Tag: OAS

The reason BTL was Nationalized?

The reason BTL was Nationalized?

I told you all back then and I’ll keep saying it.. The issue was never about nationalization as in making it for the people, initially I thought it was just to get to slip a backdoor into the Constitution to give the politicians in Government all power but it seems it goes way beyond that. Doing research for my article about the CARICOM Union that we are heading into, I stumbled on this and you have to know about it. To fully understand this you will have to read the CARICOM article.

Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU)

The Caribbean Telecommunications Union was established by the Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community in 1989 in Nassau, The Bahamas.

The Organization, established its Headquarters in Barbados, on agreement with that Government in 1990, but relocated to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, where it continues to function in accordance with the terms of a Headquarters Agreement, dated April 8, 1993.

The Union enjoys, in its member constituencies, full legal personality and capacity to contract, acquire and dispose of real and personal property and to be party to legal proceedings. It also enjoys immunities and privileges accorded to diplomatic and international organizations of equal status.

The objectives of the Union shall be:-

  • To facilitate the coordination of the planning, programming and development of intra regional and international communications networks to meet the immediate and future telecommunications needs of the Region.
  • To assist the development of the national components of regional and international telecommunications networks.
  • To promote the general awareness of the telecommunications needs of the Caribbean Region and its potential for promoting the socio-economic development of the Region.
  • To encourage the exchange of information, views and ideas between the telecommunications administrations of Members.
  • To foster coordination within the Caribbean Region of technical standards and routing plans for intraregional and international traffic.
  • To seek the adoption of efficient operating methods in national, regional and international telecommunications services.
  • To harmonize as far as possible the positions of Members in preparation for international and regional telecommunications conferences and other meetings.
  • To encourage and assist members in the establishment and development of telecommunications industries.
  • To encourage the transfer of technology in the field of telecommunications among Members.
  • To establish linkages with the information bases of other telecommunications organisations and, in particular, the Centre for Telecommunications Development at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in Geneva.

Member States

  • Anguilla
  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • The Bahamas
  • Belize
  • Barbados
  • British Virgin Islands
  • Cayman Islands
  • The Commonwealth of Dominica
  • Grenada
  • The Cooperative Republic of Guyana
  • Jamaica
  • Montserrat
  • Saint Kitts/Nevis
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Suriname
  • Turks and Caicos
  • Trinidad and Tobago

13-14 August 2012: DBSF 2012, a forum in collaboration with the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation, the Commonwealth Broadcasters Association and the Caribbean Broadcasters Union to involve regional broadcasters in transition planning and foster harmonisation of technical and business approaches to switchover and allocation of relevant spectrum. This forum developed a checklist of relevant issues to be addressed, noted that broadcasters were struggling to make their business cases to justify switchover and identified a need for research papers and business model evaluations to guide decision-making among regional broadcasters.

This fifth meeting on the issue is intended to consolidate the outcomes and outstanding matters of the previous four meetings, discuss and identify common and divergent positions among regional stakeholders and begin drafting the policy framework around which Caribbean approaches might be harmonised.

NOTICE that the common word that keeps coming up in both items is HARMONIZE. In essence, UNIFICATION.

Doesn’t this make you think?

  • Why take over BTL?
  • Why force everyone to register their SIM-Cards?
  • Why all the equipment to spy? (Oh you know it’s true, you’ve seen the truck(s) with the antennae.)
  • How come accounts are continually being compromised? (You’ve read the news and heard the boasting in the House of Representatives about getting into the email accounts of other politicians.)

Associate Members

digicel arin-logo isoc_logo


American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

ARIN manages the distribution of Internet number resources (IPv4 and IPv6 address space and Autonomous System Numbers) in Canada, many Caribbean and North Atlantic islands, and the United States. ARIN is one of five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) in the world. Like the other RIRs, ARIN provides services related to the technical coordination and management of Internet number resources, facilitates policy development, participates in the international Internet community, is a nonprofit and is a community-based organization governed by a member-elected executive board.

