|
|
|
The
Belize Position >
|
| 1.
|
History of the Settlement of
Belize: Origins of the Guatemalan Claim |
| |
|
Origins
of
the Settlement |
The original inhabitants of Belize
were the Maya, who continued to inhabit the territory
in scattered villages and communities after the
decline of their society. The Spanish encountered
the Maya in the 16th and 17th centuries, but failed
to permanently subdue them, as the Spanish never
settled the territory. |
| |
|
| |
By the middle of the 17th century, British
woodcutters established settlements in Belize,
and by the first quarter of the 18th century
they were importing Africans as slaves. In the
peace treaties of 1763 and 1783/1786, Spain
accorded to the British settlers the right to
cut and export timber in the area from the Hondo
to the Sibun River.
Spanish authorities (from Yucatan, NOT from
Guatemala) asserted their right to inspect the
settlement between 1787 and 1796, but the outbreak
of war in Europe in that year ended those visits.
A Spanish attack on the settlement in 1798 was
repulsed. Although Spain continued to claim
sovereignty, the British settlers established
de facto sovereignty over the treaty areas and
the unoccupied areas beyond during the first
years of the 19th century.
By 1821, when Spain was ousted from the Americas,
the settlers had long before penetrated as far
south as the Sarstoon River. As early as 1825
the British settlers affirmed that for upwards
of twenty years they had been in occupation
of the land up to the Sarstoon River to the
south and west to the Garbutt's Falls -- precisely
the area agreed to in the 1859 Treaty (see below).
Neither the United Provinces of Central America
(1821-1839) nor Guatemala, which declared its
independence in 1839, ever occupied that territory
nor exercised any sovereignty over it. In the
period up to 1859, the British continued to
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement,
further establishing administrative control
and implementing a comprehensive legal and legislative
system.
|
| |
|
| The
1859 treaty - The Border Defined |
In 1859, a treaty between Britain
and Guatemala defined the boundaries between Guatemala
and the Belize settlement: "beginning at the mouth
of the River Sarstoon in the Bay of Honduras,
and proceeding up the mid-channel thereof to Gracias
a Dios Falls, then turning to the right and continuing
by a line drawn direct from Gracias a Dios Falls
to Garbutt's Falls on the River Belize, and from
Garbutt's Falls due north until it strikes the
Mexican frontier. " By Article 7 of the Treaty,
both parties undertook to jointly use their best
efforts to establish communication by cart road
and rivers from Guatemala City to a point on the
coast near to the Belize settlement, as a means
of improving trade and relations between them.
|
| |
|
| The
boundary demarkated |
In 1933, the two countries, through
joint commissioners, placed concrete monuments
on parts of the frontier to form the boundary
line, as defined by the 1859 Treaty, between British
Honduras and the Republic of Guatemala. |
| |
|
| The
Guatemalan Claim |
But in 1940 Guatemala declared the
Treaty to be void, alleging failure to implement
article 7. A new Guatemalan Constitution in 1945
declared Belize to be Guatemalan territory. Since
then the claim has lingered. |
| |
|
| The
peopling of Belize |
From the early 19th century, meanwhile, history
fashioned a new people in the territory: neither
British nor Guatemalan, but Belizean. Already
by the time the Anglo-Spanish treaties were
signed more than 90% of the population was African
and Maya, not British, and the British minority
dwindled even further over the years with immigrants
from the British Caribbean and from Mexico and
Central America. During the early 20th century
nationalist sentiments took shape, and in 1950
the Belizeans, a distinct people with their
own culture, demanded independence from Britain.
Self-government was achieved in 1964, but full
independence was delayed until 1981 only because
of the Guatemalan claim to the territory.
Back
to Menu
|
| |
|
| 2.
|
The Essence of the Guatemalan
Claim |
| |
|
| The
old position |
Guatemala's claim to Belize has
been characterised by inconsistent positions.
Until recently, the claim was based primarily
on the alleged breach by Britain of the 1859 Treaty.
Their argument was that by this treaty Guatemala
"ceded" the territory of Belize to Britain in
return for an undertaking by Britain to build
the cart road referred to in Article 7; and that,
as Britain had failed to comply with this condition,
the Treaty had become void. The territory of Belize
therefore 'reverted' to Guatemala. |
| |
|
| The
new position |
Guatemala has now significantly changed its
argument. In October 1999 it set out its latest
position. No mention was made of the 1859 Treaty.
