INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY DIGEST: LATIN AMERICA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 110
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 21, 2011
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: September 1, 1986
• Content Type: REPORT

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Directorate of Secret
Intelligence
International Boundary Digest:
Latin America
A Research Paper
c9
Secret
G186-10043
September 1986
copy 3 4 2
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
25X1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Reverse Blank
Directorate of
Intelligence
Secret
International Boundary Digest:
Latin America
A Research Paper
This paper was prepared by
Office of Global Issues, with
contributions from CPAS. Comments and queries
are welcome and may be directed to the Chief,
Geography Division, OGI,
Secret
GI 86-10043
September 1986
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Preface
Information available
as of 31 March 1986
was used in this report.
International Boundary Digest:
Latin America
Secret
This Digest on Latin America is the second in a series of regional digests
that the Office of Global Issues plans to produce on international
boundaries that either are in dispute or suggest by their characteristics
potential for disagreement. The boundary information is categorized for
ease of use, particularly by the current intelligence officer, when fast-
breaking border incidents occur and charges and countercharges relating
to border issues are made:
? Border Basics. Description of the border's length, status of demarcation,
and its physical and cultural characteristics.
? Significant Developments. Summary of related issues as they affect
political relationships.
? Frontier History. Review of the history of the frontier and the diplomatic
evolution of the boundary.
? Current Developments and Outlook. Assessment of current border issues
and prospects for their resolution.
Other border factors?economic value or potential, ethnic mix, population
pressures?are also noted as they pertain to border issues. A chronology of
important dates affecting boundary status is included, and key boundary
references are cited. A map, or maps, accompanies each boundary
discussed to highlight the disputed sectors and territory and to illustrate
other factors and relationships.
Maritime boundary disputes involving nearby islands or coastal features
related to boundary controversies also are included in the Digest. This
publication, however, omits the more than 300 continental shelf and other
maritime boundaries, many yet to be delimited, between the world's 139
coastal states and discussion of other types of maritime boundary and
jurisdictional conflicts.'
The US Government rarely takes an official position on the validity of a
particular claim in a boundary dispute. Boundary representation on maps
produced by the US Government is complicated by map scale and the
amount of detail shown. Four categories of boundaries are normally
depicted on US Government maps: international boundary, indefinite
111
Secret
GI 86-10043
September 1986
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Secret
boundary, boundary in dispute, and other lines of separation. Maps of
disputed areas carry the disclaimer "Boundary representation is not
necessarily authoritative."
Background
Disputes over international boundaries are a common cause of internation-
al tension and conflict. Almost half of the world's nations share land
boundaries that are disputed. Additionally, disputes are sometimes revived
over boundaries long settled, particularly where regional political align-
ments are fluid and internal political conditions change rapidly. Boundary
issues are a major foreign policy concern of the United States. Disputes be-
tween nations friendly to the United States present sticky diplomatic
dilemmas in that each party to the dispute will at some point exert pressure
on Washington to support its view of the issue.
Fixed, geographically precise international boundaries are a recent devel-
opment in international relations. Although ancient political entities?
nomadic groups, tribes, and kingdoms?recognized geographical limits to
their authority and control, these limits were usually vague and shifting,
and located in distant and lightly populated frontier zones. Ancient borders
often followed easily recognized physical features such as mountain ranges,
deserts, and swamps; sometimes rivers served to separate different ethnic
groups. Some states, however, built walls or constructed other physical
barriers to define limits of control, regulate trade, and control the
movement of people and the establishment of settlements.
Modern international boundaries marked with pillars, cleared strips, and
other physical means of identification accompanied the evolution of the
nation-state system in Europe that commenced in the late 17th century.
Advances in mathematics, geodesy, surveying techniques, and cartography
permitted states to compile reliable maps of their territory and to more
accurately draw their boundaries. New nations were born, colonies were
established, and older nations that relied on distant buffer zones for their
borders gradually were forced, or chose to define, their boundaries with
greater precision. Increasing population pressures and the need for more
land led to the settlement of frontier lands and the necessity to establish
definite state limits.
iv
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary disputes originate from a variety of causes and for different
reasons. The degree of national passion and emotion aroused over a
boundary-territorial dispute is often wildly disproportionate to the size and
value of the area disputed. Occasionally, international boundaries, long
settled by treaty and demarcated, are used as a pretext?citing alleged
violations or "incidents"?to publicize deep-seated quarrels between states
and to inflame public opinion
Types of Boundary Disputes
The list of causes for border disputes is lengthy, but in general there are
three major situations that lead to disagreement:
? Disputes arising from the boundary marking itself, usually in the
interpretation of details and the lack of precise geographic data.
? Disputes as the consequence of territorial and economic expansionism.
? Boundary problems created from state succession and the desire to
renegotiate old boundary treaties.
In all boundary disputes the political-military strength of the state and
domestic politics have as much or more to do with the raising (or perhaps
reviving) of boundary-territorial questions than the legality and justifica-
tion for boundary adjustment. Once a dispute is aired and a nation presents
its case publicly, all types of evidence?good, bad, and irrelevant?are used
to convince other states of the justice of the particular nation's claim.
Occasionally disputes will be settled without rancor, but more often they
sputter along for years, even decades. Still others may go to a third country
or an international tribunal for arbitration and settlement, and at times
armed conflict helps settle the issue.
For example, the Argentina-Chile boundary originally was delimited on
the assumption that the line of high peaks also coincided with the
watershed. Later exploration revealed that the watershed was well east of
the line of highest peaks. Controversy over this and a later dispute over
which stream was the headwater stream that affected the boundary had to
be resolved through British arbitration.
Colonial boundaries defined by the European powers in the Americas,
Africa, and much of Asia from the 16th through the 19th centuries were
often hastily drawn and without benefit of detailed knowledge of the
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
terrain. This lack of precision frequently led to later disputes over the
boundary when the compilation of more accurate maps revealed the errors.
In some cases, colonial boundaries were drawn so as to keep intact
homogeneous ethnic and economic areas, but this was more an exception
than a rule.
The creation of new states, particularly in ex-colonial territories, frequently
is a cause of border problems. New states often attempt to redress old
grievances and improve their internal political standing through threats or
acts of belligerence against neighboring states. This may lead to the revival
of ancient claims and the demand to renegotiate old boundary treaties.
Boundary Terms
Terms used in boundary disputes and boundary making possess special
meanings that are often ignored or misapplied in press reports and in the
speeches of national leaders when referring to border problems. Some of
the more common terms and definitions are:
? Boundary. A line that marks the limits within which the state exercises
its sovereign rights.
? Border. Border is often used as a synonym for boundary, but the term has
a more generalized meaning of area or territory close to or in proximity
to the actual line of separation on the ground between the states. The
terms border zone and borderlands suggest the areal elasticity of the
word. See frontier.
? Delimitation. The determinination of where a boundary should be drawn
through use of verbal description, usually in a treaty or similar diplomat-
ic proceedings. The verbal description varies as to detail but contains
sufficient references to physical features?midline of a river, a water-
shed, a mountain crest?and to specific points identified by geographical
coordinates to permit a joint team of surveyors and technicians to
demarcate the boundary on the ground. A map showing the agreed
delimitation line usually is appended to the agreement.
Secret vi
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
? Demarcation. The act of marking a boundary on the ground, as defined
in the treaty or other document, by means of pillars, monuments, or other
types of markers. Demarcation teams provided for in the treaty usually
make or update ground surveys of the local topography. The end product
is a more detailed point-to-point description of the boundary (markers are
numbered or lettered consecutively) that is combined with one or more
large-scale maps showing the exact alignment and individual markers. To
be binding, the proceedings, resulting from the team's work and issued as
a protocol or annex to the original treaty, must be signed and ratified by
each nation.
? Frontier. A zone or area, usually of considerable length and breadth, that
indicates the approximate limits of political authority. No exact limit is
set to a frontier until a boundary agreement is reached and the boundary
is demarcated on the ground. The term frontier to denote a nation's
outward territories is not a synonym for the term boundary.
? Thalweg. The middle of a river channel, or its principal channel when
more than one exists, of navigable streams that form an international
boundary. Recent international law holds that the thalweg is the
boundary in navigable rivers, failing any special agreement to the
contrary. A thalweg boundary may divide the river into two very unequal
parts; the thalweg also may change because of flooding and other natural
causes. Nations usually have an agreement to resolve boundary questions
when rivers shift their courses. In nonnavigable streams, international
boundaries are usually defined by median lines. Detailed maps delineat-
ing the riverine boundaries are a standard part of the boundary
documentation.
? Territorial sea. A belt of sea and underlying seabed and subsoil adjacent
to the coast where the coastal state is sovereign. This sovereignty extends
to the airspace over the territorial sea. Under international law, the
maximum breadth of the territorial sea is 12 nautical miles (the US
claims a 3-nautical-mile breadth) from the baseline. In the territorial sea,
ships of all states enjoy the right of innocent passage, and, in internation-
al straits, ships and aircraft have the right of nonsuspendable transit
passage.
vii
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
? Continental shelf. As defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, a nation's continental shelf comprises the seabed and
subsoil seaward of the territorial sea extending to the outer edge of the
continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the
baseline, whichever is greater.
Secret viii
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Contents
Secret
Page
Preface
111
Background
iv
Types of Boundary Disputes
Boundary Terms
vi
Introduction
1
Argentina-Chile
3
Border Basics
5
Significant Developments
5
Frontier History
5
Current Developments and Outlook
6
Border Treaties and Key Dates
6
References
7
Belize-Guatemala
9
Border Basics
11
Significant Developments
11
Frontier History
11
Current Developments and Outlook
12
Border Treaties and Key Dates
13
References
14
Bolivia-Chile-Peru
15
Border Basics
17
Significant Developments
17
Frontier History
17
Current Developments and Outlook
19
Border Treaties and Key Dates
19
References
20
Colombia-Nicaragua
21
Border Basics
23
Significant Developments
23
Frontier History
24
Current Developments and Outlook
24
Border Treaties and Key Dates
25
References
25
Ecuador-Peru
27
ix
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Page
Border Basics
29
Significant Developments
29
Frontier History
29
Current Developments and Outlook
31
Border Treaties and Key Dates
31
References
32
El Salvador?Honduras
35
Border Basics
37
Significant Developments
37
Frontier History
37
Current Developments and Outlook
38
Border Treaties and Key Dates
39
References
40
Falkland Islands and Dependencies
41
Border Basics
43
Significant Developments
43
Frontier History
43
Current Developments and Outlook
44
Border Treaties and Key Dates
45
References
45
Guyana-Suriname
47
Border Basics
49
Significant Developments
49
Frontier History
49
Current Developments and Outlook
50
Border Treaties and Key Dates
50
References
51
Secret x
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Page
Venezuela-Guyana
53
Border Basics
55
Significant Developments
55
Frontier History
55
Current Developments and Outlook
56
Border Treaties and Key Dates
57
References
58
Other Latin American Boundaries and Territorial Disputes
59
Argentina-Bolivia
63
Argentina-Brazil
63
Argentina-Chile
65
Argentina-Paraguay
67
Argentina-Uruguay
67
Belize-Mexico
67
Bolivia-Brazil
69
Bolivia-Chile
69
Bolivia-Paraguay
69
Bolivia-Peru
71
Brazil-Colombia
71
Brazil?French Guiana
71
Brazil-Guyana
73
Brazil-Paraguay
73
Brazil-Peru
73
Brazil-Suriname
75
Brazil-Uruguay
75
Brazil-Venezuela
75
Colombia-Ecuador
77
xi
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Page
Colombia-Panama
77
Colombia-Peru
77
Colombia-Venezuela
79
Costa Rica?Nicaragua
79
Costa Rica?Panama
79
Cuba?United States (Guantanamo)
81
Dominican Republic?Haiti
81
El Salvador?Guatemala
81
French Guiana?Suriname
83
Guatemala-Mexico
83
Guatemala-Honduras
83
Honduras-Nicaragua
85
Secret
xii
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
International Boundary Digest:
Latin America
Introduction
Boundary and territorial disputes have been a major
cause of conflict in Latin America. Most states have
at times disagreed with their neighbors over the
location of common borders. Although many disputes
have been low-key and have remained dormant, oth-
ers have flared into armed clashes, occasionally lead-
ing or contributing to the outbreak of war.
