GUATEMALA CANNOT BE TRUSTED IN FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS TO SETTLE THE OLD ANGLO-GUATEMALAN BORDER DISPUTE.

Surprisingly, many Belizeans were not taken aback by Guatemala’s decision not to participate in the October 6th Referendum. On the contrary, many felt that Guatemala’s trickery and dishonest behavior is exactly what the leadership of that country is all about. Belize is an independent country and Guatemala cannot nor will we step aside and let it dictate to the Government of Belize to change our Referendum Laws.

The New York Times of Friday, November 7th, 1975 carried a story by ‘United Press International’; “Guatemala Warns of Force as Britain Continues Belize Build-Up” Guatemala was quoted as saying: Guatemala said Thursday that the United Nations was not competent to decide on its claim to Belize, Reuters reported. The Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that neither the General Assembly nor the Decolonization Committee had any right to decide the issue. The article then elaborates: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the Legal Arm (Agency) of the United Nations (UN) and if the Body, the United Nations is considered by Guatemala "Not being Competent to decide Guatemala's Claim to Belize" then the same is true for the Arm - the ICJ. If the Body is Dead, so too is the Arm. And so, we should have known from the very beginning that Guatemala would withdraw from going to the ICJ which is in fact the United Nations Court.

I agree that Belize should continue the ‘Confidence Building Measures’ but we need to make it clear to Guatemala that their breach of the Agreement stands out so clearly that Belize must become more aggressive in lobbying the United Nations Executive Council. From 1975, Resolutions in six (6) successive General Assemblies of the United Nations affirm the ‘inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination and independence’ and supporting the inviolability and territorial integrity of Belize. The 1977 Resolution had the support of fourteen (14) Latin American Countries that had in the past either supported Guatemala or abstained from voting.

It is now that Belize must lobby the support of the Commonwealth Countries, CARICOM, Central American Countries which are familiar with border disputes and the Latin American Leaders who recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Belize. Belize must take its case to the Executive Council of the United Nations. We should not continue the charades with Guatemala. What is it about the Boundary Treaty that Guatemala does not understand? True, the cart road was not built but both ambassadors, Aycinena of Guatemala and Lenox Wyke of Great Britain signed the Boundary Treaty on the 30th April, 1859. Allow me to share with you important and historical articles from that Treaty:

4.2 Article 1: It is agreed between Her Britannic Majesty and the Republic of Guatemala that the Boundary between the Republic and the British Settlement and Possessions in the Bay of Honduras as they existed previous to and on the 1st of January, 1850 and have continued to exist up to the present time was and is as follows:

Beginning at the mouth of the River Sarstoon in the Bay of Honduras, and proceeding up to the mid channel thereof to the 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.

4.3 Article 6: It is further agreed that the channels in the water line of the boundary described in Article 1 of the present Convention, shall be equally free and open to the vessels of both parties, and that any islands which may be found therein shall belong to that party on whose side of the main navigable channel they are situated.

4.4 Article 7: With the object of practically carrying out the views set forth in the Preamble of the present Convention, for improving and perpetuating the friendly relations which at present so happily exists between the two High Contracting Parties, they mutually agree conjointly to use their best efforts, by taking adequate means for establishing the easiest communication (either by means of a cart-road or employing the rivers or both united, according to the opinion of the surveying engineers), between the fittest place on the Atlantic Coast, near the settlement of Belize and the Capital of Guatemala, whereby the commerce of England on the one band and the material prosperity of the Republic on the other, cannot fail to be sensibly increased, at the same time that the limits of the two countries being now clearly defined, all further encroachments by either party on the territory of the other will be effectually checked and prevented for the future.

What is a Contracting Party? It is defined as an Entity who enters into a binding agreement with one or more other contracting parties and thus accepts the benefits and obligations specified therein. For a contract to be valid, every contracting party to a contract must be a competent party.

In his presentation made at Sacred Heart College on Sunday, April 14th, Adolfo Rosales who provided me with the New York Times Article of 1975 also highlighted important observations on the Maritime Areas Act. He said: “I also ask, that you refer to and question firmly, the statement made by the National Bi-Partisan Commission in October 1991 on the Maritime Areas Bill where they seemed to convey legitimacy to Guatemala's unfounded claim by saying in the first line under the heading" The Road To Recognition" in page 1. Quote: "Guatemala needed time to adjust to the fact that it had 'lost' Belize. How dumb can those Belizeans in the "National Bi-Partisan Commission" be to make such a statement as a "FACT". What fact? Then if it is a fact that Guatemala has lost Belize; those of the National Bi- Partisan Commission sided with Guatemala against Belize and Belizeans by affirming Guatemala's Claim.

