Boundary Disputes in Central America: Part Trends and Present1

Chapter 4: Boundary Disputes in Central America: Part Trends and Present1
Developments
Manuel Orozco
A key issue in the formation of the nation-state is the establishment of territorial
boundaries and the manner in which disagreement or conflicts regarding those arrangements are
resolved. Central America exhibits various disputes, ranging from contested demarcation lines
to territorial occupation, that have been dealt with in ways ranging from treaty negotiations to
violent confrontation. Historically, in most cases the disputes were resolved through some form
of arbitration or bilateral negotiation. Contemporary, disputes in the region are a continuation of
incomplete arrangements or unresolved disputes that coincide with the political opportunity of
some players to revive old disputes to tum to their advantage. Although these conflicts are
generally non-violent, their impact on regional stability is salient as the protracted nature of these
disputes maintains strained relations between countries and fosters little confidence among the
parties. Because multilateral involvement has generally occurred when military confrontation
(or its likely potential) is present, these disputes bring into attention the need to set in motion
multilateral preventive mechanisms such as early warning systems.
This paper consists of three parts. First it provides a briefreview of historical Central
American boundary disputes. The second part describes and review characteristics of the
conflicts currently taking place in the region. Finally, the third part looks at the patterns and
1
Boundmy Disputes in Latin America since the End of the Cold War, Edited by Jorge I. Dominguez, Harvard
University and Manuel Orozco, Inter-American Dialogue. Forthcoming. z.oo~.
1
characteristics of these disputes in Central America, the extent of violence, as well as to their
relationship with previously existing disputes. Most disputes have been linked to demarcation
issues, yet in those confrontations in which conflict has escalated the confrontation has been
about a significant portion of territory.
1. Historical Disputes in Central America
Many Central American disputes, particularly those now resolved, have their origins in
the region's colonial past. The three historical disputes that this section analyzes-GuatemalaHonduras, the "Soccer War" between El Salvador and Honduras, and Honduras-Nicaraguaoriginally resulted from the process of decolonization. One of the major legacies of colonial
Central America was the set of territorial divisions fixed by the "Ordenanzas de Intendencias" of
1785, the final colonial rules of administrative division. 1 Such divisions were not completely
defined or demarcated, thus clear separations between one nation-state and the other were not
easily discerned. Moreover, there existed various administrative divisions with different
demarcations. After independence from Spain in 1821, each country defined its territorial
sovereignty based on the doctrine of uti possidetis juris, a legal principle that establishes that a
state emerging from colonization inherits the colonial administrative borders that it maintained at
the time ofindependence. 2 Given uti possidetis and unclear demarcations, boundary disputes
arose after the short-lived period of federalism in the region that ended in 1838.
Complicating these competing territorial claims were the treaties that attempted to
demarcate parts of boundaries shortly after the formation of the Central American nation-states.
Rather than clearly resolving the nascent disputes, these treaties often had little decisive effect.
The boundary dispute between Guatemala and Honduras, for example, originated with an 1843
2
treaty that deferred a final settlement to a commission to be appointed by each country at some
point in the near future. Similarly, in the roughly 100 years preceding the "Soccer War" of 1969,
the boundaries between El Salvador and Honduras underwent fifteen different adjustments
without a final settlement. Finally, the conflict between Honduras and Nicaragua also resulted
from an 1894 treaty that established part of the border between the nations, but which also called
for future disputes to be settled by arbitration. These partial attempts at conflict resolution
allowed the early disputes to develop at a low level of intensity. They neither solved the disputes
between the newly independent nations outright nor did they immediately provoke intense
conflicts. They did, however, leave ample room for future escalation.
As these early Central American disputes festered and escalated, they became
characterized by various attempts at international oversight and mediation. In each of the three
cases mentioned above, outside powers or multilateral organizations intervened to help resolve
the conflicts. While their efforts were relatively successful at limiting the number of armed
conflicts and their duration-the longest and most serious conflict involved four days of fighting
during the "Soccer W ar"-the intervening powers displayed a reluctance to force settlements
upon the disputing parties. Although the Organization of American States (OAS) stopped the
battle between El Salvador and Honduras four days after it began in 1969, the underlying dispute
itself was not resolved until 1999. Similarly, almost 60 years passed after the International Court
of Justice handed down a verdict in the Honduras-Nicaragua conflict before Nicaragua accepted
the settlement. These early efforts at international mediation were successful in containing the
conflicts; however, they, too, permitted the continuation of these protracted disputes.
The major boundary conflicts that have affected Central America from independence
until the current era are presented in Table 1. Three of these early and now resolved conflicts are
3
analyzed in more detail below. These controversies trace their roots to the formation of nationstates when the new republics sought to establish their boundaries as a mechanism to affirm their
sovereignty. In addition to demarcation problems at the time of independence, these disputes
share several other similar characteristics. They each saw various attempts at international
oversight and mediation. While this mediation contained most of the disputes, it left open the
possibility for future escalation. Eventually, each of these early conflicts reached decisive
resolution as through a combination of bilateral agreements and multilateral intervention.
..
Tbl41H't.
b ero fT reat'1es, an d 0ther D ec1s10ns
um
en ca, N
a
a e .. 1s oncaID'lSPUtes.111 C entrlAm.
Number of Treaties, Status
Parties in Dispute
Year
Year Dispute
Awards, or Rulings
Dispute
Escalated into Major
Started
Conflict
1T;2A
Solved in
Guatemala-Honduras 1843
1928
1933
Solved in
Costa Rica-Panama
1879
1921
6T,3 A
1941
6T, 1 R
Solved in
Honduras-El
1910
1969
1999
Salvador: Soccer War
Solved in
3 T, 1A,1 R
Honduras-Nicaragua: 1912
1957
1963
territorial dispute
Solved in
Costa Rica1981
1985
1985
Nicaragua: Las
Crucitas
T =Treaties, A= Awards, R= Rulmgs
--
Guatemala-Honduras
The boundary dispute between Guatemala and Honduras dates back to an 1843 treaty that
recognized their boundaries as ''those laid down for the Diocese of each in the Royal Ordinance
of Intendances of 1786, and [that] in order to fix the dividing line in a manner that cannot be
doubted, the two states will appoint their commissioners ... " 3 However, the two countries did not
continue much work beyond the starting point (the line near Cerro Brujo) because of
4
uncertainties about the Ordinance in matters of division. In 1914, a second treaty tried to address
the dispute but to no avail. The dispute intensified ten years later, after Guatemala ceded 64
miles of unoccupied land (from El Rico bridge to the Caribbean sea) to the United Fruit
Company. 4 The concession conflicted with Cuyamel Fruit Company's land east of the Motagua
River in Honduras. As a result of this conflict, in 1928, Honduras mobilized troops and occupied
the city of Chachagualilla to affirm its sovereignty, prompting Guatemala to send soldiers to the
area to stop the incursion. 5 The dispute thus involved two governments supporting the land
claims of two transnational banana companies. 6 While the treaties of 1843 and 1914 attempted
to address the peaceful demarcation issues, they reached no definitive solutions and allowed the
dispute to continue behind the scenes. Eventually, the spark of potential resource development
reactivated the dispute and brought it to the forefront of Guatemalan-Honduran relations.
