Efforts made by Great Britain and Guatemala to define Boundaries with British Honduras and Guatemala

Source:

A History of Belize by Narda Dobson 

THE PEOPLE INVOLVED:

Lord Palmerston, British Foreign Secretary, British Prime Minister

Lord Clarendon, British Foreign Secretary (1850s)

Frederick Chatfield, British Consul to Guatemala

Charles Lennox Wyke, replaced Chatfield

Francisco Martin, Guatemalan Foreign Minister

William Stevenson, Superintendent of the British Settlement

Sir William Gore Ouseley, appointed to settle all Central American issues

PART 1

During the 1850s both Mexico and Guatemala had shown renewed interests in settling the outstanding boundary question with Britain for different reasons.Mexico wanted to deal with the continued raids and war by the indian tribes. Guatemala was concern with the ever growing activities of the American filibusters in Central America.

In 1853, Wyke who had succeeded Chatfield was told by the Guatemalan Chief Minister that until the boundaries with British Honduras were settled, America would always have an excuse to interfere. In order to avoid further American interference his government was ready to conclude a secret treaty which would settle the matter forever. This proposal seemed to the English Foreign Secretary Lord Clarendon, fraught with danger and it was ignored.

In 1855, a proposal was made up in which Britain and France should jointly take Guatemala under its protection. This was also ignored.

In 1856, the Guatemala Foreign Minister was instructed to proceed to London to negotiate a boundary treaty and at the same time to obtain some compensation in the form of protection against filibusters for the territory (Central America Federation of former Spanish Colonies) which the treaty should guarantee.

When Francisco Martin arrived in London in May, 1857, he found that William Stevenson, Superintendent of the British settlement was already there to discuss the treaty. Their conversations were followed by the drawing up of two draft treaties defining the boundaries. The only difference between the two treaties was the Guatemalan mention of renunciation of sovereignty over British Honduras for which the British Government should offer some indemnity. It was suggested that this might be financial but Guatemala preferred some kind of guarantee against the threats of filibusters.

No such question of indemnity appeared in the English version of the draft treaty. Superintendent Stevenson was convinced that, unless a similar treaty with Mexico was arranged, there could be no satisfactory solution of the boundary question. Lord Clarendon agreed and it was hoped that the Mexican minister in London would be given power to conclude such a treaty but he was withdrawn before this could be done.

When Sir William Gore Ouseley was entrusted with the task of settling all the outstanding problems in Central America in the autumn of 1857, all the negotiations lapsed. Francisco Martin had already returned to Paris believing that the British Government would never consider the question of compensation.

Martin’s beliefs were fully borne out by the instructions which were sent to Charles Lennox Wyke when he replaced Ouseley in February, 1859. The British negotiator was explicitly told he must not agree to anything which could possibly be interpreted as a cession on the part of Guatemala in case the United States should regard this as an infraction of the 1850 Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. The treaty was to be a simple ‘definition’ of a boundary long existing but not yet ascertained.

Apart from the delicate question of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty two other important factors were raised by the negotiators with Guatemala. The first was that there had been no treaty definition of the boundaries since the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of 1786, although the British Authorities in Belize had declared the limits of the settlement during the 1830s and had made land grants within those limits.

The other factor was that in spite of continued appeals by the settlers, and the stated opinion of the Law Officers of 1851 that the settlement had become by long possession part of the dominion of the Crown, no definite assertion of sovereignty had been made and the British Government had declined to alter the status of the territory from a settlement to a colony.

Question: Why were the British concerned that the United States may have interpreted a boundary treaty with Guatemala as ‘cession’ on the part of Guatemala and why would the U.S.A. have regarded it as an infraction of the 1850 Clayton –Bulwer Treaty?

The United States and Britain signed the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty in April, 1850 to reconcile British and American interests in Central America. It succeeded in permanently restricting both British and American territorial ambitions in Central America and in ensuring that both countries support the construction of an inter-ocean canal.

