7 News Belize

Peace Movement Makes Its Case
posted (January 3, 2019)

The Referendum on whether or not to take Guatemala’s territorial claim over Belize to the ICJ is now only 14 weeks away. And today, the non government organization which calls itself the Belize Peace Movement, called a press conference to put their “NOâ€￾ campaign into overdrive. 

This morning in a lengthy and digressive press conference, they came out swinging against the Government’s ICJ education campaign. 

They say that the position that Belize can’t lose, and that there is minimal litigation risk of losing part of country’s territory is simply naive. 

So far, the Peace Movement has been active and vocal in public forums, and they say that the Government is luring the general public into a false sense of security for this ICJ solution.

The 64 minute press conference was spent criticizing and fact-checking the government on the history of the Guatemala dispute.  BPP leader Patrick Rogers was the main speaker and he donned his crispiest set of bush lawyer robes, and dissected what are supposedly Belize’s arguments as to why Guatemala’s claim over the country is unfounded. Here’s how he put it:

Patrick Rogers - Member, Belize Peace Movement
"Everyone that I’ve listened to claim that this boundary treaty is iron-clad, there remains only 1 article to be fulfilled in this boundary treaty, that of Article 7, which they claim was just a little cart road was to be built. When you read this 1931 Exchange of Notes, you will find in here that the British got with the Guatemalans in 1929 to effectively complete this treaty, by fulfilling Articles 2, 3, and 4. It was the second such attempt that the British made, unsuccessfully, as I will show. Because, in effect for our case to have been iron-clad, this boundary's treaty would have needed a supplementary compensatory treaty, as was attempted by the British in 1863, when they offered 50,000 pounds to settle Article 7, no less. You see, had that treaty been, we would have had, immediately after that, Guatemala would have gotten paid, Article 7 fulfilled. Immediately after that, Guatemala would have went ahead and fulfilled 2, 3 and 4, which is to say, get with us and mark the boundary all the way to the Mexican frontier. That has not happened up to today. You see, up to today, what the British did, after 1929 started, they only went up Gracias a Dios, Garbutts Falls. The Guatemalans say let's effect Article 7, pay me before I go through with you to effect 2, 3, and 4. The British didn't want to pay, and so, the Guatemalans pulled out. So, from 1929, the British waited 2 years to see if the Guatemalans would come back to the table, which they didn't, and so, the British prepared an Exchange of Notes that the figured would get them to claim that this treaty has been fully effected."

"What did the Guatemalan reply look like? See it here, 1 paragraph. And what did they respond saying? These monuments thus determined, form part of the boundary between British Honduras and the Republic of Guatemala. So, they did not accept the British letter, of Exchange of Note, stating that the joint boundaries report, which is attached here, was in fulfillment of Articles 2, 3, and 4. They just said that it represents part of the boundaries between our respective territories. Our case is not as iron-clad as they made us out to believe. A lot of people got these documents and don't read and reason. Because, had they done that, they would have realized a long time ago what we're heading up to. We're heading up to the fact that we couldn't get Guatemala to the table, to demarcate jointly from Garbutt's Falls to the Mexican Frontier, now a 160 years later, this treaty will finally effected by the ICJ judges, playing the role of arbitrator, since we couldn’t do it together."

From there, Rogers went on to focus on what he and the Peace Movement think is a pivotal error from back in 1992, which the then government did that has hurt Belize’s case. It’s a joint press statement from the both the Belize and Guatemalan Governments, around the time when the Maritime Areas Act was legislated. 

The Government was seeking to negotiate a settlement of the dispute with their Guatemalan counterparts, and this statement was made to explain the latest attempts that the two sides were about to embark on.

From Rogers’ perspective, it plays into why the Guatemalans have been reluctant to engage in talks for a Sarstoon protocol. Here’s how he discussed it today:

Patrick Rogers
"After the Bahrain meeting, when the Guatemalan Foreign Minister checked our Foreign Minister and said, what happened to you? What are you talking about a Sarstoon protocol. You don't understand the 1859 Treaty is not valid, and we signed a joint statement in 1992 saying that we don't have international borders between us. That's when signals went off, and we start checking, and then, we found that hey, even in here, Belize made reference to the 1992 joint statement. And then, the Guatemalans are going around with their Assad Shoman, Orellana Portillo, he's the authority like Assad there, saying that in 1992, we signed this statement which says that Belize and Guatemala don't have a border."

"This is the powerful statement, where the Guatemalans went and registered at the UN. Bearing in mind that Guatemala and Belize, as 2 sovereign, independent states, have not signed a treaty between the finally establishing their land and maritime boundaries, and that such a treaty is one element of the expected outcome of the negotiations. So, you see the dots got connected, when we got this 1992 joint statement out of their hands. Then, we were able to connect the dots and make sense out of everything we couldn't went make sense, Belize. So now, I am telling you, me Patrick, and the Peace Movement that our iron-clad case that bases our #1 defense on an 1859 boundary treaty does not only have a compensatory clause, which is article 7, unfulfilled. It also has the Exchange of Notes unfulfilled, that would have said, this treaty has been fully effected and Belize's case is iron-clad. We would have needed to see a supplementary compensatory treaty signed, like the 1863 offer, to satisfy Article 7. And then, we would have needed a real historical consolidation being done conjointly all the way to the Mexican border with Guatemala, and then, a real exchange of notes and that joint report. Then, we could have said that we have an iron-clad case, Belize. Right now, we're facing a situation where when it reaches the ICJ judges, they may very well see that, you know what, we'll accept that the 1859 Boundary Treaty is a boundary treaty, but with so many holes unfulfilled, 4 out of the 7 pertinent clauses unfulfilled, we believe that Guatemala has some rights in Belize. See, that's what we are setting ourselves up to. And once they - God forbid - figure that Guatemala has rights in Belize, now, it's just a matter will they vary the border like this, between the 3 reference point? Or Will they do what we suspect, which is to determine between Money River or Moho River."

And a slight correction, Rogers said that the bilateral talks happened in Bahrain. They actually happened in Istanbul, Turkey.

As regards the 1992 statement that “Guatemala and Belize, as two sovereign independent states, have not yet signed a treaty between them finally establishing their land and maritime boundaries, and that such a treaty is one element of the expected outcome of the negotiationsâ€￾, historian Assad Shoman has written to the media saying “That statement…is obviously true and indeed remains true to this day ({because}the 1859 and 1931 Treaties having been signed by Britain and Guatemala, (relate) only to land boundaries), and (the 1992 statement) in no way suggests that the boundaries defined in the 1859 Treaty are being varied.â€￾ End quote.  

He notes that the document goes on to state that the two countries, quote, “agree to accept that any mention to their respective territory in any agreements, their execution or implementation thereof, will be made based on the existing reference monumentsâ€￾. He says this constitutes a recognition by Guatemala of the existence of the reference monuments placed in accordance with the 1859 Treaty.

Home | Archives | Downloads/Podcasts | Advertise | Contact Us

7 News Belize