The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Breaking Belize News.
By Dorian A. Barrow, Ph.D.
Florida State University
For Belize 2026 will be the year of the International Court of Justice (the ICJ) and we need to prepare for all possible outcomes of the ICJ’s verdict – good or bad! This essay is, therefore, a further reflection on a piece that I wrote earlier on based on what appears to me to be a reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine by the current US administration. As I pointed out previously, the Monroe Doctrine, originating in 1823, has long been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. It was an assertion by President James Monroe that European powers should no longer colonize or interfere in the Americas. Over time, the doctrine evolved into a justification for U.S. intervention in the region, often shaping the geopolitics of Latin America and the Caribbean.
Fast forward to the Trump administration, and we see a modern reinterpretation—or corollary—of this doctrine, one that has implications not only for U.S. foreign policy but also for small nations like Belize, particularly in the context of our territorial dispute with Guatemala. This essay, therefore, further explores the interplay between Belize’s future territorial sovereignty, Guatemala’s longstanding claim, and how President Trump’s approach to the Monroe Doctrine will continue to influence the region, in spite of whatever the International Court decides. For me, the topic is a delicate but critical one for us Belizeans, as it relates to national security, foreign relations, and the broader implications of power dynamics in Central America and the Caribbean, including the future sovereignty of Belize.
The Belize-Guatemala Dispute: A Historical Context
The territorial dispute between Belize and Guatemala dates to the 19th century, rooted in colonial agreements and misinterpretations thereof. Guatemala has long claimed that part or all of Belize should rightfully belong to it, citing treaties with Britain that it argues were not honored. Belize, on the other hand, has consistently maintained its sovereignty and territorial integrity, supported by international law and the principles of self-determination. This dispute has remained unresolved for decades, with various attempts at negotiation and mediation failing to reach a final solution. As you know, most recently, both nations agreed to take the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), a decision ratified by referenda in both countries. Belizeans in 2026 will continue to watch this process unfold with a mixture of hope and anxiety, knowing that the ICJ’s ruling could bring long-awaited closure if we are successful, or could bring further complications if we are not. My thesis is that we must be prepared for all possible outcomes.
President Trump’s Corollary of the Monroe Doctrine
When Donald Trump entered the White House, his foreign policy approach was marked by a return to what some analysts described as “America First” isolationism, combined with a transactional view of international relations. In Latin America and the Caribbean, this may continue to translate into a more assertive stance toward securing U.S. interests, often couched in language reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine. TheTrump administration continue to explicitly link the Monroe Doctrine to contemporary U.S. policy, with officials like former National Security Advisor John Bolton, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and now the 72nd Secretary of State Marco Rubio, framing it as a blueprint for countering external powers—namely China and Russia—in the region. The Trump administration also is seeking to reinforce U.S. influence in the Americas by influencing regional governments to align with Washington’s policies, particularly on issues like Venezuela, trade, and immigration.
While Trump’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine may not be directly targeting Belize, it has implications for all small nations in the region. For one, the administration’s focus on countering external powers has heightened geopolitical tensions, as countries like China and Russia have sought to expand their influence in Latin America and the Caribbean. This dynamic is forcing smaller nations like T&T to navigate an increasingly complex web of alliances and rivalries, with limited room for maneuvering.
Belize and Guatemala in the Shadow of U.S. Policy
For Belize, the Trump administration’s approach to the Monroe Doctrine presents both challenges and opportunities. On the one hand, Belize has historically benefited from U.S. support for its sovereignty, dating back to its independence in 1981. The U.S. has consistently recognized Belize’s borders and opposed Guatemala’s territorial claim, aligning itself with international law and the principles of self-determination. On the other hand, President Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy has been raising questions by some CARICOM States about the future reliability of U.S. support, that they have traditionally taken for granted.
Under the Trump administration, the U.S. continue to demonstrate a willingness to cut deals and shift alliances based in what on the surface appears to be its immediate interests, rather than long-term traditional commitments. This has led some observers to question whether Belize can continue to count on unconditional U.S. backing, particularly if Guatemala were to offer concessions on issues like trade, immigration, or security cooperation.