Lord Palmerston made sure that the British negotiator, Sir Henry Bulwer obtained a statement excluding British Honduras from the terms of the treaty. The American Clayton made a statement that the British settlement in Honduras and the small islands which were British dependencies were not included in the treaty.

However, in October, 1856, the Dallas-Clarendon Treaty was signed. By its terms the Mosquito Protectorate was to become part of Nicaragua with an Indian reserve; the bay islands were to be part of Honduras; British Honduras was declared to be unaffected by the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and its southern limit was acknowledged as the Sarstoon River. The hope was expressed that if possible the western limits with Guatemala should be fixed within two years, after which time the boundaries were not to be extended.

The Dallas-Clarendon Treaty failed when the President of the United States, Buchanan refused to rectify it because of a technicality affecting the Bay Islands. At no time however, did the United States Senate question the clauses relating to British Honduras. This will be a matter on the table of the ICJ.

Don’t think it! Say it! The United States of America screwed Belize properly. Had the US Senate rectified the Treaty there would be no Anglo-Guatemalan Dispute because the Sarstoon River would have been recognized as our Southern border.

THE HISTORY WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT GREAT BRITAIN, SPAIN, GUATEMALA AND BELIZE

Source: “A History of Belize” by Narda Dobson, 1973

Article 2 to the ICJ:

The Parties request the Court to determine in accordance with applicable rules of international law as specified in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the Court any and all legal claims of Guatemala against Belize to land and insular territories and to any maritime areas pertaining to these territories, to declare the rights therein of both Parties, and to determine the boundaries between their respective territories and areas.

The Treaty of Paris in 1763 failed to recognize boundaries thereby depriving the Baymen settlers of any protection and required the settlers to destroy all buildings in the settlement.

The 1783 Peace Treaty of Versailles, Article 6, limited the cutting of logwood in the areas of the Belize and the Hondo Rivers and prohibited the occupation of any of the cayes and restricted fishing rights.

In 1786, a supplementary convention was signed in London.  By the Convention, it was agreed that Britain would give up all claims to the Mosquito Shore.  In return, certain concessions were granted to the Settlers.  The boundary was extended southwards to the Sibun River and mahogany and all other timber could be cut.  St. Georges Caye could be inhabited and fishing rights were extended. 

In 1797, by vote of 65 to 51, the Baymen settlers decided to stay and defend the settlement against any Spanish aggression from Yucatan.

On the 10^th September, 1798, a Spanish Fleet commanded by Arturo O’Neal, the Governor General of Yucatan attacked the settlement.    The Spanish Fleet was driven off by the British ships commanded by Colonel Barrow and Captain Moss and the Baymen settlers and their slaves.

The claim to hold the settlement by right of conquest was not put forward until several years later after 1798 and the claim was never made officially.  Historians claim that the settlement, although it did not become a British Colony until 1862, the Battle of St. George’s  Caye did not alter the legal position of the settlement at all.

Boundaries of Settlement in 1821:

It is important for us to know what the British settlers’ position in 1821 when Mexico and Guatemala got their Independence from Spain.  Legally, the settlers only had Spain’s permission ot cut wood between the River Hondo and the River Sibun as was agreed in 1783.  However, because of hostility to the North, the settlers as early as 1814 had moved as far South as the Moho River.  Eventually the settlers moved all the way South to the River Sarstoon.   When an attempt to settle the boundaries with Spain in 1835 was made, it was accepted in a meeting of the Superintendent and Magistrates that when Central Amerca and Mexico became independent in 1821, the settlement had consisted of all the land between the Rivers Hondo and Sarstoon.  The Western boundary was then and still is an imaginary line running due North and South from Garbutt’s Falls on the Belize River.

Anglo-Mexican Treaty – 1826:

The Independence of Mexico was recognized by the United States in 1822 and three years later a treaty was signed with Great Britain.  The Treaty which was signed in Mexico City, might be construed to give sovereignty over the British Settlement.  As a result the treaty was not ractified by the British until 1826 and the said clause was omitted.

