HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR BELIZE
HE Kamela Palma, Sir Ron Halstead and Melissa Crawshay-Williams
Education: MA Education and Internal Development, University of London; Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, University of London; BA English (La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA); Certificate in Curriculum Development in the Language Arts – ESL, Michigan State University, USA.
Languages spoken: English (mother tongue), Belizean Creole (mother tongue), Spanish (fluent)
Employment:
November 2008 – Present, High Commissioner of Belize, London
2003 – 2008, Independent consultant – strategic planning for Government of Belize
2004, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of Belize, Guatemala
2003 – 2008, Chairperson of National Council on Ageing, Belize
2001 – 2003, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Human Development, Belize
2000 – 2001, Director, Regional Language Centre, University of Belize
2000, Researcher, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London
1997, Research Assistant, University of Surrey, Guildford
1995 – 1996, Volunteer Researcher for Grants, Princess Royal Trust for Carers, London
1989 – 1995, Lecturer/Course Writer at Farnborough College of Technology, Aldershot, Hampshire
1986 – 1989, Training/Communications Consultant, Causeway Management Consultants Ltd, West Harrow, Middlesex
1985 – 1986, Spanish Teacher at Hong Kong International School
Text of Speech:
Belize’s Foreign Relations and More Specifically, the Belize/Guatemala Territorial Dispute
Conservative Foreign and Commonwealth Council, February 8th, 2010
Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am pleased to have been asked by the Conservative Foreign and Commonwealth Council to give a talk on the Foreign Relations of Belize with particular emphasis on the border dispute with Guatemala.
Before I start, allow me first of all to convey the greetings of the Government of Belize and to express our gratitude for this opportunity to apprise you of Belize’s Foreign Relations and more specifically, for me to talk about the present state of relations between Belize and the Republic of Guatemala.
Belize, as you are aware, is a Small State geographically positioned on the Central American mainland, yet being an intrinsic and active member of the Caribbean, and indeed, of the region. Belize is both a member of SICA (Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana) and of CARICOM. Belize also belongs to the RIO Group, an association of Latin American and Caribbean Countries which seek a common foreign policy on a variety of issues, most specifically on the prevention of WMDs in the region and the enhancement of security and cooperation among member states.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is challenged, as in all small states, by needing to ensure that Belize is represented on the Global Stage, yet grappling with issues of limited human and other resources. Having said this, the Government of Belize, since its Independence, has established Diplomatic Missions in key Capitals – Guatemala, Mexico, Cuba, San Salvador, Taipei, Washington, New York, Brussels, and London. We also have Honorary Consuls in major US cities where the majority of Belize’s diaspora reside; and there are Honorary Consuls in Asia, Europe, Central and South America. There are also Belizeans who are non-resident Ambassadors for Africa and Japan. Belize’s overall Foreign Policy objectives, like that of any other State, is to play an active role in contributing to the peace, stability, growth, and security of our region; and to make certain that it also plays an active role on the world’s stage.
(I will now speak to the border dispute)
Belize’s Border Dispute with Guatemala:
Belize, formerly British Honduras, attained its independence on 21st September 1981.This would not have been possible without the guarantee of its defence by the United Kingdom in the context of an unrelenting claim to Belize’s territory by the Republic of Guatemala.
Belize, assumed at independence, responsibility for resolving what was hitherto known as the Anglo-Guatemalan territorial dispute.
The essence of the contention by Guatemala is that the boundary delimitation treaty signed between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Guatemala on 30th April 1859 was a treaty of cession of territory which had become null and void because of British non compliance with one of its clauses. This was first asserted by Guatemala in 1884 and crystallized during the period 1937 to 1945 when Guatemala called for international arbitration of the issue and amended its constitution to reflect the assertion of its claim to the geo-political space of British Honduras.
The United Kingdom took the position in 1937, renewing this in 1951 and repeatedly thereafter, that it was prepared to engage in arbitration or adjudication of the issue, but only under strict principles of international law, that is, to establish whether the Boundary Convention of 1859 was a valid boundary treaty under international treaty law. Guatemala, on the other hand, saw the issue as one in which Britain should compensate her or return territory lost using the ‘ex aequo et bono’ principle, that is, on the basis of the considerations of ‘equity, justice and fairness’.
