12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Belice, or British Honduras, has been the subject of dispute throughout its history. Although the Spanish claim to the Caribbean and Central America was clear in theory, the British distinguished between title by discovery and title by occupation. In their eyes this jungle terrain along the shores of the Caribbean Sea was “ res nullius ”—uninhabited territory, i.e., not occupied by Europeans—and hence subject to seizure by anyone who chose to effectively populate it. Spanish settlements in neighboring portions of Central America, in the British view, conveyed only dubious title to this area. Moreover, the original settlers of the town of Belize were freebooters who were not accustomed to paying heed to Spanish claims.
1 For accounts of the settlement of the area, and the various arguments regarding this portion of the dispute, see Caiger, Stephen L., British Honduras: Past and Present (London, 1951),Google Scholar Humphries, Robert A., The Diplomatic History of British Honduras: 1638–1901 (London, 1961),Google Scholar Waddell, D. A. G., British Honduras (London, 1961),Google Scholar Burdon, John A., ed., Archives of British Honduras, 3 Vols. (London, 1931–1935),Google Scholar Clergen, Wayne M., British Honduras: Colonial Dead End (Baton Rouge, La., 1967),Google Scholar and Bloomfield, L. M., The British Honduras-Guatemala Dispute (Toronto, 1953).Google Scholar
2 The Guatemalan argument regarding successsion to the Spanish claim is sustained in Gall, Francis, Belice: Tierra Nuestra (Guatemala, 1962),Google Scholar Bosch, C. García, La controversia sobre el territorio de Belice y el Procedimiento “exaequo et bono” (Guatemala, 1958),Google Scholar Beteta, Virgilio Rodríguez, El Libro de Guatemala Grande: Petén-Belice, Vol. 2 (Guatemala, 1951),Google Scholar Opinion of the Geographical and Historical Society of Guatemala on Guatemala’s Right to British Honduras, trans, by Smith, Robert E. and Carrera, Antonio Goubaud (Guatemala, 1939),Google Scholar and Vela, David, Nuestro Belice (Guatemala, 1939).Google Scholar
3 For details of the “battle,” see Caiger, , British Honduras, pp. 89–100.Google Scholar Its use as the basis for a claim is commented upon in Humphries, , The Diplomatic History of British Honduras, pp. 10–46,Google Scholar Clergen, , British Honduras, pp. 15–96,Google Scholar Bianchi, William J., Belize, pp. 35–36,Google Scholar Bloomfield, , The British Honduras-Guatemala Dispute, pp. 12–19,Google Scholar and Williams, Mary Wilhelmine, Anglo-American Isthmian Diplomacy: 1815–1915 (2nd ed., Gloucester, Mass., 1965), pp. 33–50.Google Scholar It is interesting to note that although the British ignored Indians in the Belice area, their claim to the Mosquito coast of Nicaragua was based upon Indian domains and a protectorate over them.
4 There have been some efforts to assert Mexican claims to Belice, which by implication lend some credence to the British view. Defences of Mexican claims are contained in Fabela, Isidro, Defensa de los Derechos de México (México, 1944),Google Scholar Echanove Trujlilo, Carlos Alberto, Una tierra en disputa: Belice ante la Historia (Mérida, México, 1951),Google Scholar and Pérez, G. A., Trejo, , ed., Documentos sobre Belice o Balice (México, 1958).Google Scholar
5 Williams, , Anglo-American Isthmian Diplomacy, pp. 85–109,Google Scholar and Humphries, , The Diplomatic History of British Honduras, pp. 47–58.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., p. 80, and Clergen, , British Honduras, p. 99.Google Scholar
7 Ibid., pp. 99–101. The Treaty clause has been widely reprinted, and may be found in almost any of the studies of the controversy.