Instead, it rested its case on the 18th century
Treaties between Britain and Spain covering
the area between the Hondo and the Sibun Rivers.
Guatemala claimed that the area between the
Sibun River and the Sarstoon River was 'illegally'
occupied by Britain, and argued that the area
south of Sibun up to the Sarstoon River must
be "returned" to Guatemala together with all
the cayes which were not included in those Treaties.
The area thus claimed by Guatemala amounts to
over 12,000 square kilometres, which is more
than half of Belize's territory.
Back
to Menu
|
| |
|
| 3.
|
The Essence of the Belize Position |
| |
|
| |
Belize rests its case on two firm
pillars: the right of a people to self- determination
and the fact that Guatemala's claim is legally
untenable. |
| |
|
| Right
to Self - Determin-ation |
Beginning in 1961, elected representatives
of Belize
joined the British in attempting to negotiate
a settlement to the
dispute. In 1975, Belize decided to mount its
own campaign to
obtain the support of the world's nations, since
Guatemala, with the support of some Latin American
countries, spun the issue as a European power
usurping a Latin American country against the
wishes of the people.
In 1975 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution
affirming Belize's right to secure independence
with all its territory and declared that any
proposals emerging from negotiations between
Britain and Guatemala must respect this right.
In each following year, support for Belize's
independence and territorial integrity
grew.
Belize eventually gained the support of all
the Latin American
countries. In 1980, the UN resolution declared
that Belize should become independent by the
following year, and called on the UK, as well
as on the relevant organs of the United Nations,
to guarantee Belize's security and territorial
integrity. Support for this resolution was virtually
unanimous, and included all members of the Security
Council. No country voted against it. The Organisation
of American States (OAS) endorsed the resolution.
|
| |
|
| The
legal position |
Guatemala erroneously asserts that
the title to the territory
of Belize - whether north or south of Sibun -
automatically devolved on Guatemala through succession
from Spain. British title to the territory was
perfected through the process of acquisitive prescription,
which is a recognised means in International Law
for acquiring title to territory.
The rebellion against Spain in 1821 by its
colonies in Central
America did not change the position regarding
sovereignty over
Belize. While for their own purposes, inter
se, the countries of
Central American relied on the doctrine of uti
possidetis (by which the boundaries of the new
republics should be those of the Spanish provinces
they were succeeding), this did not affect the
position of other sovereign States like Britain,
for whom the question of sovereignty was determined
by traditional international law, which related
title to effective occupation.
|
| |
|
| Effective
Possession |
Long before 1821 British settlers
had gradually extended their settlements south
of the Sibun River towards the Sarstoon. To the
extent that the British settlers went beyond the
Anglo-Spanish Treaty limits, their actions affected
Spain, not Guatemala, because in international
law the rebellions against Spain were operative
only in the areas under control of the new States.
Spain's reaction to the British expansion was
one of acquiescence, and undoubtedly by 1839,
when the Guatemalan State was born, British presence
had crystallised into valid title. |
| |
|
No
Guatemalan
Presence |
The position might have been different had
there been any Guatemalan exercise of authority
or control over the areas in question. But there
was not. Guatemala never occupied, nor did it
ever exercise any control or jurisdiction over,
any part of the territory of Belize.
|
| |
|
| Long
established and accepted border |
The boundary defined by the 1859 Treaty was
subject to joint British/Guatemalan boundary
demarcation projects that culminated in 1933,
when a Guatemalan note stated that "the Government
of Guatemala accepts that the engineers of the
Colony of Belize proceed with the demarcation
of the boundary with Guatemala, precisely in
the place established by the Convention of 1859."
It is precisely that boundary, established
de facto in the early 19th century, agreed by
treaty in 1859, officially confirmed by Guatemala
as late as 1933, respected in fact by both sides
throughout all these years, that Belize accepted
and assumed when it became independent in 1981.
|
| |
|
| Too
late |
And as for Guatemala's attempt to declare the
1859 Treaty void, it must be noted that from
1859 until as late as March 1938, Guatemala
insisted on British compliance with the Treaty.
Two years later, and eighty years after the
Treaty, it declared the boundary treaty void!
