The esteemed Dr. Assad Shoman has counseled that we should not be persuaded by the illogical arguments the proponents of the “No to the ICJ” have endlessly repeated until they are falsely accepted as facts. While it is true that some of the reasons for voting “No” advanced by those of the negative persuasion are obviously “factoids”, the same can also be said of those arguments being used by those advocating the Government’s position. The following are salient examples of these.

They contend that if we agree to go to the ICJ by voting “Yes” in the 10 April 2019 referendum, then the court will have only one option. They will simply be obliged to confirm the unchangeable position of our boundaries with Guatemala that were established by the 1859 Treaty. Therefore, they argue that the word “determine” in Article 2 of the Special Agreement can only be interrupted as “confirm”, since applying the applicable rules of international law as specified in Article 38(1) of the court’s statue, which ICJ must follow, precludes any other possibility. Additionally they claim that, the dictionary definition of the word “determine” from a legal prospective, simply means to establish closure.

This contention, of course, is premised on the assumption that a “yes” vote prevails in the upcoming referendum, so that the court will then be obliged to use the 2008 Special Agreement [compromis] as its terms of reference.  Article 2 of that document states, “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.”

Clearly, this is instructing the court to determine three things.
1.    Any and all legal claims by Guatemala to all categories [land, sea, undersea, islands] of Belizean territory.
2.    Guatemala’s and Belize’s respective sovereign rights over these territories.
3. The true boundaries between Guatemala and Belize

Now the basis of Guatemala’s primary claim to Belizean territory is their contention that the British failed to compensate them [satisfactorily] for signing the 1859 Treaty. They contend that Article 7 of the 1859 convention was inserted as, and in fact is, a compensatory inducement to obtain their endorsement of the treaty after their refusal to sign the first draft.

This allegation is supported by the following excerpt from quora, “The Law Offices of Britain in 1878 reported that indeed Guatemala claimed territory occupied by the British prior to the Convention of 1859 and that if it weren’t for some inducement Guatemala would never have consented to Article I of that Convention; that Article 7 was, in fact, the fine paid to secure that consent”

They also contend that the subsequent failure [to compensate] by the Brits is a breach of the agreement. This therefore [they contend] constitutes a legal claim against the British. They further contend that the validity of their claim is authenticated by their [the Brits] 1863 offer to pay them [Guatemala] 50,000 pounds sterling to honor their obligation under the agreement.

This offer is a historical fact which also proved that the British had indeed acknowledged their obligation to Guatemala. Since Guatemala, because of internal problems, was unable to ratify the codicil in the time stipulated [six months] the Brits refused to make the proffered payment when Guatemala accepted their offer a year later.

Significantly, however, the expiration of the time stipulated to accept the offer that the British used as an excuse to renege on the payment was not a provision of the original agreement. The crucial question therefore arises, does this [the before mentioned facts and contentions] constitute a legal claim by Guatemala against the British, and if so, how can this affect the determination [by the ICJ] of our boundaries with Guatemala?

Well, under item one  [refer to list] of Article 2 of the Special Agreement before written, the court is directed to consider any and all legal claims by Guatemala pursuant to the application of Article 38(1) of the court’s statue. Now please refer to Article 38(1) reproduced for your perusal.

Article 38(1)
1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
A. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;
B. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
C. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
D. subject to the provisions of Article 59, [i.e. that only the parties bound by the decision in any particular case,] judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

The contention here is that if the court upholds Guatemala’s breach of agreement claim against the Brits [which is an undeniable possibility] under “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” [item C of Article 38(1) of the court’s statue], they will then proceed to exercise the power given them under item 3 [refer to list] of Article 2 of the Special Agreement to redefine our boundaries so that Guatemala receives its just recompense [Belizean territory] for the injustice inflicted on them by the British. This is so because the Brits have cleverly extricated themselves from the claim by contending that it has logically devolved on Belize because of the sovereignty bestowed by our independence. Furthermore our outmaneuvered negotiators, by endorsing the “any and all legal claims” in the Special Agreement, have obliged us to accept this liability.  Also, once the court has made this determination, there will be “closure” to the issue, as the good Dr. Gilda Lewis informed us on a recent Love TV Morning Show is the legal meaning of the word “determine”.

So you see, beloved, while it is true, as Dr. Shoman stated was explained to them at the negotiations, that the “any and all legal claims” in the Special Agreement was included to prevent Guatemala from making future claims, it simultaneously opened the door for Guatemala to nail us [claim Belizean territory] with their breach of agreement claim against the British!

Sadly, our outclassed negotiators failed to recognize this artfully inserted Trojan horse and in consequence made us liable to repay a debt [by also empowering the ICJ to cede our territory to Guatemala] that was never ours. For as Sir Elihu Lauterpacht et al opined in their 2001 Legal Opinion on Guatemala’s Territorial Claim to Belize, “The allegation of Britain’s non-performance of that Article relates only to the period of Britain’s rule in British Honduras. Any responsibility of Britain that may have arisen during that period is Britain’s alone and cannot have devolved upon Belize”.

Hence, as has been shown, the contention that the word “determine” in Article 2 of the Special Agreement can only mean to “affirm” our existing boundaries with Guatemala is false. Consequently, as one of the most often repeated arguments posited by campaigners of the yes–to-the-ICJ, this is in fact also one of the major factoids being used by them to deceive and mislead us.

Another example is their argument that voting to take the dispute to the ICJ using the Special Agreement is our best and only viable option to get the Guatemalan monkey off our back. Firstly, this is not our best option because as has been shown, there is a real possibility that pursuing this route, the monkey on our back will receive an ICJ gift of our bananas that it so craves.