Canadian International Development Agency

The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is Canada’s lead agency for development assistance. It has a mandate to support sustainable development in developing countries in order to reduce poverty and to contribute to a more secure, equitable, and prosperous world.

Congress WBN – Ethical Initiatives for Global Development

Congress WBN (C-WBN) is a synergy of global initiatives focused on effecting human, social and national transformation through the propagation of values-based development principles, patterns and approaches. It is comprised of Sectors of strategic operations involving networks of professional groups, educational institutions, businesses, churches, individual national leaders and university students. C-WBN operates through every continent and in over 75 nations.

Capacity Caribbean 2013

The most important C-level event for the wholesale Caribbean carrier community

The 7th annual Capacity Caribbean will be moving to the new, dynamic market of Curaçao for the first time in 2013. After extensive post-event analysis, 74% of our customers voted for Capacity Caribbean 2013 to come to Curaçao due to the recent surge in market activity, liberalisation and new revenue opportunities for international operators coming from the region. As ever this seminal conference is committed to exploring and developing those all-important contacts and regional market insights key to growing your wholesale profits in the Caribbean.

The networking opportunities at Capacity Caribbean are unparalleled for the regional wholesale community. Last year the event brought together 220 key decision-makers providing an optimal opportunity to network with the leading-executives in the Caribbean wholesale industry, conduct business meetings with both new and existing clients and gain an insight into the latest industry trends. Combined with our prestigious line-up of industry-leading speakers and ground-breaking agenda mean that Capacity Caribbean 2013 is an event not to be missed.

For more information please go here

International Telecommunication Union

Every time someone, somewhere, picks up a telephone and dials a number, answers a call on a mobile phone, sends a fax or receives an e-mail, takes a plane or a ship, listens to the radio, watches a favourite television programme or helps a small child master the latest radio-controlled toy, they benefit from the work of the International Telecommunication Union.

Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL)

CITEL, an entity of the Organization of American States, is the main forum in the hemisphere in which the governments and the private sector meet to coordinate regional efforts to develop the Global Information Society according to the mandates of the General Assembly of the Organization and the mandates entrusted to it by Heads of State and Government at the Summits of the Americas.

Internet Address Registry for Latin America and the Caribbean (LACNIC)

LACNIC, the Internet Address Registry for Latin America and the Caribbean, is the organization responsible for allocating and administrating IP Addresses and other related resources (Autonomous System Numbers and Reverse Resolution) for the region of Latin America and the Caribbean. It is one of the five Regional Internet Registries that exist worldwide.

The Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation

The Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (CTO) is an international organisation based in London and established through a Headquarters Agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is the oldest and largest Commonwealth organisation engaged in multilateral collaboration in the field of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), and uses its experience and expertise to support its members in integrating ICTs to deliver effective development interventions that enrich, empower, and emancipate people within the Commonwealth and beyond.


The Treaty of Chaguaramas which established the Caribbean Community including the Caribbean Common Market was signed by Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago on 4th July, 1973, in Chaguaramas, Trinidad and Tobago. It came into effect on 1 August 1973.

The Caribbean Community and the Caribbean Common Market replaced the Caribbean Free Trade Association which ceased to exist on 1st May 1974.

The Treaty of Chaguaramas was juridical hybrid consisting of the Caribbean Community as a separate legal entity from the Common Market which had its own discrete legal personality.

Indeed, the legal separation of these two institutions was emphasised by the elaboration of two discrete legal instruments: the Treaty establishing the Caribbean Community and the Agreement establishing the Common Market (which was later annexed to the Treaty and designated the Common Market Annex). This institutional arrangement facilitated States joining the Community without being parties to the Common Market regime.

In addition to economic issues, the Community instrument addressed issues of foreign policy coordination and functional cooperation. Issues of economic integration, particularly those related to trade arrangements, were addressed in the Common Market Annex.

Because of this juridically separate identity of the regional common market, it was possible for the Bahamas to become a member of the Community in 1983 without joining the Common Market.