International law cannot countenance such a
proposition.
Back
to Menu
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Overview of Developments Since
Independence |
| |
|
| The
need for continuing negotiations |
Even with the attainment of independence,
it remained important for Belize to resolve the
Guatemalan claim, since Belize depended on Britain's
defence guarantee for its security and since Guatemala's
non-recognition of Belize's sovereignty effectively
blocked Belize's involvement in certain organisations
such as the OAS. |
| |
|
| Serious
talks |
Guatemala, throughout the period
1954 to 1985, had been characterised by brutal
military dictatorships. In 1985, with the election
of a civilian government and the implementation
of a new Constitution removing the clause declaring
Belize to be Guatemalan territory, tentative approaches
between the two governments began to materialise.
In 1987 serious negotiations began focusing on
issues like the maritime boundary and economic
cooperation. The understanding developed that
the essence of a negotiated solution lay in Guatemala
accepting Belize's traditional borders and in
Belize agreeing to limit its rights to territorial
seas in the south. |
| |
|
| Breakthrough |
On August 14th, 1991 the Guatemalan
government recognised the right of the Belizean
people to self-determination. On August 16th,
the Belize Government introduced the Maritime
Areas Bill into its Parliament, allowing for the
future negotiation of Guatemala's access to the
high seas through its own territorial waters as
a sign of good faith by Belize. |
| |
|
| Recognition
of independence |
On September 5th, 1991 the Guatemalan
Government recognised the independence of Belize,
an act later upheld by the Constitutional Court
of Guatemala. On September 11th the two countries
announced their decision to establish full diplomatic
relations with immediate effect and to exchange
ambassadors. |
| |
|
| Retrograde
steps |
Some influential forces in Guatemala
were opposed to the recognition of Belize, and
Guatemala's claim to Belize was restated in 1994,
after Britain, assuming Guatemala's good faith,
retired its defence garrison from Belize. Belize
has only a very small Defence Force. In October
1999, Guatemala articulated its new position claiming
more than half of the territory. |
| |
|
| The
inadmissibility of territorial cession |
Any proposition that Belize relinquish territory
that has been in its undisturbed possession
for almost two centuries would be utterly against
the fundamental principles of International
law, and the family of nations would denounce
it as an unacceptable precedent.
Apart from the historical recognition in law
and in fact by Guatemala of the present boundaries,
recent statements and actions by the Guatemalan
government clearly demonstrate the solidity
of Belize's position:
- In July 1990, a meeting at the highest levels
between Belize and Guatemala agreed that their
land borders were as stated in the 1859 Treaty,
and that negotiations would be pursued to
agree on maritime boundaries. On the basis
of this, Guatemala formally recognised Belize's
sovereignty a year later, it being clearly
understood that it was recognising Belize's
sovereignty over its traditional land territory.
- In February 1992, the Foreign Minister of
Guatemala wrote a note of apology to his Belizean
counterpart after an advertisement for oil
exploration by the Guatemalan Ministry of
Energy and Mines in a trade journal erroneously
included Belizean territorial waters. The
Minister noted that his Ministry had not been
consulted, that it was an involuntary error,
and that it would not be repeated. Indeed,
a July 1992 issue of the ad. did not include
that area.
- In a joint statement of July, 1992, the
two governments agreed that any references
to their respective territories "will be based
on the existing reference monuments", i.e.
those placed by British/Guatemalan teams in
accordance with the 1859 Treaty.
- In a joint press release on 16 April, 1993,
the two governments referred to the previous
statement, and "agreed to jointly undertake
any repair work necessary, as has been done
in the past, and to clear an area of 50 feet
radius around each of the monuments."
- In technical talks on 7 November, 1997,
the Guatemalan
officials emphasised that Guatemala was not
looking for land cession, and that if Guatemala
were to win a legal case on the claim, compensation
would not involve the cession of land.
Given that history, the October 1999 letter
claiming all land south of the Sibun, or more
than half of Belize's territory, came as an
intolerable aberration, and must be recognised
as such by the international community. Belize
cannot therefore be expected to even consider
the possibility of any land cession.
|
| |
|
| Resort
to the ICJ or to Arbitration |
Guatemala has been lobbying international support
for its position that Belize should agree to
submit the dispute to the International Court
of Justice or to arbitration, but given the
history here outlined it is clear that Belize
should not be obliged to do so. Would anyone
countenance a demand by, say, Mexico, that the
territories of Texas and California be submitted
by the USA to the ICJ? And yet, at least Mexico
once had sovereignty and jurisdiction and occupation
over those territories, none of which Guatemala
ever had in respect of Belize.
