Text of Guatemalan Note

Grey River Argus, 10 August 1948, Page 7

Text of Guatemalan Note

(By Radio). (By a Diplomatic Correspondent) A note from the Guatemalan Government replying to the British note of May 11 has been delivered to the British Minister in Guatemala City. The text of the new Guatemalan London, but it is understood that it is not calculated to facilitate settlement of the long-standing dispute over British Honduras. The text of the British note of May 11 was published at the time. It was itself a reply to a Guatemalan note of March 24 in which the Guatemalan Government while reiterating their claim to British Honduras requested the immediate withdrawal of British armed forces from that British colony as a prerequisite to a settlement of the territorial dispute on Guatemala’s terms. The British note of May 11 concluded as follows: “The presence' of British forces in British Honduras was and is in no sense _ provocative and their move (to British Honduras) was solely decided upon as a guarantee for the adequate protection of life and property in the colony. His Majesty’s Government are therefore unable to accept the protest of the Guatemalan Government against the presence of these forces or to accede to requests for their removal.” Goodwill Needed “In this connection, however, it would be much less difficult for His Majesty’s Government to cansider this step if the Guatemalan Government were for their part also to demonstrate their good will by taking action to bring about the cessation of the continued campaign of propaganda against Grey Britain, by agreeing to the withdrawal of troops moved by them to positions near the frontier between British Honduras and Guatemala, and by showing a willingness to decide the dispute by proner means as provided by the International Court in accordance with the Charter of th» United Nations.” As is well knowi Guatemala has raised a claim to British Honduras which has been a British nossessipn for 150 years. The Guatemalan claim that the territory belongs to Guatemala in law is contested by His Majesty's Government have repeatedly declared their readiness to have it decided on legal grounds by the International Court of Justice. -

Offer Refused - The Guatemalan Government have consistentlv refused this offer. They have stated they would only agree to reference of the case to the International Court provided the Court were to decide the case not on a basis of law, but on a basis of “ex qequo' et bono” which would enable the Court of parties, but even the wishes of the to over-ride not only the legal rights inhabitants of the disnuted territory who have expressed the clearest desire that thev remain within the British Commonwealth. The conclusion to be drawn from this attitude of the Guatemalan Government was that they had no confidence in the legal justice of thenclaim. Early this year fresh tactics were adopted in Guatemala. An anti-Bri-tish propaganda camnaign was worked up under the auspices of the Guatemalan Government and a point was reached in February at which there appeared to be a danger of the invasion of British Honduras bv Guatemalan forces. His Matesty s Government thereupon despatched two cruisers and troop reinforcements to British Honduras to protect British life and property. The cruisers were later withdrawn. In March the capital of Guatemala was the scene of a disgraceful mcident in which the mob unimpeded—to say the least—by the authorities demonstrated against the British legation and hoisted first, the Guatemalan flag and then the scull and crossbones on the Legation flagstaff. The Guatemalan Government, disclaimed all responsibility for this incident and declined to offer an adequate anology. . , Both before and since this outrage the British Legation has been ostracised and Rent in virtual isolation. His Majesty’s Government . have therefore good grounds for calling on the Guatemalan Government to abjure these methods of provocative propaganda and so creat that ‘ Pf’°P' er atmosphere for set'ene discussion which the Guatemalan Government themselves advocated in their note oi March 24.