Furthermore, there is in fact another feasible and comparatively risk-free option that we may choose to muzzle and subdue the belligerent primate while simultaneously removing our bananas from its easy reach. This is to ask the General Assembly of the United Nations to request an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice. Needless to say, under the present circumstances, we would have to wait until after a “No” vote prevails in the referendum before we could pursue this avenue.

Asking for an Advisory Ruling on the validity of the 1859 Treaty would free us from the tangible risk of losing our territory and sovereignty to Guatemala [that we would incur by agreeing to have the court use the Special Agreement as their terms of reference by voting “yes” in the referendum]. And we might very likely receive a favorable judgment for the very same reasons that those advocating the Government’s position are positing since this is in reality the real case that they are always pleading [another factoid exposed]!

While it is also true that such an Advisory Judgment might not completely extinguish Guatemala’s expansionist ambition, the following is taken from the ICJ’s website: “Despite having no binding force, the Court’s advisory opinions nevertheless carry great legal weight and moral authority. They are often an instrument of preventive diplomacy and help to keep the peace… and thereby to the strengthening of peaceful relations between States.”

Pursuing this option would enhance our security, undermine the foundation of Guatemala’s claim, and considerably strengthen our negotiating position on the road to find an acceptable resolution of the dispute. And this would be the case whether or not they [Guatemala] accept the court’s judgment

Another of the deceitful factoids they are peddling is their contention that the entire international community is urging us to vote “yes” in the upcoming referendum. The truth is that Great Britain and the United States, who are also the major supporters of Government’s Yes-to-the-ICJ campaign, represent only about 1% of the countries in the world. Furthermore, the well-informed Belizean economist, Mr. Bill Lindo, recently stated on national television that what they have been doing is to advise our international friends that “Belize wants to go to the ICJ”, and then ask for their support.

Incidentally he also stated that several high ranking foreign diplomats from different countries had warned him of the danger we would face by voting “Yes” in the April referendum. They opined that we were “playing with fire” and would surely get burnt!

On another note, he stated that we should vote “No” in the upcoming referendum and advise the “Brits” to pay Guatemala their own debt! He further contended that Belizean territory should categorically not be used to pay this British obligation.

Still another example of their factoids is the contention that a “yes” vote can only result in a peaceful and satisfactory final resolution of the dispute. The fact is that if a “yes” vote prevails in the 10th April 2019 referendum there will only be two possible outcomes. The first and most likely, in my opinion, is that we will lose territory and sovereignty to Guatemala. This could never be a satisfactory outcome for most Belizeans, although some might be OK with it for reasons best known to them. And if Guatemala is still not content with the size of her ICJ gift, can we even prevent them from reaching for more?

The second possibility is that we win the case. I consider that next to impossible, but this of course is my considered opinion and not necessarily an absolute fact. Likewise, those who assure us of a win are only expressing an opinion. As the good Dr. Shoman advised, do not be persuaded by such subjective contentions. So let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that the court determines that Guatemala should get nothing, [of course they must in any case be given access to the high seas]. What do you think their reaction and actions going forward will then be?

Their department of Petén alone, which lies adjacent to our Western border, has more than double the population of our entire country. Do you believe that the defeated will then build a wall, like President Trump wishes to do at their border with Mexico, to prevent their exploding poverty-driven hordes of campesinos from illegally entering Belize? And what may happen if they simply chose to disrespect the decision of the court and their commitment to abide by that decision? Do you think it likely that the United Nations Security Council will then dispatch troops to enforce our territorial integrity considering the global influence and the veto power of their formidable friends [who we know preferentially support them over us] and the comparative insignificance of Belize?  Is it logical to risk losing our country to at best derive such a dubious return?

The truth is that our only realistic path to a satisfactory solution of the Territorial Differendum must begin with our recognition that we alone are responsible for the defense of our territorial integrity and sovereignty. Simultaneously, we must always remain vigilant lest those who wish to deceive and destroy us succeed, and be ever ready and willing to defend ourselves at all cost both militarily and in the international arena.

We should therefore do all that is possible to enhance the defensive capability of our security forces. Concurrently, we must internationalize Guatemala’s aggression and their stated annexation of our Southern boundary. Logically, we can start by voting not to go to the ICJ under the present disadvantageous conditions [compromise] and instead seek a resolution from The General Assembly of the United Nations to have the ICJ give an Advisory Opinion on the validity of the 1859 Treaty. We should also repeal the Maritime Areas Act which will place us at an initial disadvantage in future negotiations.And most importantly, we must ensure that our leaders respect and execute the will of the people.

Interestingly, I note that our American “friends” have joined the crusade and are now engaged in a “from fear to facts” initiative to properly “educate” Belizean journalists on the virtues of the ICJ by affording them an expense-paid trip to the Hague [to be followed by one to Guatemala City] so that they can properly impart the “facts” to Belizeans. While no one can deny the logic of using facts to dispel fear, I cannot help but be fearful of the intentions of those who misleadingly substitute “factoids” for facts in this dichotomy.

Nevertheless, however comforting the narrative relayed by our awe-stricken journalists may seem, just remember that our case at the ICJ will not be determined by the beauty and majesty of the court, or the credentials and integrity of its judges, but only by the relative strengths of the advocacy on both sides and most importantly, the real facts of the case.

Finally consider this, if even a non-lawyer like myself can see the fatal weakness in our defense, can you even begin to imagine the trashing that we may receive at the ICJ from the superlative New York, Wall Street international Jewish lawyers and historians that Guatemala has reportedly identified to plead its case at the ICJ, or even if this report is false, any lawyers they retain for that matter, should we be so imprudent as to venture where angels may fear to tread?

I hope that the facts disclosed here will assist you in making a truly informed and nonpartisan decision on 10th April, 2019.