Back
to Menu
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Recent Disturbing Developments |
| |
|
| Violations
of Belize's Sovereignty |
On 24 February 2000 elements of the Guatemalan
Armed Forces (GAF) entered Belizean territory
and, in a carefully planned operation, kidnapped
four members of Belize's security forces and
then purported to submit them to trial in Guatemalan
courts for illegal entry. This is the very first
time in our entire history that such a blatant
act of violation of sovereignty has occurred.
We are grateful to the swift actions of the
international community that resulted in their
release unharmed after a week.
What made the action especially egregious was
that it occurred at the very time that negotiators
from both States were in Miami to conduct the
first negotiations after the new government
of Guatemala took office in January 2000. The
negotiating session had to be cancelled. This
hostile act took place in the context of other
border incidents, when Belizean soldiers were
forced to defend themselves against armed intruders
from Guatemala.
On 24 April, 2000, elements of the GAF penetrated
deep into
Belizean territory. The Guatemalan Chargé
d' Affaires in Belize was summoned and handed
a strong protest note.
On 17 and 18 May, 2000, some 25 members of
the Guatemalan Armed Forces illegally entered
Belizean territory and approached two Belizean
villages. Near to the village of San Vicente,
personnel of the Belize Ministry of Works were
accosted by the Guatemalan soldiers and threatened
with detention if they did not stop working
on the road. The soldiers told them that Guatemalan
territory extended as far east as the village
of Pueblo Viejo, deep into Belizean territory,
and that this would be reflected on the new
Guatemalan maps.
|
| |
|
| Pattern
of Provocation |
We begin to note a very disturbing
pattern of provocation which is altogether novel
and which causes grave concern to Belize and to
countries of the region. This pattern must cease
immediately, if it is not to threaten the negotiating
process and the peace of the region. |
| |
|
| Belize
Issue Used to Divert Attention from Internal Problems
|
In the past, Guatemalan dictatorships used
the Belize issue to divert public opinion from
internal problems. Since the transition to democracy
began, this tendency has been on the decline.until
now. Belize welcomed the end of the civil war
in Guatemala and the transition to democracy,
but cannot feel comfortable with the new signs
of using the old tactics of the dictatorships
in even more dangerous ways. Guatemala no doubt
has its internal problems, but we cannot be
the victims of attempts to divert attention
from these problems at the cost of our peace
and security.
|
| |
|
| The
Guatemalan People want Peace |
And indeed it is notable
that the people of Guatemala also want peace and
also wish to show respect for the rights of others.
Encounters between civil society organisations
of Belize and Guatemala affirm the fact that the
people of Guatemala wish to have co-operative
and brotherly relations with Belizeans. They wish
to respect Belize's sovereignty and territorial
integrity and the right of its people to self-determination.
|
| |
|
| Belize
enjoys Unanimous International Support |
Belize's right to self-determination is likewise
steadfastly supported by the international community.
During this year, up to the time of writing,
the Non-Aligned Movement, the ACP/EU Joint Assembly,
CARICOM, the UK/Caribbean Forum and other international
bodies have declared their unflinching support
for Belize's independence and territorial integrity.
They have recognised that Guatemala's territorial
claim is not only unfounded and unjust, but
also anachronistic and dangerous to regional
peace and stability. At the dawn of this twenty-first
century, when we need to urgently tackle the
problems of poverty and underdevelopment, and
to do so conjointly, this is no time for senseless
revanchism, but rather a time for cooperation,
for integration and for solidarity.
