Belize's tussle with USA

Rickey Singh


Wednesday, June 14th 2006





IS Belize being politically pressured by the US for its alleged failure to effectively deal with a human trafficking problem, or is it really part of Washington's covert agenda against governments in this hemisphere who support Cuba and Venezuela?

Should Prime Minister Patrick Manning go ahead with his brief visit on Friday to Belize that is located in, and with strong cultural and economic ties with, Central America, he would find his Belizean counterpart in quite an angry mood with the Bush administration.

Prime Minister Said Musa is livid with the US State Department for slapping Belize with a punitive "Tier-3" rating because, in the reckoning of Washington, that Caricom state has not been forthcoming enough to arrest the crime in human trafficking for which it has been identified as a source and transit point.

Human trafficking is a worldwide problem, often highlighted by the degradation of women and children seduced for the sex trade and/or a cheap source of labour around the world, with thousands also recruited into the US.

Often linked to unscrupulous trans-border business enterprises and criminal networks, Caribbean governments are being increasingly sensitised to policies and measures to deal with the practices. The US has assumed a lead policing role in the battle against human trafficking.

But in so doing it has been accused of arbitrarily using a one-to-three rating system in assessing a country's response to human trafficking that can have negative economic and political consequences for the particular country, but which can well satisfy a wider agenda of the US.

Previously, Guyana and Jamaica had come under heavy pressure for their allegedly unsatisfactory responses to the trafficking in persons, both within their jurisdiction and beyond their borders. They fought back with varying complaints and actions and won adjustments to their negative ratings, as revealed in the US State Department Human Trafficking Report.

However, in relation to Belize, a country too poor and incapable of effectively monitoring illegal migration across borders with Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico, the US has identified it as "the source, transit and destination country" for men, women and children trafficked for the purposes of labour and sexual exploitation.


Consequently it got a harsh Tier-3 rating in accordance with America's unilateral rating system in which the affected or victim nation is simply left to work its way out of such a punitive category.

Not surprisingly, Prime Minister Musa felt it was just too much, coming from an administration whose own record in human rights abuses is simply too woeful and scandalous to be ignored.

Musa chose to state his response to the State Department's latest report on human trafficking as follows: "Those who seek to judge us should perhaps examine their own decadent societies before they come and pass judgment on us," and sharply added to reporters that it was "no coincidence that Belize had been jumped on and almost put in a box, so to speak, with Cuba and Venezuela". WAY TO GO MUSA!!!

The Musa government, which has been consistent in its militant support for Cuba, and now equally strong in defence of Venezuela's sovereignty and the Hugo Chavez administration, is among a number of countries in Caricom and Latin America, including Brazil and Argentina, backing Venezuela's bid for one of the non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council.


This is one of the issues expected to be discussed at next month's Caricom Summit in Basseterre, where, if not unanimity, overwhelming support is expected to be signalled for Venezuela in preference to another member of the Organisation of American States, Guatemala.

Most Caricom states are currently involved in the Venezuela-initiated PetroCaribe project with its special concessions at time of escalating costs for oil imports.

Guatemala, which maintains an historical pre-independence territorial claim to a large slice of Belizean territory, has the support of the Bush administration for the UN Security Council seat. It currently maintains an illegal settlement of Guatemalans in the Santa Rosa area of Belize.

Musa's Foreign Ministry has signalled to its Caribbean and Latin American allies that it would, in the circumstances, find it difficult to be neutral about Guatemala's candidature for the UN Security Council. In contrast, the Bush administration has already let it be known to all OAS member states, that it was not contemplating sitting with Venezuela on the UN Security Council.

Trinidad & Tobago Express

W the F C. :p

Can I get an AMEN to that?
Why is it that Belize didn't hardly even exist to the U.S. until oil was discovered?
I busted out laughing when I watched the news and the PM told the U.S. to tend to their own problems.

Amen. :p

Belize aligning with Cuba and Venezuela?, a very scarey thought. Chavez and Castro being Musa's mentors/idols, very scary if he introduces more of their doctrine.