Guatemala's claims to the disputed area were based on a U.S. arbitrated agreement made
between 1918 and 1919, which acknowledged the status quo as set forth by the cedula of Phillip
II in 1563. Honduras, on the other hand, applied uti possidetisjuris of 1910, which established
Honduran sovereignty of an area extending west of the Motagua River. 7 Final settlement of the
dispute was reached after the U.S. invited the two parties to reach an accord. The International
Central American Tribunal was selected to arbitrate the discussion, and on January 23, 1933, the
Court handed down its final award. 8
El Salvador-Honduras
The boundary between these two countries underwent negotiation in 1869 when
commissioners from both countries met to settle the frontier of some bordering cities: Simulaton,
Jocoara, and Comoloncagua in Honduras, and Arambala, Perquin, and Torola in El Salvador.
5
From that point a series of meetings was held to continue demarcating their boundaries, agreeing
to the borders affecting the Northeast and Southwest sections of each country in 1888 and setting
a Mixed Boundary Commission in 1895 to review points not yet demarcated. However, the
demarcation process was never completed and instead tensions increased between the two
countries over certain lines. As in the previous case, early bilateral attempts to clearly define the
borders between the two countries were left unfinished. While this did not lead to immediate
conflicts, the uncertainty allowed the dispute to quietly continue for years. Eventually, the
dispute escalated when sparked by other events. Flores Pinel argues that between 1861 and 1969,
fifteen boundary negotiations were held without successful outcomes. 9
On July 14, 1969, the two countries went to war after 2500 El Salvadoran soldiers
invaded Honduras and Honduras retaliated with force. The conflict originally dealt with
demarcation problems and cross-border flows of Salvadorans into Honduras and subsequent
claims of abuses. It represented the highest level of tensions between the two countries over
demographic changes, trade relations, and political reforms. 10 Because of El Salvador's
explosive demographic growth of 3.6% per year, many Salvadorans had moved to border towns
in Honduras seeking jobs and occupying lands, thereby increasing tensions between the two
countries, particularly after Honduras deported Salvadorans. Also, Honduras was affected by the
Central American Common Market and particularly in its trade relation with El Salvador,
running trade deficits with that country.
On July 19, 1969, the OAS 11 mediated the dispute and put pressure on El Salvador to
accept the proposal. The OAS called for compliance to a four-point plan, calling for an
immediate cease-fire, the withdrawal of troops within 72 hours, assurances of human rights
protections from both sides, and the establishment of military observers to verify compliance. 12
6
El Salvador at first rejected the plan but it agreed after OAS members pressured, following
condemnation for the invasion, finally withdrawing its troops on August 3rd, 1969.
Small skirmishes continued but a demilitarized zone was created and, in 1980, the two
countries signed a Treaty of Peace to demarcate areas in dispute. The treaty provided for the
creation of a mixed commission that would set both the lines not being discussed and those under
controversy. The latter were known as 'bolsones ', portions of disputed territory that included
Goascoran, Dolores, N aguaterique, La Virtud and Sazalapa, Sumpul and Tepangusin. 13
According to the treaty, if by the expiration date in 1985, the commission could not reach an
agreement over delimitation of the boundary, the countries would go to the International Court of
Justice (ICJ). Because the commission did not complete its work in 1986, the two countries went
to the ICJ, presented arguments in 1988, 14 and in 1999 the Court presented parts of its decision.
The countries have not finalized their delimitation.
Honduras-Nicaragua: territorial dispute
The border between Honduras and Nicaragua exhibits similar problems to the two other
disputes. Demarcation negotiations were started in the early part of the nineteenth century, with
the countries settling parts of the border under the Bonilla-Gamez Treaty of 1894. That treaty
also established that remaining disagreements would be solved through arbitration. Although an
arbiter was named and gave a decision in 1906, Nicaragua rejected it in 1912. Nicaragua argued
that, contrary to the Treaty statements, only one arbitrator, the King of Spain, had been named,
and not three as the Treaty established, thus nullifying the validity of the award. 15
Nicaragua continued occupying the area under dispute, the north bank of the Coco River,
until Honduras sought to reclaim it after creating a new department, Gracias a Dios, in that area.
7
After military clashes between the two governments in 1957, Honduras invoked the InterAmerican Pact for Reciprocal Assistance (the Rio Pact) on May 1, 1957, and placed military
forces on the Honduran side of the river, claiming that Nicaragua had invaded its territory. 16 As
a result, the Peace Committee, an OAS investigative commission, persuaded the parties to
declare a cease fire and submit the issue to the International Court of Justice. 17 The ICJ decision
upheld the 1906 award and ruled that Nicaragua should comply, which it finally did in 1962. 18
2. Current disputes in Central America
Despite the eventual resolution of many boundary disputes in Central America, the
problem of border conflicts persists. Until 2001 four border disputes were active: between
Guatemala and Belize 19 ; Honduras and Nicaragua; Costa Rica and Nicaragua; and Honduras,
Nicaragua, and El Salvador in the Gulf of Fonseca. There is also a potential fifth dispute
between Honduras and Guatemala emanating from the ratification of the Lopez-Ramirez Treaty.
These current disputes represent both a continuation and a departure from the past. To
some extent, the present disputes exhibit the same tendencies as the historical disputes discussed
in the previous section. The ongoing controversy between Guatemala and Belize, for example,
has its roots in the process of decolonization and a series of incomplete bilateral treaties •. The
British incursion into Central America and Belize's relatively recent independence gave rise to
this dispute, which resembles a 19th Century dispute transplanted into the late 20th Century.