View the PDF

International Telecommunication Union

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), originally founded as the International Telegraph Union, is a specialized agency of the United Nations that is responsible for issues that concern information and communication technologies. The ITU coordinates the shared global use of the radio spectrum, promotes international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, works to improve telecommunication infrastructure in the developing world, and assists in the development and coordination of worldwide technical standards.

The ITU is active in areas including broadband Internet, latest-generation wireless technologies, aeronautical and maritime navigation, radio astronomy, satellite-based meteorology, convergence in fixed-mobile phone, Internet access, data, voice, TV broadcasting, and next-generation networks.

ITU, based in Geneva, Switzerland, is a member of the United Nations Development Group. Its membership includes 193 Member States and around 700 Sector Members and Associates.

Information Regarding Belize in the ITU


Ministry of Energy, Science & Technology and Public Utilities
1st Floor East Block Building

Tel +501 8223336
Tel +501 8222107
Fax +501 8220433
Email [hidden as of 31.5.2013]
URL www.belize.gov.bz

H.E. Ms Joy Grant, Minister
Dr Colin Young, Chief Executive Officer


Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
41 Gabourel Lane
P.O. Box 300

Tel +501 2234938
Tel +501 2236820
Fax +501 2236818
Fax +501 2236825
Email [hidden as of 31.5.2013]
URL www.puc.bz

Mr John Avery, Chairman
(Email [hidden as of 31.5.2013])

Office of the Prime Minister and Ministry of Finance
Sir Edney Cain Building

Tel +501 8222345
Tel +501 8222346
Fax +501 8220071

H.E. Mr Dean Barrow, Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
Mr James Murphy, Secretary to the Cabinet


Permanent Mission of Belize to the United Nations in New York
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1911
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017
United States

Tel +1 212 9861240
Fax +1 212 5930932
Email [hidden as of 31.5.2013]
Email [hidden as of 31.5.2013]

H.E. Mrs Janine Elizabeth Coye-Felson, Ambassador, Deputy Permanent Representative
(Email [hidden as of 31.5.2013])

Useful Terms


This term is part of Newtorking. Basically, it is a way that any device is assigned a unique ID#, much like the MAC address on your computer or phone that allows for tracking and identifying the owner.

Addressability is the capacity for an entity to be targeted and found. To be addressable, an entity must be uniquely identifiable, which means that it must be associated with something — typically an alphanumeric string, although there are other possibilities — that is not associated with anything else that exists within that system.

A URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) is a unique identifier that makes content addressable on the Internet by uniquely targeting items, such as text, video, images and applications. A URL (Uniform Resource Locator) is a particular type of URI that targets Web pages so that when a browser requests them, they can be found and served to users.

Addressability is an increasing trend: more and more things can be assigned unique identifiers, and if something has a unique identifier, it can be tagged, assigned a URI and targeted over a network. That capacity paves the way for the Internet of Things (IoT), a scenario in which everything — including people, animals, servers, applications, shampoo bottles, cars, steering wheels, coffee machines, park benches or just about any other random item that comes to mind.– has a unique identifier and the ability to communicate over the Internet or a similar wide-area network (WAN).

unique identifier (UID)

Think of this in the sense of your username on Facebook or your email address.

A unique identifier (UID) is a numeric or alphanumeric string that is associated with a single entity within a given system. UIDs make it possible to address that entity, so that it can be accessed and interacted with.

Here are a few examples of UIDs:

  • A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a unique identifier that makes content addressable on the Internet by uniquely targeting items, such as text, video, images and applications.
  • A Uniform Resource Locator (URL) is a particular type of URI that targets Web pages so that when a browser requests them, they can be found and served to users.
  • A Universal Unique Identifier (UUID) is a 128-bit number used to uniquely identify some object or entity on the Internet.
  • A global unique identifier (GUID) is a number that Microsoft programming generates to create a unique identity for an entity such as a Word document.
  • A bank identifier code (BIC) is a unique identifier for a specific financial institution.
  • A unique device identifier (UDID) is a 40-character string assigned to certain Apple devices including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch.
  • A service set identifier (SSID) is a sequence of characters that uniquely names a wireless local area network (WLAN).
  • A national provider identifier (NPI) is a unique ten-digit identification number required by HIPAA for all health care providers in the United States.

