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!