27.2 C
Belize City
Friday, March 29, 2024

World Down Syndrome Day

Photo: Students and staff of Stella Maris...

BPD awards 3 officers with Women Police of the Year

Photo: (l-r) Myrna Pena, Carmella Cacho, and...

Suicide on the rise!

Photo: Iveth Quintanilla, Mental Health Coordinator by Charles...

Was the 1859 Treaty valid?

FeaturesWas the 1859 Treaty valid?

In doing my research on the 1859 treaty I made some observations that would challenge the validity of the 1859 treaty as follows:

1. 1n 1492, Columbus discovered the New World and claimed it for Spain, and in 1493, Pope Alexander VI proclaimed in the Papal Bull that Spain had exclusive rights to colonize the western hemisphere, which includes Central America. Spain thereby had sovereignty over Belize since 1493.

2. There was no such thing as “no man’s land” or “vacant land” (terra nullius) between Mexico and Guatemala that the British occupied, claimed and owned. Britain recognized and accepted the sovereignty of Spain over Belize and consequently, in the 1783 Treaty of Versailles and the 1786 Convention of London, Spain granted Britain usufruct rights to cut logwood between the Hondo and Sibun Rivers. What this means is that Britain got the legal right of using and enjoying the produce and profit of land belonging to Spain, but not sovereignty. Spain did not grant Britain any rights to occupy lands south of the Sibun and consequently, any occupation of territory south of the Sibun River by Britain was illegal squatting on Spanish territory.

3. In 1798, Britain had its first chance to claim Belize by conquest after defeating the Spaniards at the Battle of St. Georges Caye; however, four years later in 1802, Britain signed the Treaty of Amiens, giving back Spain sovereignty over Belize and thus again recognizing Spain as owner of Belize.

Britain, however, had us celebrating the 10th day of September and let us believe that we had title to Belize because of our victory at the Battle of St. Georges Caye, which is not the case.

4. The British Parliament in 1817 and 1819 acknowledged that Belize “was not within the territory and dominion of His Britannic Majesty,” but was simply a “settlement for certain purposes under the protection and possession of His Majesty”. This was only two years before Guatemala’s independence.

5. In 1821, Guatemala declared independence from Spain and claimed from the Sibun River southwards as succession from Spain. The British did not protest this claim of Guatemala and the United States recognized this area to be for Guatemala.

6. Britain continued to recognize Spain as having sovereignty over Belize and in 1835, requested Spain to cede sovereignty of the territory between the Sibun and the Sarstoon to her. Guatemala protested this request and Spain did not grant Britain her request.

7. The British historical perspective is that they were administering and had effective control of the territory claimed by Guatemala prior to 1821. Britain, however, had no title to said lands and her occupation was based on usurpation, which is the seizing or exercising authority or possession wrongfully and which is not recognized in international or any law.

If we look at the recent ICJ ruling on the Nigeria/Cameroon case, we will see that Nigeria, like the British claim, had effective occupation and was administering the Bakassi peninsular but did not have any title, and the ICJ ruled in favour of Cameroon, who had title and ordered thousands of Nigerians out of the area.

Unless Belize can produce the title the British claim to have prior to 1821, then we will suffer the same fate as the Nigerians at the ICJ.

8. On 30th. April, 1859 in Guatemala City, a boundary treaty was signed between Great Britain and Guatemala, known as the 1859 Treaty. So, prior to 1859, Great Britain did not own or have any title to Belize. All lands in this area were under Spanish rule since 1493, and the British accepted and respected that.

Also, on signing the 1859 treaty, all of Guatemala’s claims to Belize were extinguished, or died, and consequently, Guatemala cannot make any legal claims to Belizean territory.

Surprisingly, in the 2008 Special Agreement, we are hearing of legal claims of Guatemala. We need to know what these legal claims are before voting to take them to the ICJ.

In summarizing the above historical facts, we will note that in 1821, Guatemala unilaterally declared independence from Spain and claimed from the Sibun River southwards.

Spain did not recognize the independence of Guatemala. Guatemala, therefore, had de facto but not de jure independence and consequently, had no legal authority to dispose of Spain’s assets in the area. Great Britain did not protest the territorial claim made by Guatemala and like Spain, did not recognize the independence of Guatemala and continued to accept and respect Spain as the owner of lands in the area.

In 1935, some 14 years after Guatemala’s independence, Great Britain requested Spain to cede sovereignty of the area between the Sibun and Sarstoon rivers, but Guatemala protested, and Spain did not honour Great Britain’s request.

If Great Britain owned or had title to the territory between the Sibun and Sarstoon as claimed, why would she request Spain to cede sovereignty to her? This is further testament to the fact that Great Britain did not have any title to Belize and recognized Spain as the owner.

In 1859, Guatemala, having no legal authority to dispose of Spain’s assets in the area, and Great Britain, having not recognized the independence of Guatemala, signed the 1859 boundary treaty describing the boundary between the two countries, and which conveyed all of Spain’s land assets to the north and east of the described boundary to Great Britain.

Was this a valid title noting Great Britain’s recognition of Spain, but not Guatemala, as owner of Belize?

