by every means in its power, as a wilful aggression upon its rights and interests, the appropriation by Great Britain of any lands or the exercise of governmental jurisdiction over any territory which after investigation we have determined of right belongs to Venezuela. In making these recommendations I am fully alive to the responsibility incurred and keenly realize all the consequences that may follow."
Given that his speech was seen as a direct threat of war should Britain not comply with Venezuelan demands American military forces were put on combat alert. For a few weeks the work of the Commission was the leading news item in British and American newspapers.
In the United States the speech was received with diverse reactions. In some parts there was huge support for war on the British whilst in others it was felt that Cleveland had been unnecessarily extreme and provocative.
Regardless of public opinion, business circles in the United States were deeply alarmed over the possibility of war between the United States and Great Britain. As a result, there was panic selling in the Wall Street stock exchanges in New York following the President's special message to Congress.
Realistically Britain, already faced with a state of war in South Africa, had no intention of having any violent confrontation with the United States. The British Government, therefore, stepped up its exchange of diplomatic letters with the United States and Venezuela with the aim of bringing an early end to the dispute. Cleveland, similarly did not really want to go to war over what he viewed as a ‘half century old surveyor’s mistake’. When London agreed to refer the matter to an international tribunal the Cleveland administration declared victory for itself and its liberal interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. By 1899, when the panel awarded most of the land in question to the British, the dispute had largely been forgotten.
The escalation of this dispute by the support that Cleveland gave to Venezuela and the decision made by Britain to placate the Americans made it apparent that there had been a notable shift in world power. Britain’s decision to placate America whilst continuing its difficulties with the Germans in South Africa also sowed the seeds of the long-standing alliance between Britain and the United States.
Reference sources:
The United States in the World – Volume 1 H.W.Brands
Encyclopaedia Britannica
The world factbook – Venezuela CIA
American Diplomacy in the 20th Century State Magazine
‘guyanaca.com’
Diane Bachofer
June 2002