Lengthy, fruitless negotiations ensued over the years to resolve the territorial dispute with Guatemala thrice threatening the use of force, deterred only by the presence of her Majesty’s Britannic Forces in the pre- and post-independence Belize.
Belize’s emergence as a sovereign and independent nation was bolstered by very strong United Nations General Assembly Resolutions recognizing the territorial integrity of Belize and the guarantee of its national defence for an ‘’appropriate period of time” by the Government of the United Kingdom.
On 1st June 1993, having arrived at an assessment that Guatemala no longer posed a military threat to the independent Belize, the British Government announced the standing down of its defence role in Belize, handing this over to the Belize Defence Force with effect from 1st January 1994. The presence of British Forces in Belize would continue in a training mode, in the form of the British Army Training Sub Unit in Belize, known as ‘BATSUB’.
This decision by the British Government took into consideration that Guatemala had formally recognized the independence of Belize - without abandoning its claim to territory, and that Guatemala had engaged in negotiations, in which the British Government participated as an observer, and which, seemingly, would have resolved the dispute to the satisfaction of the parties. The British government offered £200 million for development projects most of which would have become available to the Government of Guatemala. Things seemed to be going well, until the political situation in Guatemala suddenly deteriorated and President Elias Serrano was deposed in October of 1993.
Soon thereafter, a civilian interim President, Ramiro de Leon Carpio, Guatemala’s Human Rights Ombudsman, was appointed President, occasioned by the ascendancy into office of hard line opponents to former President Serrano, who had very strongly opposed his recognition of the independence of Belize.
Guatemala’s new Foreign Minister notified the United Nations Secretary General in 1994 of the reiteration of Guatemala’s territorial claim to all the territory of Belize. This notification was roundly criticized by Belize as a retrograde step.
In 1997 Guatemala’s Constitutional Court, on a petition from a group of lawyers, declared that the ratification of the 1859 Boundary Convention had not been properly processed and was therefore unconstitutional. Guatemala no longer recognized the border with Belize with the effect of a significant increase of illegal settlement by Guatemalans in Belize, engaged in ‘slash and burn’ agriculture mainly in the forest reserves and protected areas adjacent to the boundary. This became a source of mounting tension as Belize engaged in efforts to stem the influx of illegal settlers
In 1999, Guatemala’s new Foreign Minister wrote to Prime Minister Said Musa outlining the geographic scope of Guatemala’s territorial claim, recommending that the territorial dispute be referred to arbitration. For the same reason that Britain had done so in 1937 and in 1951, that is, based on an aversion to Guatemala’s quest for ’equity’ (ex aequo et bono) treatment of the issue, Belize declined, calling instead for negotiations with the objective of finding an amicable, honourable and permanent solution to the dispute.
President Alfonso Portillo of Guatemala, in his Inaugural Address, attended by Prime Minister Said Musa in January of 2000, announced his government’s intention to renew the search for a solution to the dispute through negotiation with Belize.
But relations deteriorated when Guatemala’s hard liners, now ensconced in a newly formed Comisión de Belice, lodged in that country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, orchestrated the detention of a Belize security forces unit in southern Belize to coincide with a scheduled Belize/Guatemala technical level meeting to prepare the way for the negotiating process. The underlying rationale was to emphasize Guatemala’s non recognition of a border with Belize. Belize refused to meet with Guatemala, protesting its action and calling for the immediate release of its security personnel. The international community also responded to the situation by calling for the release of the security personnel, and for efforts to adhere to the process of negotiation that had been espoused.
By May of 2000 the parties had agreed to implement the process of negotiation under the auspices of the Organization of American States.
The ‘Belize/Guatemala Agreement on Confidence Building Measures’ was formalized on 8th November 2000 with the objective of avoiding incidents between citizens and security forces of the two countries in order to facilitate the negotiating process.
An important feature was the parties’ agreement to refrain from the use or threat of force, and to respect as inviolate, the land, maritime and insular areas over which they exercised sovereignty
An adjacency line was established coinciding with the boundary that had been marked on the ground between the United Kingdom and Guatemala in 1860. And a kilometre wide adjacency zone to the east and west of the adjacency line was also established
A regime for the treatment of settlers and protocol for the removal of illegal settlements in the adjacency zone was included. Guatemala undertook to dissuade its citizens from illegally settling in Belize.
