It will be recalled that the controversy was the subject of extensive
correspondence between the Guatemalan Foreign Office and the British
Legation in this city during the years 1933 and 1934. Copies of this
correspondence were furnished to the Legation by the parties thereto
which were transmitted to the Department under cover of the despatches
indicated below:2
The report of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the
Legislature on this subject was transmitted to the Department under
cover of despatch No. 467 of December 19, 1934.
In receiving the communications referred to from the Acting Minister for
Foreign Affairs for transmittal to the President and the Secretary of
State there was no discussion of the subject.
[Enclosure—Translation]
The Guatemalan Acting Minister for Foreign
Affairs (Gonzalez) to the Secretary of State
Guatemala, September 10, 1936.
Mr. Secretary: I have the honor to address
Your Excellency to beg your illustrious attention to a matter which
surely must deserve it because it profoundly affects the rights and
interests of a country which, like Guatemala, has full confidence in
the firm spirit of justice and continental solidarity of the United
States, and with which it has been united, furthermore, by the
frankest and most cordial friendship since the first years of its
independent life.
Your Excellency will allow me to set forth the case at some length,
but not without first stating to you that His Excellency General
Jorge Ubico, President of Guatemala, has already done so
confidentially to His Excellency Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of
the United States.
With the Monroe Doctrine,3 the Government of the United States
protected and strengthened the independence of the other American
Republics,—and later, with the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty,4
it put an end to foreign usurpations in the central part of the
continent.
Central America inherited, de facto, and de jure, from the Spanish Government, its
former sovereign, all the territories which belonged to the
Captaincy-General of Guatemala, as of September 15, 1821, the date
of its independence.
During the colonial régime, English corsairs and pirates continuously
made armed invasions, devastating its growing cities, razing the
fields and sacking their wealth. The pirates established places of
refuge along the coasts of Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala, and
later the British Government, taking advantage of those elements,
wished to form colonies and establish protectorates in the field of
its
[Page 122]
own invasions; which
did not end until the diplomatic action of the United States ended
the possibility of territorial expansions of Great Britain.
Buccaneers and pirates had seized the coasts of Guatemala, with the
protection of the English Government; and although Spain drove them
out of Belize (or British Honduras) several times, again they
returned to strengthen their positions, until, by the Treaty of
Versailles of September 3, 1783,5 known by the name of
Aranda-Man-chester, which was exchanged on the 19th of the same
month, it was agreed that English subjects would have solely and
exclusively the right to cut, load and transport dye woods in the
district of that territory comprised between the rivers Belize and
Hondo; it being understood in an express and definite manner that
Spain would retain full sovereignty over the above-mentioned
district and that the concession with that definite purpose excluded
the right of founding cities, constructing forts and engaging in
agriculture of any kind. Great Britain would withdraw from the
territory occupied by its subjects, handing it over to the Spanish
Government, its legitimate owner, and only they could settle as
usufructuaries in that district, under the definite restrictions
agreed upon.
The Treaty of Versailles referred to was not complied with by the
English Government except in appearance. The Del Campo-Carmar-then
Convention, signed in London on July 14, 1786,6 extended the area of the territory granted toward
the south, prolonging it from the Hondo River to the Sibún River. In
exchange for that extension, England was obliged to withdraw from
the territory of Mosquitia along the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua.
The restriction of engaging in agriculture, erecting fortifications
and maintaining armed troops was reiterated,—it being stated
explicitly that the sovereignty of Spain in that region was
maintained integrally, in which region the English were granted no
other right than that of cutting timber of various kinds.
Again Great Britain did not comply with its solemn agreement and the
usurpation became more ostensible, to such an extreme that it not
only established its dominion up to the marked boundary of the Sibún
River, but in reality, by successive invasions advanced to the
Sarstoon
[Page 123]
River, thus
depriving Guatemala of all the territory of Belize comprised under
the former sovereignty of the Spanish Government, succeeded in that
sovereignty, thanks to its independence by the Republic of Central
America, and by the Republic of Guatemala, afterwards; being
deprived, therefore, of its natural outlet to the sea, the rich and
vast territory of Petén to the north of the Republic.
In 1834 Guatemala, in exercise of its sovereign authority, entered
into contracts for exploitation of lumber to the south of the Sibún
River. Great Britain opposed those contracts, preventing their
fulfillment, with no more reason than that of force exercised over a
young and weak country. She could not allege, in any case, any right
other than that of conquest acquired in the Anglo-Spanish struggles
at the end of the XVIII Century; but even that supposed right was
annulled by the Treaty of Amiens in 1802,7 by which
England ceded to the French Republic and its allies, among which was
Spain, all possessions and colonies occupied by it during the course
of the war ended by that Treaty, “Excepting the Island of Trinidad
and Dutch possessions of the Island of Ceylon.” Anyway, in 1819,
Great Britain did not consider Belize as a part of its colonial
dominions, as it expressly states in a Parliamentary law, cited by
the great North American statesman John Bassett Moore in his
classical work on International Law.8
English intervention in the internal affairs of Central America,
which was a motive for just misgivings on the part of the United
States, could have been of decisive importance in all phases of our
national life; and the advance would have been unchecked if the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1859, entered into between that Republic
and Great Britain had not placed a dike against English expansion on
the continent.
