THE TREATMENT OF THE BELIZE QUESTION IN THE UNITED NATIONS,
1945-1981

Click here for Appendix II

1. The question of Belize was regularly considered by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (the "Committee of 24"), the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, and the General Assembly in plenary session, from the inception of the United Nations until the independence of Belize in 1981.

2. The context of this consideration was the transmission of information by the United Kingdom on non-self-governing territories for which it was responsible. It was the practice of Guatemala on each occasion when the report of the Secretary-General in which reference was made to such information provided by the United Kingdom in respect of British Honduras to enter a reservation stating that Guatemala did not recognise British sovereignty over this territory. Britain on each occasion stated that it did not accept the Guatemalan position.

3. In the course of that repeated and extended consideration, Guatemala expounded its claims to the whole, or, more often and fully, the south, of the territory of Belize, setting out the arguments about the incursions of the British colonists and colonialism, uti possidetis, and the non-performance by the United Kingdom of its obligation to construct a cart road under the 1859 Treaty and the consequent nullity of that Treaty, considered in the body of the Opinion. The United Kingdom for its part, and spokesmen of Belize as well, responded fully to Guatemala's contentions. The arguments of Guatemala initially attracted a measure of support among some other Central American States (apart notably from Mexico), as well as a few South American States and the Inter-American Juridical Committee, whereas a much larger number of States, led by those of the Caribbean, gave full support to the position of the United Kingdom and Belize. But in the end it was Guatemala alone that failed to support resolutions affirming the "territorial integrity" of Belize, "inviolable" and "intact" within its traditional borders, and Guatemala alone that voted against the admission of Belize to membership in the United Nations. Belize was admitted as a Member of the United Nations in 1981, having acceded to statehood on 21 September 1981. While the resolution admitting it does not refer to the geographical extent of the State so admitted (nor do resolutions admitting other Members), antecedent resolutions make it plain that, in the view of virtually every Member of the United Nations apart from Guatemala, the borders of Belize are those that obtained under British rule. In the light of these resolutions and the debates that led to their adoption, it may be concluded that the international community recognizes the State of Belize as comprising the whole of the land territory which Belize maintains that its borders encompass.

4. The United Kingdom accorded Belize full internal self-government in 1964. As
early as 1961, the United Kingdom announced that Belize could become independent when it so wished. But independence was delayed by Guatemala's position that its territorial claims against Belize must be settled before a change in the status of Belize, a position that was accompanied by threats to use force to preserve what it saw as its rights. That position became increasingly unacceptable to the great majority of the Members of the United Nations, as demonstrated in a series of resolutions adopted in 1975 and thereafter.

5. General Assembly Resolution 3432 (XXX) of 8 December 1975 provides:

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of Belize,

Having examined the relevant chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,

Having heard the statements of the representatives of Belize,

Reaffirming the principles established in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples set out in its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, in particular the principle that all peoples have the right to self-determination, by virtue of which right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,

Firmly convinced that the principles referred to above apply to the people of Belize with no less force than to the people of other colonial Territories,

Noting the firm desire of the Government and people of Belize, which has been frequently expressed for many years past, to exercise their right to self-determination and to proceed to independence as soon as possible in peace and security and with their territory intact,

Bearing in mind the repeated assurances by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island, as the administering Power, that it stands ready, in accordance with resolution 1514 (XV), to take the formal steps necessary for Belize to exercise its right to self-determination and independence,

Regretting that certain differences of opinion between the administering Power and the Government of Guatemala concerning the future of Belize have hitherto prevented the people of Belize from exercising their right to self-determination and independence in peace and security, in accordance with their freely expressed wishes,

Considering that these differences of opinion can and should now be speedily resolved by negotiations carried out in close consultation with the Government of Belize and in full acceptance of the principles referred to above,

     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. Calls upon all States to respect the right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity and to facilitate the attainment by them of their goal of a secure independence.

     4. Calls also upon the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the administering Power, acting in close consultation with the Government of Belize, and upon the Government of Guatemala to pursue urgently their negotiations for the earliest possible resolution of their differences of opinion concerning the future of Belize, in order to remove such obstacles as have hitherto prevented the people of Belize from exercising freely and without fear their inalienable right to self-determination and independence;

     5. Declares that any proposals for the resolution of these differences of opinion that may 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;

     6. Requests the two Governments concerned to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-first session on the progress made in implementing the present resolution;

     7. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to continue its examination of the question.

6. It will be observed that in this resolution the General Assembly affirms that the people of Belize "have the right to self-determination"; notes that that people and their Government wish to exercise that right to proceed to "independence as soon as possible in peace and security and with their territory intact"; considers that any resolution of differences between the administering Power and Guatemala should be speedily resolved "in full acceptance" of the foregoing principles; reaffirms "the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination and independence"; declares that "the inviolability and territorial integrity of Belize must be preserved"; calls upon all States to respect that "territorial integrity"; and declares that any proposals for resolution of differences with Guatemala "must be in accordance" with the foregoing provisions.

