BRITISH HONDURAS: THE GUATEMALAN CLAIM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP08C01297R000400160012-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 24, 2012
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: June 1, 1960
• Content Type: REPORT

I
beclassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
BRITISH
HONDURAS:
THE
GUATEMALAN
CLAIM
BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES
AN AGENCY OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
Reference Division
ID 1358 June, 1960
CONTENTS
Page
I. The Early History of the Territory
2 The Treaty of 1859
3 The Guatemalan Argument
4 United Kingdom Reply
4 Legal Settlement Proposed
5 British Honduran Views
8 Appendix 1
The Mexican Claim
9 Appendix 2
Facts about the Territory
6-7 Map
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES
AN AGENCY OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
45 Rockefeller Plaza, New York 20, N.Y.
903 National Press Building, Washington 4, D.C.
200 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago 4, Illinois
2516 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco 15, California
448 South Hill Street, Los Angeles 13, California
This material is filed with the Department of
Justice, where the required registration
statement of B.I.S. under 56 Stat. 248-258 as
an agency of the British Government is
available for inspection. Registration does not
imply approval or disapproval of this material
by the United States Government.
Printed in England by Trade Union Labor
by Swindon Press Ltd., Victoria Road, Swindon
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
BRITISH HONDURAS:
THE GUATEMALAN CLAIM
BRITISH Honduras lies on the east coast of Central America and is bounded by
Mexico in the north and by Guatemala in the west and south; it has no
common frontier with the Republic of Honduras, from which it is separated
by a corridor of Guatemalan territory. An account of the economic and political
problems and progress of British Honduras will be found in I.D. 1319: the
present paper is concerned with the claim to the territory made by Guatemala.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE TERRITORY
Little is known of the early history of the area which is now British Honduras,
but the numerous ruins throughout the territory indicate that for hundreds of
years it was heavily populated by Maya Indians. Their civilisation appears to
have reached its apogee about the eighth century. Thereafter, the people began
to migrate, and, long before the first Europeans reached the Caribbean, had
abandoned the area.
In 1502, during his fourth voyage, Columbus discovered and named the Bay
of Honduras, though he did not actually visit that part of the coast which
later became British Honduras. The first recorded European settlement was in
1638, by shipwrecked British seamen. The coast began to be frequented by
buccaneers and logwood cutters, logwood being then in great demand in
Europe for the manufacture of dyes. The British settlement at the mouth of
the Belize river had a stormy history during the next 150 years. It was sub-
jected to repeated attacks from neighbouring Spanish settlements; for Spain,
with papal sanction, claimed sovereignty over the whole of the new world,
except for those regions of South America assigned to Portugal.
By the Treaty of Madrid, of 1670, Spain accorded recognition to the de facto
British possessions established in the Caribbean area, but did not agree with
Britain's contention that the terms of the treaty included the settlement of
Belize. Spanish attacks on the settlers, who now numbered about 700, continued.
It was not until 1763, under the Treaty of Paris at the conclusion of the
Seven Years War, that Spain, while retaining sovereignty over Belize, conceded
to the British settlers the right to engage in the logwood industry there.
Further treaties were entered into in 1783 and 1786, the former confirming
the right of British subjects to carry on logwood operations 'in the district lying
between the rivers Belize and Rio Hondo', and the latter enlarging the area
conceded to include the territory between the rivers Belize and Sibun. None
of these agreements affected Spanish sovereignty, but, in practice, very little
jurisdiction was exercised by Spain. The British settlers either governed them-
selves or received administrative officers from the United Kingdom and, in
due course, extended themselves over roughly the area of modern British
Honduras.
Despite these agreements, Spanish attacks on Belize continued for a time,
until a final decisive victory by the settlers in 1798, in a naval engagement off
St. George's Cay. From that date, armed aggression by Spain ceased entirely,
and the settlers maintained from this time that the country had become British
1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
by conquest. The anniversary of this victory is still marked by a public holiday
and patriotic celebrations. British control over the settlement gradually in-
creased as Spanish power in The West Indies and Central America declined.