Finally, "Definition of Belize" in Schedule 1 of our Constitution has been compromised with the passing of the Maritime Areas Act that prejudiced our country's territorial integrity without a "referendum and without an amendment to our Constitution", by eliminating the Ranguana and Sapodilla Range of Islands. It is extremely important also, that you emphasize that this said Maritime Areas Act is legally null and void because not only that the Constitution was not amended but, that the insertion of provisions making this Act "superior" to the Constitution is legally flawed. Chapter 11 Revised Edition 2000 under Section 25 states: The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary (meaning the Constitution's Schedule 1) in any other law, rule or regulation.”

But let’s go back to a sensitive question that Belizeans have been ignoring. The 1859 Treaty that recognized the Belize Guatemala boundary from the Sarstoon to Gracias a Dios to Garbutt’s Falls and to the North by the Rio Hondo was reaffirmed as the Boundary Treaty in 1931 by both England and Guatemala. So, why did England agree to make concessions to Guatemala in 1968 in the form of the Bethuel Webster Seventeen (17) Proposals? Is it that England felt that Belize’s Prime Minister preferred to take Belize into the Central American Union and that it would be best for Belize to be affiliated to Guatemala?

Doctor Cedric Grant in his Book, “The Making of a Modern Belize” states on page #187 in Chapter 6 under heading, “The Conflict, the climax and resolution”

The climax – The London incident: “The first colonial administration in which the PUP participated ended with a repudiation of Richardson’s and Goldson’s West Indian sympathies, the second began with a renewed suspicion of Price’s Guatemala leanings. To some extent this suspicion had been revived by a renewal of discussions towards a settlement between Britain and Guatemala in March, 1957, the same month as the PUP’s electoral victory. According to Guatemala, the British Government favoured some form of economic integration between Belize and Guatemala. This was to be the first step in the formation of a Central American Federation in which Belize would be an independent republic. If Belize was to be sovereign indeed, then Guatemala was conceding its sacred territorial claim. For its part the British Government was indicating that the integration of Belize into the Central American economy should be the objective of the country’s future development. To this extent it was responding positively to both the unpopularity of the West Indies Federation in Belize and to the proposition that an independent Belize would not be economically viable outside of an economic grouping.

Grant continues: “The reopening of negotiations between Britain and Guatemala left Price free to pursue his notion of a Central American destiny without having either to side with Britain in repudiating the Guatemalan claim or uphold the Guatemalan viewpoint.” It would appear that serious mistakes were made by insinuating to Guatemala that indeed they had every right to inherit Belize eventually. And what was in it for Britain? Britain had its own vested interests in trade and investments in Guatemala and the other Central American countries.

Second sensitive question, the countries of the United Nations voted almost unanimously to Belize’s Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity; so why did England offer more concessions to Guatemala after the fact? Why did England offer to Guatemala the rights to run pipelines into Toledo and Stann Creek in Article 4 of the Sixteen (16) Heads of Agreement?

By offering those concessions to Guatemala England was admitting ‘guilt’ to Guatemala for failing miserably to build the cart road from Guatemala City to lake Isabal. (1857 thru 1862). Now with Independence in 1981, Belize inherited the Border Dispute. We must be brave and take our case to the United Nations Security Council with the support of as many nations as possible. Guatemala will be left isolated.

The United Nations established in 1948 with Headquarters in New York City, State of New York in the United States of America is made up of two main bodies; the General Assembly is made up of 192 (currently) nations with Belize and Guatemala being two of them, and the Security Council, the Supreme Authority with five (5) Permanent Members and ten (10) others elected by the General Assembly every two years. Under the UN Charter all members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations (like the ICJ) make recommendations to Governments, the Council alone has the Power to take decisions which member states “are obligated” under the Charter to carry out. The Council has the right to investigate any “dispute” or situation which might lead to friction (like our issue) between two or more countries. When a complaint concerning a “threat to Peace” is brought before it, the Council’s first action is usually to recommend that the parties try to reach an agreement. (Belize has tried.) by peaceful means. In some cases, the Council itself undertakes investigation or mediation (already tried through other means). It may appoint special representatives or request the Secretary General to use his good offices.

