By Omar Silva |Editor/Publisher

National Perspective Belize Digital 2025

www.nationalperspectivebz.com

Belize City: Monday 10th November 2025 

Editorial

A Seat at the Table, But Never a Voice

Belize is present at every major hemispheric meeting—CARICOM summits, SICA councils, Commonwealth forums, and CELAC assemblies—but more often than not, it is only physically there. While others speak, Belize’s representatives pose for the group photograph, issue a congratulatory tweet, and vanish into silence. This has been the pattern under successive governments, and it continues under the current administration of Prime Minister John Briceño.

The recently concluded CELAC–EU Summit in Santa Marta, Colombia, laid bare this troubling habit. It was an historic gathering: the 33 Latin American and Caribbean nations of CELAC met their 27 European counterparts amid the tremors of U.S. military manoeuvres in the Caribbean Sea and renewed geopolitical rivalries. The agenda went beyond development platitudes. It confronted sovereignty, regional peace, the reform of global financial institutions, and the right of the Global South to define its own path.

Yet from Belize, there was no clear position, no national statement, no articulation of where our small state stands. Once again, we attended—but did not participate.

When Others Speak for Us

The Santa Marta Declaration, signed by 58 of 60 participating countries, reaffirmed the region’s demand for multilateralism grounded in the United Nations Charter and rejected any use of force inconsistent with international law. It also called for reform of international financial systems that continue to trap developing nations in debt dependency.

This declaration is not abstract diplomacy. It touches directly on Belize’s realities—our exposure to foreign policy dictated by creditor institutions, the militarisation of our maritime zone under the pretext of “joint operations,” and the marginalisation of Caribbean voices in global economic forums.

For most of Latin America, the Santa Marta meeting was a collective act of defiance—proof that the region can speak as one. For Belize, it was another reminder that silence carries a cost. When we fail to define our stance, others define it for us—whether in Washington, Brussels, or Mexico City.

The Illusion of Neutrality

Belizean diplomacy has long hidden behind the shield of neutrality, a posture inherited from our colonial tutors. The doctrine goes like this: stay quiet, avoid controversy, and survive by pleasing all sides. In the short term, it spares us conflict; in the long term, it erases us from the map of meaningful decision-making.

Neutrality is not the same as independence. A nation that refuses to speak for itself in regional matters is not neutral—it is absent. Our foreign ministry should have been among the first to support CELAC’s reaffirmation of the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, a principle enshrined since 2014 and now under strain from renewed external military activity. Instead, Belize said nothing while others debated whether foreign warships should patrol waters that border our own exclusive economic zone.

The Cost of Political Complacency

The blame does not rest solely on our diplomats. It begins with the political class, which treats foreign policy as a ceremonial afterthought rather than an instrument of national strategy. Attendance at summits has become theatre: ministers smile for cameras, issue optimistic soundbites about “strengthening relations,” and return home to the same administrative inertia.

Meanwhile, Belize’s neighbours—Costa Rica, Panama, the Dominican Republic, even small island states like St. Vincent and the Grenadines—have leveraged these same meetings to attract infrastructure financing, renewable-energy investment, and educational partnerships. Belize remains stuck in the waiting room, applauding others’ announcements.

Our officials defend this inertia by citing “limited resources.” But voice costs nothing; conviction costs courage. The real deficit is not financial—it is intellectual and moral.

What CELAC Offered—And What Belize Ignored

At Santa Marta, CELAC and the EU agreed on a 52-point roadmap to deepen cooperation in energy transition, digital connectivity, and the “care economy.” Europe pledged billions in new financing through its Global Gateway initiative, targeted at sustainable development and industrial transformation.

For Belize, this could have meant:

• a partnership to modernise our energy grid and reduce dependence on imported fuel,
• joint research projects for sustainable fisheries and climate resilience,
• or scholarships and technical exchanges for young Belizeans in emerging technologies.

But to benefit, a country must be visible, assertive, and persuasive. We were none of these. Belize’s delegation offered no proposal, advanced no regional initiative, and was not cited in any working-group summary. We left with nothing but the group photo.

A Pattern Across the Boards

The same passivity marks our engagement in CARICOM and SICA. Within CARICOM, Belize rarely leads despite having one of the region’s most literate populations and a strategic geographic position bridging Central America and the Caribbean. Within SICA, our attendance record is better than our impact record; we seldom table an agenda item or host a major meeting.

This inertia diminishes our diplomatic credibility. When regional crises arise—be it migration, food security, or external interference—Belize is seldom consulted because Belize seldom contributes. We have reduced ourselves to a footnote when we should be a bridge.

Reclaiming a Foreign Policy of Purpose

Belize’s foreign policy must be re-engineered around three principles:

1. Strategic Sovereignty:

We must reclaim the right to decide with whom and on what terms we cooperate. That means engaging with all partners—North, South, East, and West—without subordination or fear of reprisal.

2. Regional Participation:

Attendance is not participation. Our diplomats must arrive at every meeting prepared with proposals that serve both Belize and the wider region. Whether on climate financing, digital governance, or ocean protection, Belize should lead at least one initiative every year under CELAC or CARICOM.

3. Domestic Accountability:

Foreign policy must serve the Belizean people, not the vanity of politicians. Every international commitment should translate into measurable national benefit—jobs, training, investment, or technology transfer. Parliament and the press must demand follow-up reports, not just glossy communiqués.

From Photo-Ops to Policy

Prime Minister Briceño’s administration has mastered the art of optics. His foreign trips produce handsome images but few tangible outcomes. The Santa Marta summit could have been an opportunity to articulate Belize’s position on hemispheric security, debt reform, or green industrialization. Instead, the delegation chose the safety of silence.

Silence may be diplomatic, but it is not leadership. The time for posturing is over. As geopolitical tides shift, small states that fail to assert themselves risk being swept away.

A Call for Belizean Diplomacy with Backbone

Belize’s diplomats are not without talent; they are constrained by political timidity. They need a mandate that encourages initiative, not obedience. We must cultivate a foreign service that thinks, speaks, and negotiates from a position of national confidence.

Our young professionals—many fluent in both English and Spanish—could be our greatest asset in CELAC. They deserve the chance to craft proposals, chair working groups, and represent Belize beyond ceremonial lines. But that will require the government to trust intellect over loyalty, and to reward substance over symbolism.

The Road Ahead

The Santa Marta Declaration is not just another communiqué—it is the emerging constitution of a multipolar Latin America. It recognizes that the old dependency circuits, once controlled by Washington and later by Brussels or Beijing, can no longer dictate the region’s development. It offers Belize and its neighbours a diplomatic platform to speak in their own collective voice.

If Belize continues to whisper from the sidelines, it will miss the chance to shape that voice. A generation from now, our children will ask why, at a time when Latin America rose to reclaim its sovereignty, Belize chose silence. What will we tell them—that we were waiting for permission to speak?

Conclusion: The Courage to Participate

Foreign policy is not a spectator sport. It is the arena where nations defend their dignity, pursue opportunity, and forge alliances that define their future. Belize must re-enter that arena—not as a follower, not as a spectator, but as a participant with conviction.

The government’s duty is to project Belize’s voice, not hide it behind platitudes and photo-ops. The Santa Marta Summit gave our region a renewed sense of purpose. It is time for Belize to match that purpose with presence, and presence with principle.

Until then, we remain a nation seen but not heard.