Many disagreements arose from the way in which
Latin American boundaries evolved. Early Spanish
and Portuguese territorial grants often consisted of
simple, straight-line tracts extending from points
along the coast to vaguely described limits in the
interior. From these ill-defined tracts and from am-
biguously worded descriptions of rivers and other
natural features, the boundaries of colonial territories
were drawn. Attempts to fix boundaries accurately
were severely handicapped by a lack of geographical
knowledge and detailed maps, particularly for areas in
the interior. These imperfect boundaries were perpet-
uated in postcolonial times by the doctrine of uti
possidetis (retaining possession), proclaimed at the
Congress of Lima in 1848, whereby independent
states retained their colonial borders. Competing
claims to newly discovered or potential economic
resources in disputed areas complicated matters in
later times. More recently, disputes have arisen over
the division of maritime areas.
Latin American territorial disagreements have strong
nationalistic overtones, reinforced by the long and
bitter history of most disputes. Nationalist constraints
still limit political initiatives and inhibit compromise
in negotiations.
1
Secret
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Latin America
rar; DOMINICAN
AICA AU- SANTO ?:
ELMOPAN DOMINGO 0?
LIE. PRINCE
o North
ol
Caribbean Sea
GUATE CItALPA i Atlantic
,
j SAN SALVAD GUA Ocean
EL SAL/ADOR i
MANAGUA
I N JOS-----
..
North
Pacific
Ocean
COSTA
RICA AM
,
PANAMA
GEORGETOWN
PARAMARIBO
FrenchiGuiana
(FRANCE)
South
Pacific
Ocean
MONTEVIDEO
South
Atlantic
Ocean
(E) International boundary,
indefinite or in dispute
Scale 1:40,000,000
800 Kilorneters
Falirland isle AS
(Islas ,Klahdas)
Li
gqnt-nal
800 Miles
Secret
2
Boundary representation is
40 not necessarily authoritabve
800507 (A05735) 9-86
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
allqa?Bupuagiy
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Argentina-Chile
The design of this report permits updating of border information. Changes
and additions will be disseminated to holders of this Digest as necessary.
3
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Beagle Channel
ARGENTIN
Strait of Magellan
68
66
Punta Dungeness
unta Catalina
Bahia
Otway
Accord of 1881
divided island along
68?40'W
Punta
Arenas
Bahia
San Sebastian
San Mast&
South
Atlantic
Ocean
Bahia
0
Rio
Grande
ago
Blanco
54_
Oahu-alit.
Isla
Pic ton
South
Pacific
Ocean
Bahia
Nassau
International boundary
= = Maritime boundary a
Road
a Maritime boundary as defined in the Treaty of
Peace and Friendship, signed November 29,
1984 by Argentina and Chile.
Scale 1:2,600,000
50 Kilometers
0 50 Miles
68
Isla
Lennox
ISLAS
OLLASTON
Cabo
San Pio
Isla
Nueva
Chilern 1 Argentine
Exclusive J
Exclusive
Economic Economic
Zorie I Zone
cq:1
"S o u tih e r n
1Z I
Cape Horn sin e 56
Sea I,
I
????16 ?111111M MINIM .11M,Drake
I Maritime boundary and 77 Passage
i exclusive economic zones
I extend to 58?2101"S 1
t 66
Secret
4
800506 (A05705) 9-86
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Argentina-Chile (Beagle Channel)
Border Basics
The Beagle Channel is a 200-kilometer-long by 1- to
5-kilometer-wide passage between the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans separating Isla Grande, the principal
and largest island of Tierra del Fuego, from a
number of smaller islands that terminate at Cape
Horn some 125 kilometers to the south. The eastern
end of the channel is marked by a cape (Cabo San
Pio), south and southwest of which lie the three small
islands of Nueva, Lennox, and Picton whose owner-
ship was disputed for a century.
The islands are small (total area of about 350 square
kilometers), rocky and steep-sided (peak elevations
ranging from 200 to 300 meters), and covered with
varying amounts of scrub, grasses, and forests, de-
pending on exposure to the winds. The area is noted
for its stormy, almost constantly changing weather
and, in particular, for strong winds that are estimated
to be of moderate gale force (about 30 knots or more)
nearly a third of the time. Numerous streams de-
scend to the sea and along them at earlier times were
placer sites where gold was panned. With the possible
exception of nitrate deposits, the islands have no
resources of significance. Only a dozen or so Chilean
inhabitants, both permanent and temporary, live on
the islands.
Significant Developments
In October 1984 Vatican officials produced, after
several years of work, an Argentine-Chilean treaty
that resolved the long dispute over the Beagle Chan-
nel and related issues. The treaty contained sufficient
advantages to permit each side to accept its terms
without stirring up discontent. There was strong
popular support for the treaty in Argentina, expressed
in a popular referendum, and in May 1985 the formal
ratification ceremony held at the Vatican ended the
century-old dispute.
Frontier History
The European discovery of the Beagle Channel did
not occur until 1830, long after the initial explorations
of the southern coasts of South America. Named after
5
the British survey ship whose crew discovered the
east-west channel connection between the two oceans,
the channel and the general Tierra del Fuego area
were initially of little interest to either Chile or
Argentina because of the bleak physical conditions
and the presence of hostile Indians. In 1849 Chile
founded the port of Punta Arenas on the Strait of
Magellan, north of the Beagle Channel, which led to
an Argentine protest. Discussions produced no imme-
diate agreement, but in 1855 a friendship treaty
between the two nations was signed that charged
them to observe the boundaries existing in 1810 prior
to gaining their independence from Spain. This clause
was meaningless since the 1810 boundaries were
vaguely described and not precisely defined carto-
graphically.
In the early 1870s the discovery of guano and coal
deposits renewed interest and raised tensions. After
becoming embroiled in a war with Peru, Chile sought
an agreement with Argentina over the border issue.
An accord was signed in 1881 that provided for a
division of Isla Grande along the meridian of
68?40'W, as far south as the Beagle Channel. Ac-
cording to the treaty terms, the islands located to the
south of the Beagle Channel were to belong to Chile
and those to the east in the Atlantic to Argentina. In
an 1893 supplement to the treaty, it was stipulated
that Argentina would claim no territory on the Pacific
side and Chile none on the Atlantic side, using the
meridian passing through Cape Horn as a reference
guide. In 1902 another treaty was signed designating
the British Crown as arbiter in future border disputes
between the two countries. (At the time, sections of
the Argentina-Chile boundary farther north in the
Andes were in dispute.)
In 1915 Argentina formally protested Chilean posses-
sion of the three islands of Lennox, Nueva, and Picton
and their surrounding islets located at the eastern end
of the Beagle Channel. Argentina objected on the
grounds that the islands were east of the Channel,
hence in the Atlantic and under Argentina's jurisdic-
tion. Chile responded by citing original survey de-
scriptions that had established Cabo San Pio, located
about 40 kilometers east of the Argentine version of
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
the start of the channel, as the "entrance" and
consequently placing the islands south of the channel
and belonging to Chile.
The dispute remained low-key for many years, al-
though periodic attempts (1915, 1938, and 1955) at
arbitration were thwarted by a failure to ratify such
agreements. Starting in the 1960s, the Beagle Chan-
nel and the surrounding seas received greater atten-
tion because of the growing interest in oceanic re-
sources and the evolution of international law that
made ownership of islands valuable as base points
from which to construct limits of maritime jurisdic-
tion. Both countries moved to develop bases: Argenti-
na upgraded Ushuaia on the north side of the Channel
from an outpost to a sizable town with an airfield,
naval base, and port, including storage areas; and, on
a much smaller scale, Chile improved Puerto Wil-
liams on the south side of the Beagle Channel.
Tensions increased, and in 1971 Britain, according to
the terms of the 1902 agreement, was asked to
arbitrate. After consultations, London's proposal to
refer the case to the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) was accepted. In 1977 the five judges that made
up the arbitration panel handed down a decision. It
was quickly ratified by Great Britain and passed to
the two governments. The award confirmed Chile's
ownership of the disputed islands, set the boundary in
the Beagle Channel in the middle, and held that
Chile's title to the islands gave it jurisdiction over the
"appurtenant waters and continental shelf and adja-
cent submarine areas.... "The last point was a bitter
blow to Argentina's position that Chile was a "Paci-
fic" power and Argentina an "Atlantic" power and to
Argentina's use of the 1893 treaty supplement to the
1881 accord as the basis for its case. Chile quickly
announced it would "observe the conditions" of the
award, but Argentina stated it would need time to
review the decision. In January 1978 Argentina de-
clared null and void Britain's acceptance of the ICJ
award and prepared to go to war to gain possession of
the disputed islands.
After considerable tension and narrowly averting a
war, the two countries agreed in December 1978 to
accept the Vatican's offer to mediate. The meditation
efforts involved lengthy discussions and presentation
Secret
of evidence, and it was not until October 1984 that
Vatican officials announced a settlement in the form
of a lengthy "peace and friendship" treaty. The treaty
was based on numerous compromises. Chile's sover-
eignty over the disputed islands was upheld, but its
claims to maritime areas that overlapped those of
Argentina were drastically reduced. In delineating a
maritime boundary dividing the seas where each
country would have exclusive economic rights, the
treaty drafters substituted the term "Southern Zone
Sea" for "Atlantic" thus finessing the "two-ocean"
issue. In Argentina, a national referendum was held
that overwhelmingly approved the treaty, although
the Argentine Senate gave only narrow approval in
agreeing to ratify the accord. Chile also agreed to the
treaty, although there was some public grumbling
over the compromises made, particularly to the re-
duced maritime areas left the Chileans.
Current Developments and Outlook
The formal exchange of the instruments of ratifica-
tion (May 1985) appears to have ended the long and
bitter Beagle Channel dispute. Switzerland's accep-
tance of the role of arbiter and the forming (July
1985) of a binational commission to facilitate and
improve economic cooperation are favorable signs for
future peaceful relations.
Border Treaties and Key Dates
1830
Beagle Channel is discovered by British survey ships.
1849
Chile establishes Punta Arenas on Strait of Magellan;
Argentina protests.
1855
Argentine-Chilean treaty agrees to recognize bound-
aries as they existed in 1810.
1881
Argentine-Chilean boundary treaty divides Isla Gran-
de, using a meridian as boundary and stating islands
south of Beagle Channel belong to Chile; those east,
to Argentina.
6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
1893
Supplementary accord to 1881 treaty states that
Argentina could claim no territory on Pacific side nor
Chile on Atlantic side of meridian passing through
Cape Horn.
1902
Treaty assigns Britain role of arbiter in Argentine-
Chilean territorial disputes.
1915
Argentina formally protests Chilean occupation of
Picton, Nueva, and Lennox at eastern end of Beagle
Channel.
1971
Increased tensions over Beagle Channel issue results
in agreement to call upon Great Britain to arbitrate;
London refers case to International Court of Justice.
1977
Britain ratifies unanimous decision from ICJ that
recognizes Chilean ownership of disputed islands and
that generally supports Chilean positions. Chilean
agrees with findings; Argentina defers decision.
1978
Argentina rejects decision (January) and declares it
null and void. Presidents of two countries meet to
reconcile differences.
1979
Declaration signed (January) by which two nations
agree to defuse situation and to accept offer of
Vatican to mediate.
1984
Vatican award (October) is accepted, approved by
popular referendum in Argentina, and ratified
(though narrowly) by Argentine Senate.
1985
Exchange of ratifications (May) takes place at Vati-
can.
Reverse Blank
7
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Bistuawn9?azllag
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret '
Belize-Guatemala
The design of this report permits updating of border information. Changes
and additions will be disseminated to holders of this Digest as necessary.
9
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
lize-Guatemala Border
-
Orange
U
88
-7---- = marsh '
MEXICO
/ Walk
? ,
-1
International boundary
Tintal
-
.,..
'
Road
Camp
..
Guinea Grass ngrove
. ,
477 i
Scale 1:1,400,000
?
0 20 Kilometers
,
_ r
I , ,
0 20 Miles
_
ma sh ?
- sr-
- -
-- ?
- ? ?
?
-
Gallo
? --- ?, ,,
e . ..... Hill .rdr.