Belize needs to take its case directly to the United Nations and make it clear to them that Guatemala has breached the Agreement arbitrated by the OAS and that Guatemala continues to leave the Central American Region outside of Peace.

 

Nicaragua-Costa Rica Border Dispute on the San Juan River

"Although the US had interest in the possibility of a trans-isthmian canal for some time, it was the opening up of California and the discovery of gold there in 1848 which prompted United States interest in the Central American region. The American government had appointed a Consul to Belize in 1847 and had ignored events on the Mosquito Shore and the Bay Islands; but America could not accept the fact that Britain appeared to be establishing herself right along the Caribbean coast of Central America and in particular around the mouth of the San Juan River which was the most likely terminal point on the Atlantic for a canal."

I had written the above in my February 11th posting and you can appreciate that the Americans did have great interest in the mouth of the San Juan River which they viewed as the terminal point on the Atlantic for a canal.

Below is a brief history of the Nicaragua-Costa Rica Border Dispute on the San Juan River. Read it carefully; what has the OAS done to outline the guidelines for the Sarstoon River which could very well become the area of conflict between Belize and Guatemala should the ICJ fail to address such guidelines? I don’t see any guidelines in their Articles of securing the two borders after an ICJ ruling…none! Let’s not fail for a moment to understand that the Sarstoon River is trafficked by Guatemalans and Belizeans in private boats, in coast guard boats and by fishermen from both countries undisturbed. Incidentally, who owns the Sarstoon River, Belize or Guatemala? It belongs to Belize.

For more information on the San Juan River, I recommend the following links:

San Juan River (Nicaragua) - Wikipedia
Costa Rica and Nicaragua at ICJ
ICJ political football: Costa Rica vs Nicaragua
Nicaragua and Costa Rica Return to the ICJ for 3rd Case over the San Juan River

Isn’t it ironic that almost 160 years later the San Juan River has become a serious dispute between Costa Rica and Nicaragua? Wasn’t it these very countries that remained part of the Central American Federation after Spain gave them their Independence in 1821? So how did they define their borders within their own Federation?

The Nicaragua-Costa Rica San Juan River border dispute has been based on the delimitation of their common border at its east end and, the interpretation of the navigation rights on the San Juan River which was established in the Canas-Jerez Treaty of 1858.

A dispute emerged in 1998 when Nicaragua forbade the transit of Costa Rican policemen in the river, which Nicaragua claims to be a breach of sovereignty, and unilaterally imposed a US$25 tax for any Costa Rican tourists who enter the San Juan river, as persons are not objects of trade but subjects of trade and are therefore, not covered by the treaty. This and other subjects were the subject of a case in the International Court of Justice.

The most recent disputes include an interpretation about the scope and limits of Costa Rica's rights for free navigation and Nicaragua's sovereign control over the San Juan River, which was resolved by the International Court of Justice in 2009; and the ongoing dispute that began in October 2010 regarding the dredging of San Juan River, in the area of Isla Calero.

According to the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of 1858, reaffirmed in arbitration by President Grover Cleveland of the United States in 1888 and interpreted by the Central American Court of Justice in 1916 (case Costa Rica vs. Nicaragua), Nicaragua is sovereign over the Río San Juan, and Costa Rica has the right to navigate over part of the river with articles for trade which in case of need, as determined by Nicaragua can be accompanied by revenue cutters. The treaty also states that no taxes would be imposed on Costa Rican trade in goods except those accepted by mutual agreement.

On July 13, 2009, the International Court of Justice published the following ruling:[3]

1) As regards Costa Rica’s navigational rights on the San Juan River under the 1858 Treaty, in that part where navigation is common, the court finds: that Costa Rica has the right of free navigation on the San Juan River for purposes of commerce including the transport of passengers and the transport of tourists. That persons travelling on the San Juan River on board Costa Rican vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation are not required to obtain Nicaraguan visas or to purchase tourist cards. That the inhabitants of the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan River have the right to navigate on the river between the riparian communities for the purposes of the essential needs of everyday life which require expeditious transportation. That Costa Rica has the right of navigation on the San Juan River with official vessels used solely, in specific situations, to provide essential services for the inhabitants of the riparian areas where expeditious transportation is a condition for meeting the inhabitants’ requirements. That Costa Rica does not have the right of navigation on the San Juan River with vessels carrying out police functions. That Costa Rica does not have the right of navigation on the San Juan river for the purposes of the exchange of personnel of the police border posts along the right bank of the river and of the re-supply of these posts, with official equipment, including service arms and ammunition. 