I guess the folks with sizable investments here in Belize won't mind having to turn it all over to Musa & Company. All land/business titles nullified.

You are delusional if you don't think that this could happen.

There's alot more at stake here than oil. Which most likely by the way, few Belizeans will ever see any of the benefits.

not to worry , crackd up, I'm sure SIN would be happy to hand over everything he owns to the government - if you believe in it you should have no problem living with it! Viva Fidel! Viva Chavez! Viva Musa! Can see SIN - one man parade down the streets of San Pedro with that flag!

And the the rest of the world is in such great shape right now?

Rykat, who's flag would you hold? Wild Turkey?

No different than the past 1000 yrs. Always been war, famine, human abuse, natural disasters corrupt politicans, dictators, ect.
Just didn't have CNN.

on the money, cracked up. DEACON welcome home waiting for trip report, sure you had a great time and I would be the one carrying the Hillary flag(1 L or 2 cant remember) upside down with bullseye over picture in one hand and a Guiness Stout flag in the other?!

cracked up! evryone pretty much recognizes the leftist leanings of the Clinton News Network (and most of the others for that matter) but have you noticed MSNBC lately? WOW ! Other than Scarborough (who is getting "waffley") that channel has pretty much taken such a left hand turn that if it was in print it would probably be called the works of Deng Xiaoping Vol. 4
But...maybe it's just me! :p

What if left is right and right is wrong?

You've heard that they've come up with a bumper sticker that both Republicans and Democrates agree on if Hillary runs didn't you????????????

Dems will put it on the rear bumper.
Repubs will put it on the front.

silkpainter? let not your heart be troubled - The Right is right!

95% of US citizens don't even know where Belize is. In the big picture (from the US), there's virtually no concern as to what happens there.

Just a fact, not an opinion.

got it catmo,...w. the f.c.! Amen!

What does that mean? I initially thought "what the f*$% Chris" but now thinking I'm waaaaaaaaaaaay off... someone pleez fill a clueless one in... thx.

"95% of US citizens don't even know where Belize is. In the big picture (from the US), there's virtually no concern as to what happens there."

Does that apply just to Belize or is that indicative of the US's outlook on most of the rest of the world as well?

Bingo! Just give us our happy meals and SUV's - we'll be fine. :rolleyes:
shortsighted doesn't even begin to describe it.

close TQ, in answer to original SIN post WHO the f*$% CARES!..........eh.........who's chris?

Ah, ok, thx. If you don't know Chris, I'm not tellin' but I'll give you a hint, it's not tradewinds, or that I'm aware of...

Probably 99% of the world population doesn't know or care were Belize is. 99% of Belizeans, Canadians, Americans don't have any idea were Burkina Faso with a population of over 13,000,000 is either. So what's the point?

By the way Simon, were do you think the huge majority of world wide humanitarian aide and funding comes from. More comes from U.S. NGOs and pvt. sources than the rest of the world put together. Look it up.

The point is that with an attitude of who gives "f.c.!" It's no wonder the world is in the mess it is these days. And it's no wonder that the level of animosity exists towards the US throughout the world even among its allies. It didn't used to be so, the US used to be looked up to. What happened?

BTW, US foreign aid is around .01% of GDP, the majority of other developed nations run at .8% to 1%. The US may admirably contribute the most funds but not as a percentage of their GDP.