Incomplete demarcation agreements between Guatemala and the British colony paved the way
for the dispute to escalate once Belize finally achieved independence in 1981. This legacy of
unresolved treaties, exacerbated by problems of treaty interpretation, is a common thread
prevailing in past and present boundary conflicts in Central America. Conflict over
8
interpretation is the case of the Guatemala-Belize dispute in which there is controversy over the
validity of the 1786 treaty between England and Spain (favored by Guatemala) or the 1859 treaty
between Guatemala and England (favored by Belize). A number of legal decisions that emerged
in resolving a given conflict later lent themselves to varying interpretations by the different
parties, each one claiming the legitimacy of their interpretation. Because these disputes have
been periodically dormant as well as long lasting, they may continue into the future.
A key general issue that explains the continuation of boundary problems is, that despite
agreements over new boundary lines, Central American states have a weak capacity to delimit
those boundaries or to maintain jurisdiction. This tendency is reminiscent of the ill-defined
borders at the time of independence. There has been considerable border instability related to
failure to administer the boundaries or to clearly identify their demarcations. In many cases, the
boundaries that were agreed upon remained unmarked, or un-demarcated, which caused
confusion as to the actual position of the line, in turn giving way to more conflicts. The historic
boundary problems between Honduras and El Salvador and the recent tensions between
Nicaragua and Costa Rica are important examples. Many unmarked boundaries remain in many
parts ofNicaragua. 20
On the other hand, current boundary disputes in the region also reflect a series of new
issues not present in previous conflicts. The Guatemala-Belize conflict displays levels of
political opportunism and brinksmanship not seen in other disputes. Each side has deliberately
escalated the dispute for political gain. In addition, the three other present-day disputes are
connected to several new issues unique to the modern era. First, the legacy of the Cold War and
the civil conflicts of the 1980s in Central America left their mark on regional border relations.
The continuing confrontations between Honduras and Nicaragua clearly demonstrate the
9
polarizing effects that these years had on border relations. Nicaragua's civil war coupled with
anti-Sandinista troops harbored by Honduras strained relations along the border between two
countries that already had a history of boundary disputes. Politically motivated escalation also
played a role in this conflict just as it did in the Guatemala-Belize controversy.
Second, recent progress in the area ofresource development, particularly in maritime
areas, is also a new element in current disputes. The relatively recent extension of maritime
rights has pushed competing countries into conflict over new areas. The current conflicts
between Honduras and Nicaragua and possibly Guatemala over the limits of Honduras' maritime
boundary are directly linked to fishing resources and alleged oil deposits in the Caribbean.
Honduras had already initiated contracts with oil companies to prospect in the area now in
dispute. 21 This conflict has also influenced Costa Rica to negotiate maritime boundaries with
Caribbean countries and Colombia, thus increasing the potential for conflict with Nicaragua.
Third, the complexity of trans-border developments is another issue explaining
contemporary boundary disputes. People residing near the borders often cross boundaries
without major attention to the jurisdictions of each country and its laws and policies. The
economic and cultural dynamics that have developed in border areas contribute to the porosity of
these regions, creating a sort of domestic/foreign frontier in which different practices coincide
and collide. As a result, enforcement problems and abuses of different kinds occur and escalate
to state-level tensions. This factor plays a role in Nicaragua's disputes with both Honduras and
Costa Rica. Constant population flow has created new settlements along the borders and made
the border area difficult to manage.
Finally, various security issues related to drugs and crime are also recent developments
that have allowed for the continuation of present-day boundary conflicts. The emergence of
10
these security concerns has led to intensified boundary disputes between Nicaragua and Costa
Rica, particularly along the San Juan River.
The major boundary conflicts currently affecting Central America are presented in Table
2. Four of these conflicts are analyzed in more detail below. These disputes are generally
protracted and exhibit low levels of conflict. Moreover, they reflect both a shared past with the
historical disputes and the emergence of new dynamics, such as the need to further expand
economic wealth and the effect of globalization on migration.
. centralAmen.ca, N umb er of Treatles, andOh
T abl e 4 2 C urrentD.isputes m
t er D ec1s1ons
Parties in Dispute
Year Dispute
Started
Honduras-El Salvador: Fonseca Gulf
Nicaragua-El Salvador: Fonseca Gulf
Guatemala-Belize
1854
1913
1946
Year
Dispute
Escalated
into
Major
Conflict
1999
I9I 7, 1984
I963
Number of
Treaties
, Awards, or
Rulings
Status
--
In dispute
In dispute
Solved in
2001
In dispute
Honduras-Nicaragua-El Salvador:
Fonseca Gulf
Honduras-Nicaragua: maritime dispute
Costa Rica-Nicaragua: San Juan river
Honduras-Guatemala
I98I
1984
IT
I986
I997
1986
1999
I998
I999
--
IT
2T
1 T, lA,
--
In dispute
In dispute
Unclear
T =Treaties, A= Awards, R= Rulings
Guatemala-Belize
The dispute between Guatemala and Belize is one of the oldest conflicts in the region. It
is connected to treaty interpretations regarding a settlement between Guatemala and Great
Britain. In 1859, the two countries set boundary lines in the Limits Convention and sponsored a
treaty settling the boundaries between Guatemala and what is now Belize.
22
This treaty extended
the British territory beyond the boundaries settled during the Treaty of London of 1786, which
had given the British logging rights from the Hondo River in the North, the Captaincy General of
Guatemala in the East, and the Belize River in the South.
11
.
.
.
I
Article 7 of the 1859 Treaty aimed tO: ifuprove trade relations between the two countries
through the building of cart roads and rivers between the Atlantic Coast and Guatemala City. A
. survey done~by British engineers, however,oonclµded the estimated costs of building the road
outweighed the benefits and the road was m;vel' built. In 1863, the British sought to supplement
Article 7 by 6ffering to pay Guatemala 50,000 pounds to take charge of building the road.