Unfortunately, the protection of that Treaty did not succeed in
saving Guatemala from the occupation by force which England
maintained in the territory of Belize, because the Senate of the
United States, upon the request of Great Britain, ratified the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with the exception or reservation that the
obligations con
[Page 124]
traded by
Great Britain of withdrawing from Central American territory and not
establishing itself therein excluded the region of Belize.9
I understand, Mr. Secretary, that the interests of the United
States, allied with justice and right, were clearly stated by Mr.
Buchanan to the English Foreign Office in 1854, when he said
textually, in his character of Minister Plenipotentiary of that
Republic: “The Government of the United States states clearly that
it recognizes no other right of Great Britain in Belize than that of
cutting woods of different kinds temporarily … and it recognizes
fully that the former sovereignty of Spain belongs to Guatemala or
to Mexico …10
Guatemala then lost the opportunity of seeing its territory freed of
foreign occupants; and to stop and place a limit on English
advancement, it was obliged to sign the Boundary Treaty on April 30,
1859,11 by which the de
facto frontier of the Sarstoon River was recognized.
The Government of Guatemala resisted signing that Treaty, prejudicial
to its sovereignty; but the forces which at that time controlled the
spirit of the executives of my country—the various negotiations
directed to obtaining the support and just intervention of friendly
countries having been exhausted unsuccessfully, caused that pact to
be signed, with no other compensation than that agreed upon in the
Seventh Article, which imposed on Great Britain the obligation of
constructing a road which would place the northern coast of the
Republic in commercial communication with the capital thereof.
The Treaty was ratified and the exchange of ratifications was duly
made; but, as usual, it was not complied with by Great Britain
except in the part favoring it. Under the pretext that the cost of
the road amounted to one hundred and forty-five thousand four
hundred and sixty-five pounds sterling, it suggested substituting
the compensatory clause of the construction thereof by the payment
of fifty thousand pounds to the Government of Guatemala, which then
itself should construct the road. Guatemala accepted the
substitution; and the
[Page 125]
supplementary Treaty was signed on August 5, 1863,12 by which England was obliged to pay those
fifty thousand pounds sterling. Again Great Britain did not comply
with that stipulation, because its Parliament refused to ratify it.
As for Guatemala, it did not do so in time, due to the justified
cause of force majeure which has always been
explained in England in the course of discussion in the matter.
Nevertheless, Guatemala sent its ratification, relying on the
official opinion of the Foreign Secretary, Lord Russell, who stated
to our Legation in May, 1864,13 that if Guatemala gave
its ratification and sent it for exchange, he could negotiate an
extension of the period, as the six months fixed in the pact for
exchange had expired; but there was a change in the English
Government, and the new Secretary, Lord Stanley, categorically
refused to recognize the existence of the agreement, declaring on
his own initiative that his Government was relieved from compliance
with its obligations. But, if in conformity with the unilateral
English opinion, the supplementary Treaty of 1863 is not in force,
the two parties are now confronted by that of 1859 which is in force
because it has been invested with all the necessary formalities.
But even in this case, the Government of Guatemala believes, based on
the fundamental rules of International Law and on logical rules of
international ethics, that if the Treaty of April 30, 1859 has not
been fulfilled in the part referring to the obligations contracted
by one of the Parties, the said Treaty has no juridical existence;
or at least, there are sufficient reasons, based on international
law, to ask for its nullification.
Guatemala, nevertheless, desires to exhaust all conciliatory means
and has not ceased to negotiate for many years for integral
compliance with the Treaty; but everything has been useless, and it
is convinced that it will not receive justice unless the spirit in
which the question has been discussed is changed.
The merited prestige surrounding the personality of President
Roosevelt, worthily seconded by Your Excellency, in the matter of
conservation of peace in America, to reach an organic life of
international justice which consolidates the good harmony and spirit
of peace which must be the model for relations among the States,
place
[Page 126]
that illustrious
Government in a position to aid a weak country of America against
the rule of violence and injustice.
Your illustrious compatriots, the statesmen [John] Bassett Moore and
[James] Brown Scott have studied the question of Belize, which is
familiar to them; and their opinion as noted internationalists
certainly coincides with mine in this important matter.