2) As regards Nicaragua’s right to regulate navigation on the San Juan river, in that part where navigation is common, the court finds that Nicaragua has the right to require Costa Rican vessels and their passengers to stop at the first and last Nicaraguan post on their route along the San Juan River; That Nicaragua has the right to require persons travelling on the San Juan River to carry a passport or an identity document; that Nicaragua has the right to issue departure clearance certificates to Costa Rican vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation but does not have the right to request the payment of a charge for the issuance of such certificates; that Nicaragua has the right to impose timetables for navigation on vessels navigating on the San Juan River; that Nicaragua has the right to require Costa Rican vessels fitted with masts or turrets to display the Nicaraguan flag;

3) As regards subsistence fishing, the court Finds that fishing by the inhabitants of the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan River for subsistence purposes from that bank is to be respected by Nicaragua as a customary right;

4) As regards Nicaragua’s compliance with its international obligations under the 1858 Treaty, the court finds that Nicaragua is not acting in accordance with its obligations under the 1858 Treaty when it requires persons travelling on the San Juan River on board Costa Rican vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation to obtain Nicaraguan visas; when it requires persons travelling on the San Juan river on board Costa Rican vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation to purchase Nicaraguan tourist cards; and when it requires the operators of vessels exercising Costa Rica’s right of free navigation to pay charges for departure clearance certificates.

On October 8, 2010, the Nicaraguan government initiated operations to dredge 33 kilometres (21 mi) of the San Juan River. On October 20, the Costa Rican government complained to Nicaraguan authorities regarding an alleged violation of its sovereignty as Nicaraguan troops had entered Costa Rican territory, and the dredging of the river caused environmental damage in the wetlands at Isla Calero, which is part of the island nature reserve, in an area that is owned by the Costa Rican Ministry of the Environment. Nicaragua rejected all claims and replied that, in fact, Costa Ricans had been invading their territory and the Vice President of Nicaragua commented that "We cannot invade our own territory.The Costa Rican government responded by sending 70 police reinforcements to the border area on October 22nd. Nicaragua stationed around 50 soldiers in Isla Calero.

OAS General Secretary José Miguel Insulza met with both governments and inspected the conflict area. He then called for both countries to remove all troops and security personnel from the disputed territory as a first step towards opening a dialogue in order to resolve the situation peacefully and demarcate the boundary to prevent further conflicts. Costa Rica agreed to these terms but Nicaragua refused to remove its troops. On a meeting on November 12, by a vote of 22 to 2, the OAS ambassadors approved a resolution requesting Costa Rica and Nicaragua to pull out their troops from a conflict zone along their common border and to hold talks to settle their dispute. Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega discarded the possibility of withdrawing the troops and disregarded OAS resolution because his government considers that this organization does not have jurisdiction to resolve border disputes. In the same press conference, President Ortega announced his intentions to file a claim under the International Court of Justice for permission to navigate the Costa Rican Colorado River.

On the political side, some commentators criticized Daniel Ortega for allegedly taking advantage on this matter to promote his re-election. Costa Rica's President Laura Chinchilla was criticized by former President Óscar Arias for her naïve handling of the situation.

On November 18, 2010, Costa Rica filed proceedings against Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice. The complaint alleges an incursion into, occupation of and use by Nicaragua's Army of Costa Rican territory, breaches of Nicaragua's treaty obligations toward Costa Rica, and “ongoing and planned dredging and the construction of the canal (that) will seriously affect the flow of water to the Colorado River of Costa Rica, and will cause further damage to Costa Rican territory, including the wetlands and national wildlife protected areas located in the region.” Costa Rica also filed a request for provisional measures, including the withdrawal of all Nicaraguan troops from Isla Calero, the cessation of the construction of a canal across Costa Rican territory, the immediate cessation of the dumping of sediment in Costa Rican territory and immediate cessation of the felling of trees, removal of vegetation and soil from Costa Rican territory, including its wetlands and forests. On the same day, OAS approved a Costa Rican request, by a vote of 22 to 1 (and 7 abstentions), to convene a Consultative Meeting of OAS Ministers of Foreign Affairs to analyze the situation between Costa Rica and Nicaragua in the border zone of the San Juan River. The meeting took place on December 7, 2010.