The Spanish dominions in Central America had been ruled by a Spanish
Viceroy, who had his capital in Mexico, and by a Spanish captain-general, who
had his capital in Guatemala. The vice-royalty and the captaincy-general were
divided into provinces, the provinces of the captaincy-general of Guatemala
corresponding in name, and mainly in extent, to the present-day states of
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador and Costa Rica.
The Guatemalans argue that the territory of British Honduras belonged, in
colonial times, to the captaincy-general of Guatemala; that, on the establishment
of the Central American Federation in 1823, the rights of Spain passed to the
Federation, and that, when it dissolved in 1838, they then passed to Guatemala.
It is, however, uncertain whether the captaincy-general of Guatemala ever
exercised any authority, in fact, over any part of the territory in question, and
there is evidence to support the view that the part of the present territory of
British Honduras which was covered by the 1783 and 1786 treaties with Spain
(that is, the areas between the Hondo and Sibun) lay within the jurisdictional
authority of the captaincy-general and bishopric of Yucatan, and therefore of
Mexico. It has therefore been argued that, if any Spanish-American state
succeeded to the rights of Spain in this area, that state was not Guatemala but
Mexico (see p. 8). In any event, no attempt was made by Spain to exercise
sovereign rights after 1816, and no protest was received from Spain over the
exercise of British sovereignty in the area covered by the treaties of 1783 and
1786, or against the extension of the boundaries of the British settlement which
was taking place at that time.
THE TREATY OF 1859
It was in these circumstances that a treaty of 13th April, 1859, between the
United Kingdom and Guatemala, was concluded and duly ratified by both
parties. In this treaty Guatemala agreed (Article 1) to the existing boundary
between Guatemala and British Honduras, and there is nothing in the treaty
to suggest that it involved cession to the United Kingdom of any territory which
was previously Guatemalan. By Article 7 'the high contracting parties mutually
agree conjointly to use their best efforts by taking adequate means for estab-
lishing the easiest communication (either by means of a cart road or employing
the 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'.
This Article 7 of the 1859 treaty, which was included by Mr. Wyke (British
Charg?'Affaires to the Republic of Guatemala), who signed for Great Britain,
on his own responsibility, is the source of the present Anglo-Guatemalan dispute.
Guatemala contends that it was inserted to compensate for an alleged southward
extension of British Honduras from the river Sibun to the river Sarstoon in
Guatemalan territory, but that the use of the word 'compensation' was avoided
in order to conceal the fact that Britain was thus gaining an extension of her
territory. The United Kingdom Government has never admitted this contention,
but it may well be that the Guatemalans saw in Article 7 advantages to them-
selves which made them more disposed to sign the treaty. The United Kingdom
Government, while not denying that both a moral and legal obligation were
incurred by it under Article 7, does deny that any cession of territory by Guate-
2
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
mala took place and contends that, at most, Guatemala was signifying the
abandonment of an untenable claim; furthermore, Article 7 did not suppose
a gift by one contracting party to another, but an obligation to be jointly per-
formed.
Immediately after the conclusion of the treaty, the United Kingdom Govern-
ment sent an engineer to British Honduras to report on the question of making
the road envisaged in Article 7. Misunderstandings subsequently developed
about the exact nature of the contributions to be made by the British and
Guatemalan Governments to the construction of the road in accordance with
Article 7's provision that they 'mutually agree conjointly to use their best efforts'
for this purpose. After further negotiations, the two Governments agreed in
1863 to substitute for Article 7 a new convention under which the United
Kingdom agreed to pay Guatemala ?50,000 in discharge of its outstanding
obligation under the Article. This sum, to be paid in instalments, was to be
used in constructing the road, the Guatemalan Government itself providing all
materials and defraying any additional cost. This supplementary convention
was never ratified. The United Kingdom Government indicated their readiness
to do so within the stipulated period of six months, but the Guatemalan Govern-
ment failed to offer ratification until more than a year after this period had
lapsed. The Guatemalan Government then not only demanded that the United
Kingdom should accept belated ratification, but also desired to add certain
explanations which would have had the effect of modifying the original obliga-
tions undertaken under the 1863 convention. The United Kingdom Government
then refused to ratify the convention, maintaining that it had lapsed because
of the delay by Guatemala, and the two Governments were thus thrown back
on Article 7 of the 1859 convention. The British Government's view, at that
time, was that, by incurring expenses for the preliminary survey of the road
and by signing and being ready to ratify the 1863 convention, it had fulfilled
its obligations under Article 7.