In 1862 Belize was declared a Crown Colony despite several earlier calls by the settlers to make such declaration. The reason is that Great Britain did not own Belize as claimed, and respected Spain as owner (1783, 1786, 1802, 1835), and she had to wait until she got title to Belize in 1859 to thereafter declare Belize a Crown Colony.

In 1863, Spain and Guatemala signed a treaty of Recognition, Peace and Friendship, in which Spain renounced the sovereignty, rights and powers she had over the territory of Guatemala and recognized Guatemala as a free, sovereign and independent nation.

So, it was not until 1863, some four years after the 1859 treaty, that Guatemala had the legal authority to dispose of Spain’s assets in the area. Her disposal of Spain’s assets to Great Britain in the 1859 treaty was therefore invalid.

From the chronological order of historical facts presented, the circumstances surrounding the signing of the 1859 treaty was irregular and from the courses I did in Land Law and Registration, the 1859 treaty would be invalid and declared null and void.

Under English land law, you cannot claim ownership to your mother’s property, and without her transferring title to you, you went ahead and conveyed her property to a third party and then registered the transaction and expect the transaction to be valid.

Not so! That is exactly what Guatemala did by claiming ownership to Spain’s lands, and without mother Spain granting her title to the lands, conveyed it to Great Britain and registered the treaty at the League of Nations.

That transaction is invalid, and Great Britain cannot subsequently claim she received a bona fide title, as she was an accomplice to the illegal transaction by (i) not recognizing Guatemala’s independence, and (ii) accepting and respecting Spain as owner of the land described in the treaty.

For the treaty to be valid, it should have been executed between Spain and Great Britain and not between Guatemala and Great Britain. What legal authority did Guatemala have to convey Spain’s territory to Great Britain, that is located between the Sibun and Sarstoon Rivers and those comprised within the 1783 and 1786 treaties between Spain and Great Britain located between the Rio Hondo and Sibun rivers?

Some people are saying that the ratification of the 1859 treaty gives it validity, but the ratification of an invalid treaty cannot make it valid.

Also, the registering of a treaty at the United Nations does not guarantee its validity, as no investigation into its accuracy or validity is done by the United Nations, which merely registers the document into the Treaty Registry.

Is this one of the reasons why Guatemala, after not being able to get the cart road built in accordance with article 7, decided to repudiate the 1859 treaty, calling it null and void, and will spring it on Belize at the ICJ, saying she had no legal authority to enter into the 1859 treaty with Great Britain?

What else may Guatemala have up her sleeve that we do not know? The passage of time may have cured any defects of the 1859 treaty and probably, international law accepts these irregular transactions between countries.

Not being a lawyer, I would like for a legal expert to make a pronouncement on the validity of the1859 treaty based on my observations, and before referendum day.

The latest 2019 Legal Opinion did not give Belize an iron-clad case, but advised that the strength of our case would rely on some key points, some of which are (i) proof of British title to Belize prior to 1821; (ii) the effect of the British not meeting her obligations under article 7 of the 1859 treaty; (iii) our efforts in the protesting and defence of Guatemala’s aggression in the Sarstoon; and (iv) the extent of our historical research, not only in the British archives, but also the Guatemalan and other archives.

For starters, we should request the Government to produce the title the British claimed to have prior to 1821, along with a list of the protests made to Guatemala, the OAS and the United Nations regarding Guatemala’s aggression in the Sarstoon since at least 2008, for fact-checking.

So, with a shaky 1859 treaty and 1861 treaty map, along with a weak 1931 exchange of notes, and having no title to Belize before 1821, it will be no “walk in the park” for Belize at the ICJ, and with the level of misinformation and consequent unpreparedness shown by our government in the education campaign, it is obvious that we do not have an iron-clad case going to the ICJ, and it would be prudent for the government to first get an Advisory Opinion from the ICJ on the validity of the 1859 treaty and thereafter, plan our strategy to end the Guatemalan claim for the benefit of Belize and Belizeans.

On April 10, 2019, Belizeans have an appointment with history when we will vote YES or NO to take Guatemala’s claims to the ICJ for final determination. We have to do soul-searching and answer many questions before we cast our vote, some of which may be as follows:

•     Are you satisfied that the information being presented is truthful and factual and will allow you to make an informed decision?
•     Do you understand the special agreement and the question you are being asked to vote on?
•     Do you know what legal claims, declaring rights and determining the boundary as stated in the special                agreement, mean?
•     Do you believe that the Special Agreement is in contravention of the Belize Constitution?
•     Do you know what the Guatemalan claims are, that you are being asked to vote on?
•     Are you aware of the litigation and other risks of going to the ICJ?
•     Do you know of the integrity of the law firm and the lawyers that will be defending Belize, and their track record of wins with boundary and territorial disputes at the ICJ?

Even if you don’t get all the answers, you need to make an informed decision by Referendum Day. I will urge you to still go and cast your vote, but don’t be swayed by any politician, any preacher-man or anyone. Just vote your gut feeling; vote your conscience; vote your heart and Stand Up for your country and against Guatemala’s imperialism.

Check out our other content

World Down Syndrome Day

Suicide on the rise!

Check out other tags:

International