Road to referendum will be long, says veteran ambassador
With yesterday’s O.A.S. recommendation that the Guatemalan claim to Belize would best be resolved by the International Court of Justice, Belizeans learned that they would soon be faced with some tough decisions; namely, whether to approve the submission of the case to a process that would be binding on both parties. Today we asked one of Belize’s leading experts on the issue, Ambassador James Murphy, to comment on the latest developments.
Ambassador James Murphy
“The point of the Prime Minister…I think it was yesterday…is an important one where he said there was the need for a public consultation. I would prefer to term it a national dialogue which would certainly incorporate a public education initiative where all the pros and the cons and the precedence and the risks and so on of going to court are clearly and frankly explained to the people but in my opinion it needs to be bigger that a public education initiative. The government really needs to listen carefully to the people.”
Stewart Krohn
“What are some of the pros and cons of taking this thing to the I.C.J.?”
Ambassador James Murphy
“Well, first of all you may recall the legal opinion of the four international lawyers, I think it was in 2002, they said that we had an iron-clad case and that we should win of court…”
Stewart Krohn
“These are fellows who were on our payroll however, correct?”
Ambassador James Murphy
“Right, we both know they didn’t work free so yes, but my understanding of the terms of references was they weren’t asked to make a case for Belize, they were asked to give an opinion as to how, in their best judgement, the court would rule. But, in any event, presumably an I.C.J. ruling would be final; there would be final settlement to the dispute. Hopefully, a final settlement of the dispute would lead to the clearing of the border. As you know the problem of xate cutters and other incursions, the illegal settlements and so on, that’s been a problem for a number of years and hopefully a final settlement would put an end to that kind of activity.”
Stewart Krohn
“Ambassador let me cut you short here, why would the settlement of the dispute have anything to do with that illegal xate collecting and other illegal incursions when you can have any two countries that have no border dispute or no border claim and people can still cross those borders to do illegal activities? So I don’t quite follow you there.”
Ambassador James Murphy
“In and of itself clearing of the border perhaps won’t stop it but at least there would be recognition and respect for the border on the part of the Guatemalans and you could, presumably, rely more easily on them to be helpful.”
Stewart Krohn
“Suppose I advance the other opinion which is to say that if the court gave a final ruling that gave Belize everything and gave Guatemala absolutely nothing might they not react immaturely by saying, alright well you got your border now but we are not gonna do anything to help you secure it?”
Ambassador James Murphy
“Well, I can’t say it’s impossible, Stewart, but I would sat that if you have a court ruling it strengthens your position with the international community so you, hopefully, would be able to rely on help if there is such a violations that have been happening continue.”
Stewart Krohn
“Let me go to another corollary point here Ambassador. You say that the great weight of legal opinion is that Belize has and exceedingly strong case, I believe the Prime Minister used the word iron-clad, and let us for the moment assume that. Despite an iron-clad or a strong case does the membership of the I.C.J. indicate that that court can sometimes make quirky, quasi-political rulings?”
Ambassador James Murphy
“Well, Stewart that question really should be more probably directed to a lawyer…”
Stewart Krohn
“But you are a long time observer of the process Ambassador.”
Ambassador James Murphy
“[laughs] I wouldn’t want to start second guessing the I.C.J. I am guided by what these two legal opinions that we have received say and the more recent one was the one that I referred to earlier and there they are fairly confident.”
Stewart Krohn
“How risky is it politically for a government or an opposition to go on record as endorsing a certain outcome of the referendum, let us say, yes let us send the dispute to the world court and the repercussions of such a decision backfiring? Aren’t that to be a major consideration for the two major political parties?”
Ambassador James Murphy
“Well, from what I gather from statements that I have heard from leaders of the two political parties they have both been very careful to say it’s in the hands of the people and the people in referendum will make the decisions as to how we precede. So I think they are going the receive the recommendation of the O.A.S.; they are going to put it out there and they are going to, I would imagine, engage in an extensive public consultation process and then leave it up to the people to decide.”
There are, of course, many more factors to consider when looking at the referendum issue, and it is also worth noting that Guatemala would have to undergo a similar process. A quick canvass of local experts indicates that Guatemalan authorities have shown little enthusiasm for the judicial option. Without their agreement the initiative could not begin to get off the ground.
