( 1 Vote )
Written by By Alejandro Vernon   
Friday, 12 October 2018 00:00

For quite sometime the “Amandala” has been insinuating that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hon. Wilfred Elrington, who signed on behalf of the Government of Belize the Special Agreement with Guatemala that both nations should go to a Referendum prior to going to the I.C.J, is not patriotic. And in Amandala’s 21st September issue, the blazing headlines on front page said: “Elrington’s Deplorable Scare Tactics”.

The newspaper also calls for Government to educate the people on the issue instead of pushing the population to say “Yes” at the Referendum.

When the P.U.P lost the general in 1993, and Hon. Vernon Harrison Courtenay said that the P.U.P lost in Toledo because of the Guatemala issue, my wife, Iris Paulino Vernon wrote the Att. General Courtenay that the P.U.P should educate the people on the issue. He replied that she was an upstart. My wife is a Graduate, Alumni of St. Catherine Academy and a first-class teacher.

The Amandala’s logo is “Belize’s Leading Newspaper”. now, for Belize’s leading Newspaper that prints thousands upon thousands of copies every weekend (and lately twice a week), and likes to boast that the grassroots people made Amandala tops, one would believe that educating the people on the Guatemala Claim, Amandala would print a copy of the 1859 Boundary Treaty signed between the United Kingdom and Guatemala giving us the borders. The Amandala is over 40 years old, and 95% of our people would already know of the Treaty - if Amandala would just print two copies per year of the 1859 Treaty. The Treaty can fit nicely in just a page-and-a-half of Amandala’s sheets. The grown-ups and students would know of Article-7, the Root-of-the-Controversy.

The 1859 Boundary Treaty does not carry the description of the territorial seas of Guatemala and Belize. As our Constitution says in Schedule-1 under the Description of Belize (c) the outer limit of the territorial sea of Belize is the limit provided by law measured from such baselines as may have been prescribed before Independence Day by law or otherwise, or as may be so prescribed thereafter.”

Therefore, in view that the 1859 Boundary Treaty did not describe the territorial seas of Guatemala and Belize, the Hon Prime Minister G. Price, twelve years after Independence (in 1992) legislated the Maritime Areas Act, describing, with the help of the Law-of-Sea Experts (UNCLOS) established by the United Nations, this important division. The Maritime Areas Act called for a median line starting from the mouth of Sarstoon River towards the Sapodilla Cayes in a north-east direction. All seas west of this median line belongs to Belize; all seas east of this median line belongs to Guatemala. The median line will have to be accepted by Guatemala to avoid conflicts encountered by Guatemalan and Belizean fishermen down south by Barranco, the mouth of the Sarstoon, Livingston, Pto. Cocoli and Pro. Barrios.

Article7 of the 1859 Boundary Treaty which called for the United Kingdom and Guatemala to share the costs of building a road from Guatemala City to the coast, appears to be the root of the Guatemalan Claim. Guatemala claims that since the U.K. was not forthcoming with the funds agreed on, by separate Agreement, she hesitated in sending her surveyors along with the U.K. team to do surveys from Gracias-a-Dios to Garbutt Falls and thence to the Mexican border. Guatemala’s team simply acknowledged the logs. The U.K. never did make their contribution; and blamed Guatemala for not ratifying the subsequent agreement in time.

The road (which is a Highway) was finally built by Guatemala contracting USA companies in 1958 -Nello-Teer Co. (from Guat City to Zacapa) and Thompson & Cornwall Co. (from Zacapa to Pto. Barrios). Guatemala has stated that Article7 was a compensation from U.K. for Guatemala in signing the 1859 Boundary Treaty. But Guatemala should have kept on claiming monetary compensation (if indeed it was) instead of claiming Belizean land.

As I said in my address, A NEW APPROACH to the delegates of the University of Belize and University of San Carlos of Guatemala at the Radisson in Belize City on March 24th , 2014 calling for us to go to the International Court of Justice -(I.C.J) “IF THERE IS A MERIT TO CLAIM, THEN A PENALTY SHOULD BE PLACED ON GREAT BRITAIN TO COMPENSATE GUATEMALA, BEING A SIGNATORY TO THE AGREEMENTS AND TREATIES....BUT NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE NOR ITS PEOPLE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN THIS RESPECT. The International Court of Justice is the judicial arm of the United Nations, and should support the United Nations Resolutions on Belize’s rights.” Four years after my address, the Hon. Minister Wilfred Elrington signed the Special Agreement (compromis) to go to the I.C.J. which is one of the six Organs of the United Nations.

