Senator and V.I.P. rep reject minister’s comments

Two persons who have rejected the Minister’s remarks are Senator Godwin Hulse and Patrick Rogers of the Vision Inspired by the People Movement. Senator Hulse said the Minister’s words could not even be interpreted as diplomatic language.

Via Phone: Godwin Hulse, Senator
“He made comments to the effect that our borders are artificial and that the Guatemalans and ourselves have the same interests. I’m saying that he needs to explain to the people what exactly that means because a statement like that made on the international stage has some far-reaching effects, particularly given our position with Guatemala. To my mind, we don’t have an artificial border, it’s a real border because your borders encompass your territory and our territory is clearly defined. It was defined from 1859 so I don’t understand how it could be artificial now. In terms of interests, as far as I’m concerned, the people of Belize want to live in peace and harmony with Guatemala and all our neighbours and we want to develop within our borders. As far as I know, the Guatemalans are seeking to claim a part of our country, if not the whole. So I could not see how our interests would be the same. I don’t enter the purview of diplomatic language. I am plain and straightforward with what I say, whether it’s on an international stage or a domestic stage. I think we should never deviate ever from the position that we have a border. That cannot be diplomatic, that is real. We have a border.”

Patrick Rogers, Vision Inspired by the People Movement
“Since I heard that statement I’m saying to myself – what is wrong with the Foreign Minister – because basically we can never be the same. That’s an elitist society. I’ve visited Guatemala on countless occasions, and a middle class family could afford four maids because the cost of the poor labour is so cheap in Guatemala. I don’t know if that’s the road that the elites in this country want to see us go why they say we are similar. He has legitimized wah adjacency zone instead of demanding that that thing is referred to as what it is, a border, because what separates two countries are borders. The honourable members of the House, thirty-one of them, we done know where one stand – we done know Sedi wah vote for it. Now we noh know weh di Prime Minister wah do yet. He just tell we he wah left the members of his party to vote dehn conscience. We will be calling every member of that House of Representatives that votes to send this issue to the ICJ a traitor, nothing less than a traitor because why would we go and jeopardize a standing that exists in the United Nations since September 1981? Why would we go and put that on shaky grounds when there’s no need to do that?”