_
-
seasonally _-_-_-7
inundated. -_- -
-
- _7--
-
-
Tilt
- - - - -
:-_-_-
- - - - - - Melchor
_ __ _ _-
Logo ? ? de Me-nto
Paten Itza -_-_ _ _
----
.Jug
- -
N.
- u ?_- _ ? \*, St.
? -- .0 0 - Georges
:1 314.;=.7.-. ,r 0 -........
- ...7-Ar
- - Belize fil 6 aY
_
ze -...z._' City
je 0 on e
0
Guatemara
0
BELMOPAN o
o_
o
ean
e
Mullionipts Caribbo Sea
BELIZE 17
--
_
_
lIIIIIIPUP :-
Flores
_
- -
_ _
- -
-
'---GU EMALA
- -
- -
- - -
- ?
seasonally - -
inundated
.
-
1-57-- - -...,=, ....
_-_ -
a
-
o-
- _
Poptan
ormer
teinalan
'torial
"rn
/
12.ailamete
1
Millioneri
,
San Antonio
,Puebio-4
Vieia* 4,
Current
Steen Cree
Oangriga
o
0 z)
* o ?0
? o
0 Barrier
vstee.vvr.fte - Reef
00
? ,
? . o0 c.
ek o
?i. , Ranguana
'Toted
Cay? '
:t
Dis ic
an toy
16.15' - -
Sapodilla,
fayto
Rive r unta Gorda *
Belizean-proposed 3-mile " Gulf
Guatemal
r territorial sea limit - of 16
16
G
.?------ -, 4p-z-
Rto - r ,.....,?'Sar shin
claim-.......
claim-..
at
, River ;.$
Honduras
Bahia de?
Modps
;Mendez
,
_.--
o
Amatique
Livingston
Puerto Barrios
Go/lete ,--
Secret
10
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Border Basics
The 266-kilometer-long Belize-Guatemala boundary
was defined by a treaty between Great Britain and
Guatemala, signed in 1859. In accordance with treaty
provisions, a joint boundary commission met during
the period 1860-61 and placed 31 markers, of which
the most important were those marking points where
the boundary intersected the Belize River and the
River Sarstoon. In 1928-30 another joint commission
inspected the boundary, verified the location of the
markers, and erected new concrete pillars where the
boundary intersected the two rivers. Additional aux-
iliary markers were reportedly placed. In the late
1950s the boundary alignment was rechecked.
The Belize-Guatemala boundary extends due south
from its tripoint with the Mexico border (1749'N)
for 89 kilometers in a straight line to its intersection
with the Belize River. This segment crosses rolling,
limestone terrain covered by dense tropical forest or
scrub. Except where the Belize to Guatemala High-
way crosses the boundary, this northern border area
is essentially unpopulated. The southern section of
the boundary, about 137 kilometers in length, is also
a straight line, but aligned slightly west of due south.
There are a few settlements near where a Guatemalan
road approaches the border at the River Sarstoon,
but otherwise this section of the border is also largely
devoid of people. The boundary crosses rugged, for-
ested hills and mountains; in some places elevations
reach 1,000 meters. At the River Sarstoon the bound-
ary turns east and follows the midchannel of the river
for about 40 kilometers to the Gulf of Honduras.
This section of the border is low lying, covered by
forests or swamps, and virtually uninhabited.
Belize-Guatemala
Significant Developments
Belize, prior to gaining its independence in September
1981, had completed talks with Britain and Guatema-
la that had resulted in a tripartite agreement conclud-
ed in March 1981, termed the Heads of Agreement.
Of the 16 topics or points of discussion agreed to, the
most important were use by Guatemala of Ranguana
and Sapodilla Cays, located a short distance off the
11
Secret
coast; unimpeded Guatemalan access to the sea;
improvement of the road from Belize City to the
Guatemalan border; and upon notification of clarify-
ing agreements, Guatemalan recognition of Belize as
an independent state. Negotiations (April-July) based
on the Heads of Agreement foundered on Guatema-
lan insistence of unlimited rights in perpetuity to the
cays and proposals to establish naval facilities on
them, an interpretation of the agreement rejected by
the British and Belizeans. The proposed Guatemalan
use of the cays also prompted a protest from Hondu-
ras, which reasserted its claim to the Sapodilla Cays
and the division of the surrounding sea implicit in its
claim. When Britain announced that Belize would be
granted independence in September, despite failure to
agree on the issues raised in the Heads of Agreement,
Guatemala refused to recognize Belize and renewed
its claim to the entire territory.
Between 1980 and 1984 there have been several
incidents of Guatemalan settlers found clearing land
on the Belizean side of the boundary, mostly in the
area near Pueblo Viejo and southward (from 16?15'N
to 16?00'N). Different large-scale maps covering the
border area vary upward of 4 kilometers in their
portrayal of the boundary alignment. Belize has pro-
posed a joint border mapping survey to clarify the
boundary discrepancy.
Frontier History
The dispute over Belize, called British Honduras until
independence, had its origin in the 17th century with
the founding of a settlement by English timbercutters
and their slaves at the mouth of the Belize River. Log
cutting was profitable, and the settlement grew. Over
the following 150 years, there were periodic attacks
by the Spanish who objected to this non-Spanish
enclave in their Central American territories. It was
not until the Treaty of Paris (1763) that Spain
recognized the rights of British settlers to engage in
the logwood industry, although not renouncing Span-
ish sovereignty over the area. Spanish attacks, howev-
er, continued until 1798 when Spain was defeated in a
small naval battle off the coast.
When the Spanish colonies overthrew the Spanish
colonial regime in 1821, Mexico and Guatemala
became independent and both claimed Belize under
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
rights of sovereignty passing from the Spanish Crown
to its successor states. Mexico and Great Britain
agreed by treaty (1893) to delimit the British Hondur-
as?Mexico boundary, but Guatemala's claims contin-
ued and were based on the area controlled by the
captaincy-general of Guatemala under Spanish rule
that included within its territory Guatemala, El Sal-
vador, Honduras, and the territory of Belize. Al-
though the frontier agreement of 1859, which defined
the border between British Honduras and Guatemala,
was supposed to end the dispute, one of the clauses in
the agreement called for construction of a road (Arti-
cle 7) linking the two countries. Various misunder-
standings and disagreements over the respective con-
tributions of Britain and Guatemala in the
construction of the road eventually resulted in dispute.
In time, Guatemala claimed that failure to implement
Article 7 was entirely Britain's fault and justified a
renunciation of the treaty, including the provisions of
Article 1 that defined the boundary. In discussions
and notes exchanged over this issue, Britain rejected
the Guatemalan interpretation of events and its invali-
dation of the border treaty.
After World War II, Great Britain suggested that the
dispute be referred to the International Court of
Justice for resolution?a proposal rejected by Guate-
mala. In 1965 a joint British-Guatemalan request that
the United States act as mediator was accepted, but
the proposed solution (1968) did not call for Belizean
sovereignty and thus was rejected by Belizean offi-
cials?a stand supported by Great Britain.
Informal talks commenced in the early 1970s, were
broken off when Britain reinforced its military forces
in Belize, then resumed briefly in 1975. By then
pressure began to build through resolutions passed by
the United Nations General Assembly reaffirming
Belizean rights to self-determination and indepen-
dence and calling for negotiations. New talks began in
1976 and continued intermittently until Belize was
granted independence in 1981.
Current Developments and Outlook
Although Guatemala's claim to Belize has always
been bolstered by military preparations and deploy-
ments in the border area, Belize has countered by
requesting the continued presence of British military
forces amounting to 1,800 personnel, plus aircraft, to
Secret
bolster Belize's tiny defense force. Several formal and
informal tripartite meetings held since 1982 between
Belize, Guatemala, and British representatives, have
produced a narrowing of claims, but no agreements.
Guatemala, which initially claimed about one-sixth of
Belize in these talks (Toledo, the southernmost dis-
trict), has scaled its territorial demands to a more
modest proposal of a strip of land some 12 kilometers
wide along the coast running north from the River
Sarstoon to the Moho River. This would give Guate-
mala unambiguous sovereignty over access to the Gulf
of Honduras. Belize at one time put forward a
proposal for joint development of a strip of territory
about 3 kilometers wide on either side of the River
Sarstoon boundary, a proposal rejected by Guatema-
la. Belize has attempted to accommodate Guatemalan
demands for unimpeded access to the Gulf of Hondu-
ras by proposing to limit its territorial seas to a 3-mile
limit from the River Sarstoon north to the Moho
River. A line drawn from this point to another point 3
miles south of the Sapodilla Cays would provide
maritime access for Guatemala. Guatemala, however,
holds to its demand for acquisition of a strip of
territory along the Belizean coast.
Guatemalan claims to Belize, however, have moderat-
ed with the adoption of softer and more flexible
language in the constitution adopted by Guatemala's
Constituent Assembly in 1985. The claim of sover-
eignty over Belize, stated in 1965 and 1982 constitu-
tions, has been dropped and replaced by wording
stating: "The executive remains empowered to make
efforts to resolve the situation of the rights of Guate-
mala with respect to Belize ... " subject to a referen-
dum on any agreement reached. This de facto accep-
tance of Belize's independence and right to a separate
existence should assist negotiators once talks are
resumed. Guatemala also is now under civilian rule
for the first time in many years, and President Cerezo
is more willing to resolve the dispute than previous
military regimes. Nevertheless, major differences re-
main and any resolution of the dispute likely will
involve prolonged discussions and hard bargaining.
Political factors weigh heavily in the actions of both
countries. The longstanding claim of sovereignty over
the entire territory of Belize makes it difficult for
Guatemala to negotiate without some face-saving
12
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
territorial concession. Belize, as the much smaller,
militarily weaker, and economically dependent of the
two countries, believes that its offers have been fair.
Although joint development, lease, or condominium
arrangements are possible, any ceding of Belizean
territory would be extremely difficult to sell domesti-
cally. The inability to agree at the New York meet-
ings held in February 1985 postponed further sub-
stantive talks until sometime after the Guatemalan
elections in November 1985 and the installation of a
new government in January 1986.
Border Treaties and Key Dates
1798
British settlers in Belize are victorious over Spanish in
naval battle at St. Georges Cay; traditional Belizean
date of independence.
1821
Spanish colonies achieve independence and territories
under Spanish Crown accede to them.
1859
Treaty is signed (30 April) between Britain and
Guatemala delimiting boundary (Article 1) and pro-
viding for commissioners to mark the boundary (Arti-
cles 2 and 3).
1861
Commissioners meet and place markers at critical
points (at Belize River and River Sarstoon).
1862
Belize is given colonial status as British Honduras.
1863
Supplementary convention directs Britain to pay Gua-
temala for building road connecting Belize City with
the capital of Guatemala. (The 1859 treaty, Article 7,
called for joint construction of said road.) Guatemala
does not ratify convention.
1867
Britain announces that Guatemala's failure to ratify
1863 convention released Britain from obligations of
1859 treaty; Guatemala responds by stating it was not
bound to treaty and that Britain had lost its sovereign
rights to Belize territory.
Reverse Blank
13
1928-30
Joint commissioners are appointed to check boundary
markers; new concrete markers are placed on south
side of Belize River, near Garbutt's Fall, and on north
bank of River Sarstoon. Both governments ratify
boundary commission's report.
1940
Britain offers choice of three methods of arbitration,
but Guatemala rejects offers and repeats assertion
that 1859 treaty is null and void.
1946-48
Efforts to have International Court of Justice hear the
case fails.
1965
Britain and Guatemala request US Government
mediation.
1968-69
After many drafts and countless meetings, final draft
treaty is published; British Honduras rejects final
draft.
1970-78
Periodic negotiations make little progress; Britain
reinforces its military garrison following Guatemalan
troop movements (1971) near border.
1980
Tripartite talks begin in May; UN General Assembly
votes 139-0(11 November) that Belize should be
granted independence by end of 1981.
1981
Agreement is reached (Britain, Guatemala, and Be-
lize) on 16 March?the so-called Heads of Agree-
ment?on topics to be discussed to resolve the Belize
controversy. Talks founder on interpretation (16 July)
of the document; Belize is granted independence (21
September); and Guatemala reasserts claim to all of
Belize.