There is still time to EDUCATE THE PEOPLE by newspapers, the media, Government, and political parties to have faith in the I.C.J., the judicial arm of the United Nations.

Words of Life with Pastor Barry Fraser Print E-mail
( 0 Votes )
Written by By Barry Fraser   
Friday, 12 October 2018 00:00

There is a gem of hope found in Revelation 22:3 - “And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him.”

There are some pastors and teachers who say that it does not matter what we believe about Genesis. It does not matter if there were really six 24-hour days, or millions of years. It does not matter if there was death before Adam’s sin. It does not matter if Adam were not a real person, but an allegory.

These are often people who say that they believe the Bible to be true. However, my literalist interpretation of the Bible offends them – even though I do not give an interpretation of Genesis; I simply read what it says and believe it.

The same pastors will not have the same problem with the New Heavens and the New Earth that God will one day provide. Whatever your eschatology, few people expect the New Heavens and New Earth to emerge after millions of years of evolution. They expect that God will make these places probably in an instant.

They believe that the idea of a world without death in Genesis is a myth. Yet, they quote Revelation 21:4 that there will be no more death. How can they expect a new place with literally no death, if the deathless paradise at the beginning of time were just a myth?

Revelation 22:3 tells us that in the world to come there will be no more curses. These pastors expect this to be literally true, yet they do not believe in an earthly paradise in Genesis 1 in which there was no curse until Adam sinned.

But all these issues fall into place when we choose to believe God’s word. If something is in the Bible, then I believe it to be true!

Please continue to pray for our Government leaders, our pastors, our people, our families, and especially our children and youth. May God richly bless you is my prayer. If I can assist you, contact me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

( 0 Votes )
Written by By Ed U. Kate   
Friday, 12 October 2018 00:00

Bobby Lopez organized a ceremony commemorating the uniquely outstanding National Service Hero Goldson! He highlighted a number of outstanding deeds the Honourable Gentleman carried out. But Lopez spoiled everything by ending up saying that if Hero Goldson was alive today he would vote “NO” in the April Referendum. What a preposterous statement! I do not know where Lopez’s brain is, certainly not in his dense skull… This man obviously does not even know that Hero Goldson was the first individual Belizean that went to the UN and advocated for us to go to the ICJ to settle Guatemala’s unfounded claim. He did that in 1967 after he had revealed the devilish 13 proposals in 1966. The People who carried George Cadle ‘Guatemala’ Price Upon their shoulders Proclaiming:” Contact [with Guatemala] or No Contact…” are not trustworthy when it comes to Guatemala. All Belizeans need to recall that Price was expelled by the British in 1957 because of secret meetings with the enemy!

On 21st September 1939 when Britain was busy at war with Nazi Germany, Guatemala ‘changed her mind’ on the 1859 Border Treaty. The British was very firm:” Take us to court if you believe that there is any legal basis to your claim!” Guatemala refused. Britain maintained a very strong military presence here to protect this Territory! H.M.S. Devonshire, H.M.S. Sheffield, the nuclear-powered Ark Royale, Canberra bombers, Harrier Fighter Jets, Royal Marines, Gurkhas… Guatemala dared not attack! On every diplomatic door that she knocked, she was told: “Go to court.” Guatemala has been refusing for as many as 80 years and during that time, the British Honduras Legislative Assembly urged going to the ICJ. Then Hero Goldson, then the PUP’s Rogers, Assad, Said, Eamon, Lisa, Godfrey, Johnny… Ambassadors Mendez, Rosado, Martinez, Leslie, Gibson have recommended going to the ICJ. The security chiefs Enriquez, Garcia, Boland and Williams have explained to ‘Simple Simon’ Nuri and ‘Prickly’ Mose why “NO” is wrong and dangerous.  On the red side of the fence Barrow, Faber, Elrington, Saldivar, Williams, Montejo…have recommended going to the ICJ. Internationally the UN, OAS, CARRICOM, The British Commonwealth of Nations, The European Union, the African and Pacific States, the non-aligned states….have all recommend going to the ICJ. Plus these organizations have pledged to help with finance. Now, after all the doors were closed in her face and because the international diplomatic pressure was relentless, Guatemala has finally agreed to go…