Back
to Menu
|
| |
|
| 6. |
The Way Forward |
| |
|
| |
It is a mark of Belize's
good will and its desire to live in peace and
harmony with its neighbour that although it rightfully
recognises no merit whatsoever in Guatemala's
unfounded claim, it is willing to engage in negotiations
that will help Guatemala to finally renounce its
claim and engage with Belize and the region in
co-operative action for development. |
| |
|
| Maritime
Boundaries |
In particular, Belize
is willing to agree to forego some of its rights
under the International Convention on the Law
of the Sea in order to grant Guatemala permanent
access to the Caribbean Sea through its own territorial
sea, and to consider joint exploitation of its
EEZ resources with Guatemala as part of the settlement
of the dispute. The laws of Belize require that
any such agreement must first be submitted to
a referendum. Belize is willing to submit to procedures
established by the Convention to delimit the maritime
boundaries with Guatemala and Honduras if agreements
cannot otherwise be reached. A mutually satisfactory
solution to the maritime boundary should go a
long way towards normalising relations. |
| |
|
| Cooperation
Agreements |
Belize is likewise willing
to enter into a large number of cooperation mechanisms
for joint sustainable development projects. We
propose several measures to ease tension and build
confidence between our two peoples, including
putting into effect the previously agreed measures
to demarcate the borders, to engage in military-
to-military cooperation and to reinstate the Joint
Commissions that worked so well in the early 90s.
|
| |
|
| Central
American Integration |
Most significantly,
Belize is ready and willing to engage in serious
efforts to be part of the Central American integration
process. We are now in the process of applying
for membership of SICA (Sistema Centroamericana
de Integración) and BCIE (Banco Centroamericano
de Integración Económica), and expect Guatemala's
support for these initiatives. While maintaining
our membership in CARICOM and other regional organisations,
we see our future as inextricably linked with
Central America, and see a role for ourselves
as a link between the two sub-regions. |
| |
|
| Negotiations |
Belize and Guatemala
have now agreed on a process to pursue negotiations
aimed at a definitive resolution of the dispute.
These will take place under the auspices of the
OAS and with the help of facilitators of international
repute. Belize has also proposed the formation
of a Group of Friends (countries with an interest
to help the parties reach an accord) and other
measures to progressively build confidence and
bring the two sides together to work for common
goals of sustainable development and social justice.
|
| |
|
| Help
keep Belize Free |
But if negotiations are to proceed smoothly,
there cannot be repetitions of the abnormal
and disturbing incidents that have been occurring
recently. We therefore appeal to the international
community to assist both parties by:
- Calling for a stop to all provocative cross-border
actions and for the implementation of confidence
building measures.
- Affirming support for the territorial integrity
and sovereignty of Belize.
- Supporting the formation of a Group of Friends
to move the negotiating process forward.
- Supporting the negotiating process, where
necessary with economic cooperation projects.
Back
to Menu
Government of Belize June, 2000 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Schedule One
Summary of Legal Opinion of International
Law Experts:
E. Lauterpacht Q.C. & D.W. Bowett Q.C.
|
| |
|
| (i) |
The basic reliance of Guatemala
upon the doctrine of uti possidetis is unsound.
As a departure from the rules of international
law generally applicable to the determination
of title to territory, the concept of uti possidetis
can operate only between those successor States
of Spain in Latin-America which have agreed to
accept its operation. The concept cannot be invoked
for the determination of boundary disputes between
a State which is a successor to Spain and one
which is not. |
| |
|
| (ii) |
Even if the doctrine were applicable,
there is clear evidence that during the period
of Spanish administration the northern part of
the Territory was subject to the jurisdiction
of the former Spanish provincial authorities of
Yucatan (now in Mexico) and not of those who controlled
the area now in Guatemala. As regards the southern
part, while there is little evidence of administration
by Yucatan, there is no evidence of administration
by the province which became Guatemala. |
| |
|
| (iii) |
Consequently the title of Spain
to the Territory, which undoubtedly existed
before the beginning of the 19th century,
did not pass to Guatemala. Nor was it retained
by Spain for long after the rebellion of her Central
American colonies in 1821. Instead, British administration
of the Territory ripened into full sovereignty
over the area by virtue of the dereliction of
Spanish title from 1821 onwards leading to a vacuum
which was filled by British presence. Alternatively,
British presence in the area, giving rise to no
opposition from Spain, can be seen as the basis
of a prescriptive acquisition of title by Britain.
On either footing, British title to the
Territory was effectively established by 1859.