In March 2011, The International Court of Justice provisionally ruled that Costa Rica and Nicaragua both must refrain from sending or maintaining civilians, security forces or police in this disputed border area, but that Costa Rica was allowed to send civilian teams concerned with environmental matters. Dredging by Nicaragua within the San Juan River itself was allowed to continue since Nicaragua has sovereignty over the river proper.

Nowadays the problem is for a road Costa Rica made in the border with Nicaragua. Conflict in which Nicaragua says the wetlands and national parks from Costa Rica are being damaged. Nevertheless, Costa Rica argues it was necessary to protect its border from the "Sandinists" and for providing electricity and other needs to people who live in a remote location, to which before the road was made, the only way in was sailing in the San Juan River.

Why was the road not built and who was responsible? (Part 2)

In 1863, the treaty "games" continued between Great Britain and Guatemala; in August of 1863 an additional Convention was signed.  This convention committed Britain to ask its Parliament to approve £50,000 which would be paid to Guatemala for a road that would be constructed over a four year period.    Guatemala agreed to accept the £50,000 as a full discharge of Britain’s obligations under Article 7 but final rectifications were to be completed within six months.

It happened that Guatemala was at war with El Salvador and no further steps were taken to ratify the additional convention.  Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Lord Russell was asked whether the ratification could be postponed for a year.   It appears that Lord Russell had given Guatemala’s Foreign Minister the impression that the time would be extended and it was.  In 1865, slight changes were made to the Convention’s wording and in 1866, Martin wrote to Lord Clarendon who had then succeeded Lord Russell and informed him that Guatemala had ratified the Convention.   Unfortunately, the Foreign Office was now in the hands of one Lord Stanley who agreed with the Colonial Office and the British Treasury that the Convention should be allowed to "lapse".

In response to Guatemala’s Foreign Minister, Martin, Lord Stanley informed Martin that his British Government considered that Guatemala failed to ratify the Convention within the specified time.  Stanley also cited Britain’s other reason being Guatemala’s decision to add new declarations to the Convention.   It is also known that Britain’s Permanent Under- Secretary at the Foreign Office, one Hammond felt that if Article 7 of the 1859 Treaty were set aside, Guatemala would be justified in holding that the whole treaty fell to the ground, thus reopening the boundary question.

In December, 1866, an official letter from Guatemala declared that Article 7 had been included as compensation to Guatemala for the abandonment of the territorial rights to Belize and it suggested that a new Convention could be signed by Martin.    This led Lord Stanley to immediately deny Guatemala’s claims, that it made any cession to Britain and added that the 1863 Convention had merely engaged the British Government to ask Parliament for £50,000.  There had been no guarantee that the British Parliament would have granted this in 1864 and there was still less reason to believe that it would in 1867.   This statement by the British Foreign Secretary was somewhat extraordinary and did not bear close examination although it remained the official view for seventeen years!

It was clear that the British Government had contracted a moral obligation by accepting Article 7 of the 1859 Treaty and that she had not thoroughly tried to implement its conditions.  Moreover, although the treaty was not and never could be regarded as a treaty of cession by the British Government, Guatemala understood it as cession and the British negotiator certainly regarded Article 7 as the inducement which persuaded Guatemala to sign it.

(What will the ICJ consider it to have been?)   

By 1869 the Guatemalan Government had raised a loan which it was prepared to use for its share of the road construction and the question of building the road was reopened.   Lennox Wyke insisted that the additional Convention had not been ratified because Guatemala had never had the funds or the intention of carrying out its obligations and that Guatemala was in a weak position.

(Can we trust what Wyke is saying by knowing what he has said in other discussions with Guatemala’s ambassador?)

The Foreign Office refused to move from its position adopted by Lord Stanley in November, 1869 and it repeated that the Convention had failed through Guatemala’s fault alone.

(Having read all articles, do you believe Britain’s Foreign Office that Guatemala alone was at fault?)

Guatemala renewed its claim to the territory of Belize but the claim was not seriously raised again until some 50 years later.   And let’s not forget that in 1862, the British Government made Belize a British Colony under the authority of the Governor of Jamaica.   On May 12th, 1862, Frederick Seymour became Lieutenant –Governor of the colony of British Honduras. 