However, because Guatemala delayed its ratification for a year, the British government withdrew
its offer, claiming that Guatemala failed to:ratify in the duly stipulated time period. Thus, the
status quo of the 1859 treaty remained. 23
Despite the British reaction, Guatemala stressed that as long as Article 7 of the Treaty
remained unfulfilled, Article 1 (recognizing British rights) would not apply. In fact, by 1945
Guatemala hadineluded in its Constitution an article that declared Belize part of Guatemala. In
1965, there was an attempt to settle the dispute under the mediation ofBethuel Webster, a United
States government envoy. Webster's proposal urged Belize to become a department of
Guatemala. However, Belize, and eventually Great Britain, ruled this draft Treaty
unacceptable. 24 After Belize's independence from Great Britain, Guatemala continued to
challenge the boundary treaty and now the new state.
Guatemala's 1985 Constitution iJ;t.cluded an article that granted the president of the
republic powers to resolve the territorial .dispute. During the latter part of the 1980s, a series of
meetings took place in Miami, Florida,iJ;1ah effort to definitively resolve, the situation within a
political, economic and security framework
A Joint Commission prepared a comprehensive
draft treaty. In addition, parallel agreeme~•were presented to strengthen the economies and
relationships between the two countries. 25 .Progress continued in 1991 when then Guatemalan
President Jorge Serrano recognized Belize's independence. However, Ramiro de Leon Carpio,
12
the following president, withdrew the recognition upon issuing an official Note of Reserve tothe
United Nations, making it known that Guatemala maintained its territorial dispute with Belize.
President Alvaro Arzu recognized Belize's independence, but presented a document to Belizean
Prime Minister Said Musa in October 1999 that maintains Guatemala's position that nonfulfillment of Article 7 frees Guatemala from being bound by Article 1, which established the :'
current border. Thus, Guatemala demanded that the border lines between the two countries revert
back to those established by the 1786 Anglo-Spanish Treaty of London, which set the borders of
the British settlement at the Hondo and Sibun rivers to the north and south respectively. 26
In March 2000, the two governments presented the issue to the Organization of American
States. In September the two countries agreed to install a Panel of Facilitators with the help of
the OAS to help in the negotiations. 27 Then in Nove~ber the gov~rnments signed an agreement
including the establishment of a "peace and development zone" in an attempt to ease the problem
of Guatemalan landless families encroaching on Belizean virgin land. The agreement was valid
until August 31, 2001. 28
13
Figure 4.1: Guatemala, British Honduras-Belize Border Dispute
89"
IB'
i ·· .......
17"'
!
~
...
I
I.
Guatemala-British Honduras,
~ 1783, 178Ji.: .and 1859
f!
-<
=>
j-
..,
Present Boundary ·---·-·-·-· _
. Ii~
. . . ,.
.. .
lb"
..
i
I ,,.... D••• ''.'.'.~--,. .
..
·~
00•
'"·'
l!
Source: Ireland, Gordon
'J"
Honduras-Nicaragua
Relations between Honduras and Nicaragua have a history of border instability and
activity. The dynamic between the two countries varies and has several different contributing
factors. Since the 1990s the land and maritime borders between Honduras and Nicaragua have
14
become important to the central governments of both countries. Issues such a~ r~gional
migration, internal discord, and territorial treaties have also brought the border situation into the
international spotlight.
Prior to the most recent border dispute concerning the maritime border between
Nicaragua and Honduras, the Nicaraguan civil war of the 1980s and early 1990.s affected border
relations. The presence ofrebel anti-Sandinista forces operating in Honduran, territory created
tension between the two countries. The Nicaraguan civil war also caused a large influx of
refugees across the border into Honduras, forcing both governments to re-examine territorial
boundaries and claims to sovereignty as a means of national security. Thus, this conflict
represents a combination of several new factors that emerged over the past few decades.
The most significant conflict between the two countries is the maritime border dispute.
The turning point in this dispute was the Honduran decision in December 1999 to ratify a
maritime boundary treaty, signed in 1986 (Lopez-Ramirez Treaty) with Colombia, recognizing
Colombian rights in the Caribbean. This agreement has direct implications for Nicaragua's
territory and its areas in dispute with Colombia. 29
The treaty gives Honduras ownership of all maritime territory up to the 15th parallel,
granting the rest of the area to Colombia. Nicaragua, however, claims that it has sovereign
territory rights up to the 1ih parallel 30 and that the treaty grants 130,000 km2 of Nicaraguan
maritime territory rich in resources to Colombia. 31 As a result, in December 1999 the
Nicaraguan government announced that, if the treaty were ratified, it would suspend all
economic relations with Honduras. 32 The Honduran government replied with a press release
stating that as a "friendly neighbor," Nicaragua should be pleased Honduras was normalizing
border relations. The United Nations and the European Union asked both countries to resolve
15
the conflict through negotiation and mediation. Nicaragtia took its case to the ICJ on 8
December 1999, with a motion to suspend the fishing and'navigation rights of Honduras and
Colombia. 33 As tensions between the two countries increased, Nicaraguan President Arnoldo
Aleman demanded a bilateral agreement to annul the border agreement between Honduras and
Colombia; he raised import duties on Honduran goods by 35%. 34 Shortly thereafter, the
Nicaraguan government stated it had the capacity to mobilize troops to the border, but later
backed down, acknowledging that Honduras had not provoked it militarily. Honduras replied
with a statement to the press asserting that its Navy would protect its fishermen if need be.
As a result of the escalation in tensions, a third party was called upon to mediate. OAS
representative Luigi Einaudi met with envoys from the Honduran and Nicaraguan governments
on four occasions to lower military tension along the maritime border. The talks resulted in a
bilateral agreement creating a demilitarized zone between the two countries. Additionally, the
governments agreed to patrol the border together in order to avoid confrontation. The
agreements were instituted in February 2000. 35
Despite of the joint border patrol agreement, disputes persist. Nicaragua's case against
Honduras at The Hague began on 5 February 2000. In addition, this dispute had spill over
effects on the second Gulf of Fonseca dispute on the Pacific coast, where a history of clashes has
existed. In late February 2000, Honduras fired upon Nicaraguan patrol boats, asserting that it
was provoked. Nicaragua maintains that the attack took place in Nicaraguan territory, 1000
meters from the Nicaraguan port of Potosi3 6 . Additionally, Nicaragua had to dispel a rumor in
late January 2000 that it had ordered its military to be on maximum alert. Although untrue, the
rumor was thought to be a response to the mobilization of Honduran troops along its border with
Nicaragua shortly after ratifying the treaty with Colombia. 37 This continued the practice of
16
escalating
conflicts through troop movements or statements meant
to intimidate the other side
.