Internet of Things (IoT)

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a scenario in which objects, animals or people are provided with unique identifiers and the ability to automatically transfer data over a network without requiring human-to-human or human-to-computer interaction. IoT has evolved from the convergence of wireless technologies, micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) and the Internet.

A thing, in the Internet of Things, can be a person with a heart monitor implant, a farm animal with a biochip transponder, an automobile that has built-in sensors to alert the driver when tire pressure is low — or any other natural or man-made object that can be assigned an IP address and provided with the ability to transfer data over a network. So far, the Internet of Things has been most closely associated with machine-to-machine (M2M) communication in manufacturing and power, oil and gas utilities. Products built with M2M communication capabilities are often referred to as being smart.

IPv6’s huge increase in address space is an important factor in the development of the Internet of Things. According to Steve Leibson, who identifies himself as “occasional docent at the Computer History Museum,” the address space expansion means that we could “assign an IPV6 address to every atom on the surface of the earth, and still have enough addresses left to do another 100+ earths.” In other words, humans could easily assign an IP address to every “thing” on the planet. An increase in the number of smart nodes, as well as the amount of upstream data the nodes generate, is expected to raise new concerns about data privacy, data sovereignty and security.

Although the concept wasn’t named until 1999, the Internet of Things has been in development for decades. The first Internet appliance, for example, was a Coke machine at Carnegie Melon University in the early 1980s. The programmers could connect to the machine over the Internet, check the status of the machine and determine whether or not there would be a cold drink awaiting them, should they decide to make the trip down to the machine.

Kevin Ashton, cofounder and executive director of the Auto-ID Center at MIT, first mentioned the Internet of Things in a presentation he made to Procter & Gamble. Here’s how Ashton explains the potential of the Internet of Things:

“Today computers — and, therefore, the Internet — are almost wholly dependent on human beings for information. Nearly all of the roughly 50 petabytes (a petabyte is 1,024 terabytes) of data available on the Internet were first captured and created by human beings by typing, pressing a record button, taking a digital picture or scanning a bar code.

The problem is, people have limited time, attention and accuracy — all of which means they are not very good at capturing data about things in the real world. If we had computers that knew everything there was to know about things — using data they gathered without any help from us — we would be able to track and count everything and greatly reduce waste, loss and cost. We would know when things needed replacing, repairing or recalling and whether they were fresh or past their best.”

Related Articles

The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom

Today, however, Russia, China and their allies within the 193 member states of the ITU want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:

Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for “international” Internet traffic, perhaps even on a “per-click” basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;

Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;

Police: Phones Will Have To Be Registered

The phone companies say there are as just under three hundred thousand prepaid cellular phones in Belize, and of that, only a very small number are registered. In fact, if you’re the owner of a pre-paid phone you might not even know what registration means – and you also might not know that it is – and has been – the law to register your phone. Now, the government says it is ready to start enforcing section 44 of the Telecommunications Act 2002; a piece of legislation passed almost ten years ago which requires the registration of cellular phones. The registration is mandatory, and cellular users will be given six months, starting October 11th in which to register their cell phones or face disconnection.

Phone clienteles line up for mandatory registration of SIM cards

Long lines could be seen at BTL and Smart offices across the country yesterday. Word was out that the deadline for registration of pre-paid cell numbers had arrived. Julian Cruz visited the respective offices here in Belmopan and filed this report. BTL and Smart.

Related Links
Commentary: The ICJ and the Belize-Guatemala issue: A den of strategy and deceit

Commentary: The ICJ and the Belize-Guatemala issue: A den of strategy and deceit

This past week the government of Belize (GOB) launched its “(mis)education campaign” involving the push to take the matter of Guatemala’s unfounded claim on Belize’s sovereign territory to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a supposed “final determination”.