The present juridical situation of the problem can be summarized in
the following points:
First
The Treaty of April 30, 1859, by which Guatemala recognized as
belonging to Great Britain a territorial area up to the Sarstoon
River is unfulfilled by England in so far as the obligations which
it contracted with the Republic of Guatemala are concerned.
Second
The non-fulfillment of a Treaty by one of the Contracting Parties
gives the other the right to ask for its abrogation.
Third
The immediate effect of the invalidation or abrogation of a Treaty is
to return affairs to the status quo ante.
Consequently, the Republic of Guatemala has the right to regain
possession of the territory of Belize, thus completing its Atlantic
coast, along which it has been almost strangled and without
possibilities, for a future which may be deemed immediate, for
exporting petroleum which surely exists because of inevitable
geological reasons, as well as raw materials of the greatest
importance, in the above-mentioned department of Petén, opposite
Belize. This colony, furthermore, because of its being a free port
for English merchandise, is a center of smuggling which greatly
prejudices the commerce of Guatemala and Honduras. For that same
reason and because of its strategic situation, it was also a point
of departure for numerous expeditions of liquor smugglers to the
United States when prohibition was in force—and nothing prevents
illicit activities from being carried on from there in the
future.
Fourth
The reservation of Great Britain to the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty when it
was submitted for approval to the Senate of the United States in no
way affected the rights of Guatemala because it was not a party
thereto.
Fifth
Guatemala, as the successor of Spain, has the right to recover all
the territories which belonged to it prior to the Treaty of 1783,
non-fulfilled by Great Britain.
[Page 127]
The English Legation, in the name of its Government, verbally
proposed, on the 18th of last August, to conclude this matter by
payment to the Government of Guatemala of the fifty thousand pounds
referred to in the above-mentioned Convention of 1863, by which its
obligations would be cancelled and Guatemala would have no right to
any later claim.
Based on the right supporting it and on equity, my Government
verbally offered the Legation the replies contained in the two
following counter proposals, with the understanding that acceptance
by Great Britain of either of them would end this long and annoying
matter; the Legation has refused to take them into
consideration.
Memorandum No. 1:
I.
Great Britain return to the Republic of Guatemala, as the successor
of Spain, first, and as an Independent Nation, secondly, the
territory of Belize or British Honduras.
II.
The Republic of Guatemala pay to Great Britain in compensation the
sum of £400,000 sterling, in the following manner: two hundred
thousand pounds sterling in cash at the time of the exchange of
ratifications of the Convention to be celebrated; and two hundred
thousand pounds at the time and under the conditions to be
stipulated by mutual agreement.
III.
The Republic of Guatemala waive absolutely any claim for
noncompliance on the part of Great Britain with the Treaty of April
30, 1859.
IV.
In the event that Great Britain refuse to receive from the Republic
of Guatemala the four hundred thousand pounds which it offers in
exchange for the territory of Belize, Guatemala proposed that Great
Britain pay the same sum to the Republic, granting furthermore, a
strip of territory necessary to give the Department of Petén an exit
to the sea. Said strip shall be located in the parallel 16°8ʹ39ʹʹ,
being located within the strip, the mouth of the Grande River, Punta
Gorda and Cayos de Zapotillo.
V.
With the exception of the strip described in point IV, Guatemala
approve the demarkation and marking of the eastern frontier with
Belize.
[Page 128]
Memorandum No. 2:
I.
The Republic of Guatemala would approve the delimitation of the
frontier with Belize, made unilaterally by the Government of Great
Britain.
II.
The Republic of Guatemala would waive its claim, constantly
reiterated to the English Government, for non-compliance with the
Treaty of April 30, 1859; would renounce any right that it would
have to deem null and void said treaty for integral non-compliance
by one of the Contracting Parties.
III.
In compensation, the Government of Great Britain would pay to the
Republic of Guatemala, the sum of fifty thousand pounds sterling
(£50,000) plus interest at four percent annually, since April 30,
1859.
IV.
Great Britain, as further compensation, grants to the Republic of
Guatemala, with full title, a strip of land so that the Department
of Petén bordering Belize may have an exit to the sea. That strip
would be such that there would be comprised within it, the mouth of
the Grande River, Punta Gorda and the Cayos de Zapotillo. Those
conditions would be fulfilled by fixing the southern frontier of
Belize at the parallel 16°8ʹ39ʹʹ.
This is the present state of the question, from which the justice
supporting Guatemala appears clearly proved. If the Department of
State, so worthily entrusted to the high and well known merits of
Your Excellency who today more than ever is interpreter of the
juridical ideas and policy of the United States would be so kind as
to interpose its moral prestige, which I courteously beg of you, in
favor of the right of Guatemala in this matter, you would receive
one more claim to the appreciation of our Nation which already owes
so much to the counsel and always friendly good offices of that
Great Republic.
I avail myself [etc.]