Since 1863 Guatemala has taken no steps to carry out its obligations under
Article 7, although in 1908 it completed, on its own responsibility, and without
consulting Britain, a railway from Guatemala city to the sea at Puerto Barrios
(the Guatemalan port on the Caribbean some 150 miles from Belize), and in
1959 a modern motor road between Guatemala and Puerto Barrios was com-
pleted with the help of funds provided by international organisations. On the
other hand the United Kingdom Government has, without prejudice to its view
recorded above, made various proposals with the object of carrying out the
provisions of Article 7: thus, in 1895, it made an offer to pay ?50,000 towards
the cost of a railway from Belize to the frontier of the Guatemalan province of
Peten. In 1934 it offered to build a road from Belize to the frontier of Peten,
and in 1936 made a fresh offer to pay ?50,000. Guatemala rejected these offers
as well as two subsequent proposals made by Britain to refer the dispute to
arbitration. In 1949 the British Honduras Government completed an all-
weather road from Belize to the Guatemalan frontier near El Cayo.
THE GUATEMALAN ARGUMENT
The Guatemalan contentions, as shown inter alia in a decree passed by the
Guatemalan Parliament, are:
1. That it is solely the fault of the United Kingdom that Article 7 has never
been implemented, and the attitude of the United Kingdom is tantamount
to repudiation of its obligations under the Article;
2. That, as a result of an alleged repudiation of Article 7 by the United
Kingdom, Guatemala is entitled to and in fact does declare the whole
treaty of 1859 to be null and void, including the provisions in Article 1
which defined the boundaries between British Honduras and Guatemala;
3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
3. That the treaty being, as alleged, now null and void, Guatemala is entitled
to claim the whole of British Honduras or, alternatively, the southern
part of the colony lying between the Sibun and Sarstoon rivers, as Guate-
malan territory, on the ground that Guatemala is the international
successor to Spain, to whom the territory formerly belonged.
UNITED KINGDOM REPLY
The United Kingdom Government disputes all three of these contentions. It
maintains that it is not solely, nor even mainly, to blame for the fact that
Article 7 has not been implemented, and that, in any case, it is still prepared
to consider means of carrying it out; that even if it had been solely responsible
(which it disputes), the result would be not to invalidate the treaty but merely
to provide Guatemala with a claim against the United Kingdom for the fulfil-
ment of the Article or compensation for non-fulfilment; and that, even if the
treaty were invalid (which again is disputed), Guatemala would have no right
to the territory of British Honduras, or any part of it. Guatemala was not the
sole successor to Spain in this part of the world but only acquired, as a
successor to Spain, that territory over which the new Guatemalan State in
fact exercised jurisdiction. The United Kingdom had been in possession of
the territory of British Honduras, not merely long before the conclusion of the
1859 treaty, but also before the achievement of Guatemalan independence in
1821.
LEGAL SETTLEMENT PROPOSED
In January 1940, Britain offered Guatemala the choice between three methods
for the arbitration of the dispute:
1. Reference to the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague;
2. Reference to an ad hoc tribunal of jurists sitting under the rules of
arbitration laid down by The Hague Convention of 1907;
3. Reference to a tribunal of three international lawyers, of which the umpire
should be nominated by the President of the United States.
The British Government intimated that such arbitration would be confined
to the treaty of 1859, and in particular to Article 7. In the Guatemalan reply
the third method was accepted, but this was vitiated by the accompanying
declaration that the treaty had lapsed through failure to fulfil Article 7, and
that Guatemala had the right to 'recover the territory ceded to Great Britain'.
