Belize, Guatemala, Honduras focus on maritime boundaries
Since the Guatemalan Government’s rejection of the Ramphal-Reichler proposals in 2003, the once all consuming issue of that country’s territorial claim has taken a back seat in the public eye to more pressing issues of domestic politics. But the process, officially rekindled at the O.A.S. in September of last year, continues, and today the press received an update following the latest meetings held on March twenty-third and twenty-fourth in Guatemala City. According to Chief Negotiator Assad Shoman, last week’s talks focussed on maritime issues … and for the first time the Foreign Minister of Honduras joined his Belizean and Guatemalan counterparts. As befits the deliberate pace of the process, a decision was made to appoint a group of technical representatives who will meet in Belize on April twentieth and twenty-first. That group will then report to the next ministerial session, set for May nineteenth and twentieth in Honduras. And what will they talk about? Things like baselines, territorial waters, and the exclusive economic zone … all subjects well covered in the last attempt to reach an O.A.S. brokered settlement. Because of that frustrating experience most observers see the current process simply as a necessary prelude to taking the Guatemalan claim to the International Court of Justice … a possibility suggested by Shoman himself.
Assad Shoman, Chief Negotiator
?The Guatemalans can be serious about trying to reach a solution, but they can seriously believe that they should get from Belize a piece of land or islands or sea and Belize has a different opinion, which means that we will not reach an agreement. But not reaching an agreement doesn?t mean that there is a lack of will to reach an agreement, it?s just that our positions are so different that we may reach a point where they will say we need this and we say, sorry, we can?t give it to you. Which is why the importance of this September seventh agreement, that we agree that we may disagree but then find a solution for that disagreement, which is take it to court. So that?s why in a sense we can be more optimistic about the final outcome of this than ever before, because it?s possible that we do not agree, some may even say it?s likely that we will not agree, but we have the solution to that, which is that both of us say, well let?s take it to court.?
Although the current negotiations may seem to be an elaborate charade on the way to the courtroom, the Chief Negotiator pointed out that there were practical benefits to the ongoing confidence building measures. Cross border incursions into Belize by Guatemalan settlers have been dramatically reduced … and in the case of Santa Rosa, the controversial Guatemalan settlement on Belizean soil in Toledo, a solution appears to be in hand.
Assad Shoman
?As you know, we agree in the September seventh agreement that based on the voluntary decision of those settlers to leave, the Organization of American States would assist in relocating them within Guatemala and providing housing and land. I must tell you that the O.A.S. has been working very hard on that over the last few months. I must tell you that the report they give us is that every single person now in Santa Rosa, because there are less people there now than there were before, some of them have just gone of their own free will. But every single one of those that remain have stated that they wish to leave, that they want to go to some other place within Guatemala. The O.A.S. has been active trying to get the funding that is necessary to do this. In fact, I can tell you that the only thing that it causing it not to have been done yet is the lack of funding.?
According to Shoman that funding should be forthcoming as the United Kingdom has already given a hundred thousand U.S. dollars and pledged a hundred and fifty thousand more. The U.S. government has also expressed a strong interest in contributing. The entire bill for the resettlement is expected to be less than a million U.S. dollars.
And for those Belizeans who are wondering why we even bother negotiating with a country whose claim we know to be spurious, the veteran diplomat says that, unfortunately, we have little choice.
Assad Shoman
?To have a neighbour that is so much bigger than you, so much more powerful than you feeling aggrieved because it feels that you have land that belongs to that other country and that in the past has shown that it is prepared to take steps that would harm you and your people, then it is your duty to find a solution to that. We are very, very confident that whatever solution we pursue, that the rights that we claim will be vindicated, that is our position. But we do not feel that we can simply ignore it and it will go away. One of the problems we have is that we need to have secure and recognised borders. At the moment Guatemala?s position is there is no border and therefore it sometimes may have been easy for them to ignore our demands, our problems when for example people would some from Guatemala into Belize and we would seek to expel them. Now we have?that began with the facilitation process–we have confidence building measures that recognise that Belize has a right to stop people from coming across and to send them back in an organised manner and so forth. But if we were not involved in this process, number one, we wouldn?t have that understanding with Guatemala about returning people that have crossed the line. And I think the general here can tell us, the Commander of the Belize Defence, that the border is pretty clean right now. That the lot of incursions that we have been having forever and ever, all through the years, is very much reduced and that whenever we find people, we send them back without any problems with the Guatemalan Government. And I right General? That is correct. And so that?s all part of the process, but what we need is to put finality to this because believe me, if Guatemala continues to claim Belize, we?ll continue to have problems and we?ll continue to have our security threatened and our people, especially along the border, being in a threatened position. So, I think it?s not something that we choose whether or not to solve this. And to say well, we believe that it?s ours, so we don?t need to try and solve it, that?s not a realistic option.?
In reply to other questions, Shoman noted that the negotiating policy is a non-partisan national effort and not exclusive to any one political party.