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
1982-85
Periodic discussions are held in attempt to resolve
controversy; some progress is made in narrowing
differences and defining specifics. Guatemala's Con-
stituent Assembly (May 1985) drops outright claim to
Belize in draft constitution, substituting and adopting
wording that calls for efforts to resolve Guatemalan
rights to Belize.
Secret 14
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Bolivia-Chile-Peru
The design of this report permits updating of border information. Changes
and additions will be disseminated to holders of this Digest as necessary.
15 Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
25X1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Bolivia-Chile-Peru Border
6
Ame
70"20" 70?00'
69?40'
esaguader
Mataran
MoHondo
PERU
17?40'
Villa
I dustrial
Tacna Department
awarded to
-18?Perts71929?
Territory occupied An"
A
by Chile
1883-1929
-22
-24
Bolivian- ?
or
hile,
Huacha
'huriiia
8?20'-
sagua
Iquique
Territory lost by
Peru, Treaty of Ancon,
1883
ew Chilean
unda
w
the Pacific
_1'883
T.,FRpaca
rovinca
cd to Chile
1 83 ?-
,
ell
Vista
Scale 1:2,000,000
25 Kilometers
1 .1
25 Miles
Bolivia-Chile
boundary
delineated 1904-05
San.
Pablo
Tocopilla
Territory lost by
1
Bolivia during the
War of the Pacific
1883
Mejillones
\,
South
Pacific
Ocean
70P0' 3 4/70?10'
PERU E
piiiposed sea-
8 0 access
corridor
Peruvian-
proposed
joint economic
development area.
1976
South Pacific Ocean
Scale 1:750,000
0 8 Kilometer
0 8 Milas
CHILE I
rico_ 18.301--
Antofagas
!oration
Taltal
International boundary
Railroad
Road
-26?22'
Chailara
Scale 1:6,200,000
0 100 Kilorneters
I ' ' '
100 Miles
72
Secret
16
800504 (A05703) 9-96
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Bolivia-Chile-Peru
Border Basics
The Chile-Peru and Bolivia-Chile boundaries define
territorial arrangements that resulted from the War
of the Pacific (1879-84), causing Bolivia to lose its
coastal territory and shrinking Peru's coastal lands.
A readjustment of the boundary, specifically Boli-
via's attempt to obtain a corridor to the sea, has been
a contentious issue ever since.
The Chile-Peru border area, where future territorial
revisions may occur, consists of a 160-kilometer-long
boundary extending from the Pacific inland to the
border tripoint with Bolivia. The boundary was de-
limited by treaty in 1929 and demarcated the follow-
ing year with 80 markers. The treaty alignment
places the boundary, depending on local terrain con-
ditions, approximately 10 kilometers north of the
Arica?La Paz railroad. The alignment of the bound-
ary is not disputed.
The border terrain near the coast consists of extreme-
ly arid country (the Atacama Desert)?cut by inter-
mittent stream valleys (quebradas)?then abruptly
changes inland to the rapidly ascending western
slopes of the Andes where elevations of from 4,000 to
5,000 meters are reached. The final 27 kilometers of
the boundary is a straight line across the Altiplano?
a high mountain plateau in the Andes. The border
area is sparsely populated; many sections are unin-
habited. The major city near the border is the
Chilean port of Arica, about 15 kilometers south of
the boundary.
The 860-kilometer-long Bolivia-Chile boundary ex-
tends north to south between border tripoints with
Peru and Argentina. The boundary was defined by a
1904 treaty, modified by a 1907 protocol, and is fixed
by 96 points. The boundary alignment follows either
straight-line segments drawn from these points, which
are mostly mountain peaks, or follows prominent
ridge lines.
The border lies along the western margin of the
3,600-meter high plain, the Altiplano, but considera-
bly higher, snowcapped peaks upward to 5,000 meters
also mark the border area. Many of the high moun-
tains are flanked by shallow, saline lakes and exten-
sive salt flats. A few roads and trails cross the
sparsely populated and desolate frontier. Settlements
usually are in conjunction with mining activities and
in areas where cultivation is possible in irrigated
valleys or near grazing lands.
Significant Developments
During 1976-77, Bolivia's primary foreign policy ob-
jective of regaining access to the Pacific was within
reach in the aftermath of a Chilean proposal to grant
Bolivia a land corridor to the sea. These hopes were
dashed, however, by the stringent concessions de-
manded by Chile?in particular a requirement for a
territorial concession elsewhere?and by a later Peru-
vian counterproposal that introduced additional terri-
torial and jurisdictional complications. Peru's compli-
ance in any territorial readjustment in this area is
stipulated by a provision of the agreement signed in
1929 between Peru and Chile. Despite talks that
17
became deadlocked in 1977, which led Bolivia to
break off diplomatic relations with Chile in 1978, the
proposals provide a framework for future discussions
and eventual settlement of the dispute. In 1985
Bolivia introduced the issue at the Organization of
American States (OAS) and the United Nations in an
attempt to regain momentum toward a settlement.
Frontier History
No common boundary had been defined when Bolivia
and Chile attained their independence from Spain
early in the 19th century. Bolivia claimed a strip of
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
coastal territory extending from the Rio Loa
(22?00'S) to the Rio Salado (26?20'S) corresponding
to part of the Atacama?the barren coastal desert
thought at the time to possess little value?but includ-
ing the port of Antofagasta. When valuable deposits
of nitrates (from guano deposits) were discovered,
Chile advanced (1842) its claims northward overlap-
ping those of Bolivia. Periodic discussions between the
two countries over a border settlement made little
progress until talks, begun much earlier, were re-
sumed in 1858. A border settlement was reached
(1866) establishing the boundary at the 24th parallel.
The terms of the agreement also provided that the two
countries would share equally in the revenues from
nitrate extraction in an area extending from 23?S to
25?S.
In 1874 a dispute arose when Bolivia attempted to
levy an additional tax on a Chilean nitrate company
operating in the joint revenue area. Efforts to resolve
the problem failed, and in 1879 Chile declared war on
Bolivia. When Chile's request to Peru for a statement
of neutrality was not forthcoming (Peru and Bolivia
had earlier signed a secret military agreement), Chile
declared war on Peru as well. Despite manpower
advantages possessed by the Peruvian-Bolivian alli-
ance, Chile's modern military forces quickly defeated
a combined Peruvian-Bolivian Army. The Chilean
fleet controlled the seas and blockaded the ports, and
in 1881 Chilean troops seized Peru's capital, Lima,
placing it under occupation through 1883 until a
peace treaty was negotiated.
By terms of the Treaty of Ancon (1883), Peru ceded to
Chile "in perpetuity and unconditionally" the prov-
ince of Tarapaca. The fate of the two northern
districts of Arica and Tacna, however, was postponed
for 10 years, after which a plebiscite was to be held to
determine ownership.
Although Chile and Bolivia signed a truce (1884)
leaving Chile in occupation of former Bolivian territo-
ry north from the old boundary along the 24th
parallel to the Rio Loa, the two countries were unable
to reach agreement on a peace treaty until 1904. This
agreement confirmed Chile's sovereignty over Boli-
via's former Atacama territory and provided for
delimitation of their common boundary in the Andes.
Secret
The treaty also called for Chile to construct a railroad
from the port of Arica to La Paz, but allowed Bolivia
full and free rights of commercial transit through
Chilean territory to Pacific ports. Peru protested the
treaty and warned that its own rights to the Tacna
and Arica districts were not abrogated by the 1904
agreement.
Plans for a plebiscite in Tacna and Arica began in
1883, but years of negotiation between Chile and Peru
came to naught when the legislative bodies in the two
countries could not agree to various proposals. During
the 1920s the United States attempted unsuccessfully
to arbitrate. Finally a suggestion by the United States
(1928) to resume direct negotiations?diplomatic rela-
tions had been severed since 1910?was accepted and
an agreement reached (1929) that left Arica to Chile
but returned Tacna to Peru. The treaty provided for a
mixed boundary commission to demarcate the bound-
ary. An important complementary protocol stated
that neither state without the consent of the other
could cede all or any part of the territory that by
treaty terms remained under their respective sover-
eignties.
Since Bolivia's defeat in the "Pacific War," successive
governments have pressed for some form of agreement
that would restore Bolivia's access to the Pacific.
Although Bolivia narrowed its options in 1937 when it
signed a treaty with Peru relinquishing future claims
to Peruvian territory, diplomatic initiatives continued.
Following improved relations between Bolivia and
Chile after the overthrow of the Allende regime in
1973, Chile proposed (December 1975) that a land
corridor under Bolivian sovereignty be extended from
Bolivia to the sea and from the Peru border south to
include the Arica?La Paz railroad. In return, Chile
demanded territorial compensation equal to the terri-
tory lost in forming the corridor, that Bolivia pay for
the Chilean section of the railroad and drop its
objections to Chilean use of the Rio Lauca waters,
and that the territory exchanged would be demilita-
rized. Bolivia, though happily accepting the corridor
idea and a port on the Pacific, objected to all of
Chile's demands, especially to any territorial conces-
sion and Chilean use of the Laucan waters.
18
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Peru, apparently surprised by Chile's offer, made a
counterproposal late in 1976. Although accepting the
corridor concept, Peru suggested that Bolivian sover-
eignty stop short of the ocean and that the area along
the coast and inland for a short distance become an
economic development area to be administered jointly
by Peru, Chile, and Bolivia. In addition, a trinational
port authority would be established for Arica.
Chile rejected Peru's counterproposal and, despite
attempts over the next year to find common grounds,
the talks broke off in 1977. Unhappy over the lack of
progress, Bolivia severed relations with Chile in 1978.
Current Developments and Outlook
In 1984 President Betancur of Colombia proposed
that Chile and Bolivia resume talks. Despite some
diplomatic contacts and probing in late 1984 and
early 1985, discussions were broken off without visible
signs of progress. Periodic resolutions at meetings of
the Organization of American States and expressions
of support for Bolivia's aspirations to gain access to
the sea have not moved the two countries toward
serious negotiations. Chile rejects and does not recog-
nize OAS authority concerning a territorial issue. In
late 1985 the Bolivian Government announced its
readiness to resume negotiations with Chile.
In late 1985 the Foreign Ministers of Chile and Peru
met and made some progress in a "final" implementa-
tion of the terms of their 1929 treaty under which
Peru lost the province of Arica. Treaty provisions
called for Chile to construct for Peruvian use dock
facilities at Arica and a customs house, construction
of which are under way, and a railroad station over
which a dispute continues as to its location. A factor
inhibiting progress is Chile's fear of development of a
Peruvian enclave in Arica. Additional bilateral talks
are planned by the two countries.
Despite a lack of progress in the Bolivian maritime
access problem, when talks resume they will probably
be built on the proposals made during the 1976-77
discussions. These proposals include ceding a corridor
to Bolivia, building a port north of Arica for Bolivia's
use, and joint development and administration?or
possibly international authority?over the port and
19
immediate coastal area. A critical factor to the suc-
cess of an agreement reached by negotiators will be
public support for the particular proposal. Bolivian
leaders discovered, for example, that while an over-
whelming majority of Bolivians support the goal of a
corridor, unified public approval for a particular
formula, particularly one involving territorial compen-
sation in exchange, is far from certain. Bolivia's
strong objections to ceding territory to Chile in ex-
change for a corridor was a major stumblingblock to
progress in the 1976-77 talks. Peru also was reluctant
to agree to a corridor for Bolivia in an area once part
of Peru. Although a settlement may have some eco-
nomic consequences, for example, trinational develop-
ment plans for the port area and its hinterland, the
heart of the dispute remains one of nationalism and
pride over territorial changes caused by war.
Border Treaties and Key Dates
1818-24
Chile, Bolivia, and Peru secure independence from
Spain. Bolivia occupies a portion of the Atacama
between Peru and Chile.
1842
Discovery of nitrates causes Chile to claim part of the
Atacama controlled by Bolivia.
1866
Following negotiations over many years, Bolivia and
Chile sign border treaty setting border at 24?S but
with each country to share equally in revenue from
nitrate mining between 23?S to 25?S.
/873
Peru and Bolivia secretly sign military alliance treaty.
/874
Bolivia places additional taxes on Chilean companies
operating in common area in the Atacama.