Shamelessly, Mose the Disingenuous has decided to spearhead a small mixed group of pseudointellectuals, disgruntled PUPs and full blown crazies in a stupid, suicidal “NO” campaign. They want to misuse a national issue in a diabolical partisan political scheme. It takes a very imbecilic question indeed to get me angry. The one that never fails goes something like this:” Why should we go to the ICJ when we know that we own BELIZE?” Every Guatemalan was taught:” Belice es nuestro!” Additionally more than 50,000 Guatemalans are in the JEWEL illegally, they aggressively go after our animals, plants, birds, fish, minerals… They harass our people on the Sarstoon. In 1972 Guatemala and Salvador threatened invasion… The point that we need to get into our heads is that they not only say that they challenge our ownership, additionally Guatemala is employing active measures against us. With an ignorant, idiotic “NO” vote they will have time to send over another 330,000 unwanted, illegal migrants to outnumber us or they might very well use Wil the Provocateur as an excuse to launch a military attack… “NO” was the wrong vote in 1797, it would have led to the abandonment of the Settlement. The brave “YES” vote eventually led to the victory at the Battle of St. George’s Caye and Nationhood!  It would be very wrong to vote “NO” in 2019 and abandon our “iron clad case!”

The ICJ can only determine whether or not Guatemala’s claim has a basis in International Law. I firmly believe that the ICJ will rule that Guatemala’s claim is bogus, and that Guatemala must therefore then respect the 1859 Boundary Treaty. The whole world (including our timeless protectors the British) will make sure that Guatemala accepts and respects our territorial, riverine and maritime borders!

No Second Bite Print E-mail
( 0 Votes )
Written by By Jamil Matar   
Friday, 12 October 2018 00:00

When power was restored on Sunday past following a scheduled blackout in OW, every Centaur Cable customer who did not have a “black box” hooked to their bedroom TV noticed a sharp reduction in the number of channels available. Gone were CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Al Jazeera, and several other channels in the 60’s. All the local channels, however, along with a cocktail of cartoon and Latino networks, were maintained. So this Monday 8 October, I swallowed my Maalox early and tuned in to the “hungry duet” on the “Business hour”. Mein, these two fellows are losing weight faster than a fat man on crack! Let me share with you some of those crazy 70 minutes I had to endure that night. Shame on you Centaur.

Before Saint Vitus Grab could get a word out of his lean lips, Carter took the first jump and started off by saying that he had watched some movie the previous night where there was a scene in the White House’s Situation Room which had a map of the region showing Belize with all its borders intact! He recommended that the Hon. Foreign Minister and Mr. Alexis Rosado watch this movie to see this fantastic map as represented in a movie produced in the United States.  And maybe the Guatemalan president and his Congress should watch this movie too, since this compelling map could very well trigger an immediate renunciation of the unfounded territorial clam to our country! Of course I am being caustic here; Carter did not say that… not in so many words, anyway, but you get my drift, right?

I have noticed that recently the coordinated effort to derail the ICJ option to settle the Guatemalan claim has intensified. There are several power-hungry Belizeans who are trying their best to mess up our country’s standing in the United Nations simply to spite this UDP Government.    These self-serving dupes should have listened to Dr. Cal’s presentation on Channel 5’s “Open Your Eyes” Tuesday morning   to hear how real intellectuals (not self-proclaimed fakes like S. Coye) are thinking on how best to contribute to our legal team to win the case in the international court.

Fellow Belizeans, let us not be misguided by demagogues who want to capitalize on people’s fears in order to get elected to a seat in the House. If we vote “no” to the ICJ, there will be no second bite at the apple, no do over;   no second opportunity in fivw years for another chance. There will be no where to run when the bully comes knocking at our borders. Maheia and the two Espats have one purpose in mind; to get in government so as to thief us blind. There it is; I said it, and I won’t take it back.

The PUP Leader recently went on TV to state that if he is elected as Prime Minister he will prosecute dishonest UDP Ministers. Three cheers and one hooray for that! I suggest that he prosecute all corrupt politicians, not only UDP’s!   But the first step to get elected is to prove that the PUP is not a splintered political Party with a myriad of Party Leaders, each dancing to a different tune.    He has to reign his rogue standard bearers and if Julius, Buddha and Tonto can’t work with him, then they must part ways with the PUP. You can’t have the tail wagging the dog, Mr. Briceño. Here again, there will be no second chances for you if you fail again. You gone, mi bally!

Watch what you say: You are listening Print E-mail
( 0 Votes )
Written by By Thamar Jones   
Friday, 12 October 2018 00:00

“Kind words are short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless.” Mother Teresa

We have been taught that grievous words stir up anger but a soft answer turns away wrath, and that flies are easier caught with honey than vinegar.  Most of us are aware that it is good to speak kindly. We have been taught that it is important to speak kindly… to others.  But do we extend that same kindness to ourselves?

The reality is that we are often our harshest critic. Being hard on yourself means that you have high expectations of yourself and you want to see yourself succeed. But being too hard on yourself often leads to negative thoughts and feelings of self-blame, self-criticism and self-judgment.

