B.P.P. Weighs In on I.C.J. with their Research Findings

Patrick Rogers

At a press conference today, the Belize Progressive Party maintained a ‘NO position to taking the territorial dispute to the I.C.J.  According to the B.P.P., they have done significant research that proponents of the I.C.J. may have failed to explore. The B.P.P. claims that their investigation into the matter led them to documents that show a treaty with an unfulfilled compensatory clause between Guatemalan and Britain. The B.P.P.’s Patrick Rogers says that is just one of multiple reasons why Belize’s defense is questionable should we go to the I.C.J.

Patrick Rogers, Leader, B.P.P.

“That supplementary treaty now, the British were offering to pay the Guatemalans fifty thousand pounds. They weren’t happy with seventy, but they were prepared to pay fifty thousand pounds. Now in that treaty, there was a clause that said Guatemala has six months to get back to the British to say whether or not they would accept that fifty thousand pound offer.   Two years later they got their congress together after the war and approached the British and said they were prepared to sign on to the supplementary treaty accepting the fifty-thousand pounds. The British in their fashion, ‘ I have been exonerated. You didn’t read that article that says six months lapse? I nuh owe you nothing.’ That is the genesis of the Anglo-Guatemalan monetary dispute. Now how has that morphed today into ‘Guatemala’s territorial, maritime and insular claim to Belize?’ That is what is unfounded. Guatemala’s claim to Belize is unfounded and we will always argue that it is unfounded. This document legitimizes an unfounded claim. That is what is so wrong. We have done our research and I would dare say more research than they did because they only researched what the British gave to them. We took time to look at what our opponent brings against we and they have a tight case. If we go under this – but if we get rid of this our opponent nuh have no kinda case against we.”