Belize’s Chief Negotiator for the Belize-Guatemala talks, Ambassador Alfredo Martinez, reported this morning (in an orientation session with the media) that Guatemala’s Cabinet yesterday evening gave its unanimous approval on the compromis or special agreement that the countries intend to put to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the settlement of the territorial dispute between the two countries.
On the Belize side, Cabinet approved the compromis on October 21. The Belize Government has taken the position that it would not release the document before it is signed in Washington, D.C. by representatives of Belize and Guatemala, and by the Secretary-General of the Organization of the American States (OAS) – José Miguel Insulza.
In Belize, the signed agreement would next go for ratification in the House of Representatives and the Senate, while in Guatemala, it is their Congress that would vet the document. In Belize, Prime Minister Dean Barrow would table the document at the National Assembly, while in Guatemala, President Alvaro Colom would submit it to Congress.
“For a treaty in their [Guatemalan] government to be sent to Congress, it has to be signed by every minister,” said Martinez, projecting that the process may take up to November 17th.
If Guatemala’s Congress agrees, they would negotiate with Belize on a date when the referendum could be held at the same time in both countries. It may take the next 6 months before the parties reach this point; Congress may not approve the treaty until February/March, said Martinez.
When the OAS facilitation process failed between 2002 and 2003, it was because Guatemala’s Congress had flatly rejected the Ramphal/Reichler proposals.
Prime Minister Barrow expressed the opinion this week that the process would “fall down” on the Guatemalan side yet again.
“The last time, Congress said they did not like the proposals of the facilitators,” said Martinez, adding that the Congress in Guatemala will be asked to approve an entirely different document this time around.
Of note is that Guatemala has not shifted from its claim to over half of Belize—all the land from the Sibun River to the Sarstoon, Belize’s southern boundary. One significant shift Guatemala has made in its position is agreeing, though not formally, that the case should be decided on a strictly legal basis.
A summary provided to our newspaper by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs this morning indicates that if voters in the referendum say YES to the ICJ, Belize would argue its case on the basis of the 1859 and 1931 treaties. The 1859 treaty sets out the territory that the British had claimed for Belize, partly based on concessions from Spain and partly on the basis of longstanding occupation. Guatemala has unilaterally abandoned the 1859 treaty on the claim that Britain did not fulfill its side of the bargain. The 1931 treaty makes specific agreements regarding concrete markers that had been placed at Gracias a Dios Falls (Sarstoon) and Garbutt’s Falls (Belize River), which provide reference points for Belize’s western border with Guatemala.
The Government of Belize also hopes to argue its case based on “customary international law” and “the right to self-determination as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.”
Because neither Guatemala nor Belize decided to give the ICJ automatic jurisdiction in disputes with other states, for the ICJ to hear this matter both countries would have to present a signed agreement or “compromis” to the ICJ.
Martinez said that the whole process could take 5 to 6 years before reaching its end.
Before any of the parties can approach the ICJ to hear the case, the people of both countries have to agree, in national referenda, with taking the dispute to the ICJ. First, both governments have to get the approval of their legislature for the document, which Martinez classifies as a “treaty”, which will include the point on which the ICJ will be asked to rule.
The ICJ would, via the compromis, be asked to declare the boundaries between Belize and Guatemala. The compromis also includes an undertaking from both Belize and Guatemala that they would abide by the ICJ ruling, and then proceed to mark out the border between them based on the ICJ ruling.
The Belizean officials at this morning’s meeting with the press still maintain that Belize has an iron-clad case, and that the ICJ ruling is important because there are no dividing markers on the ground to separate Belize from Guatemala. Under international law, both parties need to work together to demarcate the boundary line, Martinez told the press.
That suggests that for there to be a border marked out, Guatemala has to agree with Belize on where the border lies – and hence drop its long-standing claim on Belize.