The biggest downfall of being hard on yourself is the voices between your ears. Talking negatively to yourself only make things harder on yourself, and that is not what you need. Your negative thoughts distort reality and there is nothing to be gained by repeating over and over all the things you could have done better. Instead of dwelling on the negatives think of all the energy you are wasting on bad thoughts and channel all that extra energy you now have to positive, uplifting thoughts. If you’re too hard on yourself you won’t notice them.

Some time ago, I made a conscious decision to be kinder to myself and to only speak words of positivity and encouragement into my life. You should do the same.

Think about your best friend or closest relative. Remember a time when they came to you after making a mistake or feeling like they didn’t get enough done. How did you respond? Did you tell them they sucked or better try harder next time or that you value them less? I truly doubt it. More likely, you responded with empathy. You told them you love them even though they’re not perfect, and that it’s OK to make mistakes.

What if you told yourself those things the next time you made a mistake or expected yourself to be perfect? It sounds a bit crazy at first. You might even be worried that you’ll lose your edge if you cut yourself a break, but I promise the opposite is true.

I am so cognizant of my internal dialogue that even certain limiting phrases have been banished from my vocabulary altogether.

Verbal crutches such as, “I Can’t”, or “I’ll try”, without us even knowing it, can damage our internal and projected confidence levels and can even negatively impact how we’re perceived at work, in class and in life.

Here are some of the words and phrases that I have banned from my vocabulary.


This word minimizes the power of your statements and can make you seem defensive or even apologetic. Saying, “I just wanted to check in,” can be code for, “Sorry for taking up your time” or “Sorry if I’m bugging you.” It can often be a defense mechanism subconsciously used to shield ourselves from the rejection of hearing “no” or a way to avoid the discomfort of feeling like we’re asking for too much.

How to Quit: Start by rereading your emails and texts. Scan your written communications for excess “just”s that sneak in. Delete them. Notice how much stronger and straightforward the statements sound. Then gradually shift to doing the same in real-time, spoken communication.

“I’m no expert, but…”

We often preface their ideas with qualifiers such as, “I’m not sure what you think, but…” This speech habit typically crops up because we want to avoid sounding pushy or arrogant, or we fear being wrong. The problem is, using qualifiers can negate the credibility of your statements. We all sometimes offer opinions or observations that don’t go anywhere or prove to be incorrect. That’s the nature of being human, and it won’t cost you your job or reputation. Pointing out why you may be wrong before saying anything is a waste of your words. Rephrase your statement sans qualifier, giving your words a greater impact.

“I can’t”

When you say “I can’t”, you’re sacrificing ownership and control over you actions. It conveys that you don’t have the skill to do something, but chances are that what you’re really trying to say that you don’t want to do it. Throwing around “I can’t” connotes a fear of failure or lack of will. Your words shape your reality, so saying “I can’t” limits you and allows fear to win. Increase ownership over what you say by replacing “I can’t” with “I won’t.” This is a subtle yet powerful way to demonstrate agency, independence, and control – especially in work environments where you may feel ordered around. While it might feel intimidating at first, it gives you a chance to assert your boundaries for a better work-life balance.

“What if we tried…?”

You’re more likely to be trusted and taken seriously when you straightforwardly state your ideas, rather than couch them as a question. Masking your opinions as questions invites rebuttal and can lead to you feel criticized. Stating an idea as a question when it’s not is equal to sacrificing ownership over the idea. It’s also a way of “polling”, which subconsciously speaks to the fact that you don’t think your own ideas are valuable, valid, or worthwhile unless everyone thinks so.

Anytime you have a suggestion, present it as a statement rather than a question. “What if we tried targeting a new set of customers?” sounds much less certain than “I think we could target a new set of customers who will be more receptive to our sales efforts.”

Making these small changes to my vocabulary have strengthened the confidence I have in myself and my abilities.

“What if we tried…?”

You’re more likely to be trusted and taken seriously when you straightforwardly state your ideas, rather than couch them as a question. Masking your opinions as questions invites rebuttal and can lead to you feel criticized. Stating an idea as a question when it’s not is equal to sacrificing ownership over the idea. It’s also a way of “polling”, which subconsciously speaks to the fact that you don’t think your own ideas are valuable, valid, or worthwhile unless everyone thinks so. How to quit: Anytime you have a suggestion, present it as a statement rather than a question. “What if we tried targeting a new set of customers?” sounds much less certain than “I think we could target a new set of customers who will be more receptive to our sales efforts.”

Use these techniques to improve your self-confidence and the self-confidence of others around you. Remember you are listening, so be careful what you say.