From the get go it was no piece of cake, no stroll in the park to get a yes vote for us to face down Guatemala at the ICJ. How does a nation accept going to court to defend a claim against her entire territory? When Nigeria and Cameroon faced off, it was over a group of islands off their coasts. When Colombia and Nicaragua faced off at the ICJ, it was over a couple islands and some territorial seas.

In his “A Compendium of Relevant Documents”, James S. Murphy told us that former Belize Prime Minister, Said Musa, had, in June 2000,pointed out to Gabriel Rojas (Guatemalan foreign minister) that any claim on Belize’s land is an “aberration.” Musa wrote: In technical talks on 7 November, 1997, the Guatemalan officials emphasized that Guatemala was not looking for land cession, and that if Guatemala were to win a legal case on the claim, compensation would not involve the cession of land. Given that history, the letter under reference [Guatemalan diplomatic note – 18 October, 1999] claiming all land south of the Sibun…came as an intolerable aberration, and is recognized as such by the international community. Belize cannot therefore be expected to even consider the possibility of any land cession.

Guatemala has not absolutely declared what she is claiming; she says she could claim the entire country, or half, or a sizable piece of land. Belize, if she votes yes to go to the ICJ, will be agreeing to defend herself, in court, against any and all arguments that Guatemala can bring in the interest of her case. That, from the get go, was no easy sell for Belize’s Foreign Minister, Wilfred Elrington. He hasn’t helped the cause.

The PUP, the number one Opposition party in the country, and other Opposition parties, have called for Belize to protest loudly to the UN, the world, about Guatemalan transgressions in the Sarstoon. Elrington virtually ignores this call.

The Amandala, Belize’s leading newspaper, has called for us to re-internationalize our story, and take our lobby directly to the American people. Elrington ignores this call.

Former ambassador, David Gibson, has called for Belize to prepare a plan in the event of a no vote. Elrington said we would be crazy to vote no.

Elrington’s great contribution to the essential discourse is that Guatemala is likely to invade if we vote no. There’s a disappointing backdrop to that line. Mr. Elrington is sweating an “I told you so” over 1981. Wilfred Elrington has a problem with Belize becoming independent in 1981, and he and fellow UDP Minister, Michael Finnegan, went to the House and made sure Belize knew that the compromis is not a UDP baby. I am putting that kindly. Those gentlemen went to the House and BLAMED George Price and the PUP for not following the Philip Goldson path to independence.

There you have it. The man we sent doesn’t believe in 1981. And that is why he has made a mess of it.
(Incidentally, my one vote supports Belize not revoking the MAA.)

Some reasons why Guatemala has never invaded Belize

The VIP’s Paul Morgan and the BPP’s Patrick Rogers have gone on record that Guatemala could never invade Belize in this present climate.

We recall that Spain used to “invade” Belize, from through Mexico. But Mexico, our northern neighbor, has never invaded Belize. And neither has Guatemala, our neighbor to the west and south, invaded Belize. In fact, Guatemala has never been on Belizean soil.

We could argue that Guatemala has never invaded Belize because Guatemala knows she has no rights to the territory. But we know that doesn’t make sense.

In 1939, Great Britain declared war on Nazi Germany. In 1940 the Guatemalan government declared the 1859 Treaty null and void. If you like playing the ostrich, you will consider those dates coincidental.

Guatemala, just a little more than a quarter century ago, slaughtered almost a quarter million of her own people. Guatemala’s rich people continue to deny the rights of her poorer people, and to this day she continues to murder the leaders of the poorer classes. Guatemala has produced some leaders who are vicious people.

Some people say that Guatemala is changing, that in time they will have leaders that will “allow” Belize to go free from their bogus claim. The world is really quite fascinating. We believe that the lion will lie down with the lamb, but the people who wrote the book, the Netanyahu Jews, believe that all you need to go to war is some “justification.”

Guatemala did not invade British Honduras, and the independent Belize, because of the British. Guatemala is a bully nation and nations like those respect one thing only, and that one thing is the hammer. The British wielded that hammer.

Guatemala has not invaded Belize because of America. The only time American soldiers have gone against British soldiers was during the American War of Independence. The British removed their garrison from Belize in 1993, so the Americans could have given Guatemala the “all clear” here. But Belize is no enemy of the Americans. We deplore many of their foreign policies, policies that create hardship in our region, but most everyone wants a green card.

In his letter to the Amandala last week, Colville Young, Jr. pointed out that Guatemala is very hesitant to invade because of the daunting task of governing a hostile people (from the Hondo to the Sarstoon we don’t want to be Guatemalans), the fact that Queen E is still our head of state (we are a Commonwealth nation), and the American fear that Belizeans in the thousands (those who will choose not to fight) will become refugees and they will turn up on their borders. And don’t forget that many Americans have a home in Belize, and have invested in businesses here.

Finally, Guatemala has not invaded Belize because of the new hammer on the block, the United Nations. Belize, as VIP leader Paul Morgan always reminds us, is the poster baby of the UN. It will be the end of Guatemala’s oligarchy if she uses her military might against Belize.

But, it is wise to be wary of a country that has produced a number of crazy, murderous leaders.

Negotiations done

I suppose that a return to colony will be a proud day for Brother Wilfred and people in his company. I am proud to say that most Reds are not into that.

Many proponents of the no vote have suggested that Belize should seek an advisory opinion on the 1859 Treaty at the ICJ. However, the United Nations has effectively ruled on that. That is why Belize got the green light for independence. Another advisory opinion on 1859 wouldn’t “interest” the bully neighbor bikaaz dehn done get the sense. Former ambassador James Murphy pointed out in the “Compendium” that Guatemala changed course in 1999, and now the basis for their claim is “18th century Anglo-Spanish treaties.”

Briefly, when Belize got her independence she committed to work to solve this problem with Guatemala. Through the years since independence, Guatemala has been disrespecting our borders. Hence the OAS-supervised adjacency zone. We got as far as the Ramphal/ReichlerProposals. Incredibly, in the face of the UN, Guatemala insisted on land. Thus we ended at the compromis.

It is a legal question and as the nations of the world have said (1981), Guatemala has no case. Going to the ICJ is not much more than a formality. But saying yes is a very, very difficult thing.

But saying no is also a very, very difficult thing. Belize can say no, but there are implications. Mr. Elrington isn’t completely out of his mind when he says a no vote could incite the Guatemalans to invade Belize. But the odds are much against that.

There are a number of factors to make the Guatemalans think a few times before invading Belize. But we can bet that country will step up the aggression on the borders. That tactic is called attrition and it can be costly.

Among other things, a no vote will bring a very hefty price tag. On the surface a no vote looks “independent”, but on the ground it could very well be more “colony”. Somebody will have to pay the hefty price tag.

Belize must face the fact that the “advisory opinion” on 1859 was effectively given in 1981. That means that the taaking done! Belize’s best move now is to go forward to the ICJ and win this case.