Click here to print
Eminent Panelists Debating The ICJ
Fri, June 24, 2016
Last night at the Bliss Center for the Performing Arts, the SSB Debate on Belize Guatemala relations was extensive and fiery. The debate went on for 1 hour and 49 minutes as the six panelists for and against the ICJ tried to bring the audience around to their point of view.

The affirmative slate, represented by of Ambassadors Lisa Shoman and James Murphy, and Gian Vasquez tackled the issue from the historical perspective. They gave the audience a history lesson outlining the more than 100 years that all persons involved tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Their main pitch for a yes vote is that Belize has tried everything and everything failed, all except litigation at the International Court of Justice. Here's the affirmative slate making the case for the ICJ, along with the rebuttal from the negative slate:

Amb. Lisa Shoman - In Favor Of ICJ
"There's much healthy skepticism in Belize on the matter of going to court and I think it has to do with the universally poor perception of any court system. Thanks to our own domestic situation. Court is a loaded word to Belizeans and we think courts are there to dispense injustice and not justice. But if one must settle a dispute actually, the best mechanism for doing so is a juridical settlement. It is definitive, it is binding and it will put pressure on Guatemala and yes, on Belize to deal with the issue once and for all."

Paul Morgan - Against ICJ
"Asking the ICJ to determine finally the boundaries of our country exposes our territory to probable loss. Yes, Mr. moderator, the ICJ is an international court, but we all know that in such a court cases are won or loss not necessarily on pure facts and just causes but largely on persuasive presentations. Allow me to remind my worthy opponents that the ICJ judgement they seek is un-appealable. If we lose there, there will be weeping and mashing of teeth and I will add that those who promote this unimaginable risk have not considered any contingency plan."

Gian Vasquez - In Favor of ICJ
"There is no common ground to be reached between Belize and Guatemala and so we believe it is the right or it is a ruling from the International Court of Justice will be the only body that will bring us to a common ground."

Paul Morgan - Against ICJ
"A court is the ultimate theatre of surprises and we cannot, unlike Guatemala afford to be the ones surprised."

Dickie Bradley - Against ICJ
"There are other ways and we have not even began to try and discuss them, but they are rushing us to quickly go to ICJ."

Paul Morgan - Against ICJ
"Mr. Moderator, if my worthy opponents were not well meaning and honorable Belizeans, I would conclude that their argument is promoting bare face treason and I yield 10 minutes."

Panelists who argued against going to the ICJ included Richard "Dickie" Bradley, Fred Hunter, and Paul Morgan. They say that one of the main alternatives to going to the ICJ in the short term is to take the dispute directly to the United Nations Security Council. Here are the debaters trying to convince the audience why this would or would not work:

Paul Morgan - Against ICJ
"As a matter of urgency, we recommend that Belize do what the Republic of Guinea did in 1970, when she was being aggressed by Portugal. Guinea intelligently referred the matter to the UN Security Council which is the only UN body with the authority to enforce its own decisions and as a result the UN Security Council issued Resolution 289 and 290 of 1970. The resolutions demanded the Portugal cease its military aggression and compensate Guinea or face further punishment. These resolutions demonstrate the role of the Security Council in enforcing the rights of small decolonized countries and in preserving world peace."

Amb. Lisa Shoman - In Favor Of ICJ
"An approach to the UN Security Council under chapter 7 of the UN Charter would in all likelihood only result in the UN Security Council recommending that the parties submit voluntary to the ICJ. So, if you go to the Security Council and said, well what do you think about what Guatemala is doing to us? Isn't it a terrible thing? Let me tell you that even under the section that deals with disputes that threaten an endangered world's stability, the first thing they tell you is negotiate, mediate, go to the court before you come here, and in all likelihood that is what they would say to us."

Paul Morgan - Against ICJ
"Mr. Moderator, appealing to the Security UN Council is not intended to be a solution to the dispute. It is intended to stop Guatemala's military aggression against Belize and to avoid the tragic loss of both Belizean and Guatemalan lives while the relevant nation seek to find a solution to the matter."

Another alternative that the Negative Panel put forward is to take the issue back to the international community in the same way that Belizean diplomats did to secure Belize's independence. That's also another popular alternative that we've heard before, but here's how the panelists against the ICJ explained how it would work.

Fred Hunter - Against ICJ
"We have 7 separate Treaties, International Treaties, 4 with Guatemala and the UK, 2 with United States and UK and one with United Kingdom and Mexico all establishing legitimately the border between Belize and Guatemala."

Amb. Lisa Shoman - In Favor Of ICJ
"Frankly, if we have 7 Treaties and things are so bright, let's go to court. What are we worrying about? If there is 7 Treaties that ratify that we absolutely solidly own our territory."

Fred Hunter - Against ICJ
"The 1859 Treaty is in full force demarcating the border between Belize and Guatemala. Why in the name of logic should we go to the ICJ to tell us where our well-marked out legal borders are? We must internationalize this problem with Guatemala. We got our independence by going to the United Nations, which from 1970 to 1981. We should go back to the United Nations. We should get fellow members of the Commonwealth, CARICOM, the ACP and all our friends internationally and put this question in United Nations to deal with Guatemala in not respecting the integrity and the invariability of our borders as the 1980 Resolution. Article 7 said that our borders must be viable and respected."

An immediate concern we've heard on this internationalization campaign is that the body for resolving territorial disputes within the UN is the ICJ.

Finally, one other alternative which was put forward by the panel against going to the ICJ is that Belize is being forced to take on a dispute that actually exists between Guatemala and the United Kingdom. Here's Dickie Bradley making the point that the British Government should be the ones trying to resolve this claim, since the quarrel that Guatemala has with the 1859 treaty is that Britain - not Belize - failed to honor the terms of the cart road:

Dickie Bradley - Against ICJ
"In 1863, there was a supplemental convention, the word convention means Treaty. There is a Treaty to try and see if we could get over this problem of Article 7. That convention had 2 important Articles; 1 is that the British will pay over to Guatemala the sum of 50 thousand pounds. Google that and see how much million that is today. They will pay that to Guatemala so Guatemala could start the road project, that is there way of rectifying and satisfying Article 7 of the 1859 Treaty. The records in the British foreign ministry office showed that they decided we will make that treaty lapse. In other words they punk Guatemala. If they are on the south side they get shot for that. Guatemala said how can you do this to me? Alright the Treaty lapse, let us sign a new Treaty. No way. Guatemala then decide, you did not live up to Article 7, you didn't help do anything about the road, why you are treating me like this? The 1859 Treaty, that is dead and buried. The British violated a Treaty according to the Guatemalans and the Guatemalans violated according to the British. You all go to the ICJ to solve your problem. You pay those people for what happen if you all want. Why should I give up my territory? The people of Belize need to ask themselves this question, if 2 of your neighbors are quarrelling about your land, why would go and give them piece of your land to one of them?"

Amb. Lisa Shoman - In Favor Of ICJ
"We have to go to the ICJ, because we will never get the Guatemalan boot off the back of our necks until we get up and do something about it and a final binding, lasting juridical solution really and truly can only be found at the ICJ."

At the start of the Debate, the Social Security Board asked all those who attended to participate in an entrance poll. After the debate was concluded, they asked the audience to complete an exit poll to gauge if the opinions have been changed by what the panelists had to say. We asked social security for the results of that audience poll - and they told us we'd have it this afternoon, but up to enws time it still had not arrived. We'll follow up next week.

Close this window