I have pulled no punches in terms of my assessment as to why those vested with the responsibility of governing and ensuring the well-being of Belize have embarked on this illogical and seemingly detrimental path for the nation. Simply put, sound reason has given way to the self-interests that accompany the prospects of obtaining a fair share of upwards of US$15 million in order to engage and facilitate the aforementioned campaign, as well as to carry out the referendum. With that said, this article deals with other salient issues that accompany the potentially treacherous and highly questionable path on which the GOB seeks to guide the nation of Belize.guatemala-claim-to-belize-map

Initially, I draw your attention to claims purportedly made by the Guatemalan government in the 25th January 2013 edition of the La Prensa Libre Newspaper.

In a nutshell, Guatemala is claiming that the Belizean government has acted in “bad faith”, due to the fact that the threshold required for a referendum to be valid differs between the two nations. Let us take a closer look at this matter. Again, I in no way support the GOB’s move to engage this OAS-driven farce of an undertaking. But, as a concerned Belizean, I am compelled to ensure that a clear and concise analysis of as many aspects of the matter is presented to my compatriots and our brethren throughout the region.

The insidious Compromis that committed Belize to this perfidious course was signed in 2008. Since then, emissaries from both nations have met to the point of ad nauseam on the intricacies of the referendum. Now, at the proverbial eleventh hour, as Belize officially launched the campaign, the Guatemalan authorities hold true to course and put forth the claim that, due to differences in the thresholds of voter turnout, involving referenda in each country, it places Guatemala at a disadvantage; thereby possibly rendering the entire exercise null and void, once the threshold is not met in either country.

In the case of Guatemala, theirs calls for a simple majority of voter turnout. Honestly, I am not at all surprised by this assertion, for it is part and parcel of the Guatemalan strategy (note the word I used — strategy), when dealing with their unfounded claim. Now, even within the constructs of having their illegitimate assertion potentially being placed in a legal arena and thereby somewhat legitimising it (within certain respects), they continue with such actions.

Quite honestly, after approximately a bit more than four years (2008 – 2013) of meetings, analysis, negotiations, etc… the Guatemalan government has the audacity to accuse Belize of acting in “bad faith”, when in fact our law concerning referenda was enacted prior to the signing of the Compromis and they (the Guatemalans) know it.

What light does that shed on a government that: (1) uncompromisingly lays claim to its neighbour’s sovereign territory, (2) is literally being appeased by not only the OAS, but regrettably the GOB and (3) in effect, fails to do its due diligence prior to signing the much vaunted, aforementioned Compromis? What I deduce from it is a government that is untrustworthy and that cannot be given the benefit of the doubt that it will inevitably play by the rules, nor that it will honour a ruling of the ICJ that might not result in their favour.

This is a legitimate concern, for the track record involving the enforceability of ICJ decisions is not impressive.

Getting back to the issue of strategy, as we say in Belize… ”Mek noh ghost fool yuh” (literally, “be certain”), the Guatemalans are by no means novices when it comes to negotiating and utilising their experience to manipulate the diplomatic arena. Simply put, Belize is not dealing with a lightweight. After all, unlike Belize, Guatemala has a body that is well-entrenched within its constitution – El Commision de Belice (translated The Belize Commission) — which is dedicated to the fundamental goal of reclaiming what they believe was taken from them by the British.

That spells to me that nothing Guatemala does, as it relates to this issue, is done without a thorough analysis, fleshing-out, re-analysis and ultimately leading to a precise execution of plans. Bearing this in mind, I wish to share what I believe is part and parcel of the Guatemalan strategy. For years on end, preceding the current push to go to the ICJ, while involved in bi-lateral talks, the Guatemalan government has employed a very strong strategy of attempting to impose its will on Belize.

This is characterised by an astute and tactical modus operandi of facilitating discussion to a penultimate point and then either retracting or placing some untenable demands on the table. This is a fact. For that matter, few, save for maybe the Guatemalans themselves, would endeavour to refute. After experiencing this tactic repeatedly, why would one think that Guatemala’s most recent assertion is not intentional?