Some funny business:  Palmerston told the Ambassador at Madrid that if any objection were raised it would be stated that Britain had held the settlement by right of conquest since 1798 and that Spain no longer had any rights on the American continent.   The Colonial Office was hesitant about Palmerston’s strategy and Palmerston agreed not to communicate with Spain but to wait and see if Spain would make any objections to the constitutional changes for the colony.   Spain did not!

The haunting question is who was more right than the other – not who was right because it is clear that the British were sloppy in handling the 1859 Treaty and Article 7 with Guatemala.  Even if its engineer felt that the road was going to cost some £145,000, wasn’t that a drop in the bucket to pay in consideration that the British had raped the colony of all its timber from as early as the 1700s and made millions of Sterling Pounds?  Also, what about the mere £50,000?   The British had the opportunity on more than one occasion to own the settlement in the 1700s and later in the 1800s and they screwed up.  

Next week I will share my opinion with you based on the history of British and Spanish rule in the Caribbean and Central America.

Why was the road not built and who was responsible? (Part 1)

The Controversial Article 7:

This article was introduced by Wyke – without the knowledge and approval of the British Government. Wyke 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 some of the former prosperity of the Belize settlement.

Here are the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ that obstructed the construction of the road:

Lenox Wyke is on record as stating, “We have no legal right beyond that of actual possession to the tract of country between the rivers Sibun and Sarstoon which formerly belonged to the ancient kingdom of Guatemala; this position was the more difficult to overcome, without agreeing to give them some compensation.”

The Colonial Office was extremely skeptical about the value of the proposed road and was of the opinion that since the road would not pass through British territory, it was no concern of the Colonial Office.

Lenox Wyke wrote to the Foreign Secretary, Lord John Russell stating, “It is impossible to help smiling at the naivete of this declaration which expresses in set phrases the desire of ‘eating the kernel of the nut’ without taking the trouble to break the shell which contains it.” He added that it is permissible to suggest that had there been more cooperation the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office the long drawn out dispute with Guatemala might have been avoided all together.

In December, 1859, Lord John Russell informed Hall, the acting Consul-General at Guatemala that Captain Wray of the Royal Engineers had been sent to mark out the boundary line between British Honduras and Guatemala and to survey the proposed route for the road.

Hall was told to make certain that the Guatemalan Government did not expect Her Majesty Government to incur any expense whatever in the actual construction of the road. Hall received the letter as the treaty was being debated and both he and Wyke feared that if its contents were made known Britain might be accused of lack of good faith and the treaty might be cancelled.

Wyke informed Russell that his understanding had involved more than paying for a survey. Wyke thought that Great Britain and Guatemala would construct a roughly made and practical cart road with both governments working together, Guatemala furnishing the materials, The British the scientific direction of the works with both parties equally paying the labour force to build it.

Charles Lenox Wyke

Wyke and Guatemala’s Foreign Minister, Pedro de Aycinena had estimated the total cost to be at approximately £100,000. Wyke had also informed the Foreign Office that the British Engineer’s estimates were far too high and were based on proposals for a much more elaborate road than he and Aycinena had envisaged.

Lord John Russell informed Hall that the clause (or Article 7) was an unusual one and furthermore the Treaty had been ratified and the British Government would fulfill its obligations.

Captain Wray arrived in Guatemala to carry out the survey for the road. The survey was completed in 1860, one year after the 1859 Treaty was ratified. Engineer Wray had worked out a route from Guatemala City to the Port of Izabal. The road was to be 157 miles and would take four years to build at a cost of £145,000. However in his report, Wray stated that the road would be of no benefit to the British Settlement of Honduras. Wray also felt that the Guatemalan Government could not be relied on to carry out their obligations and should not be entrusted with the monies for the construction of the road. By the time the British Foreign Office received Wray’s discouraging report, it had already become aware of the ‘disadvantages’ in Article 7.

The British Foreign Office felt that it had been deceived as to the whereabouts of the proposed road, about its costs, and about its value to British Honduras. Lord Russell also raised the question as to whether the Government could discharge its obligations by the payment of a lump sum. The Colonial Office under the Duke of Newcastle was convinced of the futility of the road and even suggested that the trade through Belize might be hurt by it.

The Colonial Office further stated that there was no advantage in the 1859 Treaty and was prepared to see it cancelled but this idea was seen as a most inadvisable by Russell. In 1863, Aycinena formally stated that by signing the Convention of 1859, Guatemala had made a definite sacrifice of ‘the rights which it had reserved to the territory of Belize’. Aycinena also argued that it was clear from the wording of the original Article that Britain was to pay a greater share of the cost than Guatemala. He also stated that Article 7 was included by Lennox Wyke as compensation by Britain to Guatemala.