Moreover, President Trump’s focus on countering China’s influence in the region adds another layer of complexity. Belize is one of the few countries in the Americas that maintains diplomatic relations with Taiwan, rather than China—a policy that has long been a point of contention in regional diplomacy. While the U.S. has generally supported Taiwan’s allies as part of its broader strategy to counter China, Trump’s transactional approach raises the possibility that this support could be leveraged or withdrawn, depending on broader geopolitical considerations.
The Role of Guatemala
Guatemala’s position in this equation is equally significant. Under the Trump administration, Guatemala is emerging as a key partner for the U.S. on issues like immigration and security. Recently, President Trump convinced Guatemala to sign a controversial “safe third country” agreement, requiring asylum seekers traveling through Guatemala to seek refuge there before applying for asylum in the U.S. This agreement, along with other measures, underscores the Trump administration’s willingness to prioritize its own interests over the concerns of smaller nations.
Navigating the Future
In the context of the Belize-Guatemala dispute and the pending ICJ ruling, these dynamics raise important questions. If Guatemala were to leverage its partnership with the U.S. to gain support for its territorial claim—or at least to neutralize U.S. opposition—how might Belize respond? While this scenario remains speculative, for me it highlights the potential risks of relying too heavily on external powers for security and diplomatic support. As Belizeans, I think that we must consider the implications of President Trump’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Here, to me, are some key takeaways:
Diplomatic Vigilance: Belize must remain vigilant in its diplomatic efforts, building and maintaining strong alliances with key international partners. This includes not only the U.S. but also regional organizations like CARICOM, as well as global institutions like the United Nations.
Strategic Independence: While U.S. support has been valuable, and remains so, Belize must also strive for greater strategic independence. This includes continuing to further diversify its economy, as well as strengthening its own institutions and capabilities. This is key for me!
Unity at Home: The Belize-Guatemala dispute is a national issue that requires unity and consensus among Belizeans. Regardless of political differences, Belizeans must stand together in defense of their sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Engagement with the ICJ: The ICJ process represents an important opportunity for Belize to resolve its territorial dispute through peaceful and legal means. Belizeans must continue to engage with this process in good faith, while also preparing for all possible outcomes.
Counterpoint: A Cautionary Tale
I believe that while the Monroe Doctrine and its modern interpretations have often been framed as a protective measure for small nations in the Americas, they also serve as a reminder of the dangers of dependency. To me, for Belize, the lesson is clear: sovereignty and self-determination must be earned and defended, not taken for granted. We need to continue to navigate the complexities of global geopolitics with caution and foresight. While our U.S. partner has historically been a valuable ally, Belize must also recognize the limitations of relying on any single power as we did with the British prior to our Independence, for in the end, the fate of Belize lies in the hands of its people. By remaining united, vigilant, and proactive, I believe that we Belizeans can ensure that our nation remains a beacon of sovereignty and self-determination in a world of shifting alliances and uncertain times and so be better prepared for all possible outcomes of the ICJ ruling.
Conclusion
For me, our territorial dispute with Guatemala is not just a matter of historical grievance or legal argument—it is a test of national resilience and diplomatic skill. In the context of President Trump’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, Belize must navigate a complex and evolving geopolitical landscape, balancing the need for strong alliances with the imperative of strategic independence. Ultimately, the Monroe Doctrine and its modern interpretations remind us that power dynamics in the Americas are shaped not only by the actions of great powers but also by the agency of small nations. This should also be our approach to the ICJ ruling, whichever way that judgement may fall. For us in Belize, the challenge is to assert our sovereignty and protect our interests while remaining true to the principles of peace, social justice, and self-determination.
Feel free to challenge any or all the claims made above, and let’s continue the discourse on CARICOM, the ICJ and the security posture of Belize and the region.
The post Point and Counter Point~Belize, Guatemala, and the ICJ: Preparing for All Possible Outcomes appeared first on Belize News and Opinion on www.breakingbelizenews.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Breaking Belize News. By Dorian A. Barrow, Ph.D. Florida State University For Belize 2026 will be the year of the International Court of Justice (the ICJ) and we need to prepare for all possible outcomes of the ICJ’s verdict
The post Point and Counter Point~Belize, Guatemala, and the ICJ: Preparing for All Possible Outcomes appeared first on Belize News and Opinion on www.breakingbelizenews.com.