You will note that on the illustration that depicts what Guatemala will presumably submit as its claim in any potential hearing before the ICJ, involves roughly, if not more than half of Belize’s territory. I wouldn’t be surprised if they will also claim some of our maritime areas beyond those to which they gained access via Belize’s Maritime Areas Act, from some time ago.

Nonetheless, we have a situation in which a massive claim on Belize’s sovereign territory will presumably be made. I say presumably because the source of the story is that of the La Prensa Libre periodical in Guatemala. Although it was not an official government of Guatemala press release, let it be known that this too may very well be part of the Guatemalan strategy. All things considered, relating to what was published, I see a clear-cut and rather ingenious move on the part of the Guatemalan authorities.

In so doing, they succeed in ratcheting-up the nationalist sentiment in their nation and simultaneously (by way of a boxing analogy) check the chin of the Belizean government. That is, by way of their assertion of the Belize government acting in “bad faith”, it not only tests their resolve, it also lays the groundwork for additional contempt to be placed on the nation of Belize. Whether or not it would play into the reasoning of international jurists at the ICJ remains to be seen. Yet I admit I have absolutely no intention of finding out. Even more important is the reality that the ICJ seeks to adjudicate matters with a view toward an “equitable” solution. I shall reiterate that in such instance involving Belize’s territorial integrity, “equity” is NOT what Belize needs.

Herein is the crux of the matter and the seemingly resourceful tactics attempting to be employed by the Guatemalans. The notion of “equity” entails fundamentally that each party will be made to give up something. In real terms, only Belize has something to lose. Yet, by virtue of Guatemala putting forth (presumably) such an outlandish claim amounting to roughly half of the nation of Belize, it sets the foundation for a rather sound legal strategy.

Think about it. If Belizeans are foolish enough to vote to take the matter to the ICJ, it will provide Guatemala with a legal avenue through which to push its unfounded claim and, no less, in a foreign court of arbitration. Which dare I say is not immune to the ills of: external influences, bias and possible acts of tampering that affect domestic courts worldwide.

Again, I draw your attention to the construct of the court’s direction of seeking “equity”. In terms of the Guatemalan strategy, ultimately their demands will be scaled down; thereby creating an even more profound impulse for the court to have Belize give up something. Whether that is territory, maritime rights or as some have speculated even access to areas, coupled with rights associated with mining or drilling for minerals and the like, the bottom line is that it would inevitably blur the lines of what Belize currently possesses, as recognised by the UN Charter. Thus leaving Belize with less than what we had at the time of independence in 1981.

If such were the scenario, in the end (1) the OAS will, at the very least, be seen as playing an integral role in its efforts to settle the dispute; (2) Guatemala would have saved face by gaining something tangible from the process, which they previously never possessed; and (3) Belize is left holding the bag, full of many a commendation from the international community; yet most significantly is left with less than what we currently possess. In other words, Belize would end up with the short end of the stick and in effect would be the backroom joke of the OAS and Guatemala for being so gullible to even have considered going to the ICJ.

It is plain to see that, based on the court’s fundamental operating practice, Belize seemingly only stands to lose concerning where we currently stand as it relates to our territorial integrity and sovereignty. Yet, this scenario is not yet complete, as I would be remiss in failing to mention that the millions of US dollars that have been pledged for the route set out (1) to provide the (mis)education campaign; and (2) to hold the referendum, is already in effect and these unscrupulous politicians and their well connected friends are already counting the money.

If matters hold true to course, as they relate to electoral exercises in Belize, I have no doubt that funds shall be misappropriated and the entire process corrupted. Nonetheless, that is another salient topic for yet another time.

In sum, the expansionist Guatemalan ideology is alive and well. It may not be in the form of a militaristic camp that is unafraid to intimidate its neighbours, by threat of force. Nonetheless, it exists and ironically enough, one of its functional allies in setting the path for its legitimisation is none other than the government of the nation of which it seeks to annex half its territory!

