Email

Print

Last week at the OAS in Washington DC, Foreign Minister Wilfred Elrington called the Belize Guatemala border “artificial”. The use of that single word that has awakened bitter nationalist sentiment and provoked strident criticisms of the Minister with the most passionate calling him a sellout and the most casual calling him, plainly, crazy. But when we called him this morning, Elrington was cool and mostly unperturbed – in fact, even with all the heated sentiment flying about, he was prepared to defend his words. The confusion he says is about reading the wrong meaning into what he said – specifically using the wrong definition of the word artificial. He and Jules Vasquez discussed it at some length this afternoon.

Wilfred Sedi Elrington, Minister of Foreign Affairs
“The border which now exists between Belize and Guatemala was in consequence of the 1859 treaty which was a manmade border; the British and the Guatemalans got together and agreed upon it. That is all the word artificial means in that context, a manmade border. You have other types of borders which also have been agreed upon by men but this is not necessarily manmade. For example, when you have the rivers running through two countries like in the United States between Mexico and the United States you have a natural border running, the river, and up north by Mexico we always say that the Rio Hondo up there is a natural border between us and Mexico. In the case of the western border, that is a border that is agreed upon by the British and the Guatemalans years. It is a manmade border and that is the simple meaning of artificial, it being manmade.”

Jules Vasquez,
“Artificial also means not real. So the interpretation taken by many, because it is such an provocative subject, is that the fact of this not real border does not make us different. That means that people interpret it to mean that you just said that we don’t have a border.”

Wilfred Sedi Elrington,
“The first meaning of the word artificial in the dictionary is manmade but nobody seems to want to even read the dictionary these days. But you had the decency to say to me well what do you mean by it and I am saying to you here is a border agreed upon by the British and the Guatemalans. That border does not stop people from being people so that notwithstanding the fact that you have a border, whether you want to call it artificial or just a border without putting an adjective to it, it does not detract from the fact that you have people coming together and working together.

I believe that our borders where they are is the correct border. That is the position of the government, that is my position and I am prepared to go and defend that at the International Court of Justice. So I had no hesitation in moving towards that position and I think that that is the proper thing to do. I want to emphasize though that all those who are screaming now about the border were never around in the early days of the 60s when we were demonstrating about Guatemala. When I personally in 1968 was arrested and convicted for campaigning against Guatemala, campaigning against the Heads of Agreement, the proposals, the Webster Proposals and the like, I have always been at the forefront of those struggles.

I certainly have no doubt that this is my country, the entire area as defined in our constitution. I have no doubt about that. I don’t believe that I must get on the mountain top and scream that night and day and think that is going to carry the issue away. That is not going to advance the situation any further. It is going to court and we are going to go to court and hopefully get that result.”

Jules Vasquez,
“The criticism is two things; one is that you are projecting the wrong message internationally, that is not the type of thing one should say at the OAS, that you’re inviting Guatemalans to disrespect the border, that is the first criticism. The second criticism, I will say it plainly, because it’s been said to me plainly and certainly over the radio as well, that you are crazy to say the border is artificial.”

Wilfred Sedi Elrington,
“But you have what I have said there. Do you find it innocuous? Anything offensive by what I have said? You’ve read it.”

Jules Vasquez,
“Minister plainly, I find it a careless use of language.”

Wilfred Sedi Elrington,
“Why?”

Jules Vasquez,
“Because it is imprecise because artificial means not real. That is the default meaning of artificial.”

Wilfred Sedi Elrington,
“Well Jules what I would invite you to do is take your dictionary and as you open it the very first, the very first…isn’t that correct?”

Jules Vasquez,
“But the plain meaning….”

Wilfred Sedi Elrington,
“But don’t you look into the dictionary to find the plain meaning of the word?”

Jules Vasquez,
“I don’t because it is what it is.”

Wilfred Sedi Elrington,
“But is the dictionary the place where we people look to find the meaning of words? And you’re saying that is not the meaning that’s contained in the dictionary?”

Jules Vasquez,
“I am saying there is more than one meaning and the plain meaning of the word, the default meaning, the meaning one goes to first is not who made it, God or man because that’s what you’re talking about, the plain meaning is artificial means unreal.”

