Ask the Scholar
Page 38 of 55
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
36
SECRET
Guatemala's claim has an historic basis.
Britain continued to view the supplementary
During the Colonial Period, the territory now
convention as having lapsed and eventually
known as British Honduras, or Belize, was
came to regard the terms of Article VII of
recognized by Britain as the property of Spain.
the 1859 treaty as no longer applicable to
Under the Spanish, the area north of the
changed conditions. However, in 1934, Brit-
Sibun River was regarded as part of the Cap-
ain offered to construct a road from Belize to
taincy-General of Yucatan, and the area south
the Guatemalan frontier, and, in 1936, of-
of the Sibun was generally recognized as part
fered to pay Guatemala £50,000 to settle the
of the Captaincy-General of Guatemala, al-
dispute, although not admitting any liability.
though actual administration by the Spanish
Guatemala, in turn, suggested that Britain
never existed. The British, whose first settle-
"return" Belize in exchange for £400,000, or
ment was established in 1638, were granted
that Britain pay Guatemala the same amount
usufructory rights only. By various treaties
for the title and cede the southern tip of the
between Spain and Britain-the terms of
colony (south of the Rio Grande), or that
which were revalidated in the Treaty of Madrid
Britain cede this strip and also pay £50,000
in 1814-the British settlers were denied the
plus 4 percent interest as from 1859. The re-
right to establish any form of government, to
fusal of Britain to agree to the Guatemalan
maintain troops, or to engage in economic ac-
proposals, or to submit the dispute to arbitra-
tivities other than logging.
tion by the President of the United States,
Upon gaining its independence of Spain in
has caused Guatemala, since 1938, to regard
1821, Guatemala claimed title to the terri-
the 1859 treaty as void, with Belize returning
tory formerly recognized as part of the Cap-
to the status quo ante.
taincy-General of Guatemala. The contro-
Since 1945, the Arévalo administration has
versy that subsequently developed between
continued to press the Guatemalan claim. A
Britain and Guatemala over the ownership of
statement of Guatemalan sovereignty was in-
Belize was temporarily settled by a treaty in
cluded as a basic provision of the 1945 con-
1859, Article I and II of which defined, and
stitution. All natives of Belize have been de-
provided for the demarcation of, a boundary
clared Guatemalan citizens; objections have
(the present boundary) that was generally
been raised to all British plans involving
recognized to be already in existence. In
Belize (such as the proposed inclusion of the
Article VII of this treaty, both countries
colony in a Caribbean federation and plans
agreed to cooperate in the construction of a
for colonization by West Indians); anti-British
road from Guatemala City to a point on the
demonstrations have been held, and Guate-
Atlantic Coast "near Belize." Shortly there-
malan propaganda has been disseminated in
after, a supplementary convention was signed
Belize. In the UN meetings, at the Rio Con-
by representatives of both countries by which
ference, the Bogotá Conference, and wherever
Britain agreed to pay £50,000 in lieu of assist-
possible, Guatemala has reasserted its claim.
ance in constructing the road, but when
Yet although Britain offered, in 1946, to sub-
Guatemala failed to ratify this agreement
mit the dispute to the International Court of
within the specified time, Britain refused to
Justice, Guatemala has refused to do so un-
recognize any obligation under the supple-
less Britain agrees to allow the court to de-
mentary convention, and made no payment.
cide the case ex aequo et bono,* rather than
A few years later, in 1871, British Honduras
by the strict application of legal principles.
was constituted as a Crown Colony.
In subsequent years, Guatemala continued
Ex aequo et bono may be defined as a basis of
to seek fulfillment (with certain modifica-
judicial procedure by which a dispute is settled ac-
tions) of the 1859 treaty and the supple-
cording to "principles of objective justice." A de-
mentary convention, claiming that recogni-
cision reached in this manner would not necessarily
tion of the boundary and provision for its
coincide with one based on rules of positive law.
Cf. Max Habicht, The Power of the International
demarcation constituted "cession" of Belize
Judge to Give a Decision "Ex Aequo Et Bona" Lon-
by Guatemala, and that such "cession" was
don, Constable and Co. Ltd. 1935, especially Chapter
contingent upon fulfillment of Article VII.
III.
