Latin American Border
Tensions Rise
By Chris Kraul
San Andrés, COLOMBIA --
Colombia says Nicaragua
gave up all claims to
this idyllic Caribbean
island in a 1928 treaty.
Nicaragua contends that
it signed the treaty at
the point of a gun while
occupied by U.S. Marines
and that it is the
rightful owner.
The territorial spat,
now before the
International Court of
Justice at The Hague, is
just one of several
roiling Latin America
these days.
In some ways, the region
resembles a neighborhood
with residents at one
another's throats. The
issues aren't loud music
or barking dogs, but the
environment and
ownership of lucrative
oil and fishing rights,
land and waterways.
Chile, Bolivia and Peru
continue to bicker over
land and maritime rights
that Chile has claimed
since it won a three-way
war in 1884.
Venezuela is at
loggerheads with Guyana
to the east and Colombia
to the west over its
borders, with rich oil
and mineral deposits at
stake.
Ecuador claims its
territory is being
violated by Colombia's
anti-coca spraying.
Argentina says that
pollution from a paper
plant being built in
Uruguay on the banks of
the bordering Uruguay
River will violate
border accords.
Nicaragua and Costa
Rica, meanwhile, argue
over rights to their
common river boundary,
the San Juan.
There is no near-term
prospect of territorial
wars over these border
disputes such as those
fought by Peru and
Ecuador in 1995 and El
Salvador and Honduras in
1969, and the fighting
between Argentina and
Britain in 1982 over the
Falkland Islands.
But tensions are rising.
The Colombia-Nicaragua
standoff over San Andrés,
two other Caribbean
islands and thousands of
square miles of ocean
floor, all under
Colombian control for
two centuries, is
especially complex. It
pits opposing principles
in boundary disputes:
what has been agreed to
in the past versus what
modern conventions deem
a fair division of
territory.
"Modern law of the sea,
which is still evolving,
is confronting the
classic stance of
international law with
its strict respect for
treaties," said Antonio
Rengifo Lozano, a law
professor at National
University of Colombia
in Bogota. "The way this
and other conflicts will
be solved is crucially
important because they
will set lasting
precedents for the 21st
century."
In 1803, Spain assigned
the islands to the
jurisdiction of its
Nuevo Granada colony,
which included
modern-day Colombia. The
1928 treaty solidified
that claim, while giving
Nicaragua rights to the
so-called Mosquito Coast
on Nicaragua's Caribbean
shoreline.
Nicaragua now says it
signed the treaty under
duress, while American
troops were in the
nation quelling a
rebellion. Before the
Marines pulled out in
1933, the U.S. installed
its ally Anastasio
Somoza as head of the
combined military and
police forces,
positioning him to
become dictator a few
years later.
Tensions have risen in
recent years. In 2003,
Colombia sent naval
ships to the disputed
zone to prevent oil
exploration by a U.S.
firm that had been
granted rights by
Nicaragua. Last year,
Nicaraguan patrol boats
seized a trawler in
waters claimed by
Colombia.
In July, in what
Nicaragua viewed as a
provocation, Colombian
President Alvaro Uribe
chose San Andres as the
place to observe
Colombia's independence
day, leading a march
through the island's
main town. At a
subsequent meeting of
Central American leaders
that Uribe attended,
Nicaraguan President
Daniel Ortega in so many
words said Uribe was not
welcome.
Norman Miranda, a
Nicaraguan attorney,
university professor and
specialist in
territorial issues, said
the U.S. occupation
meant his country's
sovereignty was at the
time "diminished," a
legal principle
important in overturning
agreements.
Other experts disagree.
"The legitimacy of the
Nicaraguan government
that signed the treaty
is simply irrelevant,"
said David Bushnell, a
retired University of
Florida professor and
author of a history of
Colombia. "The pertinent
facts are that the
islands have been
formally part of
Colombia from the time
of independence until
now [and] the great
majority of inhabitants
want to stay part of
Colombia."
What is certain is that
the concept of
territorial fairness
used in deciding border
disputes has undergone
big changes,
particularly since a
1982 United Nations
maritime agreement that
said nations may have a
sovereign right to the
continental shelf
extending as far as 200
miles from their
coastlines.