1879
Failure to resolve taxation issue causes Chile to
declare war on Bolivia and, later, on Peru when La
Paz did not issue a statement of neutrality.
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
1879-81 1985
Chile defeats joint Bolivian-Peruvian Army, block- Bolivia raises issue in the United Nations and in the
ades ports, and occupies Lima. annual meeting of the OAS.
1883
Peru and Chile sign treaty of Ancon, Peru cedes
Tarapaca district to Chile; sovereignty over the
Tacna-Arica districts is to be decided after 10 years
by plebiscite.
1884
Bolivia and Chile sign truce ending war of the Pacific.
Chilean forces withdraw from Lima.
1904
Bolivian-Chilean treaty is signed, reestablishing
peace, confirming Chilean ownership of Bolivian Ata-
cama territory, and providing for demarcation of
Bolivia-Chile border.
1929
Following lengthy, off-and-on-again negotiations,
Chile and Peru agree to divide territory?Arica to
Chile and Tacna returned to Peru. Provision in treaty
states that no territory originally belonging to Peru
could be ceded to a third country without Peru's
agreement.
1975
Chile proposes to grant Bolivia a land corridor to
Pacific in exchange for Bolivian concessions.
1976
Peru makes counterproposal of economic development
zone on coast and joint control of port of Arica.
1976-77
Talks are held but are inconclusive.
1978
Bolivia breaks off diplomatic relations with Chile over
failure to reach agreement.
1984
Colombia attempts to reactivate talks, but prelimi-
nary discussions break off without visible progress.
Secret 20
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
satuttaIN-Blquiolop
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
,
.,
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Colombia-Nicaragua
The design of this report permits updating of border information. Changes
and additions will be disseminated to holders of this Digest as necessary.
21 Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Colombian-Nicaraguan Islands
4
13"
?12
Caribbe
Isla de
Providencia
Southwest Cay
Claimed by United States and Colombia until 1972
treaty whereby US relinquished claims (ratified
1981). US fishing rights still retained in vicinity of
banks.
an Sea
Colombia and Nicaragua sign treaty,
1928, by which Nicaragua re-
nounces claims to San Andres and
Providencia, and Colombia re-
nounces old claims to Nicaragua's
Mosquito Coast. Nicaragua voids
1928 treaty in 1980.
Isla de
San Andres
reel
Cayos de
Este Sudeste
Cayos de
Albuquerque
Roncador,,,
Cay
reef
Roncador
Bank
Scale 1:2,000,000
5,0 Kilometers
40 Miles
81
12
80i
85
---Nr" ?
0 JAMAICA 7
Britain occupied
quito Coast
and claimed Mos-
during first half of the
6F-ION1AS 19th century;
relinquished claims
by treaties
with Nicaragua: 1860,-r-15,
?
Puerta . 1894, and 1905.
CaNuas
Mosquito
a
P UA 0/0a de
Coast Provide
/s/a de
cia
El . San Andras
Bluff
Santa
Marta
Caribbean
...
Sea Barranquil
' Cartagena
,
0
CO
RICA
PA
; 0 - IT rb
Scale 1 18,000,000 '
A M A
200 Kilometets
:
/
0 i 200 Miles 80
13
Secret
800500 (A95699) 9-86
22
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Colombia-Nicaragua
Border Basics
Several small Caribbean islands, cays, and banks are
in dispute between Colombia and Nicaragua. The
islands, which together form the San Andres and
Providencia Archipelago, are only 225 to 260 kilome-
ters east of Nicaragua but about 600 to 700 kilome-
ters north of Colombia. All of the islands are small
but the physical character, habitability, and use of
each varies:
? Quita Sueno Bank is an extensive underwater reef
about 45 kilometers from north to south and with a
variable width; the tiny bits of "land" on the bank
are reportedly submerged at high tide, according to
US officials who examined the area in 1970 for the
purpose of establishing a legal position in prepara-
tion for future maritime claims.
? Serrana Bank, about 100 kilometers due east of
Quita Sueno, is also an extensive coral reef some 30
kilometers in length and possessing two cays.
Southwest Coy, about 2.5 square kilometers in
area, traditionally has provided transient shelter
for fishermen from San Andres who collect birds'
eggs and guano. An unmanned navigation light is
located on the cay. North Cay is smaller and lower.
? Roncador Bank is located about 75 kilometers
south of Serrana. It has a small cay on which there
is an unmanned navigation light.
? Isla de Providencia (13? 20'N 81? 23'W) is about 7
kilometers by 5 kilometers in dimension and sur-
rounded by dangerous reefs. The island is hilly and
rugged, with elevations to 600 meters, and largely
forested. There are limited tourist facilities. A
small airstrip is located on the northern end of the
island.
? Cayos de Albuquerque (Albuquerque Cay) and
Cayos de Este Sudeste (Southeast Cay) are located
35 and 25 kilometers, respectively, from Isla de
San Andres. Albuquerque Cay is large enough to
support a detachment of soldiers; Southeast Cay
has a navigation light.
? Isla de San Andres, a long, narrow island about 14
by 4 kilometers, is surrounded by treacherous coral
reefs. Although the terrain is less rugged than that
of Providencia, San Andres is still moderately hilly
(elevations to 80 meters) and forested. The popula-
tion is divided between English-speaking blacks and
Spanish-speaking Colombians, the latter found
mainly in the urban and tourist areas in the
northern end of the island. The main products of
the island are coconuts, vegetable oil, and oranges.
Tourism is the major legitimate business?the is-
land also has a long history as a center for smug-
gling, including drug trafficking?and there are a
number of hotels and related facilities in the urban-
ized northern end of the island. A modern airfield
nearby is used by several airlines that cater to the
tourist trade. The combined population of San
Andres and Providencia is estimated at well over
20,000, with the majority of the people on San
Andres.
Significant Developments
The dispute over the islands and cays of the San
Andres and Providencia Archipelago, presumably re-
solved by treaties signed in 1928 (Colombia-Nicara-
gua) and 1972 (Colombia?United States) was re-
opened by Nicaragua in December 1979. Nicaragua's
unilateral abrogation of the 1928 treaty (February
23
1980) led Colombia to recall its Ambassador for
consultation, improve its defensive capabilities over
the area, and publicize the legal basis for its occupa-
tion of the islands.
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
25X1
25X1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Frontier History
The Nicaraguan-Colombian dispute over the San
Andres and Providencia Archipelago is a mix of
historical and political factors involving not only the
two nations but also Great Britain and the United
States. Colombia has claimed and occupied San
Andres, the main island of the contested group, since
early in the 19th century. Although the island appar-
ently was discovered by Spanish explorers early in the
16th century, the first permanent settlers were En-
glish who arrived in 1629. African slaves were also
brought to the island, and today their descendants
(and other blacks who were settled on the island)
comprise the overwhelming majority of the inhabit-
ants of San Andres. Spain was awarded the islands in
1786, and in 1822 Colombia began its occupation.
Colombia's claim dates to a royal order (1803) where-
by the Spanish Crown delegated the defense of the
area to the Vice Royalty of Sante Fe de Bogota (of
which present-day Colombia was a part). Nicaragua
argues that the 1803 decree was a military order and
that in 1806 the defense of the region was returned to
the Captaincy-General of Guatemala, which then
included present-day Nicaragua. Despite little or no
administration from Colombia?or the federation of
various political units that preceded the establishment
of the United States of Colombia in 1863?various
19th-century treaties and agreements appear to con-
firm Colombian ownership of San Andres and adja-
cent islands. Additionally, ownership of the Mosquito
Coast, the strip of low-lying coastal plain of Nicara-
gua fronting the Atlantic and inhabited by the fierce-
ly independent Miskito Indians, was part of the
dispute.
During the 19th century the dispute was complicated
by Britain's presence and influence in the coastal
area. In 1850 Britain and the United States signed the
Clayton-Bulwer Convention?designed to promote co-
operation instead of confrontation as to future ship-
canal projects across Nicaragua?that stipulated nei-
ther country would "assume or exercise any dominion
over. ... the Mosquito Coast.... " Despite this
pledge, it took further negotiations and several trea-
ties between Nicaragua and Britain (1860, 1894, and
1905) to remove the last vestiges of British political
influence from the area.
Secret
The United States became involved in the dispute
through granting (1868) James W. Jennett, a private
citizen, who purportedly "discovered" Serrana and
adjacent cays, the right to extract guano. Although it
is unclear as to whether guano was actually extracted,
the dispute between the United States and Colombia
languished for several decades.
The Barcenas Meneses-Esquerra Treaty signed be-
tween Nicaragua and Colombia (April 1928), ap-
peared to resolve the dispute. By its terms, Colombia
recognized Nicaraguan sovereignty over the Mosquito
Coast in exchange for Nicaraguan acceptance of
Colombian ownership of the San Andres and Provi-
dencia Archipelago. Article 1, however, excluded the
question of jurisdiction over the adjacent cays of
Roncador, Quito Sueno, and Serrana as a separate
dispute between the United States and Colombia. The
following month, the United States and Colombia
exchanged notes recognizing that each claimed sover-
eignty over the cays and agreed to maintain the status
quo: Colombia would not object to the maintenance of
navigational aids by the United States (apparently
installed during work on the Panama Canal) and
Washington would have no objection to fishing opera-
tions by Colombian nationals in waters adjacent to
the cays. Subsequently, Colombia agreed that the
United States also retained fishing rights in the area.
In the late 1960s, in the wake of reports of potential
offshore oil resources, Nicaragua revived its claim to
Quito Sueno on the basis of the cay's location on the
continental shelf. In September 1972, the United
States and Colombia, after some discussion, signed an
agreement?known as the Saccio-Vasquez Carrizosa
Treaty?by which the United States renounced its
claim to the cays of Quito Sueno, Roncador, and
Serrana.
Current Developments and Outlook
After Nicaragua, under the Sandinistas, reasserted
(February 1980) dormant claims to San Andres and
Providencia, Colombia reacted by upgrading its mili-
tary forces and readiness in the area. Ten-man de-
tachments were posted on the Serrana, Rondador, and
24
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Albuquerque Cays, and a Navy corvette based at
Cartagena was deployed for 30-day periods to the
area to bring supplies and rotate personnel to these
desolate outposts.
Politically, Colombia reacted by withdrawing its Am-
bassador to Nicaragua for several months and by
publishing a "White Book" (1980) outlining the Co-
lombian position on the dispute. Colombia in its
statements counters the argument that the 1928
treaty was signed under pressure by noting that US
troops had been invited to Nicaragua and that the
1928 treaty was the result of months and years of
debate and negotiation. Nicaragua uses the "duress"
argument as the basis for its abrogation of the 1928
treaty under which sovereignty over San Andres and
Providencia had been renounced. Colombia's case is
bolstered by its continuous, lengthy occupation and
administration of the islands. The legal case for
Colombian sovereignty over the cays, however, is less
compelling. In late 1984 Colombian Foreign Minister
Augusto Ramirez Ocampo stated that "Colombia has
nothing to negotiate with Nicaragua," a statement
repeated in 1986. Despite the occasional inflamma-
tory rhetoric used by Nicaraguan leaders, Managua
has played down the issue since 1981.
Border Treaties and Key Dates
1822
Colombia occupies San Andres following period of
English, Spanish, and assorted claimants to the island.
1850
Britain and the United States sign the Clayton-
Bulwer Convention over rights to build canal across
Nicaragua; neither country can "exercise any domin-
ion" over Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua.
1868
On claims of James W. Jennett, a United States
citizen, the United States issues Jennett a certificate
to extract guano on Serrana and adjacent cays, under
provision of US Guano Act. Colombia objects to US
action.
1890
Colombia in a series of notes protests to Nicaragua
over interoceanic canal concession involving land on
Mosquito Coast to which Colombia retained claims.
Reverse Blank
25
Secret
1905
Britain recognizes Nicaragua's full sovereignty over
Mosquito Coast in Altaminano-Harrison Treaty.
1928
Nicaragua and Colombia sign treaty?Barcenas
Meneses-Esquerra Treaty?recognizing Nicaraguan
sovereignty over Mosquito Coast in exchange for
Nicaraguan recognition of San Andres and Providen-
cia, but excluding Roncador, Serrana, and Quita
Sueno. Notes are exchanged between the United
States and Colombia recognizing status quo in that
the United States is to maintain navigation lights on
the cays and Colombia is to retain its fishing rights in
adjacent waters. The treaty was ratified in March
1930.