.
and convince it of one's resolve. Rather than definitively settling the dispute through
negotiations, each party continued to use military brinkmanship keeping the conflict alive.
The border issue remains unsolved, although represe11t(:\tives from both governments
exchange information on border issues such as drugs,
arms~ an~ivehicle
trafficking, illegal:.
immigration, and anned gangs along the border. More recently, the tensions between Honduras
and Nicaragua have intensified over allegations from Nicaragua of a potential arms race initiated
by Honduras and a violation of the Einaudi-brokered agreements signed between the two
countries. 38 As a result, the Presidents of El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua met in March
2001 in Pochomil, Nicaragua, to exchange information about.their weapons inventory. 39
Ambassador Einaudi further sought to promote dialogue and cooperation to build mutual
confidence rather than insecurity. 40
Although the dispute is one of sovereign control, resource development is an important
factor in the dispute. It is believed that the area is rich in fishing resources and potentially
contains natural gas and oil, and the Honduran government had approved exploration of the area
in dispute. 41
Figure 4.2: Maritime Boundary Dispute: Nicaragua, Honduras
17
,,
A tie.at}' Lieuna-/Boyd Colombfa/Paaama, :signed 20 N~mbet 1976, in fo{ti: .'l-0
N<Jvc:mber 1977.
B Treaty Fem~ndez/Sac.cio Colomb[a.,•'Co$ta ruca, Signe.cl 17 !o.ia.rch 1917.
C Treaty Col.ta Ri~/Panama 1 "S(gncd 2 Fcbtua.ry 1900.
D Treaty Colocubia/H".ln~1,1raii, signed 2 August 1986.
E ncaty lH.rt-enas Mene~/E!!gm:rra l'."icaraguafCo'ombia, signed 24 Much 1928. in
force 30 April 1930 wittl. Anc.c:~ frorn Nicaragu;i, No il'lclusion of Gua.oo Cays and
.Biu1k,. Rcnoul'lci=d 'iHU11tcraUy by Nk.a:ragua on '2 April I9&0.
a C06ttt Rk..a. concept of median ltne.
b Maritime bounder)' clali:ued by HondUI'lU .acrording ro •tacit agrt::crnimt'.
Source: Sandner
Nicaragua-Costa Rica
18
Nicaragua and Costa Rica also have a history of border activity and tension. 42 More
recently, they also share problems of illegal immigration, criminal activity, and natural resource
use, which have led to considerable inter-state border conflict. Currently, Nicaragua and Costa
Rica are involved in a conflict concerning navigation rights and military presence on the San
Juan River, the natural border between northern Costa Rica and southern Nicaragua. Nicaragua
asserts that, according to the Canas-Jerez Treaty of 1858, it has complete sovereignty over the
river, and therefore it has the right to refuse any international presence along the border: Costa
Rica claims that it has historically been granted navigation rights by previous administrations.
International regional issues such as migration have spurred tension between the two
countries. Nicaraguan migration to Costa Rica has continued since the early 1980s .due to
economic and political reasons. The cross-border flow intensified in the
1990s~-generating
tension over the crossings and treatment of Nicaraguan migrants. News reports from as early as
1993 illustrate border activities. In November 1993, Costa Rican officials detained Nicaraguan
citizens traveling to San Jose. Nicaragua retaliated with the statement that it intended to detain
Costa Rican nationals without passports. Nicaragua later stated its intention to clarify the
sovereignty of its borders, including the San Juan River43 .
Security issues related to the activity of criminal bands and gun smuggling are also
triggering factors in border tensions. In July 1994, Costa Rican police seized weapons that were
being smuggled across the border for the uprising in Chiapas, Mexico. Additionally, land mines
placed during the Nicaraguan civil war in the 1980s threaten the safety of civilians along the
border. These security issues, in addition to arms trafficking and the presence of anned bands
along the river, have compelled Costa Rica to patrol the river with armed civil guards. However,
19
Nicaragua views the presence of Costa Rican armed guarcjs as a violation of its sovereignty and
arrested Costa Rican border police, seizing their vessels44 .
Police action has also spread from military issues to civil-military issues. In 1997, the
Nicaraguan military confiscated at least twelve Costa Rican vessels and detained close to twentytwo fishermen. Costa Rica responded with an official diplomatic note of protest, demanding the
return of the boats and the release of the fishermen. 45
As a result of these issues, the Nicaraguan government decided to re-assert its presence
on the border, and on May 8, 1998, it officially revoked the right of Costa Rican civil guards to
carry arms on the San Juan River (Costa Rica calls these regulation weapons or 'armas de
reglamento'). On 23 July, Nicaragua stated that Costa Rica only had navigation rights related to
economic needs and did not have the right to patrol at all. 46
In order to address the border conflict, Nicaragua and Costa Rica have held bilateral
meetings and negotiations. Agreements were reached several times, only to be annulled the
following day. The first agreement, reached in August 1998, stipulated that the Costa Rican civil
guards had the right to patrol the river with arms if they informed the Nicaraguan border police
prior to the patrol. Nicaragua announced the next day that the agreement had been a "simple
news bulletin"47 and was not complete. Later treaties followed the same pattern. After each
accord, Nicaragua backtracked and claimed that the agreement was unconstitutional and lacked
popular support. The last unratified settlement stated that, each time Costa Rica's civil guard
patrolled the river, it had to ask permission of, not just notify, the Nicaraguan border authorities.
While negotiating an agreement on the situation, both government applied different
measures to assert their strength in the international arena. Nicaragua alluded several times to its
capacity to mobilize troops to the border, asserting that it would defend itself ifthreatened. 48
20
The Nicaraguan military announced that it would arrest any foreign vessels on the San Juan
River. Costa Rica responded to each instance with formal diplomatic protests and a demand for
the Nicaraguan debt of $475 million in loaned electricity to be repaid. 49 These actions,
especially Nicaragua's, display political opportunism in escalating the conflict.
In late 2000 Costa Rica issued a press release stating that, if the latest attempt at
conciliation in Nicaragua were unsuccessful, it would search for third party mediation50 . Costa
Rica set a deadline for resolution of the conflict for the end of 2001 and expressed that it would
take its case to the ICJ at The Hague if Nicaragua does not produce a solution to the conflict.
Although the OAS heard the case, it failed to craft an agreement. For its part, Nicaragua is
considering a new law to allow a Costa Rican presence on the San Juan River. The law faces
domestic popular and parliamentary opposition in Nicaragua, especially from supporters of
former President Arnoldo Aleman's administration.