The wording had been deliberately vague in order to prevent any challenge by the United States on the grounds that Britain had acquired new territory and thereby infringed the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.

The weakness of this argument lay in the fact that British Honduras had been specifically excluded from the terms of the 1850 Treaty. Although the Dallas-Clarendon Treaty of 1856 remained unratifed, the United States had already recognized the southern boundary of the British Settlement as the River Sarstoon.

It becomes much clearer that Great Britain which was a super power displayed such poor wisdom in finding a solution to end the dispute over the construction of a road that would have ended the Anglo-Guatemalan Dispute over a century ago.

Part 2

Why President Buchanan Refused to Rectify the Dallas-Clarendon Treaty

“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.  In my opinion this will be a matter on the table of the ICJ.”

Question:  Why did the United States President, Buchanan refuse to rectify the Dallas-Clarendon Treaty of 1856?

While America and Britain had signed the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850 to reconcile their interests in Central America, the gradual extension of British influence in Central America did not indefinitely pass unremarked by the United States.  But the United States was no exception to land grabbing and aggression; during the 1840s the US’ own expansionist policy had been at its height, leading to the annexation of Texas in 1845 and the war with Mexico (1845-1848) which resulted in New Mexico, Arizona and California coming under the American Flag.

Although the US had interest in the possibility of a trans-isthmian canal for some time, it was the opening up of California and the discovery of gold there in 1848 which prompted United States interest in the Central American region.  The American government had appointed a Consul to Belize in 1847 and had ignored events on the Mosquito Shore and the Bay Islands; but America could not accept the fact that Britain appeared to be establishing herself right along the Caribbean coast of Central America and in particular around the mouth of the San Juan River which was the most likely terminal point on the Atlantic for a canal.

In June 1849, the second of two American agents, E.G. Squier, arrived in Nicaragua with instructions to frustrate British designs and to start negotiations with Nicaragua for the construction of a canal.  A private company had already been formed for this purpose and had signed a contract with the Nicaraguan Government only to be opposed by Frederick Chatfield who made it known that since San Juan belonged to the Mosquita it was under British protection.   While the American agent tried to undermine the British, the British made it clear that they had no desire to monopolize a canal or to do anything more than carry out the commitments which already existed.

The Bay Islands were formally made a British Colony without adequate consultation between the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office.   Back in the U.S., the Whig administration which had signed the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was defeated by the Democrats in 1853. 

Note: Millard Fillmore was the 13th President of the United States (1850–1853) and the last member of the Whig Party to hold the office of president. As Zachary Taylor's Vice President, he assumed the presidency after Taylor's death.

The Democrats had already shown signs of hostility to the treaty which it regarded as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine.   The Monroe Doctrine was a policy of the United States introduced on December 2, 1823.  It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. The Doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved independence from the Spanish Empire (except Cuba and Puerto Rico) and the Portuguese Empire. The United States, working in agreement with Britain, wanted to guarantee no European power would move in.   James Monroe was President of the United States from 1817 to 1825 and part of the Democratic-Republican Party.

The Hypocrisy of the United States Government must be exposed since they were the aggressors against Mexico and took Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California in the 1840s.    A lot can be said about America’s imperialistic influence in Latin America and Central America; we just have to remember Papa Doc in Haiti, Batista in Cuba, the fall of Allende and the rise of Pinoche, the fall of Anastasio Somoza and more.   Perhaps the Monroe Doctrine should have been ignored and other influences from Great Britain, France and Portugal would have made the Western Hemisphere a different region.   I must repeat from my contributor who I believe make a very accurate statement regarding European Nations’ invasion of the New World.  He said:  “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.”

The creation of the Bay Islands colony added fuel to the flames and the new American Government took the line that British Honduras belonged to Guatemala and that Britain had only limited rights to the areas originally granted by Spain.   In 1853, the new Minister in London, James Buchanan, was instructed to persuade Britain to withdraw from Central America and British Honduras if possible.

James Buchanan was considered a very distinguished diplomat who had already served as Secretary of State during the expansionist era of President Polk (1845-49).   After Buchanan left London, he returned to the United States to become President and remained very hostile to the British.  Palmerston who had become Prime Minister of Britain in 1855 distrusted Buchanan and the breakdown of the Dallas Clarendon Treaty seemed to have placed Anglo-American relations in the ‘melting-pot’ once again.

