Ending Caribbean border disputes

Dec 14, 2008 Features / Columnists, Ronald Sanders

---

By Sir Ronald Sanders

Border disputes are a contentious and unnecessary barrier to economic and social development in countries involved in them.

They frustrate international cooperation on trade, environment protection, security, and law enforcement. They also scare off private sector investment and they are a drain on budgets and resources.

For these reasons, the people of Belize and Guatemala and their neighbouring countries should welcome the news that on December 8th, the governments of the two countries signed a Special Agreement to “submit Guatemala’s territorial, insular, and maritime claim to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)”.
The Caribbean region has been plagued by three border disputes for over four decades.

Guatemala has laid claim to the territory of Belize (formerly a British colony), Venezuela seeks to reopen a claim settled over a century ago to two-thirds of Guyana (also a former British colony) and Guyana and Suriname (a former Dutch colony) quarrel over the area that constitutes their boundary.

In 1980, the United Nations urged Guatemala and Belize to find a peaceful solution to their territorial problem. But, since then, there have been serious incidents between the military forces of the two countries and bloody confrontations, loss of life, and destruction of crops.

The two sides then participated in an initiative in 2000 by the Organisation of American States (OAS) to facilitate a negotiated settlement of their problem. Largely because of Guatemalan recalcitrance, the effort petered out though the OAS-appointed facilitators had laid the groundwork for a lasting solution.

It is a matter of conjecture how much better off Belize and Guyana might now have been had Guatemala and Venezuela not maintained their claims, absorbing the scare resources of the two smaller countries to ward them off, and frightening away investment.

The Special Agreement has to be approved by the citizens of Belize and Guatemala in referenda. It is assumed that the Belize referendum will be fairly plain sailing since both the ruling political party and the main opposition party have both worked toward a resolution of the problem.

Although, it has to be said, that there may be some understandable nervousness in Belize because the decision of the ICJ will be binding.

In this connection, the worst case scenario for Guatemala is that it will not get any of the territory to which it aspires; the worst case scenario for the Belizeans is the loss of their homeland and their sovereignty.

Nonetheless, encouraged by the efforts of the Secretary-General of OAS under whose auspices the Special Agreement was signed, the Foreign Minister of Guatemala Roger Haroldo Rodas Melgar declared “we are beginning a process that, regardless of its outcome, will enable the governments and peoples of these two countries to act in a manner that befits the start of the Twenty-first Century.”

That is a sentiment that had been expressed almost identically by Assad Shoman, then Belize’s Chief Negotiator with Guatemala, in September 2005.

Nations everywhere should welcome the signing of the Special Agreement and encourage the two countries to move quickly to get their issue before the ICJ.

The fact that the governments have chosen to settle their problems by peaceful means and international law rather than war and bloodshed, indicates both their growing maturity and the value of the OAS in conflict resolution.

The procedures at the ICJ are long and it could be three years before the Court hands down a decision. During this period, both nations will have to behave with considerable restraint toward each other.

And, equally, the governments will have to mount programmes of education amongst their own populations to counter the efforts of hot heads who would seek to sacrifice the legal process on the altar of nationalism and perceived patrimony.

In this connection, the role of the OAS is not yet over and the Secretary-General should even now be exploring ways in which machinery can be established to keep the peace and educate the public as the ICJ process advances.

The ICJ process is also expensive and particularly so for small countries. Each government will have to hire a battery of lawyers, cartographers and other specialists to assemble their arguments.

The cost will run into millions of dollars. The OAS is to be congratulated for its foresight in creating and administering a fund to contribute to the legal costs that both countries will incur.

But plaudits are also due to the British government, which, while not a member of the OAS, has announced, through one of its Foreign Ministers, Gillian Merron, that it “will make an initial contribution of £200,000 (US$300,000 approximately) to this fund”.

No one can foresee exactly what the ICJ will decide in their adjudication of the Belize-Guatemala issue. However, the merits of each side’s case have been argued since 1859, and it seems unlikely that any Court would uphold Guatemala’s claim to all of Belize.

One of Guatemala’s own point of contention may hold the seeds of a solution. It is that the borders set for Belize deprive Guatemala from access to the Atlantic coast, thus hampering its future economic development and its access to the high seas.

If the ceding of such access is what Belize is required to grant in the end, the peace, stability and potential for economic development would be well worth it.

The solution to the Guyana border issues with Venezuela and Suriname may also lie at some future point in recourse to the ICJ, but this depends most particularly on the attitude of the Venezuela government which could have long sought a negotiated solution.

Guyana and Suriname last year settled a maritime boundary dispute by arbitration under the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, and, despite an incident this year in the river separating them, the potential for a legal and lasting settlement is possible.

A final, fair and legally binding settlement of their boundaries by all these countries will put them in the forefront of regional efforts to embrace opportunities for cooperation and mutual growth. They should end these disputes.

(The writer is a business consultant and former Caribbean diplomat)
Responses to: [email protected]

---

---