Figure 4.3: Costa Rica - Nicaragua Border
M1CARABU°'
?ON'1i llr.t1TFt.O'Fi COSTA R1CA-NICARAGUA
.
.,. ___ .... L. ntGU h'11«t111
---.,..• •
........
..
'C.t:nfrD
";
MAPA N"2
'"~dll'I
Source: Leininger
21
Fonseca Gulf controversies
Another area of recurrent conflict has been the Gulf of Fonseca. Because El Salvador,
Honduras, and Nicaragua share the area, boundary enforcement has often been a source of
dispute. At various points, there have been disputes between two of the three countries over
jurisdiction in the Gulf and fishing rights. In September of 1992, the ICJ at The Hague gave
sovereign rights to Honduras in the Pacific Ocean. 51
Previously prevailing tensions and the new arrangement over the ownership of such
maritime territory have contributed to border clashes with Nicaragua over fishing rights in this
Gulf. In 1995, news agencies reported maritime arrests of Honduran and Nicaraguan fishermen,
for violations of tenitorial fishing rights. Honduran fishermen reportedly armed themselves for
protection while fishing in Nicaraguanwaters. 52 In 1997, ten Honduran fishermen were arrested
by Nicaraguan authorities in an area they believed was in Honduran territory. 53 Honduran
authorities have also arrested Nicaraguan fishermen for territorial violations. In May 1997,
Nicaraguan and Honduran border patrols clashed over border rights. After a brief bilateral
negotiation, both countries agreed to identify the boundary with buoys; Japan agreed to finance
the project. 54 However, the boundary cannot be demarcated until it is agreed upon. Due to such
border discrepancies, Honduras announced in 1998 that it would seek to redefine its land and
maritime borders. This conflict clearly shows the potential for escalation when resource
development opportunities are implicated in a disputed area.
3. Conclusion: Patterns and Characteristics of Disputes
What explains the various disputes in Central America? Do patterns emerge in these
disagreements? The division presented earlier between current and past disputes relies on some
22
distinctive characteristics. Moreover, the lessons of already-resolved disputes might shed some
light on prospects for present day conflict resolution. One important question to ask is why
current disputes have emerged during the period of democratic transitions in the region?
Past disputes had at least two important traits. First, as in many international disputes, in
those cases where a dispute was solved its duration was over thirty years. Second, four of the
major disputes (Guatemala-Honduras; El Salvador-Honduras; Nicaragua-Honduras; Costa RicaPanama) concerning boundary settlement, solved prior to the 1980s, shared three characteristics:'_
a) at some point they escalated to become militarized, b) the controversy was connected to the .
countries' continued disagreement to settle their demarcations, and c) they eventually were
settled through arbitration and third party involvement.
Negotiations over the countries' boundaries lasted decades and even resulted in military
confrontations, most of which took place in the first half of the twentieth century. Although these
military confrontations and diplomatic disputes originated during the nineteenth century, the
severity of the conflicts was greater in the 1900s. In the mid-1800s, the countries still faced
internal consolidation amidst internal strife. Between 1840 and 1880, all countries in the region
faced at least one episode of civil war, thus limiting states from engaging in foreign wars. (An
exception was the war against William Walker in 1856.) Moreover, the boundary disputes
involved disagreements over the establishment of the boundaries, which involved lengthy
negotiations over treaty elaboration and implementation. By the twentieth century, four of the six
now-settled intra-Central American border disputes had at one point involved interstate violence.
The settlement in these cases resulted from a combination of OAS reconciliation efforts and the
arbitration of the International Court of Justice or a designated arbiter.
23
Whether past or present, resolved or unresolved, the protracted nature of boundary
disputes has become a pattern in Central America. The instances of serious escalation and war
have been few in both the distant past and recent times but there are costs associated with lo_wlevel conflicts. Continued friction has strained relations between countries and affected trade
and diplomacy. Such was the case during the "Soccer War'.' .of 1969 and the recent imposition of
tariffs during the Honduras-Nicaragua conflict. Yet the costs go beyond the economic realm.
Families with residence in two countries often suffer discrimination from one side during times
of tension. And there is the ever-present potential of violence given prevailing tensions.
Unlike some historical disputes that saw military action before eventual resolution, the
present day disputes exhibit lower levels of conflict.
Th~ir
pattern of interaction even after major
border incidents shows relatively low levels of violence. Is this distinction between the past and
present disputes associated with the presence of democracies in the region? A superficial
response would surmise that, as these countries democratized after the cold war, their propensity
for violent confrontation declined, but this assessment is incomplete. A closer look shows that,
while dormant, these disputes escalated into conflict in the post-cold war period of democratic
transition, and not before. The Guatemala-Belize dispute.gained notoriety in the nineties when
both countries were constitutional democracies; then, tensions mounted over clashes between
troops or abuses against civilians in the disputed areas. Similarly, the Nicaragua-Costa Rica and
Nicaragua-Honduras disputes became critical diplomat~c: issues in the late nineties when all of
these countries had democratic political systems. The resolution of the Guatemala-Belize
conflict also brings into attention the importance of multilateralism in the region and its conflict
resolution role. What seems more plausible is to conclude that these new democracies found that
it is in their interest to solve the controversies through diplomacy because of pressure from the
24
international community. The utility of war for most of these governments is not greater than
negotiating peace because international actors will not support their going to war.
In the specific case of Nicaragua's disputes with its neighbors, the difference in the utility
of negotiating versus fighting is rather smaller, however, thus leaving open the possibility of
escalating the controversy into conflict, particularly with Honduras. Nationalism seems to
explain Nicaragua's position: Having lost territory to Honduras, Costa Rica, and Colombia, the
country feels that it should uphold its position on principle and not negotiate further losses of
sovereignty. To prevent the rise of military confrontation, the lessons from prior disputes
suggest that pressure from the international community to accept third-party mediation, such a
decision by the International Court of Justice, is critical to a successful peaceful outcome.
Pressuring leaders to avoid confrontation or to resort to political opportunism is also
important. In three disputes (Guatemala-Belize; Honduras-Nicaragua; Nicaragua-Costa Rica), a
single leader's unilateral act prompted a dispute's resurrection. For example, in Guatemala,
President Ramiro de Leon Carpio's decision to withdraw the recognition of Belize reignited a
territorial controversy that had seemed settled; in Nicaragua, President Arnoldo Aleman's
nationalist reaction to Honduras' ratification of a treaty with Colombia increased tensions
between the two countries. International mobilization could prevent these kinds of behavior.
