Distinguished Secretary General and Facilitators, His Excellency the Foreign Minister of Guatemala and members of the Guatemalan delegation:

The Belize delegation’s oral presentation is in keeping with the procedures for the statement of our position and our refutation of Guatemala’s territorial, maritime and insular claims to Belizean territory, as defined in the Agreement of February 7, 2001. In accordance with that Agreement, we submitted our response to Guatemala’s Statement of Claim in terms that were appropriate to Guatemala’s statement. Their presentation was framed in legal terms; our Response was framed in legal terms. Their Reply is also framed in legal terms, although they attempt to take us to task for stating very clearly what we know the legal position to be.

Let us be clear on this matter: we are not attempting to limit or re-define the functions of the Facilitators, nor are we being intransigent, as the Guatemalan Reply insinuates. Rather, we are motivated by the clear words of the Terms of Reference of the Facilitators, agreed by the Parties on 20 July, 2000, where it states at paragraph 3.1 that the parties are to submit documents and information to aid the Facilitators in identifying specific issues in dispute between the two States.

Guatemala’s Statement specified those issues which it relies on to sustain its claim to the whole of Belize and its demand to be given more than half of our territory. We in turn specifically and, I submit, conclusively, refuted all the grounds on which Guatemala relies to sustain its totally unfounded claim. If for so doing they get some satisfaction by suggesting that we are intransigent, so be it. The international community, for twenty-five years, has not only supported our right to self-determination and territorial integrity but has insisted that, in order not to violate the hallowed international principle of the stability of boundaries, we should maintain our territorial integrity, and indeed the United Nations General Assembly has called on the relevant organs of the UN “to guarantee [Belize’s] security and territorial integrity” after its independence. [Resolution 35/20 of 1980, para.7].

That international community knows that Belize has been extremely patient with the spurious and anachronistic claim of the Governments of Guatemala to its territory, and that Belize has been trying for many years in good faith to find a peaceful solution to the dispute. That international community knows that on many occasions Guatemala has agreed to solutions by which they recognized Belize’s territorial integrity, only to later renege on those commitments.

That international community would never give the slightest credence to Guatemala’s ingenious charge that Belize is unwilling to give serious consideration to the suggestions of the Facilitators aimed at reaching a definitive settlement. At the same time, as that international community has repeatedly and solemnly declared, any such settlement must ensure the preservation of the inviolability and territorial integrity of Belize [UNGA Resolution 3432 of 1975, para. 5]. In making clear to the Facilitators that we cannot, therefore, violate that mandate from the world community, we are simply restating the position, so that the Facilitators may recognize the limits of the courses of action open to all of us if we are not to violate the clear mandate of the United Nations.

And let us also be clear about the process in which we are presently involved: Belize takes these proceedings very seriously; this is not a game for us, nor is it some nice legal match. We recognize that what we have here is a mortal threat from a militarily much more powerful neighbour that blatantly declares its intention to grab more than half of our territory, without regard to the rights of the people on that territory, without regard to the rights of our nation solemnly reaffirmed by the United Nations, without regard to the most hallowed principles of international law. In this context, we take great comfort in the mandate given to the relevant organs of the UN to guarantee our security and territorial integrity.

Of course we want a peaceful and just solution. Of course we will give the most serious consideration to whatever just proposals are made by the Facilitators. Our very existence in peace and security depends on a just and lasting solution. It was famously said with regard to a village in a war in the last century that it was destroyed in order to save it. Please do not try to submit us to the same twisted logic, to suggest that we must cut off our country from the waist down in order to live in peace.

At the same time, we are heartened by certain admissions in the Guatemalan Reply. We seem to be in agreement on the position that maritime boundaries depend on land boundaries, and therefore that those cannot be determined until we settle the question of the territory. Guatemala does not deny the existence of the Treaty of 1931, and it recognises the validity of the newly developed principle of what we might call uti possidetis universalis, a principle that we adopt and champion. These are positive steps that may begin to point the way forward for the Facilitators to propose solutions based on agreed positions of the Parties. I propose during tomorrow’s sessions to make more concrete proposals for the benefit of the Facilitators, but for this Presentation we will follow the agreed procedure and make a clear statement of our own position and a clear refutation of Guatemala’s positions.

Our presentation will be made in several parts, as follows. Firstly, I will state the Belize position in accordance with customary international law. Next, the distinguished British Queen’s Counsel, Edward Fitzgerald, will address the matter of the Treaties. Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay will then explain our position with regard to uti possidetis, and he will also address the questions of the insular and maritime claims. Ambassador Fred Martinez will deal with the very important points on self-determination and the determinations of the world community in the United Nations, and Attorney-at-law Janine Coye will explain the legal implications of the UN resolutions in terms of the link between self-determination and territorial integrity. I will then make some concluding remarks. In making our presentations, we will not repeat the copious evidence we already submitted in our Response and accompanying Annexes, but simply summarize our main ideas. We know that the Panel will read those documents as integral parts of these our submissions.

Back to Menu