SECRET
Page data
- Page
- 38
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 1b14eb204f69fc02
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 486501062
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "486501062",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/486501062",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Report, Central Intelligence Agency, Guatemala, Situation Report 46",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/486501062",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"Intelligence Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602196/875515/875515-01-001.tif",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602196/875515/875515-01-001.tif",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602196/875515/875515-01-001.tif",
"imageCount": 55,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "486501062",
"label": "Report, Central Intelligence Agency, Guatemala, Situation Report 46",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/486501062"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "486501062",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/486501062",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Report, Central Intelligence Agency, Guatemala, Situation Report 46",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/486501062",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"Intelligence Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602196/875515/875515-01-001.tif",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602196/875515/875515-01-001.tif",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602196/875515/875515-01-001.tif",
"imageCount": 55,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/486501062",
"naId": 486501062,
"levelOfDescription": "item",
"productionDates": [
{
"day": 27,
"logicalDate": "1950-07-27",
"month": 7,
"year": 1950
}
],
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 38,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602196/875515/875515-01-038.tif",
"mediaId": "1b14eb204f69fc02",
"ocrText": "36\nSECRET\nGuatemala's claim has an historic basis.\nBritain continued to view the supplementary\nDuring the Colonial Period, the territory now\nconvention as having lapsed and eventually\nknown as British Honduras, or Belize, was\ncame to regard the terms of Article VII of\nrecognized by Britain as the property of Spain.\nthe 1859 treaty as no longer applicable to\nUnder the Spanish, the area north of the\nchanged conditions. However, in 1934, Brit-\nSibun River was regarded as part of the Cap-\nain offered to construct a road from Belize to\ntaincy-General of Yucatan, and the area south\nthe Guatemalan frontier, and, in 1936, of-\nof the Sibun was generally recognized as part\nfered to pay Guatemala £50,000 to settle the\nof the Captaincy-General of Guatemala, al-\ndispute, although not admitting any liability.\nthough actual administration by the Spanish\nGuatemala, in turn, suggested that Britain\nnever existed. The British, whose first settle-\n\"return\" Belize in exchange for £400,000, or\nment was established in 1638, were granted\nthat Britain pay Guatemala the same amount\nusufructory rights only. By various treaties\nfor the title and cede the southern tip of the\nbetween Spain and Britain-the terms of\ncolony (south of the Rio Grande), or that\nwhich were revalidated in the Treaty of Madrid\nBritain cede this strip and also pay £50,000\nin 1814-the British settlers were denied the\nplus 4 percent interest as from 1859. The re-\nright to establish any form of government, to\nfusal of Britain to agree to the Guatemalan\nmaintain troops, or to engage in economic ac-\nproposals, or to submit the dispute to arbitra-\ntivities other than logging.\ntion by the President of the United States,\nUpon gaining its independence of Spain in\nhas caused Guatemala, since 1938, to regard\n1821, Guatemala claimed title to the terri-\nthe 1859 treaty as void, with Belize returning\ntory formerly recognized as part of the Cap-\nto the status quo ante.\ntaincy-General of Guatemala. The contro-\nSince 1945, the Arévalo administration has\nversy that subsequently developed between\ncontinued to press the Guatemalan claim. A\nBritain and Guatemala over the ownership of\nstatement of Guatemalan sovereignty was in-\nBelize was temporarily settled by a treaty in\ncluded as a basic provision of the 1945 con-\n1859, Article I and II of which defined, and\nstitution. All natives of Belize have been de-\nprovided for the demarcation of, a boundary\nclared Guatemalan citizens; objections have\n(the present boundary) that was generally\nbeen raised to all British plans involving\nrecognized to be already in existence. In\nBelize (such as the proposed inclusion of the\nArticle VII of this treaty, both countries\ncolony in a Caribbean federation and plans\nagreed to cooperate in the construction of a\nfor colonization by West Indians); anti-British\nroad from Guatemala City to a point on the\ndemonstrations have been held, and Guate-\nAtlantic Coast \"near Belize.\" Shortly there-\nmalan propaganda has been disseminated in\nafter, a supplementary convention was signed\nBelize. In the UN meetings, at the Rio Con-\nby representatives of both countries by which\nference, the Bogotá Conference, and wherever\nBritain agreed to pay £50,000 in lieu of assist-\npossible, Guatemala has reasserted its claim.\nance in constructing the road, but when\nYet although Britain offered, in 1946, to sub-\nGuatemala failed to ratify this agreement\nmit the dispute to the International Court of\nwithin the specified time, Britain refused to\nJustice, Guatemala has refused to do so un-\nrecognize any obligation under the supple-\nless Britain agrees to allow the court to de-\nmentary convention, and made no payment.\ncide the case ex aequo et bono,* rather than\nA few years later, in 1871, British Honduras\nby the strict application of legal principles.\nwas constituted as a Crown Colony.\nIn subsequent years, Guatemala continued\nEx aequo et bono may be defined as a basis of\nto seek fulfillment (with certain modifica-\njudicial procedure by which a dispute is settled ac-\ntions) of the 1859 treaty and the supple-\ncording to \"principles of objective justice.\" A de-\nmentary convention, claiming that recogni-\ncision reached in this manner would not necessarily\ntion of the boundary and provision for its\ncoincide with one based on rules of positive law.\nCf. Max Habicht, The Power of the International\ndemarcation constituted \"cession\" of Belize\nJudge to Give a Decision \"Ex Aequo Et Bona\" Lon-\nby Guatemala, and that such \"cession\" was\ndon, Constable and Co. Ltd. 1935, especially Chapter\ncontingent upon fulfillment of Article VII.\nIII.\nSECRET"
}