I wish at this juncture, to make the point that this Agreement has since constituted the template for two further Agreements on Confidence Building Measures signed between the parties in 2003 and 2005 under the auspices of the OAS Secretary General.
In terms of the negotiations that ensued in 2000, the Facilitators of the process, Sir Shridath Ramphal for Belize (Sir Shridath Ramphal is a former Secretary General of the Commonwealth Secretariat), and Paul Reichler for Guatemala, with OAS Secretary General Cesar Gaviria serving as Witness of Honour, received presentations in oral hearings from Belize and Guatemala. In September 2002 the Facilitators presented their Proposals, signed unto by the Foreign Minister of Guatemala and by Belize’s Senior Ambassador with Ministerial Rank.
Most significantly, the Facilitators proposed that Belize keep all lands described in the 1859 Boundary Convention, and that the maritime area in the Gulf of Honduras with the additional concurrence of the Republic of Honduras, be defined in accordance with the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, 1982. Provisions were also included for the removal of an illegal Guatemalan settlement in Belize that had pre-existed the Agreement on Confidence Building Measures, and for the establishment of a Development Fund, financed by the international community.
These Proposals were to be put to simultaneous referenda in Belize and Guatemala subject to their respective constitutional processes.
While Belize quickly prepared itself, Guatemala’s Foreign Minister was excoriated by the Guatemalan Congress for signing on to the Proposals. He eventually resigned. The process was suspended in Guatemala.
After much prompting from the international community, Guatemala on 7th February 2003 signed with Belize an ’Agreement to Establish a Transition Process and Confidence Building Measures Between Belize and Guatemala’ under the auspices of the OAS to preserve the Proposals until such time as the appropriate constitutional processes could be completed.
In August 2004, Guatemala formally rejected the Proposals saying that their acceptance would be in breach of the Constitution of Guatemala.
Continuing diplomatic initiatives and encouragement by the international community led to the signing on 7th September 2005 of the ‘Agreement on a Framework for Negotiations and Confidence Building Measures between Belize and Guatemala’. This was a final effort to resolve the territorial dispute through negotiations.
The Agreement authorized the OAS Secretary General to recommend to the parties, referral of the dispute, to a judicial process if the final round of negotiations were to fail.
Not surprisingly, negotiations did fail.
Guatemala persisted in its claim to Belize’s territory, Belize refused to yield, adhering to the nationally enshrined adage to yield, “not one square centimetre, not one blade of grass…”
On 19th November 2007, OAS Secretary General Jose Insulza recommended that the parties refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The recommendation was accepted by the Governments of Belize and Guatemala
Negotiations then ensued for the preparation of the Special Agreement required to elevate the dispute to the ICJ. In the course of these negotiations Guatemala agreed that the case should be judged in strict accordance with international law. This in fact represented a sea change in the position held by Guatemala over the years, that is, ‘a relinquishment of the legal approach to obtain an ex aequo et bono judgment’.
In the circumstance, Belize is confident that its legal position will prevail, bolstered by the legal advice provided by experts led by the eminent British international jurist, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht.
The costs of litigation, projected to occur over a four year period, is high - in the region of £20million. The parties have agreed to seek funding from the international community with the support of the OAS, and through a United Nations’ legal fund for territorial dispute resolution.
The United Kingdom has contributed funds to meet the costs of Belize’s preparation for national referendum but has adopted what appears to be an ‘even-handed’ approach in supporting both Belize and Guatemala in the effort. I must add here that what the United Kingdom calls an ‘even-handed’ approach in its assistance, in fact, is considered by many Belizeans as a most unbalanced approach.
Let me give an example of this: in January 2009, the United Kingdom deposited £200,000 to the OAS’ Fund for both Belize and Guatemala to use for ‘legal fees’. Guatemala refused to accept legal fees from the United Kingdom and wishes for this fund to be renamed ‘an Education Fund’. For Belize, on the other hand, the original designation of these funds for assistance with the payment of ‘legal fees’ should stand. This is paramount. To date, because of this impasse, these monies which would make such a difference to Belize have not been disbursed.
The Special Agreement was signed on 8th December 2008 by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Belize and Guatemala in the presence of the OAS Secretary General. It now awaits the conduct of simultaneous referenda in the two countries in accordance with their political and constitutional requirements.