8 Ibid., pp. 99–101, and Humphries, , The Diplomatic History of British Honduras, pp. 81–84.Google Scholar The Guatemalan contention regarding the significance of the Treaty and the verbal understanding is discussed at length and sustained in Anderson, Luis, “Estudio jurídico acerca de la controversia entre Guatemala y la Gran Bretaña relativa a la convención de 30 de Abril de 1859 sobre asuntos territoriales,” Revista de Derecho Internacional (Habana, Cuba) 70 (1939), pp. 163–231,Google Scholar Mendoza, José Luis, Inglaterra y sus pactos sobre Belice (Guatemala, 1942),Google Scholar Gálvez, Gustavo Santisa, El caso de Belice a la luz de la historia y el derecho internacional (Guatemala, 1941),Google Scholar García Bosch, La controversia sobre el territorio de Belice, Vela, Nuestro Belice, Beteta, Virgilio Rodríguez, Solidarity and Responsibilities of the United States in the Belice Case, trans, by Payne, Walter A. (Guatemala, 1965),Google Scholar and Opinion of the Geographical and Historical Society of Guatemala on Guatemala’s Right to British Honduras.
9 Bloomfield, , The British Honduras-Guatemala Dispute, pp. 33–36,Google Scholar Humphries, , The Diplomatic History of British Honduras, pp. 92–108,Google Scholar and Clergen, , British Honduras, pp. 102–105.Google Scholar
10 Humphries, , The Diplomatic History of British Honduras, pp. 109–120,Google Scholar Clergen, , British Honduras, p. 107,Google Scholar and Bloomfield, , The British Honduras-Guatemala Dispute, pp. 39–44.Google Scholar The agreement committed the British Government only to “request” an appropriation from Parliament to pay this amount.
11 Ibid., pp. 45–50, Clergen, pp. 107–110, and Humphries, , The Diplomatic History of British Honduras, pp. 121–132.Google Scholar
12 Charles C. A. Lee (British Chargé in Guatemala) to Alfredo Skinner Klée (Guate-malan Minister of Foreign Relations), February 21, 1933, reprinted in Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, República de Guatemala, El Libro Blanco: Controversia entre Guatemala y la Gran Bretaña, relativa a la convención de 1859 sobre asuntos territoriales: Cuestión de Belice, Part I (Guatemala, 1938), p. 371. Hereinafter cited as Libro Blanco.
13 Skinner Klee to Lee, March 4, 1933, Libro Blanco, p. 372.
14 Lee to Skinner Klée, March 29, 1933, Ibid., pp. 373-374, and Skinner Klée to Lee, April 3, 1933, Ibid., pp. 374–377.
15 Guillermo Sáenz de Tejada (Acting Minister of Foreign Relations) to Lee, May 1, 1933, Ibid., pp. 383–385.
16 Lee to Sáenz de Tejada, April 24, 1933, and Sáenz de Tejada to Lee, May 1, 1933. Ibid., pp. 381–385.
17 Lee to Skinner Klée, April 7, 1933, Ibid., pp. 377–378.
18 Matthew Hanna (United States Minister in Guatemala) to Cordell Hull (Secreary of State), November 30, 1934, United States State Department Papers, National Archives, RG 59, 714.44A15/14. Hereinafter State Department Papers will be cited by fie number only.
19 Skinner Klée to Lee, April 17, 1933, Libro Blanco, pp. 379–380.
20 Lee to Skinner Klée, June 12, and July 1, 1933, Ibid., pp. 285–286, and 390.
21 Skinner Klée to Lee, June 27, 1933, Ibid., pp. 387–390.
22 Unsigned Memorandum by the Guatemalan Foreign Ministry delivered to the British Legation, December 12, 1933, Ibid., pp. 397–398.
23 John Henry Stopford Birch (British Minister in Guatemala) to Skinner Klée, November 13, 1934, Ibid., pp. 406–407.
24 Skinner Klée to Birch, November 17, 1934, Ibid., pp. 410–412.
25 Hanna to Hull, May 3, 1934, 714.44A15/13.
26 El Liberal Progresista carried frequent articles on the subject during April, May and June, 1934. For example, the Congressional Committee’s reply to the Foreign Minister’s report was excerpted with editorial comment from April 27 to May 4, 1934.
