Ambassador Rosado did not lie

Richard Bradley, who represented the NO side in Punta Gorda on Saturday night, said that Ambassador Rosado lied (a very hostile word) when he said, in response to a question about our not keeping the border line between us and Guatemala clean, that it isn’t done because Guatemala doesn’t recognize our western border. Ambassador Rosado said that created a little difficulty because it should be a joint thing.

Bradley said that Rosado lied. Bradley said that the British used to keep the border line clean. What Richard Bradley said was the truth, but he was talking apples and Rosado was talking oranges. The British, apples, were once the most powerful nation on the planet, and they still rank among the most powerful nations. The British can clean most any line on earth that they want to.

Ambassador Rosado was talking oranges. Belize doesn’t have the face-to-face military might to drive back the Guatemalans who are acting very faysi in the Sarstoon. Ambassador Rosado was talking about the “real situation.” Lawyer Bradley was talking about “castles in the air, Marie.” Belize, thanks to George Price, pursues diplomatic solutions.

Ambassador Rosado has been solid as a rock throughout all the presentations. He is clean, he is clear, he is respectful, and he is firm. Belize has produced many brilliant talents in the diplomatic field and Ambassador Rosado’s light shines as bright as any. We are in good hands.

Richard Bradley playing trial lawyer with the ICJ

My, we, well at least this corner, thought that we absolutely didn’t need any more evidence/discussion about 1859, to prove that it is ironclad, water tight. Heck, 144 nations also said so in 1980. It appears that Mr. Bradley won’t turn the corner until 145 nations say, ‘tis so. Humph, it will take Guatemala to vote YES for Belize before the likes of Mr. Bradley see what 144 nations saw.

Before I go on, I must point out to the proponents of the NO vote that it does not serve Belize for them to be playing trial lawyer with the truth. Save that for the courtroom. The YES side is presenting a far more balanced story.

Richard Bradley said that he was convinced that the British reneged on Article Seven of the 1859 treaty, and he has evidence to show that the British acknowledged that they reneged. Before we go on, let’s get this very clear about Article Seven – it wasn’t trickery, and it wasn’t chaans. It might be called a sweetener for the little resistance pocket in Guatemala. That’s good public relations.

Please, to say that the British reneged on Article Seven is to be very loose with the truth. In 1865, the British told the Guatemalans that they were playing games, and they, the British, were tired of it. Recall that two years had passed since the British and Guats agreed on the way forward. Let’s not ignore the facts. Fred Hunter, Sr. explained how far the British went with getting the cart road done. The British did all the surveys and designs, and they committed 50,000 pounds. The Guats, as we know, played games.

However, the British did try to work out things with Guatemala after that. Yes, the British still tried to deliver on their side of the agreement. Don’t forget that it was for the mutual benefit of the nations, good for business. As late as 1934, we hear about the British offering to construct an excellent road between Belize City and Benque Viejo, which the Guats could use to move their goods from El Peten. But the Guatemalans had “decided” to talk other things, those being money and LAND.

The British went the extra mile, but they stopped, pulled to a halt, whenever the Guatemalans insisted that the British contribution to the cart road was compensation for land the Guatemalans ceded in 1859. Whenever that came up, whenever the Guatemalans tried to rewrite history, it was impasse.

Every open-minded person who reads Article Seven understands that it is a business arrangement, for the furtherance of business for the two nations. That’s why it was so lacking in specifics. It didn’t have to be. 144 nations agreed that Article Seven had nothing to do with the borders of Belize.

Bah, Lawyer Bradley didn’t stop there. He says that the British (and the Americans) were offering Belize’s land to the Guatemalans. The line, on page 83 of Shoman’s Guatemala’s Claim to Belize, The Definitive History, which states that the British “insisted on satisfying the Guatemalan claim against itself for failure to carry out a treaty obligation by making Belize, not Britain, pay the price” — all the NO proponents are singing it. That is a bad line that has NOTHING to do with what’s between the Hondo and the Sarstoon.

The British acknowledge Article Seven for what it is – a business agreement. Guatemala, in an attempt to rewrite history, misrepresents it as the price for the cession of land. It, Guatemala, could do that forever, and it had no worth as long as Belize was a colony defended by the British. But the misrepresentation takes on weight when Guatemala uses it to justify its lust for land from independent Belize.

The British, almost to the very end, were willing to pay Guatemala CASH. But a long time ago Guatemala saw where Belize would swim alone, and so she started the demand for land. Portillo wrote all about that. Belize the colony and Belize the independent nation are not the same fish.

Really, there’s more apples and oranges being mixed up here. Let’s get this very clear – there are two British in this story. The first British never offered land to Guatemala. That British is speaking on behalf of the British. The second British, the one offering land, speak on our behalf. That is a different British.

When the British decided/accepted that Belize (British Honduras) would be moving on to independence, is when the British started offering land to Guatemala. At this time the Guatemalans are operating with the full support of the Americans. And the British are pulling out of the area. Belizeans really need to get real.

The British first proposed that we joined the West Indian Federation. That meant that Belize would be entering the world as part of a regional body. The West Indian Federation was economic, but as everyone knows, you have to protect your trade routes and allies. Belize (British Honduras) could not have stood firm in 1798 if support did not come from Jamaica.

Some PUP leaders, notably Leigh Richardson and Philip Goldson, were for federation, while the rest of the PUP, led by George Price, were against it. Belize rejected West Indian Federation.

At this point, Belize is uncertain about Price. He declares that the Battle of St. George’s Cay is a myth. Price says that the battle is a wedge between the Mestizos in the north districts and the Kriols. But, declaring the battle a myth is also a pacifist move, made to order for the White Book Guatemalans. Take your pick, or both.

Belize rejects federation. What comes next is the strangest invention, Webster’s Proposals, which are intended to place an “independent” Belize firmly under the wings of Guatemala. So, we rejected West Indian Federation, and what we have now is, effectively, Central American Federation. Belize rejects that too.

The British say, okay, you will become a nation, which means you will have to defend yourself. You have a bully neighbor that is led by people who hate your color. We know this because we see how Guatemala treats people of color in their own country. And you are blacker than they are. My best advice for you is to give this bully some land and make a go from there.

The rest is history. Belize rejects the land “solution.” Belize takes its case to the world. With Price at the helm, we win a glorious victory.

We need to repeat this. The British have never accepted Guatemala’s claim that Belize bought land from Guatemala for the price of a cart road. We need to repeat this. It isn’t fair for Belizeans to accuse the British of being dishonorable in her dealings with Guatemala. 144 nations said the Guat claim doesn’t hold water.

In 2019, we can’t afford to squander time on the 1859 treaty. The UN already ruled on it. 2019 must be all about the compromis. Please. Please. Please.

Assad was at the top of his game, but…

I give Assad Shoman an A for his work at the presentation in PG last week. I can’t complain. He was at the top of his game. He would have pitched a perfect game if…

Yap, I have a beef. I just didn’t like the pali-pali bizniz. It was like Shoman and Bradley were in some kind of high school debate…too much, yay, I got you on that one.

Shoman said that he and Bradley are old buddies. They might be more than just friends, the way they carried on. In this modern world you can’t trust anybody’s orientation. That is not my business, except to say that there must be a closet in PG.

What is my business is how that pali-pali could affect the substance. Mr. Bradley says he is offering his ideas just out of love for his country, so maybe he deserves some license to play around. Well, let him play by himself.