I'm with Simon on this one.
We Americans are quite the do-gooders. Americans represent 3% of the world’s population and consume 25% of the world’s resources. (Guess that’s our contribution to helping the other 97% stay on the path to spiritual health.)
America produces 25% of the world’s greenhouse gasses. (Guess that’s our contribution to providing all that carbon dioxide plants and trees need - besides, who needs Winter?)
America does do its part to appear altruistic as the United States gives more money in foreign aid than any other nation. Of course, the reality is that the United States contributes .15% of its national income, a percentage significantly lower than at least twenty other countries. No real sacrifice here but man do we look good bragging about all we do!
Oh, and let’s talk a little about how well we do for our own. As the wealthiest nation in the world, the United States still permits a significant number of its citizens to suffer homelessness, poverty and inadequate medical treatment so that the top 1% of its population can live in luxury. The United States has continued to cut programs which benefit the poor, minorities, consumers, education, and working people in order to spend incredible sums to its military. America is the arms dealer to the world, with its weapons manufacturers realizing huge fortunes.
And don’t even get me started on how the United States has ignored international law in the recent past. And of course, we can’t leave out the U.S.’s wonderful “free trade” policies. Huge boons for powerful American corporations at the expense of the resources of poorer and weaker countries who have little choice in accepting the paltry wages offered by U.S. corporations. (Who really needs a “minimum wage”?)

Look, I feel very fortunate to live in the United States; but let’s face it, it was merely an accident of birth. I’m no more entitled to what the world has to give than the people of the rest of the world. And to live in complicity with a government that engages in the practices our government does makes me at least partly responsible for the negative impact those policies have on the rest of the world. America does some good, but it does a great deal of harm. And my experience has been that most citizens of the United States couldn’t care less what happens to the rest of the world as long as they get what they want.
Guess I was feeling overdue for a rant.

I was just pointing out a fact as it relates to Belize. Obviously, cracked up is right about other places. We all only see what we can see and, in most cases, our own lives and concerns are far more important to us than other folks' problems.

It really doesn't matter how much people give to others, it's never enough. Am I wrong?

And I, like many, don't depend on any governments to do "what's right" for any given people. Like me, many individuals have given pretty freely to those who we think have a need. I think the Saga Society and SPSC/Calendar Girls would have to agree with that.

Depending on governments to correctly or compassionately distribute wealth has always been folly. The US is big and a big target but, like many developing nations, BZ has a huge log in its government's eye when it comes to ethically spending what they have. It's easy to place blame and point fingers but it's more productive to put your money (time and talents) where your mouth is, IMO.

CatMo, I agree; however, we live in a democracy which means WE are the government. I agree people are responsible first for their own actions, but in a democracy we are also responsible for the actions of our representative government. It’s a little different in a system that is not democratic. And even personal responsibility is complicated. It’s much bigger than charitable contributions. Americans wander in to their local Wal-Mart to do serious damage with their credit cards (let’s hear it for play now/pay later!) and are overjoyed to save a few bucks without giving any thought to the Chinese (or whoever) who suffered deplorable working conditions to manufacture the goods the Americans now purchase at such great discount prices. They head for the checkout line completely indifferent to the poverty level wages made by the clerk who rings them up. And it’s not just Wal-Mart, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to shop and invest responsibly. All I’m saying is the fact that it’s difficult doesn’t excuse the responsibility and most Americans never even get to the point where they acknowledge that responsibility to start with. But they still want to brag about how great we are as a nation and how much we do for the rest of the world. It all seems just a bit disingenuous to me.

Maybe I'm being verbose, as I certainly don't want to ruffle any feathers.

All I can do is what I do; and it's hard for me to get my head around being responsible for our elected leaders. I'm of the opinion that no one worthy of their jobs wants them. I certainly wouldn't.

I can't control anyone else either. I just hope we all do what we feel is right in their own hearts/minds. Personal responsiblity, ya know?

That's a start most haven't made - I'd settle for it!

Law, Iam not very smart at all the government workinds but I do think this country is a republic not a democracy. We say the republic on which it stands not the democracy on which it stands. Just my thought. As I said not real good at politics.

In the strictest sense the United States is a Republic - rather than vote on every little issue, we elect representatives to vote for us. The US has often been referred to as a "democratic republic." In view of colloquial use, the difference is now primarily semantic and does not make any difference in terms of my comments above. We elect our government and bear responsibility for its actions.

oh, and by the way, it's "Republic FOR which it stands" not ON which it stands . . .