27 José González Campo (Acting Minister of Foreign Relations) to Birch, September 16, 1936, Libro Blanco, pp. 416–418.
28 For the British response, see Bloomfield, , The British Honduras-Guatemala Dispute, p. 56,Google Scholar and for the instruction to Dr.Matos, José (Guatemalan Minister in London) Libro Blanco, p. 366.Google Scholar
29 Grieb, Kenneth J., “American Involvement in the Rise of Jorge Ubico,” Caribbean Studies, 10, 1 (April, 1970), pp. 16–19.Google Scholar Grieb, Kenneth J., “Negotiating a Reciprocal Trade Agreement with an Underdeveloped Country: Guatemala as a Case Study,” Prologue, 5, 1 (Spring, 1973), pp. 23–29,Google Scholar and Grieb, Kenneth J., “The United States and General Jorge Ubico’s Retention of Power,” Revista de Historia de América, 71 (January-June. 1971), pp. 119 and 124–126.Google Scholar
30 Fay Allan Des Portes (United States Minister in Guatemala) to Hull, September 9, 1936, 714.44A15/19, transmitting a letter of the same date from Jorge Ubico to Franklin D. Roosevelt.
31 Des Portes to Hull, September 12, 1936, 714.44A15/20, transmitting a letter of the same date from González Campo to Hull.
32 Numeros Latin American Division Memoranda throughout the controversy, indicate the assumption of a British “moral obligation,” see for example a Memorandum by Sidney O’Donoghue, October 6, 1936, 714.44A15/19. The Solicitor’s Office was more circumspect, Green H. Hackworth to Sumner Welles (Assistant Secretary of State), October 1, 1936, 714.44A15/19.
33 Hull to González Campo, February 13, 1937, 714.44A15/20.
34 Lord Halifax to Dr.Matos, José, August 17, 1937, Libro Blanco, p. 418.Google Scholar
35 Carlos Salazar (Minister of Foreign Relations) to Anthony Eden (Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Relations), September 22, 1937, Ibid., pp. 419–420, and Salazar to Hull, October 31, 1938, 714.44A15/43.
38 Des Portes to Hull, August 20, 1937, 714.44A15/25 and October 23, 1937, 714. 44A15/25 and October 23, 1937, 714.44A15/28, reporting conversations with Salazar.
37 Birch to Salazar, March 3, 1938, Libro Blanco, pp. 422–423, and Latin American Division Memorandum by Ellis O. Briggs, May 1, 1939, 714.44A15/56.
38 During an interview with the author in Guatemala City, July 17, 1969, Lie. José González Campo commented that before Salazar assumed charge of the Foreign Ministry, he was one of the few individuals outside the government to whom Ubico turned for advice.
39 El Impartial and El Liberal Progresista, April 25, 1938.
40 Both newspapers carried extensive reports of such petitions during May and June, laboriously reprinting the texts. See for example El Imparcial, May 2, 4, 5, 6, and 12, 1938, and El Liberal Progresista, May 19, 20, and 27 and June 3 and 4, 1938.
41 El Imparcial, May 5 and 7, 1939.
42 El Imparcial and El Liberal Progresista bristled with articles on the subject throughout the period. The editorial series in El Imparcial ran from May 25 through August 10, 1938, while a smaller, parallel series appeared in El Liberal Progresista from May 27 through June 8, 1938.
43 Des Portes to Hull, July 16, 1938, 714.44A15/41.
44 See for example El Imparcial, October 28 through November 12, 1938, and for reprints of endorsements from other countries, El Imparcial January 21, March 9, April 12 and 25, August 9, October 5, and November 13, 1939.
45 El Imparcial, November 16, 1939.
46 El Imparcial, January 30, 1939 and Latin American Division Memorandum by Gerald A. Drew, February 27, 1939, 714.44A15/53.
47 John M. Cabot (Secretary of the American Legation in Guatemala City) to Hull, July 5, 1939, 814.51/840 and July 29, 814.51/845.
48 Walter McKinney (United States Chargé in Guatemala City) to Hull, December 21, 1938, 714.44A15/44.
49 Memorandum of a Conversation between Salazar and Hull, prepared by Adolph A. Berle, Jr., January 8, 1939, 714.44A15/46, and Memorandum of a Conversation between Adrian Recinos (Guatemalan Minister in Washington) and Hull, March 1, 1939, 714.44A15/48.
50 El Imparcial featured the story, March 14, 17, 18 and 20, 1939. Des Portes to Hull, March 14, 1939, 714.44A15/50. For the resolution (Senate Resolution 100, March 13, 1939), see Key Pittman (Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs) to Hull, March 14, 1939, 714.44A15/49.
51 Latin American Division Memorandum by Ellis O. Briggs, May 1, 1939, 714. 44A15/56.
52 Memorandum presented to the British Ambassador in Washington by Welles (Undersecretary of State), June 15, 1939, 714.44A15/51.