(emphasis added) |
| |
|
| (iv) |
In these circumstances, the 1859
Treaty between Britain and Guatemala cannot bear
the construction which Guatemala seeks to put
on it, namely, that it was a treaty of cession
of the Territory by Guatemala to Britain conditional
upon the use of best efforts to establish a communication
route. Instead, the Treaty must be read in conformity
with its wording, which indicates that it is a
treaty for the settlement of the boundary between
Guatemala and what was at that time already British
territory. |
| |
|
| (v) |
The fact that the terms of Article
7 of the 1859 Treaty have not been implemented
- though arguably amounting to a breach by Britain
of the Treaty - is in any event not a circumstance
which supports the claim by Guatemala to regard
the Treaty as at an end. |
| |
|
| (vi) |
However, even if the operation of
the Treaty were terminated, this could do no more
than reconstitute the status quo ante which, as
already stated, was one of British title to the
Territory. (emphasis added) |
| |
|
| (vii) |
In any event - and especially under
these conditions - there is no legal basis for
excluding the operation of the concept of self-determination
in accordance with standards currently applied
in the international community, with consequences
entirely adverse to the claim of Guatemala." |
| |
|
12. In their latest communication of October
1999, the Government of Guatemala has once again
proposed that as the controversy is of an 'eminently
juridical nature' it be submitted either to
international arbitration or to the International
Court of Justice. Such a proposal is unacceptable
to the Government of Belize for the reasons
explained below.
13. The Guatemalan claim is based on
the traditional rules of international law
- on succession to or non-fulfilment of treaties
of the 18th and 19th centuries. It fails to
take account of the contemporary international
law and the modern approach to the determination
of rights in territory. In particular, the Guatemalan
approach fails to pay due regard to the principle
of self-determination which has been adumbrated
by the United Nations General Assembly in its
various resolutions. Thus, the resolution of
14 December, 1960 (Resolution 1514(XV)), headed
'Declaration on the Granting of Independence
to Colonial Countries and Peoples, provided,
inter alia.
"2. All peoples have the right to self-determination;
by virtue of that right they freely determine
their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust
and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all
other territories which have not yet attained
independence, to transfer all powers to the
peoples of those territories, without any
conditions or reservations, in accordance
with their freely expressed will and desire,
without any distinction as to race, creed
or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy
complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or
total disruption of the national unity and
the territorial integrity of a country is
incompatible with the purpose and principles
of the Charter of the United Nations."
(emphasis added)
To the same effect was the 1970 Declaration
on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States.
14. More specifically, the concept of self-determination
has been applied to Belize in various resolutions
of the UN General Assembly. Thus, by Resolution
3432 (XXX) of 8 December 1975 (which was adopted
by an overwhelming majority), the Assembly -
"1. Reaffirms the inalienable
right of the people of Belize to self-determination
and independence;
2. Declares that the inviolability and territorial
integrity of Belize must be preserved;
3. Declares that any proposals for the resolution
of these differences of opinion that emerge
from the negotiations between the administering
Power and the Government of Guatemala must
be in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs
1 and 2 above."
This resolution was reaffirmed, in virtually
identical terms, on 1 December 1976 in Resolution
31/50 and again on 28 November 1977 in Resolution
32/32. The terms of these resolutions were particularly
directed to the issue of territorial integrity
of Belize which, it was emphasized, must be
preserved.
Apart from the General Assembly Resolutions,
the territorial integrity of Belize has been
massively endorsed by the international community
as evidenced by the repeatedly-expressed views
of the Commonwealth Heads of Government, the
Heads of State and Government of Non-Aligned
Countries and the Conference of the CARICOM
Heads of Government. As recently as 14 March
2000, the Conference of the CARICOM Heads of
Government at its meeting held in St Kitts and
Nevis, noted "with great dismay" that
Guatemala has reactivated its claim to Belize
and reaffirmed its 'unequivocal support for
the independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Belize, in accordance with its
long established and internationally recognized
borders.'
15. In conformity with the principle of self-determination,
Belize attained its independence from Britain
on 21 September 1981 with all its territory
intact. In the Preamble to the new Constitution,
the People of Belize declared that they required
polices of State 'which protect and safeguard
the unity, freedom, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Belize'. The territory of Belize
is defined in the Constitution itself and is
bounded by its long established borders. It
is the same territory which had become British
under International Law well before 1859 and
became vested in the State of Belize on the
attainment of Independence. It should be noted
that unlike Guatemala, Belize did not 'rebel'
against the colonial power but was lawfully
given Independence by Great Britain in keeping
with the United Nations Resolutions on the right
to self-determination of all Peoples.