25
Bibliography
Alvarez Lejarza, Emilio. Las Constituciones de Nicaragua. Madrid: Ed. Cultura Hispanica,
1958.
Calvert, Peter. Boundary Disputes in Latin America. London: Institute for the Study of Conflict,
1983.
Cukwurah, A. 0. The Settlement of Boundary in International Law. Manchester: Manchester ·
University Press, 1967.
Dunkerley, James. Power in the Isthmus. London: Verso, 1989.
Flores Pinel, Fernando. "Entre la Guerra y la Paz: El Conflicto Honduro-Salvadorefio 19691979." Estudios Centroamericanos, Afio 34, #369-370, 1979.
Gross Espiell, Hector. Espana en la Soluci6n Pacifica de las Conflictos Limitrofes en HispanoAmerica. Madrid: Cuademos Civitas, 1984.
Guatemala. Tratado de Limites Territoriales entre Guatemala y El Salvador. Abril 9, 1938.
Guatemala. The Boundary dispute between Guatemala and Honduras. Guatemala: Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, The Boundary Commission of Guatemala, 1928.
Guatemala. Informe de la Comision Mixta de las Limites Relativos al Trazo de la Frontera entre
El Salvador y Guatemala. Guatemala, 1942.
Herrera Caceres, Rene. Honduras y el Salvador ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia.
Tegucigalpa: CEDOH, 1987.
Honduras. Limites entre Honduras y Nicaragua. Tegucigalpa, Tipografia Nacional, 1938.
Ireland, Gordon. Boundaries, Possessions and Conflicts in Central and North American and the
Caribbean. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1941.
Karnes, Thomas. Tropical Enterprise: The Standard Fruit and Steamship Company in Latin
America. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University press, 1978.
Kombluh, Peter. Nicaragua. The Price of Intervention. Washington, DC.: Institute for Policy
Studies, 1987.
Kratochwill, Friedrich. Peace and Disputed Sovereignty. Boston: University Press of America,
1985.
Latorre, German. Intervenci6n Tutelar de Espana en las Problemas Limitrofes de
Hispanoamerica. Sevilla: Tipografia Zarzuela, 1921.
26
-
'
''
Manon, P.K. AThe Anglo-Guatemalan Dispute over the Colony of Belize", Journal of Latin
American Studies, V. 11, part 2, Nov. 1979.
Mercado Janin, Edgardo. The Impact of world crisis on geopolitical conflicts, in Silva
Michelena, Jose, Latin America peace, democratization and economic crisis. NJ: The UN
University 1988.
''\' (,'
Morris, James. Honduras: Caudillo Politics and Military Rulers. Boulder: Westview Press,
1984.
NotiCen. "Nicaragua and Honduras in Conflict over Maritime Boundary" January 27, 2000.
Parker, Franklin. The Central American Republics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Peralta, Manuel Maria de. Limites de Costa Rica con Colombia. Madrid, 1890.
Peralta, Manuel Maria de. Historia de la Jurisdicci6n Territorial de Costa Rica, (1502-1880).
Madrid: 1891.
Rattner, Steven R. "Drawing a better line: uti possidetis and the borders of new states" in
American Journal of International Law. Oct 1996. v90, n4. 590-624.
Report of the Committee established by the Permanent Council to Investigate the Complaint
Filed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica. C9/res 432 623/85 July 11, 1985.
Rodriguez-Beteta, Virgilio. No es Guerra de Hermanos sino de Bananas. Guatemala: Ed.
Universitaria, 1969.
Rowles, James. El Conflicto Honduras-El Salvador. San Jose: EDUCA, 1980.
Sandner, Gerhard and Beate Ratter, "Topographical Problem Areas in the Delimitation of
Maritime Boundaries and their Political Relevance: Case Studies from the Western Caribbean"
in Ocean and Shoreline Management l 5 1991.
Scheman, Ronald. The lnteramerican Dilemma. NY: Praeger, 1988.
Sharma, Surya. Delimitation ofLand and Sea Boundaries between neighboring countries. New
Dehli: Lancers Books, 1989.
Sibaja, Luis Fernando. Nuestros Limites con Nicaragua. San Jose, 1976.
Tratado General de Paz entre las Republicas de El Salvador y Honduras, 30 de Octubre 1980.
United States. Honduras-Nicaraguan Boundary. Office of the Geographer, Washington DC:
US Dept. of State, 1964. #36.
27
Vallejo, Antonio. Limites de Honduras con las Republicas de Guatemala, El Salvador.
Tegucigalpa, 1926.
Zamora, Augusto. Jntereses Territoriales de Nicaragua: San Andres y Providencia, Cayos,
Golfo de Fonseca, Rio San Juan. Managua: Fondo Editorial de lo Juridico.
1
Cline, Howard. "Viceroyalty to Republics, 1786-1952: Historical Notes on the Evolution of
Middle American Political Units", in Howard Cline Guide to Ethno Historical Sources Part I.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971, p. 161.
2
Ratner, Steven R. "Drawing a better line: uti posidetis and the borders of new states.
American Journal of International Law: Oct 1996, v.90, n4, 590-624.
3
Colecci6n de Tratados de Guatemala, p. 514.
4
Rodriguez-Beteta, Virgilio. No es Guerra de Hermanos sino de Bananas. Guatemala: Ed.
Universitaria, 1969 .p.30.
5
The Boundary dispute between Guatemala and Honduras. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The
Boundary Commission of Guatemala, 1928, p.9.
6
Karnes, Thomas. Tropical Enterprise: The Standard Fruit and Steamship Company in Latin
America. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978, p.178.
7
Rodriguez-Beteta, Virgilio. Op.cit., p. 29.
8
Ireland, Gordon, Op. cit, p. 92.
9
Flores Pinel, Fernando. "Entre la Guerra y la Paz: El Conflicto Honduro-Salvadoreno 1969-
1979" Estudios Centroamericanos, Afio 34, #369-370, Julio-Agosto, 1979, p. 685-685.
10
Rowles, James, El Conflicto Honduras-El Salvador (1969). San Jose: EDUCA, 1980.
