Belizeans need look no further than 21st September 1981 and all that it represents to our nation, in order to discern whether or not to go to the ICJ.
Once you recognise what that day signifies and the international recognition that accompanied it, there should be no question that going to the ICJ is not only unnecessary, but it is also a step backward, from the current status we enjoy.
Belize has, in reality, nothing to gain but a half of the territory to loose. whereas, Guatemala is quite the opposite…
I vote NO! for several reasons…
1. Why do we have to keep proving what is already legally accepted?
2. There are studies by prominent universities in the US that shows that the ICJ is biased.
3. I have asked several times questions that are yet to be answered without beating around the bush or what I would call fear to tell the truth…
a. Why are we REALLY going to the ICJ?
b. What do we REALLY expect to get out of this game this time?
c. What if the ICJ rules in favor of Belize, are we guaranteed that the issue will go away? I ask this seeing that one of the arguments for going is that this is the last place we can turn to apparently to get them to stop.
d. What if we win the case and Guatemala persists their claims or worst attacks our Nation?
e. What if the ICJ votes in favor of Guatemala?
f. What do we loose if they do?
g. Why instead of fighting to prove what is already legally accepted are we not demanding that the facts be enforced. If we have so much backing to guarantee us a win, why are we not utilizing that to enforce what we have already won rather than risking to loose it all?
h. Who is really benefiting from this whole process?
These are just some of the questions I am still to get an honest answer to and until then I will vote NO. If they do get answered, maybe, just maybe I’ll consider taking the other side a bit more honest and serious.
To add….
sov·er·eign·ty –
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2
a : supreme power especially over a body politic
b : freedom from external control : autonomy
c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state
ter·ri·to·ri·al·i·ty –
1 : territorial status
2
a : persistent attachment to a specific territory
b : the pattern of behavior associated with the defense of a territory
And both of those terms ARE and have LONG been accepted by the #UN, the #OAS, the #ACP-EU and other bodies. Prove those facts wrong and maybe, just MAYBE, I may start to take you more serious.
Here are the main points from the article:
A. recalling United Nations General Assembly Resolution 35/20 of 11 November 1980, which reaffirmed the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity and called on all parties concerned to respect that right,
1. Declares its unequivocal support for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Belize in accordance with its long-established and internationally recognised borders;
6. Calls upon both governments to continue their discussions to put into effect measures that will ease tensions along their border, and to establish a process for the early and definitive settlement of their differences in accordance with the principles and practices of the United Nations and with full respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Belize;
Notice, they say… WITH FULL RESPECT FOR THE WHAT OF WHO????????
Everybody has a preference for the decision making process, who would be the most unbiased & prepared to sit thru’ all the presentations prior to rendering a decision.
Who knows more about the history of the issues & who would have the least to gain.
Twocanview LLC 
Belizeans need look no further than 21st September 1981 and all that it represents to our nation, in order to discern whether or not to go to the ICJ.
Once you recognise what that day signifies and the international recognition that accompanied it, there should be no question that going to the ICJ is not only unnecessary, but it is also a step backward, from the current status we enjoy.
Belize, Sovereign and Free – NO ICJ!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NO.ICJ/
Belize has, in reality, nothing to gain but a half of the territory to loose. whereas, Guatemala is quite the opposite…
I vote NO! for several reasons…
1. Why do we have to keep proving what is already legally accepted?
2. There are studies by prominent universities in the US that shows that the ICJ is biased.
3. I have asked several times questions that are yet to be answered without beating around the bush or what I would call fear to tell the truth…
a. Why are we REALLY going to the ICJ?
b. What do we REALLY expect to get out of this game this time?
c. What if the ICJ rules in favor of Belize, are we guaranteed that the issue will go away? I ask this seeing that one of the arguments for going is that this is the last place we can turn to apparently to get them to stop.
d. What if we win the case and Guatemala persists their claims or worst attacks our Nation?
e. What if the ICJ votes in favor of Guatemala?
f. What do we loose if they do?
g. Why instead of fighting to prove what is already legally accepted are we not demanding that the facts be enforced. If we have so much backing to guarantee us a win, why are we not utilizing that to enforce what we have already won rather than risking to loose it all?
h. Who is really benefiting from this whole process?
These are just some of the questions I am still to get an honest answer to and until then I will vote NO. If they do get answered, maybe, just maybe I’ll consider taking the other side a bit more honest and serious.
To add….
sov·er·eign·ty –
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2
a : supreme power especially over a body politic
b : freedom from external control : autonomy
c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state
ter·ri·to·ri·al·i·ty –
1 : territorial status
2
a : persistent attachment to a specific territory
b : the pattern of behavior associated with the defense of a territory
And both of those terms ARE and have LONG been accepted by the #UN, the #OAS, the #ACP-EU and other bodies. Prove those facts wrong and maybe, just MAYBE, I may start to take you more serious.
Here are the main points from the article:
A. recalling United Nations General Assembly Resolution 35/20 of 11 November 1980, which reaffirmed the inalienable right of the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial integrity and called on all parties concerned to respect that right,
1. Declares its unequivocal support for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Belize in accordance with its long-established and internationally recognised borders;
6. Calls upon both governments to continue their discussions to put into effect measures that will ease tensions along their border, and to establish a process for the early and definitive settlement of their differences in accordance with the principles and practices of the United Nations and with full respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Belize;
Notice, they say… WITH FULL RESPECT FOR THE WHAT OF WHO????????
http://fiwebelize.com/acp-eu-resolution-on-the-question-of-belize/
Everybody has a preference for the decision making process, who would be the most unbiased & prepared to sit thru’ all the presentations prior to rendering a decision.
Who knows more about the history of the issues & who would have the least to gain.
Good luck.
Cheers…