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.