53 Des Portes to Hull, June 28, 1939, 714.44A15/58.
54 Des Portes to Hull, July 8, 1939, 714.44A15/59 and July 12, 1939, 714.44A15/64.
55 Des Portes to Hull, August 12, 1939, 714.44A15/66.
56 Des Portes to Hull, , September 20, 1939, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, 5, The American Republics, pp. 182–184.Google Scholar Hereinafter, Foreign Relations volumes will be cited as FR and the year.
57 Des Portes to Hull, September 13, 1939, Ibid., pp. 180–182, and September 22, 1939, Ibid., pp. 184–186.
58 Des Portes to Hull, September 13, 1939, Ibid., pp. 180–182, Welles to Des Portes, August 25, 1939, Ibid., p. 180, and Hull to Des Portes, August 25, 1939, 714.44A15/66.
59 Des Portes to Hull, September 5, 1939, 814.51/847.
60 Des Portes to Hull, September 13, 1939, FR 1939, V, pp. 180–182, September 21, 1939, 714.44A15/73, and September 22, 1939, FR 1939, V, pp; 184–186.
61 Des Portes to Hull, September 22, 1939, Ibid., pp. 184–186, Welles (at the Panama Conference) to Hull, September 24, 1939, Ibid., p. 187, and Des Portes to Hull, September 25, 1939, Ibid., pp. 187–188.
62 Conversation Memorandum, Welles and Lord Lothian (British Ambassador in Washington) November 14, 1939, Welles to Lothian, November 15, 1939, Welles to Des Portes, November 15, 1939, Lothian to Welles, November 20, 1939, and John M. Cabot (United States Chargé in Guatemala) to Hull, November 27, 1939, all Ibid., pp. 189–191.
63 Cabot to Hull, December 5, 1939, Conversation Memorandum, Laurence Duggan (Chief of the Division of American Republics) and Recinos, December 5, 1939, Welles to Lothian, December 8, 1939, all Ibid., pp. 192–193, and Conversation Memorandum, Welles and Lothian, January 8, 1940 (containing the phrase quoted) and January 12, 1940, both FR 1940, V, pp. 416–418.
64 John Hurleston Leche (British Minister in Guatemala) to Salazar, January 29, 1940, Libro Blanco, Pt. V (Guatemala, 1940), pp. 133–137.
65 Des Portes to Hull, January 29, 1941, FR 1940, V, p. 421.
66 Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, Des Portes and Duggan, January 30, 1940, 714.44A15/125. Conversation Memorandum, Welles and Lothian, and Hull to Des Portes, January 31, 1940, both FR 1940, V, pp. 422–424.
67 Des Portes to Hull, January 31, 1940, 714.44A15/121.
68 Des Portes to Hull, February 1, 1940 and February 3, 1940, both FR 1940, V, pp. 424–425.
69 Salazar to Leche, Feburary 3, 1940, Libro Blanco, V, pp. 138–141.
70 See El Imparcial, March 8, 1940, for the text of the note, and Des Portes to Hull, March 5, 1940, FR 1940, V, pp. 430-431, for an English version of the key sentences.
71 Latin American Division Memorandum by Gerald Drew, to Ellis O. Briggs, March 22, 1940, 714.44A15/144.
72 Conversation Memorandum, Briggs, Drew and Butler, March 6, 1940, FR 1940, V, pp. 431–432.
73 Des Portes to Hull, March 5, 1940, FR 1940, V, pp. 430–431.
74 Salazar to Leche, March 7, 1940, published in El Imparcial, March 8, 1940.
75 Conversation Memorandum, Briggs, Drew, and Butler, March 6, 1940, Des Portes to HulL March 7, 1940, and Hull to Welles (in Paris), March 8, 1940, all FR 1940, V, pp. 431–434.
76 Memorandum by Duggan, reporting Welles’ version of his conversations in London, April 2, 1940, Ibid., pp. 435–436, Memorandum by Welles of a conversation with the British Ambassador in Washington, April 9, 1941, and Des Portes to Hull, April 23, 1940, all Ibid., pp. 436–437.