While the British settlers claimed to have cut mahogany all the way up to the River Sarstoon in 1821, the Central American countries were still known as the United Provinces of Central American, as the Federation was known (1823-39).

Claims and counter Claims:

The Guatemalan case was and still is, based on the doctrine known as ‘uti possidetis’ which, although it has been accepted by certain Latin American states has never been accepted as a Doctrine of International Law.   The doctrine states that a province which successfully revolts against a colonial power inherits all the rights of that power in their province and its boundaries become those claimed by the colonial power at the time of independence.

The Counter Doctrine:

The counter doctrine to ‘uti possidetis’ was formulated in the 1840s by Lord Palmerston, who maintained that the state which had revolted could inherit rights only over the land it actually occupied at the time of independence  and not over an area which it did not occupy.

As the British woodcutters and administrators were in unquestioned occupation of British Honduras in the 1820s, Palmerston’s doctrine would clearly exclude any claim either by Mexico or Guatemala to inherit the sovereign rights of Spain.

The Anglo-Guatemalan Treaty of 1859:

This is the document that has been responsible for prolonged dispute between Great Britain and Guatemala or, also known as the Anglo-Guatemalan Dispute.   And we mustbe reminded that when Belize took its independence from England on September 21^st, 1981, it inherited the Guatemalan claim.   We must also be reminded that in 1979, when the People’s United Party won the General Elections by 13 seats to 5, Prime Minister Price saw it as a mandate to move toward Independence.   The Opposition refused to join the PUP in its quest for independence and recommended that Independence be postponed until the Anglo-Guatemalan Dispute was settled.

WHEREAS the People of Belize -   (a) thru (f)

(e)       Require policies of state which protect and safeguard the unity, freedom , sovereignty and territorial integrity of Belize…The Constitution of Belize, September 21^st, 1981.

The Terms of the 1859 Treaty:

The Convention which was signed by Pedro de Aycinena and Charles Lennox White on April 20, 1859, was exactly the same as the draft given to Wyke by the except for the addition of Article 7.  The boundaries were the same as those which existed in 1850, that is ‘from the mouth of the Sarstoon River up the river until the Gracias a Dios Falls were reached from whence a line should be drawn in a northerly direction to Garbutt Falls on the Belize River and thence due North until the Mexican Border was reached.  Another article provided for the free navigation of ships in the boundary channels.

The Controversial Article 7:           

This article was introduced by Wkye – without the knowledge and approval of the British Government.  Wkye framed it in such an ambiguous way that it has been the subject of argument ever since.  This article proposed that the two contracting parties should arrange for a road to be built between the Atlantic coast near the settlement of Belize and Guatemala City.  This road would add to the prosperity of both England and Guatemala by increasing trade, and, since it would divert some trade from the Pacific ports, it would also restore someof the former prosperity of the Belize settlement.

Controversy between Lennox Wyke and is his Foreign Office in England:

“Wyke himself seems to have been unduly influenced by Carrera’s (President of Guatemala) views or to have had insufficient briefing from the Foreign Office on England’s position for he stated: ‘As in point of fact, we have no legal right beyond that of actual possession to the tract of Country between the Rives Sibun and Sarstoon which formerly belonged to the ancient kingdom of Guatemala.

Here I must point out that his is exactly the position of the Guatemalans who have been flagging a map of Belize with their ownership from the River Sarstoon up to the River Sibun inclusive of all Cayes.

And what was the British counter argument?

Henry Taylor of the Colonial Office pointed out that since the land in question hd been occupied by British settlers ‘before’ the revolt of the Spanish colonies the only country which might have questioned it was Spain.  Taylor claimed that it was not occupied by any rights possessed by Guatemala, because our recognition of the South American Republics and their rights proceeded upon the ‘de facto’ principle and so the British – not the Guatemalans were at that time of that recognition ‘de facto’ in possession of the tract between the Sibun and the Sarstoon.