During 1859 to 1860, Charles Lenox Wyke was put in charge by Palmerston.  He succeeded in arranging the treaties with Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala which met with the approval of the American Administration.  The Anglo-Nicaraguan Treaty signed in 1860 gave Nicaragua sovereignty over most of the Mosquito Coast but safeguarded the position of the Indians and made Greytown a free port.  The treaty which was signed with Honduras in 1859 gave Honduras the Bay Islands despite the wishes of the inhabitants, and also part of the Mosquito Shore.

It will be recalled that Buchanan failed to rectify the Dallas-Clarendon Treaty of 1856 because of a technicality of the Bay Islands.

Finally the Anglo-Guatemalan Treaty of April 30, 1859 defined the boundaries of British Honduras along the lines which had been suggested as early as 1825.

It must be noted that prior to Wyke’s successful achievement of breaking down the barriers between Buchanan and Palmerston, the rumbling had reached a troubled level.   Here are those rumbling events:

• Although Buchanan views and instructions were clear he seemed at first to have been on amicable terms with the new British Foreign Minister, Lord Clarendon.
• Buchanan appeared fully and firmly convinced that the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty meant to him that the United States was to turn out ‘bag and baggage’ from South America.
• It was said that the opinions which Buchanan expressed on paper were much more forceful than in his interview with Lord Clarendon.  They produced strong reactions from diplomatic officials and members of the British Government.
• Palmerston wrote to Clarendon, “I have seldom read a paper more full of false assertions and bad arguments than those of Buchanan”   Although opinions in the British Cabinet varied as to the validity of Buchanan’s lengthy arguments, no one was prepared to abandon the Mosquito Indians entirely.
• On the issue of the Bay Islands, Lord Aberdeen told Clarendon that its establishment was ‘an imprudent act’ and that British right was questionable.  It appeared to be the one area in which the Americans could accuse Britain of violating the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
• No matter how Palmerston asserted that that Ruatan (part of the Bay Islands) had from ancient times been held to be a dependency of Belize and occupied as such, he was definitely on weak ground.
• Palmerston never had any intentions of yielding to America on the question of the boundaries of British Honduras.
• Lord Aberdeen still maintained in 1854 in spite of everything that British tenure of Belize reserves the rights of Spain.  Palmerston insisted that ‘these Yankees’ are more astute bullies and and are always trying how far they can go’.
• While the international situation was already inflamed, Britain was not prepared to go to war against the United States over questions of diplomatic niceties in remote parts of Central America.
• While discussions were in progress in London and in Washington events in Central America move swiftly.  The controversial American agent, E.C. Squier was again in the region and it was reported from Washington that ‘he takes all his hopes of future success in life on the prospect of annihilating all vestige of British influence in Central America’.
• More seriously, Greytown which was still in British and Mosquito hands, was bombarded and destroyed by an American warship in 1854.  Even though a section of American opinion was outraged by this unprecedented act the Administration declined either to disown it or to compensate the victims.
• The following year Central America became the scene of virtual anarchy with expeditions of American filibusters.  The most notorious, William Walker attacked Nicaragua which was already engaged in civil war and set up a provisional government at Grenada which was even recognized by the United States Government.
• The Central America Republics were so unnerved that suggestions were made for Britain and France to protect them.  Buchanan was again demanding British withdrawal from Mosquita, the Bay Islands, and British Honduras south of the River Sibun.
• Diplomatic efforts to obtain a compromised agreement were eventually made.

William Walker (May 8, 1824 – September 12, 1860) was an American lawyer, journalist and adventurer, who organized several private military expeditions into Central America and Latin America, with the intention of establishing English-speaking colonies under his personal control, an enterprise then known as "filibustering." Walker became president of the Republic of Nicaragua in 1856 and ruled until 1857, when he was defeated by a coalition of Central American armies, principally Costa Rica's army. He was executed by the government of Honduras in 1860.

The British statesman George Hamilton Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen (1784-1860), was noted for his work in the area of foreign affairs. He was prime minister of Great Britain at the outbreak of the Crimean War in 1853.   Aberdeen could not withstand the parliamentary attack and resigned in January 1855 to be replaced by his rival, Palmerston.

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.