1972
Colombia and the United States sign Saccio-Vasquez
Carrizosa Treaty by which the United States re-
nounces claims to Roncador, Quito Sueno, and
Serrana.
1980
New Sandinista regime in Nicaragua unilaterally
declares null and void 1928 treaty (Colombia-
Nicaragua) recognizing Colombian sovereignty over
San Andres and Providencia; also claims adjoining
cays.
1981
United States Senate ratifies Colombian-US agree-
ment of 1972.
1982
Colombia "implements" 1972 treaty with the United
States.
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Ecuador-Peru
The design of this report permits updating of border information. Changes
and additions will be disseminated to holders of this Digest as necessary.
27 Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Ecuador-Peru Border
North
Pacific
Ocean
San Jose
del Goa,/
Tumac
San Loren
Esmeraldas
Equator
Puerto Ash'
Puerto
Ospina
Lago Agrio
Rio
Bahia d
Carequez
Manta
Sento
Domingo-
;
&Arlo
Portovi
Rio de aneiro
tocol Line, 42
ft
Conoo,
Rio
Salina
Golfo de
Guayaquil
Tumb
uay
Cuellar,
A Spanish Council
of State Line, 1909
Pudit
Arturo
One. onctirtzia
'Cr -6k-O- 440 in s)
? status Quo s,
o Line, 1936
Nanay.
Nauta
Garcia-Herrera I
Line, 1880l
GA NJ
Pucaurco
Pebas
uitos
Pedemonte-Mosquera
Protocol Line, 1830
rf
a,
if Iullana
? sancab a
Piura San
nada
AlarPridn
Casino
an
Lorenzo
Lines represent ree
proposed boo ?arias with
See inset ma p,the same alig meet.
Yurimaguas
repot?
uenjei
ZamOra
"1"'"iegvalLiv'vVr
rean?
1981
I Cen a-Santiago
tershed
% 1
line
i
-- .
40 R U- . 0
-, .
- . Ting.
..air Mario
Cruzeiro
do Sul
BRAZIL
SCalipa
Hue cab
Secret
Meotirrium
4uadoreym, 6.
claim
\Sea e1:4,500,000:';
o .60 Kilometere,x
o 60 Mile
dam '
xaPamPa
International boundary
Railroad
Road
erro de
BSCO
Scale 1:9,000,000
, Terme t Ii
,
Boundary repro teflon is
,75 not nedesaaSly horitativa.
28
150 Kilometers
150 Miles
800503 (A05702) 9-66
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Ecuador-Peru
Border Basics
The Ecuador-Peru boundary, about 1,420 kilometers
in length, extends from the southern shore of the
Golfo de Guayaquil on the Pacific across coastal
plain, highlands, and interior lowlands to the tri-
border point with Colombia.
The border was defined by terms of the 1942 Rio
Protocol, and most of it was demarcated between
1943 and 1947. The boundary was divided into two
sections: a 631-kilometer western section with 99
markers; and a 789-kilometer eastern section where
there were 65 border points identified. A 78-kilome-
ter gap in the demarcation exists in the Cordillera del
Condor area near the end of the eastern section of the
boundary. The border terrain is highly varied, and
numerous rivers and local water divides are used as
delimitive features; numerous straight-line segments
were also established in the desolate headwaters area
of the Amazon.
The western section of the boundary, extending south
and east from the Pacific, mostly follows several
different rivers across the coastal plain and the
western slopes of the Andes. This section of the
border is well populated, and several roads and
numerous trails cross the border. Rivers also are
used to mark the boundary as it descends the eastern
slopes of the Andes after which water divides are
followed until the boundary reaches the Santiago
River. From here to the tripoint with the Colombia
border, the boundary extends for some 700 kilome-
ters across the numerous streams of the Upper Ama-
zon Basin. The boundary alignment consists of
straight-line segments that connect the confluences,
or mouths, of rivers where they join one of the many
Amazon tributaries. The border zone is heavily for-
ested, sparsely populated, and lacks transportation.
The population is limited to a few scattered Amerin-
dian villages, some additional settlements, and a few
military outposts.
29
Significant Developments
Since the January 1981 clashes in the sector where
the boundary was left undemarcated, the border area
has been quiet with only occasional and minor inci-
dents reported. In 1985 the flooding on rivers?the
Rio Zarumilla, Rio Calvas, Rio Macara?forming the
boundary in the southwestern section of the border
has in a few places changed river courses, leading to
disputes where bits of land previously on Ecuador's
side of the border are now in Peru and vice versa. In
one area, construction of a dike allegedly diverted the
river. In September 1985 a joint technical group was
formed to examine and verify the diversion in the
courses of the rivers.
Frontier History
The Ecuadorean-Peruvian border dispute over some
200,000 square kilometers in the Upper Amazon
Basin?the so-called Oriente or the Amazonian
Triangle?traces its origins to the administrative
structure of Spanish colonial times and the ambigu-
ities and uncertainties of the division between the
Vice Royalties of Peru and Nueva Granada (present-
day Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador). The disput-
ed area coincides with the former administrative
district of Mainas (Maynas)?an administrative unit
existing more on paper than as a functional unit?that
was transferred back and forth between the two vice-
royalties. In 1802 Mainas was administratively trans-
ferred back to the Vice-Royalty of Peru's jurisdiction.
Upon gaining independence (Ecuador in 1822 and
Peru in 1824), the two new states soon quarreled and
fought a brief war (1828-29) over control of the
Mainas area and other smaller border areas near
Tumbes (on the coast) and Jaen. Gran Colombia, a
federation of states Ecuador had joined on gaining its
freedom, held the upper hand, and the Treaty of
Guayaquil (1829) and the subsequent Mosquero-
Pedmonte Protocol (1830) defined the boundary be-
tween the two states as following the Rio Maranon.
Before a boundary commission could mark the bor-
der, however, Ecuador withdrew (1830) from the
federation, an act seized upon by Peru to renounce the
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Guayaquil treaty and its protocol. Peru argued that
Ecuador, by separating from Gran Colombia after the
treaty and protocol were signed, had forfeited its
territorial rights. Shortly afterward, Peru and Ecua-
dor signed a treaty of friendship and alliance stating
that, until a boundary convention was signed, the two
states would recognize "existing boundaries." (Ecua-
dor cites this treaty as further evidence to support its
contention that the Rio Maranon represented the
boundary between the two states.)
The boundary-territorial issue arose again in the
1850s, when Ecuador began making land grants in
the disputed area and declared free navigation rights
on several rivers flowing through Peru-claimed terri-
tory. Hostilities ensued that essentially consisted of a
Peruvian blockade of Ecuador's ports. The agreement
terminating the conflict, arranged with one of the
Ecuadorian political factions, was later repudiated by
both governments. The border issue remained unre-
solved, and in 1887 the two sides signed the Esponso-
Bonifaz Treaty calling on the King of Spain to
arbitrate the dispute. Bilateral efforts produced the
Harrera-Garcia Treaty (1890) granting Ecuador
frontage on a navigable portion of the Rio Maranon
and access to the Amazon. Although Ecuador quickly
ratified the treaty, the Peruvian Congress rejected the
agreement. Additional efforts at mediation failed, and
in 1905 Spain's Council of State began collecting
documents in preparation for an arbitral award. The
substance of the proposed award?which generally
favored Peru?was leaked to the Ecuadoreans in
1910, causing great patriotic furor in Ecuador and
bringing the two states to the verge of war. Additional
mediation attempts failed and Spain withdrew as
arbiter.
In 1924 the two sides agreed once more (The Ponce?
Castro Oyanguren Protocol) to submit their differ-
ences for arbitation, this time to the United States.
Meanwhile, a Colombian-Peruvian boundary treaty,
signed in 1922, in effect recognized Peru's sovereignty
over most of the disputed area and weakened Ecua-
dor's claim. Border tensions increased during the mid-
1930s, and in 1936 the two countries sent delegations
to Washington. Before the talks, Ecuador and Peru
agreed to a status quo line that divided the contested
area. Two years of discussions resulted in little pro-
gress and ended when Peru broke off talks in 1938.
Secret
Relations worsened and in July 1941 Peruvian troops
invaded Ecuador, quickly overwhelming the outnum-
bered Ecuadoreans. The US entry into World War II
hastened the pace of negotiations conducted at the
meeting of foreign ministers of the American Repub-
lics, held in Rio de Janeiro in January 1942. In two
weeks an agreement was hammered out defining a
border largely favoring Peru's position. The Rio Pro-
tocol also provided for treaty guarantors?Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, and the United States?to resolve dif-
ferences, in case the two sides could not agree on the
execution of the treaty. The procedures designed to
convene and get agreement among the guarantors,
however, were exceedingly cumbersome.
The boundary was demarcated (1943-47), with the
exception of a 78-kilometer stretch where, according
to the agreement, it was to follow the water divide
between the Santiago and Zamora Rivers. Through
aerial photography and ground surveys, a major river
system?the Cenepa?was discovered to intervene,
and, consequently, no Santiago-Zamora water divide
existed. Ecuador used this discrepancy to halt demar-
cation work and to demand a redefinition of the
boundary?a proposal that Peru rejected. In 1960
Quito declared the 1942 Rio Protocol "null," an
action later declared illegal by the guarantor states.
Ecuador did not officially renounce the agreement,
however, and has accepted its general provisions with
the exception of the territory in the Cordillera del
Condor sector where the undemarcated sector lies.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the dispute was relative-
ly quiet, though the discovery of oil reserves on the
eastern slopes of the Andes has increased the econom-
ic importance of the disputed region. When the
Ecuadorean and Peruvian Presidents were in Wash-
ington for the signing of the Panama Canal Treaty in
1977, President Carter used the occasion to suggest a
reopening of the border issue and a renewed look at
Ecuador's desire to have access to the Rio Maranon.
Despite favorable portents, later talks between repre-
sentatives of the foreign ministries broke down when
Peru, reflecting military concerns, backed away from
the Ecuadorean corridor idea. In January 1981 a
serious border skirmish took place and ended with
30
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Peruvian forces evicting the Ecuadoreans from out-
posts they had established east of the Condor Moun-
tains in the disputed area. A cease-fire was arranged
by the four guarantor powers.
A secondary border disagreement was over a small,
isolated stretch of border located near the tripoint
with Colombia. The dispute involved the original
language of the Rio Protocol and the difficulty of
interpreting which stream was the principal source of
the Rio Lagartococha or Rio Zancudo. In 1945 a
Brazilian arbitrator examined the problem and issued
an opinion that was later modified (1947) on the basis
of additional terrain information. Neither country
accepted the award, as modified, nor appeared ready
to take additional steps to reach a solution. Presum-
ably, this minor difference would be resolved quickly
if a broader agreement over the Cordillera del Condor
area were reached.
Current Developments and Outlook
Since the January 1981 border skirmishes, the border
area has been relatively quiet. Minor incidents in
1983-84 were treated in low-key fashion. The present
Ecuadorean regime, headed by President Febres-
Cordero, has continued to play down border problems
and disagreements. These include recurrent border
river problems caused by changes in course resulting
from floods, particularly along the Rio Zarumilla and
Rio Calvas in the western section of the boundary.
Ecuador for more than 150 years has had a goal of
becoming an "Amazonian power," an objective
thwarted by the 1942 Rio Protocol defining a border
considerably west of the Rio Maranon. Although
Ecuador's maps continued to show its boundary with
Peru along the Rio Maranon (according to the 1830
protocol) and Quito's rhetoric has called for renegoti-
ating the entire boundary, there has been more real-
ism during confidential discussions. The case for a
greater share of the Oriente territory suffers from
Ecuador's inability to settle, let alone control, the area
during the 19th century when ownership was in doubt.
Quito's key objective now is to continue to delay full
implementation of the 1942 convention and to try and
gain a corridor to the Rio Maranon that would
provide some territorial substance to its ancient objec-
tive of becoming an Amazonian power. Several ex-
ploratory proposals (see map) would provide varying
31
amounts of frontage on the Rio Maranon, though all
would be upriver from rapids (Pongo de Manser-
iche)?the head of navigation immediately down-
stream (east) of the Rio Maranon's confluence with
the Rio Santiago. Ecuadorean initiatives and financ-
ing to improve communications and provide for eco-
nomic development of the region might be used to
sweeten a proposal.