This is one of the dangers of voting yes in the Referendum to go to the ICJ as there are serious debatable historical controversies which have been set aside by such great renowned lawyers like Dr. D. William Bowett, Q.C. and Mr. Elieu Lauterpacht in their document, “The Joint Opinion”.  They are of the opinion that Guatemala has no valid claim to the territory of Belize.

The road in question was never built and the 1859 Treaty was rejected by the Guatemalans.   The British blamed Guatemala and the Guatemalans blamed the British.  It remained as the ‘Anglo-Guatemalan Dispute where it should have stayed until Belize was tricked into accepting Independence on September 21st, 1981, thus inheriting the dispute and falling trap into agreeing to a ‘compromis’ with the OAS as arbitrators.

December 8, 2008

Guatemala and Belize signed an agreement on Monday to have their century long territorial dispute settled by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, following a referendum on both countries supporting the ICJ initiative. The signing ceremony of what has been described as a "compromis" took place on Monday at the Headquarters of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington DC. The special agreement sets the guideline on the way forward for both countries to deal with the dispute, should it go to the ICJ

Note:  Belizeans were never consulted about whether they were in agreement with that ‘compromis’.

So, what should we Belizeans do about this Referendum and the ICJ?  Here below is an opinion sent to me:

The so called “New World” belonged to the peoples who lived here.  But the Europeans came and killed them out and stole everything they had and established “ownership”.  Then they used their archaic laws to create borders.  At some point, the intelligent people in Guatemala should realize that in today’s world their “claim” will only lead to chaos and war both for them and for Belize.  I imagine there are political elements who are wanting to create their own middle east in the region – an area of constant unrest – which would be the result.  Maybe they would have to profit by way of the sale of guns and ammunition to “keep Belize at bay” or to further supply the Guatemalan army.

All the politicians have to do is this:  and they’ll create an awesome country.  Make a statement of “standing ground”.  We, the people of Belize and the government of Belize, have decided to withdraw from all ICJ talks and we believe that our borders and land are ours and intact as is and we are prepared to fight to the very last Belizean to protect our sovereignty.”

Guatemala may once again try to influence the international community for economic sanctions but I don’t think that would affect us very much at all.

Great Britain and Spain Screwed up British Honduras (now Belize)

 Belize and Guatemala inherited the Border Dispute…my views

In 1603, England’s feared Queen Elizabeth died; she was from the dynasty of King Henry 8^th who forced the reformation of the Anglican Church in England after the Vatican refused to grant him a divorce.   England was Roman Catholic and the Pope had given him the title, ‘Defender of the Faith’.   Elizabeth’s successor King James 1^st quickly sought to end a long and draining conflict with Spain.   Spain’s King Phillip 3^rd realized that his treasuries were drained and welcomed James offer to end the religious wars. Spain had fought fiercely to restore Catholicism in England but was compelled to recognize the Protestant Monarchy in England.   It brought about the Treaty of London in 1604.

Following Christopher Columbus conquest of the ‘New World’ circa 1492, Spain kidnapped all the territories like crazy people and laid claim to all the territories west of the line established in the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494.   With the support of the Vatican, Spain and Portugal divided the new world between them.  However England did not recognize the treaty and went in search of seizing and buying lands in the new world.  After other wars that included Spain, England, France and Portugal with England going against the others and defeating them, ‘Peace’ came to the negotiating table when the Godolphin Treaty was signed in 1670 by Spain and England.   Spain agreed to allow England to hold all territories in the Western Hemisphere that it had already settled.  It is unfortunate that the treaty did not define what areas were settled and, despite the historic evidence that England did occupy Belize when they signed the Godolphin Treaty, Spain later used this vagueness in the treaty to lay its claim on the entire Belize.

