A closer look at the Belize–Guatemala–OAS meeting exposes the widening gap between diplomatic theatre and lived reality on the Sarstoon.

By: Omar Silva I Editor-Publisher

 National Perspective Belize – Digital 2026

www.nationalperspectivebz.com

Belize City: Friday 23rd January 2026

Investigative Feature

As Foreign Ministers exchanged pleasantries at the OAS Adjacency Zone Office this week, cameras rolled, statements were polished, and the language of cooperation filled the air. Guatemala’s Foreign Minister Carlos Ramiro Martínez declared that his country would comply with the eventual ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Belize’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Francis Fonseca spoke of maintaining peace and stability while both countries await judgment.

It all sounded reassuring.

But while diplomats shook hands in comfort, Belizeans at the southern frontier remain locked out of their own river.

This is the truth Belizeans must confront.

The optics vs. the reality

The meeting — facilitated by the Organization of American States (OAS) — was framed as part of ongoing collaboration while the territorial case remains before the ICJ. Officials discussed reducing tensions, reviewed OAS operational plans for 2025–2026, and reiterated commitments to dialogue.

Yet nowhere in the outcomes of this meeting was there:

• A commitment by Guatemala to halt its naval patrols in Belize-claimed waters
• A commitment to allow Belizean civilians free access to the Sarstoon
• A recognition that Guatemalan forces have repeatedly crossed into territory Belize considers sovereign
• A withdrawal of Guatemalan military presence from contested areas
• A restoration of Belize’s practical control over Sarstoon Island

Instead, Guatemalan officials characterized incursions as “unfortunate but inevitable,” a phrase that quietly normalizes the ongoing denial of Belizean access to its southern waters.

Diplomacy may be functioning.

Sovereignty on the ground is not.

The Sarstoon: Belize in law, Guatemala in practice

The Sarstoon River and Sarstoon Island remain the clearest symbols of this contradiction.

Belizean civilians, tour operators, environmentalists, and even security personnel have faced intimidation and restriction when attempting to navigate areas that Belize claims as its own. Guatemalan armed patrols continue to assert control, creating a reality where:

• Belizeans self-censor their movement
• Civilian access is practically restricted
• Guatemalan authority is exercised de facto
• Belize’s sovereignty exists more in legal argument than lived experience

And yet, this reality is absent from the celebratory tone of official press releases.

What did this meeting actually achieve?

Strip away the formal language and the answer is simple:

Very little that benefits Belizeans on the ground.

This was not:

• A negotiation
• A de-escalation breakthrough
• A territorial concession
• A rights restoration
• A behavioural shift by Guatemala

It was:

• A diplomatic ritual
• A reaffirmation of process
• A reaffirmation of appearances
• A continuation of status quo

The OAS continues to serve primarily as a conflict manager, not an enforcer of Belize’s territorial rights. It monitors, reports, and facilitates dialogue — but it does not stop Guatemalan patrols, nor does it guarantee Belizean access.

The dangerous framing Belizeans must question

Perhaps the most troubling statement came not from Guatemala, but from Belize’s own Foreign Minister, who noted that both countries seek stability “until it is decided who it belongs to.”

That language is deeply problematic.

• Belize is not awaiting ownership of its territory.
• Belize is already a sovereign nation.
• Guatemala is the claimant, not the co-owner.

To frame Belize’s territory as pending determination risks weakening the psychological and diplomatic posture Belize has held since independence.

Words matter. Especially in territorial disputes.

Guatemala’s strategy: cooperation in words, control in practice

Guatemala’s current posture is strategically calculated.

It offers: Diplomatic cooperation, Respectful language, Procedural compliance, International politeness

But it maintains:

• Physical control in contested zones
• Regular armed patrols
• Tactical presence
• On-the-ground normalization of authority

This is a classic geopolitical tactic:

Establish facts on the ground while appearing reasonable in international forums.

Over time, that physical presence reshapes perceptions, behavior, and regional psychology — even if it does not alter legal arguments.

What Belize actually gains from these engagements

To be fair, Belize does gain some strategic value from continued diplomacy:

• A record of peaceful conduct
• Strengthened international credibility
• Reinforced commitment to international law
• Legal optics favorable to the ICJ process

But these are long-term legal and reputational gains, not tangible protections for Belizeans today.

Meanwhile:

• Fisherfolk still hesitate
• Tour guides still fear confrontation
• Civilians still feel vulnerable
• Belize’s southern presence remains constrained

The uncomfortable truth Belizeans deserve to hear

Belize is behaving like a state that fully respects international law.

• Guatemala is behaving like a state that respects process while exploiting physical space.

• The OAS is managing optics and stability, not justice.

• The ICJ remains the only institution capable of definitively resolving this dispute.

Until that ruling arrives, Belizeans are effectively being asked to accept a painful reality:

We wait patiently in law, while Guatemala advances quietly on the ground.

The question that must now be asked

If Belizeans cannot freely access the Sarstoon today,

If Guatemalan patrols remain unchallenged today,

If civilians still feel unsafe today,

Then Belizeans must ask honestly:

Whose river is it in practice, not just on paper?

Conclusion: Diplomacy without dignity is not sovereignty

There is nothing wrong with dialogue.

There is nothing wrong with diplomacy.

There is nothing wrong with peace.

But there is something deeply wrong when peaceful diplomacy coexists with the quiet erosion of practical sovereignty.

• Belize deserves more than statements.
• Belize deserves more than optics.
• Belize deserves more than ceremonies.
• Belize deserves full dignity — on land, in law, and on water.

Until Belizeans can freely navigate the Sarstoon without fear, without harassment, and without apology, every smiling diplomatic photo will carry the same bitter truth:

While diplomats shake hands, Belizeans remain locked out of their own river.