714.44A15/106
The British Ambassador (Lothian) to
the Under Secretary of State (Welles)
Washington, January 12, 1940.
My Dear Mr. Under Secretary: With reference to
your letter of November 15th, 19395 with regard to the proposed arbitration with
Guatemala, I am instructed to inform you that His Majesty’s Government
deeply appreciate the willingness of the President of the United States
to nominate an American citizen who they understand will be of high
judicial experience to act as umpire of an eventual ad
hoc tribunal. They are now about to make their offer to the
Guatemalan Government and they propose at the same time to inform the
Guatemalan Government that His Majesty’s Government understand that the
President of the United States will be willing to nominate an umpire for
such a tribunal.
With reference to your letter of December 8th, 1939,6 I am enclosing for your
information the terms of reference which His Majesty’s Government
propose for the suggested tribunal. You will see that these terms of
reference will empower the proposed arbitral tribunal to effect a
settlement of all the issues involved in the event that there
[Page 419]
had not been compliance with
Article VII of the 1859 Treaty.7 I am informed that
these proposed terms will be presented shortly to the Guatemalan
Government. I should be glad if you would keep them confidential until I
have informed you that the communication of them to that Government has
actually been made.
Believe me [etc.]
In order that there shall hereafter be no possibility of any
misunderstanding, His Majesty’s Government desire to reiterate the
view which they have adopted at all times hitherto that the dispute
is one arising solely out of the Anglo-Guatemalan Convention of 1859
and in particular out of Article 7 thereof. His Majesty’s Government
are therefore prepared to submit this dispute to arbitration, in
accordance with the proposals which have been set out above, for a
final determination by the arbitrators of the following issues, viz:
- (1)
- Is there still any practicable method by which the
original obligations laid down in Article 7, viz. “With the
object of practically carrying out the views set forth in
the preamble of the present Convention, for improving and
perpetuating the friendly relations which at present so
happily exist between the two high contracting parties, they
mutually agree conjointly to use their best efforts by
taking adequate means for establishing the easiest
communication (either by means of a cart-road, or employing
rivers, or both united according to the opinion of the
surveying engineers) between the fittest place on the
Atlantic coast near the settlement of Belize and the capital
of Guatemala whereby the commerce of England on the one hand
and the material prosperity of the Republic on the other
cannot fail to be sensibly increased at the same time that
the limits of the two countries being now clearly defined,
all further encroachments by either party on the territory
of the other will be effectually checked and prevented for
the future” can still be effectually carried out?
- (2)
- If the answer to (1) above is in the negative, whether,
and if so to what extent, His Majesty’s Government are
responsible for a failure to carry out the mutual
obligations under the said Article 7?
- (3)
- If there has been a failure to carry out the obligations
imposed by Article 7, by what method, taking into account
all the relevant legal and equitable considerations arising
out of the said failure, shall His Majesty’s Government
discharge their obligations in respect of that
failure?
- (4)
- It can be clearly seen from the express words of Article
VII of the Convention of 1859 that concurrently with the
obligations mutually undertaken by the parties thereunder it
was stipulated that the limits of the adjoining territories
should be clearly defined so as to prevent all further
encroachments by either party on the territory of the other.
In accordance therefore with the plainly-expressed intention
of both parties as shown by the terms of Article 7 of the
Convention of 1859, His Majesty’s Government think it only
right that their present proposals for a settlement of this
long outstanding dispute should be made conditional upon the
Guatemalan Government consenting to a final delimitation and
marking of the boundary between British Honduras and
Guatemala to take place in a mutually convenient manner
immediately after the tribunal, as selected by the parties,
has pronounced its final award.