The United Kingdom then conceded that the Guatemalan Government should
be at liberty to put its territorial claims before the arbitrating tribunal, but the
Guatemalan Government rejected this offer, and repeated their assertion that
the treaty was null and void.
In 1946 Britain declared its willingness to accept the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice in all legal disputes arising out of any boundary
treaty relating to British Honduras, but the Guatemalans would not accept this
unless the Court were empowered to decide the case ex aequo et bono (i.e. with
reference to extraneous non-legal questions). As the Guatemalan claim was
one of legal title, the United Kingdom could not agree that it would justify
such exceptional power being given to the Court.
The controversy continued intermittently without any progress towards a
settlement being made. In March 1957, an official of the Guatemalan Foreign
Ministry, Sr. Jose Luis Mendoza, had informal discussions at the Foreign Office
in London. He was informed that the British Government would be glad to
continue discussions towards a settlement, and was provided with a list of topics
of common interest to Guatemala and British Honduras which might form the
basis of negotiations. These include:
4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
1. Guatemalan free port requirements.
2. The continuation of the road from Punta Gorda to the Guatemalan
frontier.
3. The improvement of the road from Belize through El Cayo to the Guate-
malan frontier.
4. The transit requirements of developing industries in British Honduras
and Guatemala.
5. The Customs regime on both sides of the frontier.
6. The raising of the status of the respective Missions in Guatemala city
and London.
No response has been made by the Guatemalan Government to this offer
either, although they have been reminded on several occasions that it is still open.
BRITISH HONDURAN VIEWS
On 17th December, 1957, a resolution was passed unanimously by the Legislative
Assembly in British Honduras. Amongst other things, this rejected any claim
by any other government than the Government of the United Kingdom to
sovereignty over British Honduras, declined to have anything to do with any
plan for the incorporation of British Honduras in any other country and
reaffirmed the Assembly's loyalty and allegiance to the Crown.
In February 1960 significant constitutional advances for British Honduras
were agreed on at a conference in London between the Secretary of State for
the Colonies and a delegation from British Honduras in which all shades of
political opinion were represented. At the end of the conference, the repre-
sentative British Honduran members of the delegation unanimously requested,
and it was agreed, that a declaration reaffirming their desire to remain within
the Commonwealth should appear in the form of a preamble to the new con-
stitution. The representatives of the two main political parties, the People's
United Party and the National Independence Party, made a declaration in which
they recognised 'the grave affront to the people of British Honduras caused by
the persistent propaganda of the Government of Guatemala in furtherance of
their unfounded claim to sovereignty over the territory of British Honduras',
while indicating their willingness to support 'the endeavours of Her Majesty's
Government to obtain an amicable and just resolvement of the present dispute'
and to assist in negotiating 'a satisfactory and happy end' to it.
5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
ICIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
International Airport
International Frontier
District Boundary
Land above 1,000 ft.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
APPENDIX 1
THE MEXICAN CLAIM
As mentioned above (p. 2), it has been argued that, if any Spanish-American
state succeeded to the rights of Spain, that state was not Guatemala, but
Mexico. The Act of Confederation of the United States of Mexico of 31st
January, 1824, and the Mexican constitution of 4th October, 1824, both
declared that the territory included the captaincy-general of Yucatan. Sub-
sequently, Mexico from time to time put forward claims to British Honduras
which were rejected by the United Kingdom. Finally, in 1893, a treaty was
signed defining the boundary between Mexico and 'the colony of British Hon-
duras'. This treaty made no mention of the question of sovereignty; it
followed, in defining the boundary, the line generally laid down in the Anglo-
Spanish treaty of 1783 and the line thus defined is now in force. Recent
Mexican governments have taken the formal view that in 1893 Mexico made a
sacrifice in the interests of friendship with Britain, that they are prepared to
abide by the present situation, but that if this were to be altered (i.e. in favour
of Guatemala) Mexico would lay claim at least to that portion of British
Honduras which belonged to the captaincy-general at Yucatan (i.e. which lies
north of latitude 17? 49'N.).