Peru's official position continues to be that the terms
of the Rio Protocol are valid, and its legality is upheld
by the guarantor powers. In Peru's view the only
remaining issue is to complete demarcation of the 78-
kilometer gap. A decision by Peru to permit Ecuador
some face-saving territorial adjustment will depend on
the size and location of the area and on its actual (or
perceived) military value that possession would grant.
Despite an apparent willingness to settle for far less
than their public statements suggest, Ecuadorean
officials will find it politically difficult to gain support
for a settlement without some territorial concession
from archrival Peru. Highly popular governments and
persuasive leaders in both countries will be required to
hammer out an agreement that can gain popular
support and secure parliamentary approval.
Border Treaties and Key Dates
1802
Spain issues Royal Decree reattaching Mainas
(Maynas) administrative unit?the Oriente?to Vice-
Royalty of Peru from Vice-Royalty of Nueva Grana-
da (Colombia-Venezuela). Ecuador asserts that decree
applies only to military and ecclesiastical affairs; Peru
rejects this interpretation.
1821-24
Peru declares independence but fights war to attain
freedom in 1824.
1822
Ecuador proclaims independence and joins Gran Co-
lombia federation.
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
1828-29
Peru and Ecuador (as part of Gran Colombia) dispute
ownership of Mainas and other border areas and fight
brief war.
1829
Treaty of Guayaquil ends Peruvian-Ecuadorean
conflict.
1830
Protocol of Mosquera-Pedemonte, supplement to
Treaty of Guayaquil, establishes guidelines stating
Rio Maranon as boundary.
Ecuador withdraws from Gran Colombia federation.
1832
Ecuador and Peru sign treaty of friendship and
alliance stating existing boundaries should be ob-
served until boundary convention negotiated.
1863
The settlement of Iquitos on Amazon and in disputed
area is established by Peruvians.
1887
Peru and Ecuador agree to submit dispute to King of
Spain for arbitration.
1890
Harrera-Garcia Treaty providing Ecuador frontage
on naviable stretch of Rio Maranon is rejected by
Peruvian Congress.
1905
Arbitration procedures started by Spain.
1910
Ecuador learns of arbitral award favorable to Peru,
causing rioting in Ecuador; King of Spain withdraws
as mediator.
1922
Colombian-Peruvian border agreement recognizes Pe-
ruvian control over much of disputed territory.
Secret
1936-38
Negotiations begin in Washington; Peru breaks off. A
de facto line of separation, roughly dividing disputed
territory equally, had been agreed upon.
1941
Ecuador and Peru engage in brief war. Peruvian
troops rout Ecuadorean troops before cease-fire is
arranged.
1942
Protocol of Rio de Janeiro defines boundary, ratified
by both countries, and provides for demarcation.
1943-47
Joint commission demarcates all but 78-kilometer
stretch where treaty wording is inconsistent with
physical features; Ecuador refuses to proceed, claim-
ing treaty is invalid and in need of renegotiation.
1960
Ecuador declares 1942 Rio Protocol null; the guaran-
tor nations of the treaty state Ecuador's action illegal.
1978
Joint negotiations proposed by United States fail over
question of Ecuadorean access to Rio Maranon.
1981
Fighting goes on between Peruvian and Ecuadorean
troops in disputed area.
1985
Shifts in the Zarumilla, Calvas, and Macara Rivers
result in slight territorial exchanges along the border
that increase the concern of Ecuador and Peru.
32
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
25X1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
se1npuoH-1opi3Aps 13
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
El Salvador-Honduras
The design of this report permits updating of border information. Changes
and additions will be disseminated to holders of this Digest as necessary.
35 Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
El SalvadOr-Honduras Border
Chalatenangv
Golfo
de
Fonseca
International boundary
Bolson (disputed areas)
Railroad
Road
Boundary representation
not necessarily authoritative.
Secret
36
800498 (A05697) 9-86
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
El Salvador?Honduras
Border Basics
The 342-kilometer-long El Salvador?Honduras bor-
der extends roughly northwest-southeast from its
tripoint with the Guatemala boundary before turning
south for about 70 kilometers and terminating in the
Golfo de Fonseca. Only limited boundary sections
have been surveyed and demarcated. The El
Salvador?Honduras peace treaty, signed in 1980,
delimited about 60 percent of the border and provid-
ed for a commission to meet and negotiate a settle-
ment of those border sections still in dispute. The
disputed areas, commonly termed bolsones or pockets
(of territory), total nearly 400 square kilometers and
contain an estimated population of between 4,000 and
5,000 people. Also in dispute are the seaward exten-
sion of the boundary and the division of the Golfo de
Fonseca. This dispute depends on the negotiations
over the Murujuaca pockets, essentially the Goas-
coran Delta, and the location of the land boundary's
terminal point. In turn, this affects island ownership
in the gulf, the most important being Isla Meanguera.
The boundary meanders across mainly hilly to
mountainous terrain covered by scrub or patchy
forests. In some places, the boundary coincides with
local water divides, but more commonly it follows
rivers and streams. The highest border terrain is in
the west toward Guatemala where several old volca-
nic peaks reach elevations ranging between 2,000 and
2,700 meters. The principal economic activity in the
area is subsistence farming, including some grazing.
During the May-October rainy season, the few roads
in the border area and in disputed territory are
frequently impassable. The disputed area bordering
the Golfo de Fonseca consists mostly of swamp and
marshy terrain near the mouth of the Rio Goascoran.
A little land is available for farming and grazing. Isla
Mean guera is a steep-sided vocanic island covered by
grass and evergreen trees. The population is small
and includes a fishing village and some scattered
farm settlements.
37
Significant Developments
Despite authorization contained in the 1980 peace
treaty for a joint border commission to negotiate
territorial claims and public statements by the presi-
dents of both countries urging greater speed, the pace
of negotiations has been slow and progress limited.
Survey and mapping work, including the placing of
boundary markers in those areas where the boundary
has officially been delimited, has also moved sluggish-
ly because of frequent disagreements over minor
points and the difficult terrain. Although Salvadoran
military operations, with the occasional cooperation of
the Honduran military, have somewhat limited use of
the border areas and the bolsones as refuge areas and
supply bases for Salvadoran insurgents, arms and
supplies continue to be transferred across the border
to insurgent camps inside El Salvador.
Frontier History
The El Salvador?Honduras boundary was originally
based on the limits of old Spanish administrative units
and ecclesiastical districts. Honduras and El Salvador
proclaimed their independence (1838-41), but neither
country initially expressed interest in formally fixing
their common border. But political conflict and dis-
putes between the two countries quickly arose, usually
accompanied by charges of interference in the affairs
of each other. The isolated and generally rugged
physical character of the border area lent some
plausibility to accusations that the unmarked border
zone harbored fugitives and provided areas from
which antigovernment activities could be launched.
After a dispute in 1861 between border towns over the
limits of communal lands, the first of many joint
Salvadoran-Honduran commissions was formed to
settle differences. A preliminary agreement signed in
1880 called for delimitation of the entire border. In
1884 a boundary treaty, also known as the Letona-
Cruz Agreement, was signed that delimited several
short sections of the border. The Honduran legisla-
ture, however, refused to ratify the agreement, though
the government agreed to use the 1884 delimitation
until a new border agreement could be reached.
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Another treaty, negotiated and signed in 1895, con-
tained provisions for delimitation, demarcation, and,
if necessary, arbitration procedures to resolve border
problems. Despite the intent of the agreement and an
extension of the treaty's life through 1916, the two
sides dallied and failed once more to reach a compre-
hensive border settlement. Another treaty was signed
(1918) with provisions nearly identical to those of the
1895 treaty. Although the Honduran National Con-
gress accepted the agreement after some minor revi-
sions, the treaty was never presented to Salvador's
legislative body for approval and no additional work
was done.
Another border issue arose over the division of the
waters of the Golfo de Fonseca, one of the finest
natural harbors in western Latin America. An agree-
ment reached between Honduras and Nicaragua
(1894) called for a boundary commission to delimit
and mark their common border. In doing so, the
commission divided the eastern half of the gulf (1900)
through use of both straight-line segments and the
equidistance method; the terminal point was placed in
midgulf, south of Isla del Tigre. Later, when the
United States signed a treaty with Nicaragua (1914),
to obtain a 99-year lease that would permit construc-
tion of a naval base on Nicaraguan territory, protests
from El Salvador and Costa Rica led to numerous
legal questions that were referred to the Central
American Court of Justice. The court issued its
findings in 1917, holding that the gulf was a "historic
bay" and a "closed sea" and thus common property of
the three states that bordered it. The court also found
that establishment of a naval base would compromise
the security of El Salvador. Nicaragua rejected the
court's findings, and the base was never built. In 1971
the United States terminated the treaty.
No significant progress was made in resolving border
differences over the next several decades. In 1935
Honduras renounced the 1884 Letona-Cruz Agree-
ment that was the legal basis of the de facto border.
Mapping photography of the border areas was ac-
quired in the mid-1950s, and a ground survey of the
boundary area was begun though not completed. In
1968 a new boundary agreement was reached, a
product of yet another joint Honduran-Salvadoran
border commission, but negotiations were interrupted
Secret
when the short-lived "Soccer War" erupted between
the two countries in 1969. Negotiations were ham-
pered and prolonged by heightened border friction
caused by the deportation of thousands of Salvadoran
migrants from Honduras, the evolution of the Salva-
doran insurgency, and use of the border area by the
guerrillas. A general peace treaty was finally signed
on 30 October 1980 and ratified on 12 December
1980. Border issues were treated in detail: seven
sections of the border were delimited (about 60 per-
cent of the entire boundary); a joint boundary com-
mission was authorized to demarcate those sections of
the boundary delimited in the treaty and to provide
specific guidance on what evidence would be permit-
ted in negotiations over unresolved border territory;
and arbitration was specified?the International
Court of Justice?if agreement could not be reached
by the end of 1985 on settling the territorial issues.
The 1980 peace treaty also directed the joint bound-
ary commission to resolve the legal questions con-
cerned with division of the Golfo de Fonseca between
the two countries. An important issue is the location
of the terminal point of the land boundary that ends,
according to the 1884 treaty, where the Rio
Goascoran empties into the gulf. The dispute is over
which of several channels in the extensive Goascoran
Delta is the main mouth of the river. A critical issue
for Honduras in the dispute is to secure access to the
sea and to maritime resources. Nicaragua maintains
that the 1900 agreement with Honduras remains in
effect, and Honduras continues to honor in practice its
maritime boundary with Nicaragua.
Current Developments and Outlook
Pressures increased during 1985 for El Salvador and
Honduras to reach a settlement in advance of the end-
of-year deadline specified by the 1980 border treaty.
Since the monthly meetings of the joint border com-
mission had produced proposals from both sides on
specific issues, such as the division of a particular
bolson, but little overall progress, a "summit" ap-
proach was tried with the meeting (July) of Presidents
Duarte (El Salvador) and Suazo (Honduras) at La
Paz, Honduras. Comprehensive proposals and alterna-
tives were discussed by the two leaders, but once
38
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
again no overall agreement could be reached. Another
comprehensive proposal for resolving the territorial
issues, made by President Duarte in late September,
provided the basis for confidential political discussions
between representatives from each country in addition
to the more formal monthly meetings of the joint
boundary commission.
The primary sticking points in the prolonged negotia-
tions have been the actual division of the six land
areas in dispute and allocations of the Golfo de
Fonseca waters. A division of the land areas is
complicated by the use of historical records and old
agreements because present settlement, communica-
tions, and even the terrain may differ markedly from
the conditions present at the time the original agree-
ments and records were made. Although the recent
Salvadoran proposal of a Honduran sea corridor to be
carved out of El Salvador's territorial waters seems
workable, the details and related questions, such as
rights to marine resources, remain stumblingblocks to
an agreement. Other alternatives, for example, trade-
offs involving the land border and maritime disputes,
also are possible.
