Opinion
- Editorial- Commentary
Ronald Sanders
:
Ending Caribbean border disputes
Border disputes are a contentious and unnecessary barrier to economic and social development in countries embroiled in them. They frustrate international co-operation 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 8, 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 scarce 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 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.
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 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 education programmes amongst their own populations to counter the efforts of hotheads who would seek to sacrifice the legal process on the altar of nationalism and perceived patrimony.
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 approx) 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 points 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 co-operation and mutual growth. They should end these disputes.
* Courtesy Jamaica Observer
Sir Ronald Sanders is
a former Caribbean diplomat, now corporate executive, publishes widely on small states in the global community.
Petroleumworld does not necessarily share these views.
This
commentary was originally published by Trinidad Express, Wednesday, December 17th 2008
. Petroleumworld
reprint this article in the interest of our readers.
Petroleumworld
does
not necessarily share these views.
All
comments posted and published on Petroleumworld,
do not reflect either for or against the opinion
expressed in the comment as an endorsement of Petroleumworld.
All comments expressed are private comments and do
not necessary reflect the view of this website. All
comments are posted and published without liability
to Petroleumworld.
Fair
use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material
the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian
significance. We believe this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
All
works published by Petroleumworld are in accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. Petroleumworld
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Petroleumworld endorsed or
sponsored by the originator.
Petroleumworld
encourages persons to reproduce, reprint, or broadcast
Petroleumworld articles provided that any such reproduction
identify the original source, http://www.petroleumworld.com
or else and it is done within the fair use as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for
purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Internet
web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com are appreciated
Petroleumworld
welcomes your feedback and comments: editor@petroleumworld.com.
By using this link, you agree to allow E&P to
publish your comments on our letters page.
Petroleumworld
News 12/31/08
Copyright© 2008
respective author or news agency. All rights reserved.
We welcome the use of Petroleumworld™ stories by anyone provided it mentions
Petroleumworld.com as the source. Other stories you have to get authorization
by its authors.