Advanced fishing
technology and the
advent of deep-sea oil
drilling made those
offshore rights more
valuable, and
preliminary drilling in
the disputed area of the
Caribbean indicates that
significant oil and gas
reserves may lie beneath
the ocean floor, said
Francisco Avella, a
geography professor at
National University of
Colombia's graduate
studies program here.
Fairness is a principle
that Nicaragua has cited
since taking the dispute
to The Hague in 1999 at
the initiative of
then-President Arnoldo
Aleman. The action
apparently was prompted
by a treaty Colombia
signed with Honduras in
1999 in which Honduras
recognized the validity
of Colombia's claim.
Nicaragua contends that
the modern standards
should nullify terms of
the 1928 treaty that
give Colombia title to
the islands and ocean
space about 100 miles
east of the Nicaraguan
coast.
Nicaragua's continental
shelf extends another
100 miles into the
northern part of the
disputed marine area, so
the maritime rights
should be theirs,
according to the
government's argument.
The Nicaraguans also
point out that San
Andres Island is more
than 400 miles from the
Colombian coast.
Some observers,
including Avella,
believe Nicaragua has
little interest in or
hope of recovering the
islands. Rather, the
theory goes, it wants
expanded maritime rights
so it can drill for oil
and gas and gain part of
the lucrative lobster
and shrimp fishing on
the Luna Verde shelf now
under Colombian control.
The fairness principle
also is at the core of
the legal argument that
Peru and Bolivia are
making to recover land
and marine rights they
lost in 1884 to Chile.
"The modern law of the
sea is clear that
maritime boundary
delimitation must
produce an equitable
solution," said Martin
Pratt, a geographer at
the International
Boundaries Unit at
Britain's Durham
University.
It has been the movement
of Bolivia and Chile
toward a settlement of
their long-standing
dispute that has
provoked Peru. After
Chilean President
Michelle Bachelet
expressed willingness to
give Bolivia control,
but not sovereignty,
over a strip of land and
long-sought access to
the sea in northern
Chile, Peru protested
that it had approval
rights to any Chilean
boundary settlement
involving a third party.
In 2005, Peru's Congress
voted to unilaterally
redraw the maritime
boundary with Chile,
claiming more than
10,000 square miles of
ocean space now under
Chilean control. Chile
claims the disputed area
was ceded by Peru in a
1952 deal, whereas Peru
says it was a fishing,
not a boundary,
agreement.
In June, Peruvian
President Alan Garcia
declared that he would
take Peru's case to The
Hague, and relations
have gone downhill
since. Early last month,
Peru published an
official map with the
new marine boundary,
provoking a diplomatic
protest from Chile. Peru
then responded by
recalling its
ambassador.
Much further along is
the Colombia-Nicaragua
case, on which hearings
began at The Hague in
June. The Colombian
government said it was
not appropriate for the
International Court of
Justice to even hear the
case, contending that
the treaty signed by
both nations takes
precedence over
latter-day international
accords.
(Although the claim was
first lodged by
Nicaragua in 1999, it is
still in the preliminary
stages at the
international court,
which is to decide by
the end of the year
whether to take it on.
If it does, it will take
four years to render a
decision. Any decision
would be up to the U.N.
to enforce, though
countries typically
abide by the court's
verdicts, Pratt said.)
The Colombians also make
the case that because
the islands have been
under their control
since 1803, to change
sovereignty would be
traumatic for residents.
"There is absolutely no
one there as far as I
know who wants to join
Nicaragua," historian
Bushnell said.
Yet it also appears that
a large segment of the
San Andres population
does not want to remain
Colombian, either. The
black Raizal minority,
which settled the island
and makes up a third of
its population of
80,000, has mounted a
movement seeking
autonomy and vows to
ignore any court
decision.
"The movement has come
about because of the ill
treatment of the natives
by the Colombian state,"
Pastor Raymond Howard
said. "As long as
Colombia continues to
exercise power over us,
the legitimate owners,
the Raizal people, will
continue to be
second-class citizens."
|