Here the matter rests. Belize, in the meantime, has engaged in preparation for the referendum. In Guatemala, the directive required for the holding of its referendum awaits Congressional approval, delayed by impasse over a range of unrelated issues in Guatemala’s internal affairs.
The delay in the process is of much concern to the Government of Belize. There is a sense that the prospect for the timely conduct of the referenda is diminishing. It is beginning to fray the bi-partisan bond that has characterized Belize’s approach to managing its relations with the Republic of Guatemala. Views have been expressed that emerging political conditions in both countries are likely to negatively affect the process.
In Belize, national anxiety and ire over recent actions by Guatemala’s Security Forces have intensified as the hardliners in the Comisión de Belice accuse Belize of militarizing the adjacency zone. This is as Belize takes measures to install, as a deterrent, conservation posts in ‘hotspots’ to prevent the ongoing spate of illegal farming, illegal logging, and, illegal extraction of forest products by Guatemalan nationals.
Belize’s border area forest reserves and protected areas are increasingly under assault by the residents of the 65 border communities who live on the Guatemalan side.
The problem is caused by the situation of extreme poverty and landlessness that afflicts the adjacent/bordering Department of El Petén in Guatemala. To stem this assault, Belize is vigorously promoting NGO-led transnational efforts in the contiguous Mayan Biosphere Reserve. These include UNREDD’s climate change funding for reforestation, watershed protection, strengthened conservation law enforcement, community education, and the funding of projects promoting alternative sustainable livelihoods for the residents of the border communities.
In another situation, Guatemala has laid claim to the island on the Belize side of the Sarstoon River since November of 2009. The Guatemalan Armed Forces have blocked access by Belize to the thalweg of the river, that is, the mid-channel of which is defined in the 1859 Boundary Convention as the southern boundary of Belize and Guatemala.
Both situations have been placed for assessment by the Organization of American States and it is anticipated that they will be satisfactorily resolved. In this context, the Parties have agreed to establish a bi-national, high level working group supported by the OAS, to improve the effectiveness of the confidence building measures and to rapidly respond to issues as they arise.
The Organization of American States has played an important role in ‘managing’ the territorial differendum, as it is called. The presence of an OAS Office in the adjacency zone has contributed immensely to the reduction of tension and to the general effectiveness of the Confidence Building Measures. Belize recognizes the importance of this support and the related financial support of the international ‘Group of Friends of the process’, including the United Kingdom, which has funded the operations of the Office
Belize remains committed to maintaining and pursuing amicable and productive relations with Guatemala. There are areas for example in the area of trade relations where progress, though slow, has been achieved. In the typology of territorial disputes, the Belize Guatemala dispute can now be placed in the ‘managed dispute’ category having metamorphosed from the category of a ‘belligerent dispute’. The willingness of the Parties to find an amicable solution to the dispute is nearing its zenith within the framework of the United Nations system. The effort must continue.
Belize’s Relations with the United Kingdom:
I think it is appropriate to conclude on the subject of Belize’s relations with the United Kingdom with respect to the territorial dispute.
The United Kingdom continues to be an important actor in many ways in the dynamic of Belize/Guatemala relations. The 300,000 citizens of Belize place great faith in the support that the British government has given to safeguard Belize’s sovereignty and territorial integrity since the attainment of independence in 1981.
Yet, twenty-eight years after independence, the people of Belize continue to be saddled with the burden of resolving a dispute that originated a hundred and fifty years ago. It is a distortive influence on the national psyche; it is an undue cause of angst; and it is a drain on scarce resources
Our best diplomatic and legal minds are engrossed by this inherited, anachronistic dispute - their energies diverted from contributing to the critically demanding national agenda for poverty elimination and development.
Within this context which I have shared with you, we ask therefore that the United Kingdom support our efforts, as needed, until this matter is finally resolved. This we think is a fair request in view of the historical perspective of Belize’s relationship with the United Kingdom; in view of the existence of Belize as a Sovereign and autonomous State; and finally, in an effort to come to final resolution of this dispute.
Thank You:
On behalf of my Government, I thank you once again for your kind invitation to me to talk about Belize’s Foreign Relations and, more specifically, I thank you for the opportunity to contextualise the Belize/Guatemala Territorial Dispute. Thank you kindly.
A question and answer session followed.
]]>
.JPG)