The Guatemalan oligarchy, via transforming its approach has come full-throttle into the realm of modern “diplomacy” and with considerable help from its friends at the OAS, and deliberately greedy forces that seemingly have no impetus to logically place country before self, Guatemala is now poised to get something for nothing.

Yet, the Belizean electorate can stem the tide by becoming actively involved in the process through casting a resounding “NO” vote to the ICJ on 6th October 2013. This shall send a definitive message to the powers that be, whether within our borders, to the west of our border or even as far as the corridors of the OAS, that Belize’s territorial integrity and sovereignty will not be placed before the ICJ for adjudication. Long live Belize in its, current, legal and geographic legitimacy.




On Belize vs Guatemala at ICJ

On Belize vs Guatemala at ICJ

For several reasons, I vote…


Amidst the hustle and bustle of trying to convince people either way on this issue, some things are being left out that I think are important factors that the people MUST know ahead of any other words that they would be listening to. Continue reading “On Belize vs Guatemala at ICJ”

Did you know …Why still a claim?

At the core of Guatemala’s claim to Belizean territory is the Anglo-Guatemalan Treaty of 1859. From the British point of view, the agreement simply declared the boundaries of an area Britain already ruled. Those boundaries still exist today. From the Guatemalan point of view, which was developed after the agreement was signed, it was a treaty of cession, by which Guatemala gave up right to the land. For the treaty to take effect, Britain had to help build a road to improve communications between Guatemala and the Atlantic coast. Because this road was never built, Guatemala insisted that the treaty was broken.

Let’s see… Pass through the Belize/Guatemala border at Benque, travel the Western Highway to Belize City or turn at Belmopan and hit the Southern Highway to one of the Port Towns along the coast..
Seems like they have their connection if you ask me. So what’s the standing issue?

Note also that:

Article Seven stipulated that the parties concerned upon would endeavour to establish adequate communications by road, river or rail, between Guatemala and the Atlantic Coast.

Ride the Mopan river east, that turns into the Belize River that empties out into the Caribbean Sea which leads to the Atlantic Ocean.

As per Google Maps…  There is a link directly from Guatemala City to Belize City, the then Port stop in Belize/British Honduras..
belize city to guatemala city

Did you know …The secrets

For 13 years during the secretive period from 1962 to 1975, negotiations were carried out behind closed doors. Little information was given to the people of Belize or of the world. The Belizeans were observers in the British team.

And it’s happening again…

Did you know …The Webster Proposal


In June 1965, Britain, in consultation with Belize, agreed with Guatemala to submit the dispute to a Mediator appointed by the United States Government. The Mediator, Mr. Bethuel M. Webster

The mediator submitted the Webster Proposal…

The plan placed the defence, foreign affairs and, to a certain extent, the economy of Belize under Guatemalan control after independence. The normal channel of communication to international bodies by the Belize government was to be through the Guatemalan government.

In sum, it is believed that the proposals exclusively committed Belize to a hemispheric destiny as a satellite or department of Guatemala. Nowhere in the document was it stated that the Guatemalan claim was revoked. Nor was Belize explicitly given the right to seek membership of the Commonwealth, the United Nations or international bodies outside of the Inter-American system. She was, in short, denied the prerogative of an independent state to choose, or reorder at least some of the priorities of her future.

Bearing in mind the great disparity between Guatemala and Belize in terms of population and resources, the end result, of these proposals, taken together, would have been the effective domination of Belize by Guatemala. Belize accordingly, declared that these proposals were totally unacceptable.


Did you know …Allowance to participation of Belize Delegates


1962 was a significant historical moment because in that year delegates from Belize were permitted for the first time to participate in the Anglo-Guatemalan negotiations which took place in San Juan, Puerto Rico with the U.K. and Guatemala as principals. Belize had not yet achieved self-government and so the delegates were members of the Executive Council which comprised Hon. George Price, who later became Prime Minister of Belize, Mr. Albert Cattouse and Hon. Louis Sylvestre, along with Hon. Harrison Courtney Sr. as the delegation’s legal adviser.