7. This resolution was adopted after exchanges in the Special Committee and the Fourth Committee that lend its provisions particular significance. In a letter of 5 November 1975, Guatemala asserted that Belize "forms part of the territorial integrity and national unity of the Republic of Guatemala". A note verbale attached to that letter contended that Belize is "a Territory illegally occupied by the United Kingdom...on the basis of no right other than the precarious right of usufruct limited to the cutting of timber in a small area, which, however, was subsequently extended illegally to areas that affect the national territorial, geographical and economic integrity of Guatemala..." That note challenged the competence of the General Assembly to adopt a resolution passing upon the merits of Guatemala's differences with the United Kingdom.

8. Guatemala further transmitted a copy of a note of 8 November 1975 to the
Organization of American States which maintained that, "The territory of Belize is part of the Guatemalan nation and an integral part of its territory...".

9. In reply, the Premier of Belize, Mr. George C. Price, maintained that Belize was confronted with either becoming free or condemned to choose between indefinite prolongation of colonial rule or "dismemberment and the imposition of a new colonialism". He rehearsed the weaknesses of Guatemala's "anachronistic claim" and observed that the existing boundaries had been "recognized and defined by a Convention concluded between Great Britain and Guatemala in 1859". Eighty years later, however, Guatemala alleged that breach of a conjoint obligation to build a road between Guatemala City and the Atlantic coast caused the entire Convention to lapse. Guatemala's claim was "entirely fictitious, unfounded and unjust". "The only issue that might arise was between the United Kingdom and Guatemala concerning the failure to build a cart-road as stipulated in the 1859 Convention. He did not see why the Belizeans should have to pay the price of the unfilled promises of a century earlier by giving up their independence". Guatemala's proposal that Belize should surrender a substantial part of its territory as the price for the independence of the remainder was in "direct violation" of the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity clearly set out in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Paragraph 6 of that Declaration provides that, "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity or territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." Thus Mr. Price submitted that, because the Declaration speaks of the territorial integrity "of a country, not of Member States," it "was intended to apply equally to non-independent countries and help them to move forward to independence with their territory intact. The intention was to prevent the dismemberment of such countries before they attained independence." There was no question of the dismemberment of Guatemala; "Belize had never been a part of Guatemala, nor had it ever been governed or administered by the Guatemalan Government". Mr. Price concluded that "only a categorical affirmation by the United Nations of their rights to self-determination and territorial integrity would break the deadlock and permit Belize to go forward to a secure independence".

10. A no less significant predicate for the interpretation of the resolutions of the
General Assembly affirming the "territorial integrity" of Belize was provided by the representative of the United Kingdom, Mr. Richard. Deploring "the shadow cast by a neighbouring country, which claimed the whole of Belize as part of its own national territory", Mr. Richard maintained, first, that "Guatemala accepted that it had at no time physically occupied the territory currently called Belize, nor had it ever exercised any direct authority over the Territory since the foundation of the Republic of Guatemala in 1821". Nor indeed had Spain, the previous imperial Power, "effectively occupied the Territory for many years before that". Second, Guatemala and the United Kingdom had signed a boundary Convention in 1859, which defined the limits of what was currently Belize. That was not a treaty of cession but a boundary treaty constituting "a clear recognition by Guatemala of the pre-existing frontier and a pre-existing British sovereignty over Belize". Third, in the Convention, the two Parties had agreed "conjointly to use their best efforts" to ease communications between Guatemala City and the Atlantic coast by means of either a road or river link. The United Kingdom had used its best efforts, offering to pay towards the construction of a road, and in 1863 the two sides had signed a convention to that effect, unfortunately never ratified by either side. In 1931, Guatemala and the United Kingdom concluded an exchange of notes which had fixed on the ground the terminal points of the frontier as defined in the 1859 Convention. Again there was no issue as to United Kingdom sovereignty over Belize. Yet in 1939 and 1946, Guatemala had suddenly produced a claim to Belize on the grounds that the 1859 Convention had been breached, that the Convention itself was invalid and therefore, that the United Kingdom had no sovereignty over the Territory. A gap of 76 years would seem to be a lengthy delay in the prosecution of such a claim. Guatemalan demands that Belize become an associated state of Guatemala, or cede a substantial part of its territory to Guatemala, were unacceptable and incompatible with the principle of self-determination. But arrangements for the unimpeded access of Guatemalan goods by land and sea, free-port facilities, and joint exploration and exploitation of territorial waters, were possibilities.