28
11
The OAS had installed a mediating committee, Comite de las 7, made up by Argentina, Costa
Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and the U.S.
12
Scheman, Ronald, The Interamerican Dilemma, NY: Praeguer, 1988, p. 87-88. For a political
analysis of this conflict see Flores Pinell, Op.cit., and David Mares, "Lessons from the Failure of
Central American Conflict Management in the One Hundred Hours War" paper presented at the
Conference on the Causes of Interstate Conflicts in Central America, San Jose, Costa Rica,
December 1996.
13
Tratado General de Paz entre las Republicas de El Salvador y Honduras, 30 de Octubre de
1980.
14
Herrera Caceres, Roberto, Honduras y El Salvador ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia,
Tegucigalpa, CEDOH, 1987, p.49.
15
Alvarez Lejarza, Emilio. Las Constituciones de Nicaragua. Madrid: Ed. Cultura Hispanica,
1958, p. 199. The award declared that the boundary should be drawn along the Coco River to
the point of confluence with Poteca River, where it would abandon the Coco River and follow
Poteca to Guinea River and then meet already determined lines in Teotecacinete. See Gordon
Ireland, p. 136.
16
The Rio Treaty invoked the Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Reciproca, an security
instrument designed to protect Latin American countries against external threats.
17
Scheman, Ronald, op. cit., p. 85.
18
Honduras-Nicaragua Boundary, Office of the Geographer, Washington, DC: US Department
of State, 1964, #36, p. 3.
29
19
The Guatemala-Belize dispute was finally solved at the end of 2001, however, this section will
analyze the characteristics of this dispute as a contemporary one.
20
"Demarcan frontera entre Nicaragua y Costa Rica", La Prensa Agosto 16, 2000. Managua,
Nicaragua.
21
"Honduras-Nicaragua border dispute". Oil and Gas Journal: May 1 2000, v.98, 18, 37.
22
Ireland, Gordon. Boundaries, Possessions and Conflicts in Central and North American and
the Caribbean. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1941.
23
Belize-Guatemala Relations. Government of Belize. http://www.belize-
guatemala.gov. bz/belize position.html.
24
Guatemala News Watch: February 2000. http://www.guetzalnet.com/newswatch/Editionl 5-
2.htm. 2/13/01.
25
Sylvestre, Janine. The Cost of Conflict: The Anglo-Belize/Guatemalan Territorial Issue.
199 5. Unpublished: http://www. belizenet. com/bzeguat.html.
26
Noticen. "Region: Guatemala Presses Belize to Accept International Arbitration of Territorial
Dispute." 03109100. http://ladb.unm.edu/prot/search/retrieve.php3 ?ID [0]+24074. 07/26/00.
27
"Belize and Guatemala Advance Dialogue" OAS News, September-October 2000.
Washington DC: OAS.
28
Gorina-Ysem, Montserrat. "OAS Mediates in Belize-Guatemala Border." 12/2000.
http://www.asil.org/insigh59 .htm 2/16/00.
29
Nicaragua maintains a boundary dispute with Colombia over Roncador and Serrana Cays.
After the U.S. ratification in 1981 of a Treaty with Colombia regarding the recognition of these
30
cays as part of Colombia, Nicaragua void a 1928 treaty with Colombia in which it recognized
sovereignty of San Andres, Providencia and adjacent cays, except those west of meridian 82.
30
"l ih Parallel Claim" Notimex News Agency, Mexico City January 3, 1996.
31
La Prensa Tegucigalpa Online, December 1, 1999 www.laprensahn.com.
32
La Prensa Tegucigalpa Online, December 1, 1999 www.laprensahn.com.
33
La Prensa Tegucigalpa Online December 17, 1999www.laprensahn.com; "Nicaragua Goes to
ICJ" International Court of Justice Press Communique, December 8, 1999.
34
La Prensa Tegucigalpa Online July 21, 2000 www.laprensahn.com.
35
"Honduras and Nicaragua Reach Military Exclusion Agreement" OAS Press Release, (E-
021/00), February 8, 2000 La Prensa Tegucigalpa Online January 20, 2000www.laprensahn.com.
36
La Prensa Tegucigalpa Online February 21, 2000; February 26, 2000 www.laprensahn.com.
37
La Prensa, Tegucigalpa, January 29, 2000 www.laprensahn.com.
38
La Prensa Tegucigalpa Online ''Nicaragua denunciani a Honduras ante Organizaci6n de los
Estados Americanos" February 13, 2001.
39
"Cuatro paises entregan inventario de armas como muestra de confianza y distension"
Inforpress Centroamericana, 20 de Abril 2001. Guatemala.
40
"Delegado de la Organizaci6n de Estados Americanos ve sefiales de cooperaci6n para superar
conflicto de Nicaragua y Honduras" La Nacion, Viernes 27 de Abril, 2001. San Jose, Costa Rica.
41
"Honduras-Nicaragua border dispute" Oil and Gas Journal May 1 2000, v. 98, 18, p.37.
42
Leininger, Allen. "Analisis Geografico-Estrategico de la Zona Limitrofe entre Costa Rica y
Nicaragua" Relaciones Internacionales N.11, Heredia: UNA, 2do Trimestre 1985, p. 43.
43
SWB AL/1852 L/6 17, Radio Corporaci6n, Managua 11/18/93.
31
44
SWB AL/2038 L/2 XEW TV Mexico City.
45
La Nacion Digital 7/23/1998 "Nicas Rigidos Con Policias", www.nacion.co.cr.
46
La Nacion Digital 5/8/1998, and 7/23/1998 "Nicas Rigidos Con Policias", www.nacion.co.cr.
47
AFP-Paris, 7/31/98.
48
La Nacion Digital, 7/27/98, 8/03/98 www.nacion.co.cr.
49
Mesoamerica, October 8, 1998 "Dispute Flares Anew" (Steve Mumme).
50
La Nacion Digital, 11/24/2000 www.nacion.co.cr.
51
Zamora, Augusto. Intereses Territoriales de Nicaragua op.cit., p. 227.
52
"Increased Naval Patrols" Television Nacional, Managua, June 13, 1995.
53
La Prensa Tegucigalpa Online July 12, 1997 www.laprensahri.cotrL' ·
54
"Confrontation in Gulf of Fonseca" Telesistema Hondurefio Television Network, Tegudigalpa,
June 3, 1997.
32