If I remember right it has been along time since WE had anything to say in government. Especially here in CA. not to mention the crap Bush is doing.

and to get back to the original post at the beginning of this thread I would like to repeat , w the f. c.? lets see it went from human trafficking to the homeless are suffering so 1% can live in luxury? stretching that band pretty tight,
Let me get this right, the world is in a mess because I don't give a rats a*& about the article SIN posted at top?? NOT!!!
And now when I buy something from Wal Mart I should be thinking about someone in China starving, while cursing G.W.?
You guys are in some deep "blue" left coast underworld that this redneck from New Jersey has nothing in common other than the "name" American. Whew I could continue but why bother.? We appear to be from different planets!
law: I usually enjoy reading your posts a they are interesting and informative however your above posts reflect an extraordinary level of elitism....easy does it!

Rykat, no elitism here, please note the use of the plural pronoun we - I included myself. And since you asked, yes, you are supposed to be thinking about how you get what you want at the expense of others, if for no other reason than the fact that you are a citizen of the world before you are a citizen of any country. I seem to recall a recent post by you fairly full of some pretty rude stereotypes, so I realize this might be a stretch for you, but you might give it some thought - in between your flag waving and your Big Macs.

No elitism here? you telling me how I am supposed to be thinking about...anything...is elitism, sweetheart.Pick up a flag, bite a Big Mac and get off that horse, he's way too tall for you!

I didn't tell you how you are supposed to think until you specifically asked, before that I simply stated what I think. You don't know me anywhere well enough to call me sweetheart (and the condescension isn't lost on me and is in complete keeping with what I've seen of your character thus far). I don't own a flag, think it's appropriate we have the right to burn them, and have too much taste to dine at McDonald's. As for the horse, I've yet to find one I can't ride . . .

No elitism there!....I rest my case!

okay, so I might be a little elite when it comes to dining . . .
other than that, you have to have a case before you can rest it.

go back and read your posts!..............................rested....................................closed! But then again, it could be different planets, if ya know what I mean!

night-night after midnight here on the right coast, old rednecks gotta get there beauty sleep!

I'm not the one with the reading problem (or the spelling problem - the pronoun is "their" not "there"). Personally, I'm not surprized at all that you can sleep...

A perfect example of how two people with varying and interesting points of view can transcend from the issues to personal attacks. Of course back when our Republic was becoming democratic, dueling did put and end to discussion.

Unfortunate Rycat, because rednecks are usually better shots than liberals. But, sometimes liberals spell better.

Bush Red is a simpler place, where comfort is found in old-fashioned verities.

by, I note you are not above getting sucked into the personal attack syndrome; still, you have a point.
DP, that may very well be, it's just that I want a little something more out of my life than comfort - and it ain't Nascar! :p

IT'S "NASCAR" DANGIT ! Gimme nother Big Red !

Mornin' E! Love you. I'll try to capitalize all the letters next time, I promise! Viva la difference!

Maybe there is a fine line between the issues and personal attacks, but I believe most, if not all, of my posts refer to a person's positions, ideas or comments. There is a difference between, as an example, calling someones comments stupid and calling them stupid. Unfortunately, many times when a person's words are criticized, they take it as a personal attack.

bywarren: never meant calling anyone an elitist to be a personal attack, fact is fact. If one be happy in that skin why would one take it as an attack.
law, I'm sure you're reading abilities are first class, it's your interpretation I was questioning.
My spelling?... you cain't get THEIR from here!

Man, that was stupid (and I'll leave it up to everyone to figure out what "that" I'm referring to ).

And LC, I'm surprised at your spelling of the word surprised.

Sorry, couldn't resist. It's Friday and all that.

Cat - figures you'd be the one who caught it! It was never about the spelling!

Wow SIN, copy, paste, and sit back and watch them go at it.

CORRECT! SUCKED IN AGAIN!

Gotta luv it!

Hahahahahahahaha!!

you know what that famous philosopher Heywuud_________, once said?! :rolleyes:

no, wut?

Yeah, I heard that one in........4th grade.

I heard 4th grade was the toughest six years of your life.

Yeah Juvy was tough.

TQ ask SIN
which was it SIN, Juvy Detent., Juvy Detox. or 4th grade?