Perhaps one of the most important opportunities for England to seize Belize was after the Seven Years War with France in which Spain supported France.  Following the war in 1763 (1756-63), and the Treaty of Paris in 1763, England spoils of war were Florida from Spain, part of Canada and various French territories overseas.   There would have been no need for the Battle of St. George’s Caye!  The Paris Treaty ensured the colonial and maritime supremacy of Britain and strengthened its thirteen colonies by removing its European rivals to the north and south.  England’s treasuries were drained and it was tested in 1775 in the American Revolutionary War.  While Washington claimed victory, it was England against the United States, France, the Netherlands and Spain.   The winds of change would begin to blow.

Why didn’t Great Britain seize the opportunity to own British Honduras?   Was it because it was a swampy logwood camp and later just a short-term fat economic opportunity for mahogany cutters who braved the mosquitoes to make big money and then sail back to Mother England? I consider Dr. Cedric Grant’s Book, ‘The Making of a Modern Belize’ an excellent source for Belize history.  And what is very interesting is the Foreword that was written by Professor W.J.M. Mckenzie from the University of Glasgow.  He said, “It was with difficulty that the British were coaxed, perhaps tricked, into annexing it in 1862: ever since then they have been trying and failing to get rid of it.”   Could this have been the reason why the Americans were playing a game of charades with Britain in Central America?  A good example of stupidity is the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850.   The treaty’s only objective was to reconcile British and American interests in Central America.   The treaty’s ‘compromised’ terms were phrased in such ambiguous language that it created more difficulties than it resolved.   Furthermore it excluded British Honduras and the Bay Islands and it was never rectified as it was defeated by the United States Democrats in 1853.   (Reference, The Monroe Doctrine and James Buchanan)  President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat President in 1967-68 when the U.S. lawyer, Bethuel Webster was appointed by Great Britain to draft the Bethuel Webster Seventeen (17) proposals; they were rejected by the Belizean people.    E.C.L.A., the Economic Commission of Latin America, an arm of the Organization of American States in 1961 became the negotiators between Guatemala and Belize after Price joined that organization in 1961 with the support of Guatemala, England and British Guyana.  Let me end this paragraph with a quotation from Dr. Cedric Grant:  

“The PUP government, however, did not lose all of its hope.  It had always recognized that an indirect way of obtaining US assistance was to become an integral part of the Inter-American System, in particular to become a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) and to develop a closer economic relationship with the Central American Common Market (CACM) which the Economic Commission of Latin America (ECLA) had been investigating since 1962 at the request of Guatemala and Britain.  Indeed a regional orientation toward Central America remained one of the corner-stones of the PUP policy.  All that appeared to stand in the way was the Guatemala claim, and the outcome of the US mediation was therefore awaited with anxious expectation.”   Following the rejection of the Webster infamous proposals ECLA withdrew its efforts and Price shifted his trading goals toward his Caribbean brothers, the Caribbean Free Trade Area. (CARIFTA)

Great Britain had gone from wars to trade.  It needed to boost its economy and war-torn Europe was no longer the place to do it.  By 1825, British Manufacturers and merchants began to establish trade with Latin American countries.  It invested 20,000,000 million Sterling Pounds and offered to provide its navy’s protection from any European aggression, especially to the Spanish colonies.  Attempts were made to increase trade with Guatemala and the other Central American counties.   According to Narda Dobson, four-fifths of Central American trade went through Belize in the 1820s until it gradually decline in the 1840s when trade with Europe directly was almost the same as through Belize.   Why discuss trade in the 1820s and 40s?  Well, it is clear that Guatemala saw itself as becoming the trade link with the other Central American countries and Belize to the Caribbean and Europe.   Guatemala knew that the road which the British promised to build in 1859 was important to enrich its trade links and therefore it was worth the while to sign the 1859 Border Treaty with the British.  Why did the British ignore the offer?  It is my view that the road would have hugely increase the contraband and smuggling that they were already fighting amidst the legal trade.   Furthermore the contraband and smuggling would have swamped British Honduras and closed down its British merchants who enjoyed the preferential tariff out of England.  Trade is vital to any country and it is presently a war between the United States and China.   Guatemala’s economy depends on the trade with Belize and England.   In order to obtain our Independence in 1981, England wanted to maintain strong commercial relations with Guatemala and ‘knee jerked’ Belize into signing the Thirteen (13) Heads of Agreement.  Here are a few that caused me great concern:

2.         Guatemala shall be accorded such territorial seas as shall ensure permanent and unimpeded access to the high seas, together with its rights over the seabed thereunder.

3.        Guatemala shall have the use and enjoyment of the Ranguana and Sapodilla Cayes, and rights in those areas of the sea adjacent to the Cayes, as may be agreed.

 4.        Guatemala shall be entitled to free port facilities in Belize City and Punta Gorda.

 5.        The road from Belize City to the Guatemalan frontier shall be improved; a road from Punta Gorda to the Guatemalan frontier shall be completed. Guatemala shall have freedom of transit on these roads.

6.        Belize shall facilitate the construction of oil pipelines between Guatemala and Belize City, Dangriga and Punta Gorda.

It should be noted that Belize has been in discussions to realize a ‘Caribbean and Central American Integration. Why are we doing this and what are the economic trade benefits? Belize is already experiencing conflicts with the new CSME agreement or Caribbean Single Market Economy. Are we heading into disaster with eventually realizing a Caribbean and Central American Single Market Economy? This will not be good for Belize which already has 45% of its population from across the border and labour rates that are higher than our neighbours. We cannot manufacture or produce at lower prices than they. They will flood our market with low-priced goods.

Belizeans out-rightly rejected the Heads of Agreement in March, 1981.  Thirty-one years later, we are poised to decide in a Referendum which will be held in 2013 with Belize and Guatemala voting on the same day whether we should go to the International Court of Justice in the Hague.   It’s been 44 years since the Webster Proposals that were negotiated by ECLA, an arm of the OAS.   The following document was signed by our Foreign Minister and Guatemala’s and witnessed by the Secretary General of the OAS:

Article 7

  3. The question to be submitted to referenda shall be: "Do you agree that any legal claim of Guatemala against Belize relating to land and insular territories and to any maritime areas pertaining to these territories should be submitted to the International Court of Justice for final settlement and that it determine finally the boundaries of the respective territories and areas of the Parties?"

Article 5

The Parties shall accept the decision of the Court as final and binding, and undertake to comply with and implement it in full and in good faith. In particular, the Parties agree that, within three months of the date of the Judgment of the Court, they will agree on the composition and terms of reference of a Bi-national Commission to carry out the demarcation of their boundaries in accordance with the decision of the Court. If such agreement is not reached within three months, either Party may request the Secretary General of the Organization of American States to appoint the members of the Bi-national Commission and to prescribe its Terms of Reference, after due consultation with the Parties.

My father, Nicholas Pollard, Sr. loved this country and would never ever agree to go to the ICJ.  We are an Independent country and we have a border that was agreed on in 1859.   What we should be doing is sitting ourselves – not the OAS nor another country and agree with Guatemala on a good trade agreement that will benefit both countries for years to come and put aside this ridiculous claim.   Doesn’t Guatemala realize that Belizeans would never be friends with them again if the ICJ gave them land, sea or cayes?   Some people I have talked to say that it is best to go to the ICJ and settle the matter once and for all and, if Guatemala has to get a piece of Belize, then they get it and leave us alone so we live in peace thereafter.  Is that love of country?  I think that is self-preservation – growing old and dying peacefully.

Has Guatemala considered that if it were to be awarded a piece of Belize by the ICJ, it would be the end to our friendship and we would close our border with them and trade only with Mexico?  Guatemala should drop the claim now!