Wilfred Sedi Elrington,
“You see and let me backtrack a little and say to you that I welcome the public interest people are taking in this matter because I think I its of utmost importance and so I welcome that. I cannot be faulted if you want to take an interpretation which is different from the one I mean and which is the one which is contained in the Oxford or Webster dictionary. I can’t be faulted for that.”

Jules Vasquez,
“If there is such a cleavage of meaning, just a fracturing of what you meant to say, your meaning was not it has been interpreted to have been, if that has happened here in this good old English speaking country then what happens in Guatemala, how will they interpret your saying artificial?”

Wilfred Sedi Elrington,
“Let me tell Jules that you can’t blame me if you don’t understand the English language, that is not my fault. You can’t also blame me if you don’t want to use the dictionary. That again is not my fault. I can perhaps say that in the future I certainly can be much more careful in choice of my words. But as I pointed out to you, the first meaning that comes to mind when you look it up is manmade and boundaries are manmade.”

Jules Vasquez,
“Seeing how your meaning has fractured so greatly, do you wish you had said the border is manmade?”

Wilfred Sedi Elrington,
“No and I’ll tell you why. I was reading a book recently and I came across a Ugandan phrase. The Ugandan phrase says that in a court that is manned by chicken, the cockroach has no chance. In a court that is manned by chicken, the cockroach has no chance. I find that there are people who will take whatever I do or say out of context and make a big issue of it and that seems to be, somehow or the other they seem to think that that is political fine.”

Jules Vasquez,
“You have to find it personally enjoyus when people say as some are now saying that Wilfred is a sell-out?”

Wilfred Sedi Elrington,
“Yes I’ve heard it but that is normally a reflection of themselves. You normally think of yourselves and that is the sort of thing you would do. As a man thinks, so is he. The track record will show, the record will show, I personally have not sold out on anything.”

Ambassador and lead negotiator to Guatemala Fred Martinez – who was at the OAS and participated in our interview stressed that the OAS press release which contained the quote was not an official statement but a news release from the OAS. The difference says Martinez is important, because the statement was not made in an official meeting, and the interview in which Elrington made the comment was conducted during a break outside the meetings.

And while the argument about the meaning and implication of the term an artificial border – form what we’ve seen – for the Guatemalans living in the communities adjoining the Chiquibul forest, the border is artificial – meaning that they don’t really observe it – they move in and out of Belizean territory as they wish – decimating and despoiling the forest resources at their whim, almost. Today Ambassador Martinez and Minister Elrington said that those types of incursions are just what last Wednesday’s meeting in Washington were about.

Jules Vasquez,
“One has the sense of being outraged while at the same time overwhelmed because the place is completely desecrated. You are there with the soldiers and the soldiers are tiptoeing around our territory. They are scared, we are scared, with good reason because the people you encounter are shooting at rangers in their own country so what wouldn’t they do in our country. How do we solve a problem like that, it is so vast?”

Wilfred Sedi Elrington,
“Yeah Jules and the first step towards solving it is to educate the Belizean people on the realities on the ground. Don’t get sensational about it and no knee jerk. But all of us have a responsibility to educate the Belizeans as to what is happening and what we need to do.”

Fred Martinez, Ambassador to Guatemala
“The Guatemalans, and this is one of the reasons we met in Washington, because Belize has some very complaints about the fact that we have been constantly having to face these people along the border line and stopping them from coming into Belize and our complaint to the Guatemalans is that you are not doing enough to dissuade your people from coming across. The confidence building measures call for you to help dissuade your people, to look for new opportunities in the Peten thus stopping those people from having to come into Belize. They are telling us we have a big problem ourselves, our forest rangers are being shot at which is no lie, their forest rangers are under constant attacks. We ourselves have had to set up military people to guide our forest rangers because our rangers are under constant attack. So it is a problem both of us are facing. Well we know you have a problem but the problem we’re having is not by our Belizean people, the problem is by your people coming across into our territory.”

But what will happen specifically with the Guatemalan milpa plantation that we encountered in Belizean territory – 500 meters from the Guatemalan border. It’s in the adjacency zone – which is a one kilometer buffer on either side of the border.