11. The representative of Guatemala, Mr. Skinner Klee, in the course of the same debate in the Fourth Committee, set out what he saw as the history and elements of Guatemala's case. He challenged the competence of the General Assembly to pass upon a legal dispute between two States; Belize was not a colony properly so-called, but part of Guatemala and hence governed by paragraph 6 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples which precluded the dismemberment of a country, in this case, Guatemala. In any event the General Assembly should be informed of the essentials of Guatemala's claims, which he proceeded to set out more extensively than this Opinion can reproduce. Spain's title acquired through discovery, conquest and possession, was based "on solid grounds". British pirates had hidden themselves along the coasts of Central America; subsequently British loggers "engaged in robbery of the forests". Treaties concluded between Great Britain and Spain in the 18th Century included express recognition of Spanish sovereignty over Belize while according British settlers rights to cut timber in the north of Belize. The Definitive Treaty of Peace of 1802 ended hostilities between Great Britain and Spain, restored the timber concessions and put an end to any possibility of British title by way of conquest. When Central America achieved independence in 1821, Great Britain required recognition of its settlements, but Guatemala reserved its rights. The Convention of 1859 was coerced but it did accord Guatemala compensation in the form of assistance in building a road to the Atlantic. The United Kingdom failed to carry out that obligation. Agreement by Guatemala to the unilateral demarcation of the frontier by British engineers in 1931 was subject to British implementation of the 1859 Convention. Guatemala deferred its claims until after the Second World War and, in signing the United Nations Charter, had made a clear reservation respecting Belize. It had negotiated thereafter repeatedly and extensively both with British and Belizean authorities. But pending a negotiated solution acceptable to Guatemala, any declaration of the right of independence of Belize would breach the territorial integrity of Guatemala and exceed the competence of the General Assembly. The latter should not arrogate to itself the powers of an arbitral tribunal or an international court of justice; the General Assembly "was not an assembly of geographers competent to determine the limits and borders of the Republic of Guatemala".

12. The interventions of third States in the debate over Belize were mixed. The
majority who spoke supported the position of the United Kingdom and Belize, but the position of Guatemala attracted support from a number of Central and South American States.

13. When the draft resolution on Belize came to plenary session, the representative of Guatemala, Mr. Maldonado Aguirre, maintained that debate in the Fourth Committee had resulted in a "hasty vote" after insufficient consideration of the merits of the case. He challenged the capacity of the General Assembly to "adjudicate on a Territory in dispute or attempt to define the nature of a dispute". He expressed concern over the Fourth Committee's adoption of a resolution that would permit the break-up of national unity and allow for recommendations based on "emotional solidarity". He warned that if "our Belizean compatriots should take this seriously and, led by their secessionist enthusiasm, should pretend to take unilateral initiatives which could seriously affect our territorial integrity and offend Guatemalan dignity...they would force us to show them, very much against our will, that law is more important than peace. Belize is a Guatemalan problem which can only have a solution endorsed by Guatemalans." The draft resolution adopted by the Fourth Committee "cannot have any legally binding force...it will be a mere formal expression of opinion which will be devoid of any intrinsic value or binding force. We reject it because it is biased, unjust and illegal." In prejudging the results of negotiations, the General Assembly was "arrogating to itself functions which the Charter has not conferred upon it". At the 2372nd plenary meeting, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala further elaborated Guatemala's position on Belize, maintaining that the 1859 Treaty was imposed on Guatemala and that moreover Great Britain "never discharged its sole obligation contracted under the 1859 Convention". That failure and British rejection of Guatemalan proposals for international arbitration or adjudication was the reason why Guatemala declared the 1859 Convention to be invalid. In reply, the British representative stated that, "if construction of the cart road would settle this dispute, perhaps even at this late hour my Government would be prepared to consider constructing one". To that, Guatemala replied: "We are not now asking for a road to be built...in any bilateral convention, the fulfilment of obligations by one party is subject to fulfilment of obligations by the other; that is why we consider that this Convention of 1859 is null and void, because Great Britain did not provide the compensation or consideration that the Treaty called for".

14. Resolution 3432 (XXX) was adopted by a roll call vote of 110 to 9, with 16
abstentions.

15. At the following session of the General Assembly, Resolution 31/50 (XXXI) on the Question of Belize was adopted in the following terms:

The General Assembly,

. . .

Noting that negotiations have taken place between the Government of the United Kingdom, as the administering Power, acting in close consultation with the Government of Belize, and the Government of Guatemala, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraphs 4 and 5 of resolution 3432 (XXX),

Regretting that these negotiations have not resulted in the removal of such obstacles as have hitherto prevented the people of Belize from exercising freely and without fear their inalienable right to self-determination and independence,

     1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination and independence;

     2. Reaffirms that the inviolability and territorial integrity of Belize must be preserved;

     3. Calls upon all States to respect the right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity, to facilitate the attainment of their goal of a secure and early independence and to refrain from any action that would threaten the territorial integrity of Belize;

     4. Calls also upon the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the administering Power, acting in close consultation with the Government of Belize, and the Government of Guatemala to pursue vigorously their negotiations in accordance with the principles of General Assembly resolution 3432 (XXX), in order to reach an early conclusion;

     5. Requests the two Governments concerned to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-second session on such agreements as may have been reached in the negotiations referred to above;

     6. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to continue its examination of the question.