8
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
APPENDIX 2
FACTS ABOUT THE TERRITORY
British Honduras is a small country of 8,866 square miles (nearly 23,000 square
kilometres) on the mainland of Central America, with a multi-racial population
of about 85,000. Its economy has traditionally been based on the export of
timber and other forest products, which in 1950 accounted for more than 85 per
cent of total exports, and there has been no tradition of settled agriculture.
Under the stimulus of long-term development plans, however, financed largely
from United Kingdom funds, considerable progress has been made since the
second world war in developing the territory's agricultural potential in order
to establish a more balanced economy. Agriculture's share in exports has
risen from about 14 per cent in 1950 to 43 per cent in 1958. Citrus is now one
of the territory's most valuable exports, and there is a steadily growing sugar
industry; production of sugar has increased from about 1,500 tons in 1951 to
16,712 tons in 1959. The livestock and rice industries are also expanding, and
progress is being made in the establishment of cocoa, which has not, until
recently, been grown on a commercial scale in the territory. In the past 20 years
more than 400 miles (645 kilometres) of all-weather roads have been built, in
addition to a considerable mileage of feeder-roads.
The central feature of future economic policy is to be planned immigration
aimed at the development of the agricultural economy based both on planta-
tions and individual smallholdings. The United Kingdom Government has
agreed to make a block grant of $BH 5.75 million (?1,437,500) over a period of
four years in aid of the annual budget of the administration, and has allocated
?2 million sterling from Colonial Development and Welfare funds towards
expenditure on new developments and services.
Social services have not been neglected, in spite of the difficulties in the way
of providing hospitals, schools, and other services for small, scattered and some-
times shifting communities. For example, the provision of beds in government
hospitals increased from 183 in 1948 to 469 in 1958, and a network of dispen-
saries has been built in rural areas; the rate of infant mortality has fallen 22
per cent in the space of eight years; and malaria, until recently the most preva-
lent endemic disease, will, it is expected, be eliminated from the territory by
1961.
The legislature has a majority of members elected by universal adult suffrage.
On the Executive Council there are, in addition to the Governor and three
ex officio members, six unofficial members elected by the legislature. Since 1955
a quasi-ministerial system has been in operation. At the conference in February
1960 it was agreed that a full-scale ministerial system would be introduced,
the leader of the party obtaining a clear majority in a general election being
appointed First Minister, and that the number of elected members in the legis-
lature would be increased from 9 to 18 and the number of nominated members
from 3 to 5.
9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
BRITISH
INFORMATION
SERVICES
Answers inquiries concerning
British Affairs.
Maintains a library of 20,000
books and 95,000 Government
documents and 300 British
and Commonwealth periodicals.
Inter-library loan facilities
are available.
Maintains services to supply the
special needs of Press,
Television and Radio with
information, feature articles and
photographs, 16mm.
sound films and radio tapes.
Provides speakers on British
Affairs.
Is official sales agent for
British Government documents.
Distributes a wide range of
free material.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0
rDeclassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8C01297R000400160012-0
THE
CORONA LIBRARY
A series of illustrated volumes with maps dealing with
the United Kingdom's Dependent Territories
TITLES PUBLISHED
HONG KONG by Harold Ingrams
SIERRA LEONE by Roy Lewis
NYASALAND by Frank Debenham
BRITISH GUIANA by Michael Swan
JAMAICA by Peter Abrahams
PRICE $ 4.70 PER VOLUME
UGANDA by Harold Ingrams
NORTH BORNEO by Kennedy Tregonning
PRICE $ 5.60 PER VOLUME
"The aim of these books is to present a contemporary portrait, at
once reliable and attractive, of each territory. I warmly recommend
the series to the attention of the public at home and abroad."
THE RT. HON. SIR WINSTON S. CHURCHILL
in the Foreword to Jamaica
ORDER FROM
SALES SECTION
BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES
45 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA
NEW YORK 20, N.Y.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/24:
CIA-RDPO8001297R000400160012-0