77 Des Portes to Hull, March 5,1940, 714.44A15/148 and March 30,1940, 714.44A15/158. El imparcial was filled with reports of new legal studies and declarations of support from other countries during March, April and May, 1940. Reports of support from other Central American nations and Mexico also were verified by dispatches from the United States representatives in the respective capitals. See Meredith Nicholson (Managua) to Hull, March 30, 1940, 714.44A15/155, Robert Frazier (San Salvador) to Hull, April 3, 1940, 714.44A15/160, William Hornibrook (San José) to Hull, May 14, 1940, 714.44A15/181, and Josephus Daniels (Mexico City) to Hull, June 25, 1940, 714.44A15/203.
78 Reports of German approaches to Guatemala regarding Belice appear in Des Portes to Hull, September 13, 1939, 714.44A15/72, December 9, 1939, 714.44A15/101, and April 25, 1940, 714.44A15/175.
79 Des Portes to Hull, April 23,1940, 714.44A15/170, and April 24,1940, 714.44A15/174.
80 Des Portes to Hull, April 24, 1940, FR 1940, V, p. 438, and May 24, 1940, 714. 44A15/182.
81 Conversation Memorandum, Des Portes, Duggan, and Butler, July 9, 1940, FR 1940, V, pp. 440–442.
82 El Imparcial, June 6, 1940, for Salazar’s summary of the Guatemalan stance.
83 El Imparcial, July 26, and 30, 1940, and Conversation Memorandum, Des Portes, Duggan, Guy W. Ray, and LaVerne Baldwin (Division of American Republics), August 7, 1940, FR 1940, V, pp. 442–443.
84 For Ubico’s letter to Roosevelt, see Ubico to F. D. Roosevelt, August 3, 1940, 714.44A15/211. El Imparcial reprinted the text of Ubico’s other messages and the responses during August, 1940.
85 Des Portes to Hull, September 20, 1940, 714.44A15/221.
86 Cabot to Hull, January 8, 1941, 714.44A15/226 and March 12, 1941, 714.44A15/231, and Des Portes to Hull, March 18, 1941, 714.44A15/232.
87 Des Portes to Hull, April 10, 1942, 714.44A15/316.
88 Memorandum, Cabot to Duggan, June 10, 1943, 714.44A15/405. Expressions of United States concern about the question, indicating a sense of responsibility to Guatemala, appeared in many memoranda, for example Cabot to Stephen Bonsal (Chief, Division of American Republics), March 20, 1943, 714.44A15/388-8/9 and Bonsal to Duggan, May 19, 1942, 714.44A15/363.
89 The limited range and speed of World War II aircraft, made it necessary for planes traveling between the Canal Zone and Texas to make two stops for refueling and overnight rests. Guatemala City and Mexico City were the most convenient landing points, and were constantly receiving flights of Air Force planes shuttling between the Canal Zone and the Rio Grande.
90 Cabot to Hull, January 8, 1941, 714.44A15/226, and Conversation Memoranda, Welles, and Halifax, May 17, 1941, 714.44A15/244 and May 18, 1941, 714.44A15/237.
91 Conversation Memorandum, Welles and Halifax, June 9, 1941, 714.44A15/248.
92 Joseph G. Winant (United States Ambassador in London) to Hull, July 25, 1941, 714.44A15/249, and July 28, 1941, 714.44A15/251, transmitting a Memorandum by Eden on the question.
93 Memorandum, Cabot to Duggan, August 20, 1941, 714.44A15/353-2/11.
94 Numerous memoranda were exchanged during October, November, and December, 1941, between the Division of American Republics, and the Solicitor’s Office, and Welles, attempting to formulate such a proposal. Most of these memoranda are numbered in the 714.44A15/353 and 354 range, each of which have numerous parts and fractionated numbers. Guatemala rejected the proposed formula, after the Department modified it in an attempt to preclude British rejection. See Conversation Memorandum, Duggan and Recinos, July 1, 1942, 714.44A15/369. Welles discussed the matter with Salazar during the letter’s visit to Washington in December, 1942, without success, Salazar to Welles, December 4, 1942, 714.44A15/388-1/9, and Cabot to Duggan, December 5, 1942, 714.44A15/388-2/9. As a result of Salazar’s stance, Duggan informed Welles that he considered it impossible to comply with the Undersecretary’s instructions to develop an arbitration formula acceptable to both sides, Duggan to Welles, January 8, 1943, 714.44A15/403, and the effort was abandoned.