16. It will be seen that this resolution reaffirms that "the inviolability and territorial integrity of Belize must be preserved". It further calls upon all States to respect the right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and "territorial integrity". These provisions, and the debates that led to their adoption, again demonstrate that, in the view of the General Assembly, the territory of Belize encompasses the territory within the borders of what then was a British colony.

17. Following adoption of resolution 3432 (XXX), representatives of the United
Kingdom, together with the Premier of Belize, engaged in extended negotiations with representatives of Guatemala. They did not achieve agreement. But negotiations were continuing when the General Assembly returned to the question of Belize. In view of that fact, and of the extended character of debate on Belize at the Thirtieth Session, debate at the Thirty-First Session was relatively abbreviated. Spokesmen of Belize made it clear that Guatemala continued to demand cession of territory of Belize as a condition of accepting its independence; that this demand was wholly unacceptable; and hence that reaffirmation by the General Assembly of the territorial integrity of Belize was sought. That reaffirmation proved to be forthcoming.

18. A year later, in 1977, the situation before the General Assembly remained much the same. Accordingly, Resolution 32/32 (XXXII) was adopted. The text of the Resolution in pertinent part reads:

The General Assembly,

….

Reaffirming the principles established in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, set out in its resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960, in particular that all peoples have the right to self-determination, by virtue of which right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,

Noting that, in the Bogota Declaration of 6 August 1977, it was agreed that "a solution of the Belize question should be found by the peaceful methods consecrated in the charters of the Organization of American States and the United Nations, and in accordance with respect for its territorial integrity and with the principle of the free self-determination of peoples",

Noting that, in July 1977, negotiations took place between the Government of the United Kingdom, as the administering Power, acting in close consultation with the Government of Belize, and the Government of Guatemala, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 4 of resolution 31/50,

Deeply regretting the interruption of the negotiations and the continued failure of the parties concerned to negotiate an agreement in conformity with the principles established in resolutions 3432 (XXX) and 31/50,

Concerned that the obstacles placed in the way of the people of Belize to prevent them from exercising their right to self-determination and independence without fear have not yet been removed,

Convinced that the people of Belize should be assisted in a practical manner to exercise freely and without fear their inalienable right to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity,

     1. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination and independence;

     2. Reaffirms that the inviolability and territorial integrity of Belize must be preserved;

     3. Calls upon the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the administering Power, acting in close consultation with the Government of Belize, and the Government of Guatemala to pursue vigorously their negotiations in strict conformity with the principles of General Assembly resolution 3432 (XXX), in consultation as appropriate with other especially interested States in the area, with a view to concluding the negotiations before the thirty-third session of the General Assembly;

     4. Also calls upon the parties involved to refrain from any threats or use of force against the people of Belize or their territory;

     5. Urges all States to respect the right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity, and to render all practical assistance necessary for the secure and early exercise of that right;

     6. Requests the Governments concerned to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-third session on the outcome of the negotiations referred to above;

     7. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to remain seized of the question and to assist the people of Belize in the exercise of their inalienable rights.

19. It will be seen that, once again, the General Assembly emphasized respect for the "territorial integrity" of Belize and reaffirmed that "the inviolability and territorial integrity of Belize must be preserved."

20. The Prime Minister of Belize reported to the General Assembly on the negotiations with Guatemala that had taken place in the summer of 1977. Guatemala had expressed the fear that an independent Belize would be used as a base to attack Guatemala; Belize had offered a non-aggression pact and co-operative defence arrangements. Guatemala expressed concern that its access to the high seas would be impaired by Belize's territorial sea; Belize had offered to negotiate a seaward boundary which would provide Guatemala with guaranteed and permanent access to the high seas through Belize's territorial sea. Belize had offered the use of port facilities, road access and free transit as well. The United Kingdom negotiators had also offered a substantial contribution to a major Guatemalan development project designated by Guatemala, to satisfy the Guatemalan complaint that a cart road envisaged in the 1959 border treaty had never been built. But Guatemala responded that these proposals did not meet its needs: cession of land in the southern part of Belize was essential. Guatemala had made that demand against the background of a threatened invasion. But "any solution which involved the cession of territory would offend the terms of United Nations resolutions on territorial integrity".

21. The General Assembly returned to the question of Belize in 1978. Essentially the same arguments were rehearsed; essentially the same resolution, denominated 33/36, was adopted anew, in the following terms:

Back to Menu | Next Page