16. Belize has now been a member of the United
Nations for 19 years and its independence has
been universally recognized by the international
community. Even the Government of Guatemala
in a press release issued on 14 August 1991
which, coincidentally, was transmitted to the
Secretary General of the United Nations by the
then Permanent Representative of Guatemala,
Dr Francisco Villagran, (who is now Legal Counsel),
expressly recognized the right of the people
of Belize to self- determination. This was followed
in September 1991 by Guatemala recognizing 'the
independent State of Belize' and the decision
to establish full diplomatic relations. In a
joint communiqué issued in Guatemala
City on the 16 September 1991 on the occasion
of the visit of Belize's Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the representatives of Guatemalan Government
stated that 'the recognition of Belize as an
Independent State resulted from President Serrano's
foreign policy which is framed with the highest
respect for the norms of international law and
his desire to achieve peace, stability and progress
throughout the Central American region.'
17. In the light of the sequence of events
set out above, it is wholly unrealistic and
illogical for Guatemala to maintain its anachronistic
claim against Belize and expect the Government
of Belize to agree to a 'juridical' solution
of the dispute. The inviolability and territorial
integrity of Belize has been sanctioned by as
august a body as the General Assembly of the
United Nations which declared as long ago as
1975 that 'any proposals for the resolution
of differences with Guatemala must preserve
the territorial integrity of Belize'. As the
Prime Minister of Belize said in a press release
issued on 5 February 2000, 'there is no question
of engaging in arbitration with the Republic
of Guatemala or to pursue international adjudication
over Belize's territory.'
THE WAY FORWARD
18. Belize appreciates Guatemala's need to
have access to the high seas through its own
territorial waters. It was for this reason that
the Belize Maritime Areas Act of 1992, while
declaring a territorial sea of 12 miles in accordance
with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,
voluntarily restricted the territorial sea limits
to the existing three miles in the area from
the mouth of the Sarstoon River to Ranguana
Caye (Belize's southern boundary with Guatemala).
The Act declared that 'the purpose of the limitation
of the territorial sea from the mouth of the
Sarstoon River to Ranguana Caye …….
is to provide a framework for the negotiation
of a definitive agreement on territorial differences
with the Republic of Guatemala.' It is further
provided in the Act that 'any such agreement
…. shall be put to a referendum by the
electors for their approval or otherwise, and
if approved by a majority vote, shall form the
basis for the final delimination of the territorial
sea in the area of the sea from the mouth of
the Sarstoon River to Ranguana Caye.'
19. Belize stands ready and willing to enter
into bilateral negotiations with Guatemala to
delimit the territorial sea with a view to allowing
Guatemala unrestricted access to the high seas.
In fact, this was proposed during the Technical
Meetings between the two sides held in 1997
and 1998 and was received with some enthusiasm
by the Guatemalan delegation. The UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea, of which both Belize
and Guatemala are members, contains its own
mechanism for resolving differences and Belize
will have no objection to submitting to procedures
established by the Convention to delimit
the maritime boundary if a bilateral agreement
cannot otherwise be reached. Belize believes
that a satisfactory solution of the maritime
boundary will go a long way towards normalizing
relations with the Republic of Guatemala.
20. As for the recent border incidents which
have somewhat strained the Belize-Guatemala
relations, Belize proposes the establishment
of joint commissions to monitor the situation
and to put into effect measures to prevent such
incidents in the future.
CONCLUSION
21. The Guatemalan claim to Belizean territory,
in whatever form, is archaic and runs counter
to the expressed will of the international community.
Any proposal to refer the dispute to arbitration
or international adjudication is a direct attack
on the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of Belize and cannot be entertained. While the
world has just entered the 21st century, Guatemala
is still advancing the age-old arguments to
support its unfounded claim, altogether ignoring
the march of history and the development of
contemporary international law with its
concomitant principle of self determination
of all Peoples. Belize seeks the support of
the international community in its fight against
the latest Guatemalan demand, while expressing
its readiness at all times to enter into bilateral
negotiations with Guatemala to advance the cause
of peace in conformity with the United Nations
Charter.
Back
to Menu
|
|
|
|
|