If bilateral talks fail, reliance on third-party media-
tion or the International Court of Justice to resolve
the differences would follow. Reliance on the Interna-
tional Court of Justice, which Honduras is more
inclined to favor, would most likely be lengthy and
costly for both sides. Whatever decision is reached
would probably provoke considerable public reaction
and strain on the government in power. El Salvador
prefers the route of mediation, assuming that some of
the territorial disputes can be resolved by bilateral
discussion. In a recent Latin American territorial
quarrel, the Beagle Channel dispute between Argenti-
na and Chile, the Vatican was used to mediate a
solution that was accepted by both sides.
Border Treaties and Key Dates
1861
Dispute between border towns over communal lands
forces Honduras and El Salvador to address border
delimitation.
39
1884
Border convention (Letona-Cruz Agreement) is signed
(April) defining border.
1885
Honduras abrogates 1884 agreement.
1886
Honduras and El Salvador agree to set up commission
to delimit border and to follow the 1884 line until a
new border is drawn.
1888
Agreement is reached on the use of the Rio
Goascoran from its mouth to juncture with Rio
Guajiniquil as the border. No further work done.
1895
Border convention is signed to delimit remainder of
border. Never ratified despite extension of treaty to
1916.
1900
Honduras-Nicaragua Boundary Commission com-
pletes work on fixing boundary in Golfo de Fonseca
that affects any Honduras?El Salvador delineation of
maritime areas.
1917
Central American Court of Justice holds (9 March)
that the Golfo de Fonseca is an historic bay possessed
of the characteristics of a closed sea, and that the
waters that form the entrance to the gulf
"intermingle."
1918
An agreement is signed for yet another joint commis-
sion to resolve border questions. No progress made.
1935
Attempt to resolve tripoint of El Salvador?Honduras?
Guatemala boundary results in Honduran renounce-
ment of 1884 Letona-Cruz Agreement.
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
1955
Joint cartographic survey is started to map border
area.
1968
Mixed commission drafts treaty to resolve border
differences.
1969
"Soccer War" erupts, caused in part by Salvadoran
immigrants in Honduras and their expulsion in spring
of 1969.
1976
Mediation efforts are begun to resolve longstanding
Honduran-Salvadoran issues, including border
problems.
1980
Peace treaty is signed (30 October) and ratified (10
December) that includes provisions for establishing
joint commission to demarcate border sections agreed
to and to settle remaining territorial differences.
Arbitration procedures are to be used if no agreement
by late 1985.
Secret 40
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Falkland Islands
and Dependencies
The design of this report permits updating of border information. Changes
and additions will be disseminated to holders of this Digest as necessary.
41 Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Falkland Islands
61
JASON!
ISLANDS
West
Falkland %
tieP
Weddell
Island
-52
c:a
rr=,
?Saunders
ICand
Byron
Sound
60
59
South Atlantic Ocean
.58
ebble Island
Cape Dolphin
11 King
George
tJ Bay
Queen
Charlotte
Bay
Falkland
Sound
ayi Poi
men
uj Pleasant
Cape
Meredith
Note: The Falkland Islands, South Georgia,
and the South Sandwich Islands are
administered by the U.K. and claimed by
Argentina.
60
North Arm
S ttleme
Bay
of
Harbours
Adventure
Sound
59
sea
IslandLively
51-
STANLEY
Cape
Pembroke
E st
Falkiand
5
Road
Scale 1:1,620,000
0 25 Kilometers
0 25 Miles
South
Atlantic
Cconn
Falkland Islands
(Islas Malvinas)
adowbstered by the U.K,
&fumed by Afgebtma )
SOUih
hr
01a kr:.
l'assaLia
Secret
42
52
Argentine and British Place Names
Islas Malvinas
Bahia de los Abrigos
Bahia de la Anunciacion
Bahia del Laberinto
Bahia San Julian
Cabo Belgrano
Cabo Leal
Cabo San Felipe
Isla Bougainville
Isla de Borbon
Isla Gran Malvina
Isla San Jose
Isla San Pedro
Islas Sebaldes
Isla Soledad
Isla Trinidad
Monte Alberdi
Monte Independencia
Puerto Rivero
Rocas Clarke
Rocas Cormoran y Negra
Falkland Islands
Bay of Harbours
Berkeley Sound
Adventure Sound
Queen Charlotte Bay
Cape Meredith
Cape Dolphin
Cape Pembroke
Lively Island
Pebble Island
West Falkland
Weddell Island
South Georgia
Jason Islands
East Falkland
Saunders Island
Mount Usborne
Mount Adam
Stanley
Clarke Rocks
Shag Rocks
800505 (A05810) 9-86
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Falkland Islands and Dependencies
Border Basics
The Falkland Islands (called Islas Malvinas in Ar-
gentina) is a British Crown Colony consisting of two
main islands?East and West Falkland?and some
200 smaller islands and islets in adjacent waters
totaling about 12,200 square kilomaters. Adminis-
trative dependencies include South Georgia (375
square kilometers), situated some 1,285 kilometers
east-southeast of the Falklands, and the South Sand-
wich Islands (330 square kilometers), located an
additional 750 kilometers southeast of South Geor-
gia. The capital, Stanley, is but 660 kilometers from
the Argentine coast, but nearly 12,000 kilometers
from London.
The Falklands' terrain consists mostly of rugged,
windswept hills with elevations up to 700 meters
above sea level. The southern half of East Falkland,
however, is a rolling plain with elevations less than
30 meters. Deep, fiord-like inlets along the coasts
afford numerous good anchorages. The islands are
covered with thin soils and rocks. Vegetation is
limited to grass and low scrub underlain by thick
layers of peat. The grass furnishes forage for several
hundred thousand sheep whose wool provides the
major export item of the islands. The isolated depen-
dencies of South Georgia and the South Sandwich
Islands are covered with snow and ice throughout the
year; in summer, the snowline retreats to heights of
about 300 to 400 meters on mountainous South
Georgia, where the highest elevation is nearly 3,000
meters. On the volcanic South Sandwich Islands,
only a few sheltered areas are free of ice and snow.
Before the 1982 war between Argentina and the
United Kingdom, the population of the Falklands?
almost entirely of British descent?was about 1,800
and had been slowly declining. South Georgia's popu-
lation also declined after the demise of whaling in the
early 1960s to only about two dozen scientists prior
to the 1982 conflict. (The South Sandwich Islands
are uninhabited.)
43
Significant Developments
The 1982 war ended the limited progress achieved
during several years of bilateral talks (1977-81) that
had led to public British statements indicating a
willingness to consider a solution involving Argentine
sovereignty. London's intention to work toward some
form of political transfer was undermined by a persis-
tent refusal of the islanders to entertain a political
change in their status. The British military presence
thwarted a military resolution. Attempts since 1983 to
negotiate have foundered on the rigidity of the posi-
tions taken by each side.
Frontier History
The initial European discoverer of the islands is
uncertain. Spanish-language sources cite maps dated
as early as 1522 depicting the location of the islands
and suggesting Spanish sightings early in the 16th
century. However, English-language sources credit a
British Captain Davis with discovering the islands in
1592. There is agreement that almost a century later
(1690), a Captain John Strong landed and named the
narrow sound separating the islands after Viscount
Falkland, from whom the English name is derived.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, a series of
settlements were established and ownership disputes
arose, as follows:
? Louis de Bougainville, a Frenchman, established
Fort St. Louis in 1764, claiming the island for Louis
XV and naming them Les Malovines.
? Two years later, Charles III of Spain claimed the
islands, and, following European negotiations, Spain
paid Bougainville for the islands and took formal
possession in 1767, naming them "Las Malvinas," a
Hispanicized version of the French name.
? Earlier (1765-66), the British established a settle-
ment on West Falkland (the French/Spanish settle-
ment is on East Falkland); neither group was aware
of?or ignored?the other's presence.
? Spain dislodged the British (1770) from their settle-
ment on West Falkland, and, after face-saving
negotiations (the British returned briefly), Britain
withdrew in 1774.
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
? Spanish colony continued until 1811 when it was
disbanded because of expense.
? In 1820 representatives of Argentina (now indepen-
dent from Spain) claimed the islands, notifying
sealers and whalers using various harbors of their
action.
? Following a series of incidents between American
sealers and the governor of the islands, US warships
took punitive action leaving the islands defenseless.
? British warships returned to former fort on West
Falklands in 1833, hoisted British flag, and expelled
remaining Argentine personnel from island.
The Argentine Government intermittently protested
this reassertion of British control over the Falklands,
but sometimes there were intervals of two or three
decades between protests. In the 1880s Argentina
tried without success to interest the United States in
backing its claim on the grounds that the Monroe
Doctrine had been violated. In the early 1930s nation-
al claims to "nuestras Malvinas" became an increas-
ingly popular political issue, intensifying after World
War II when the Peron government was established
(1947). Additional arguments used to back Argentine
claims included linking ownership of the Falklands
with Antarctica claims and assertions that the Falk-
lands were an extension of Argentina's continental
shelf. Over time, Argentina's protests became part of
the general anticolonial sentiments espoused in the
United Nations and elsewhere, and, in 1966, Anglo-
Argentine talks began over the Falklands after a UN
General Assembly Resolution invited Great Britain
and Argentina to engage in a "peaceful resolution" of
the issue.
Initial talks held during the late 1960s and early
1970s concerned communications, transportation, and
other nonpolitical matters. The return of Juan Peron,
however, reignited the sovereignty issue, and tensions
heightened during the mid-1970s. After several UN
resolutions, the two sides entered negotiations in 1977
that continued through 1981. Although progress was
made in exploring various political alternatives, a new
Argentine Government that took power in late 1981
decided?and with no substantial British military
Secret
force present?to invade the Falklands (2 April 1982).
Following a brief but costly war, Britain regained
control of the Falklands in June 1982.
Current Developments and Outlook
Attempts since 1983 to reopen discussions between
London and Buenos Aires to ease tensions and im-
prove relations have stalled. Britain is adamant that
the talks should focus on economic issues and the
reestablishment of communication and transport links
between the Falklands and Argentina before owner-
ship questions are raised. Argentina, however, insists
that discussions begin over the question of sovereign-
ty. These uncompromising attitudes torpedoed talks
that were to have been held in Berne, Switzerland, in
mid-1984. Since then, there have been diplomatic
probings but no commitment or any agreement as to
an agenda for future meetings. Additionally, there
have been public airings of the problem at annual
meetings of the United Nations General Assembly.
Improvement in relations and resolution of the sover-
eignty issue appear to be only long-term possibilities
rather than near-term probabilities. Argentina has
little room for maneuver, given the reality of domestic
politics and the injury to national pride suffered in
their defeat by the British. More flexibility is avail-
able to Britain as suggested by a Foreign Affairs
committee report to the House of Commons in De-
cember 1984. It set forth the following points: an
accommodation between Britain and Argentina is not
only inevitable but desirable; the defense of the
islands is an economic drain that should not continue
indefinitely; the economic and political prospects of
the Falklanders are tied to some extent with their
large continental neighbor; and the "passage of time"
may make a reopening of discussions of a political
leaseback solution more palatable.
A major obstacle to resolution of the sovereignty
question is the anti-Argentine attitude of most Falk-
land Islanders. They find union with Argentina unde-
sirable and contrast Argentine social and political
problems with their own peaceful way of life. The
attitude of the Falkland Islanders has been stiffened
by Britain's announced intention to support a self-
determination article in a revised draft constitution
for the Falkland Islands.
44
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Border Treaties and Key Dates
1592
British Captain, John Davis, reaches Falklands, but
Spanish sources cite maps and sightings dating to
early 16th century.
1690
British Captain, John Strong, lands on islands, names
sound between the two main islands "Fawlkland"
which name becomes associated with entire group.
1764
Louis de Bougainville, a Frenchman, establishes set-
tlement (St. Louis) on East Falkland and calls the
islands Les Malovines.
1765-67
British settlement of Port Egmont, West Falkland, is
founded. After negotiations, Bougainville is paid for
his rights, and Spain, which terms island "Las Mal-
vinas," raises flag on East Falkland.
1770
Spanish force British surrender of Port Egmont.
1771
Following discussions and reciprocal declarations by
Spain and Britain, British reoccupy Port Egmont but
secretly agree to evacuate after domestic political
opposition is quieted.
1774
Britain evacuates garrison on West Falkland but
leaves plaque declaring British sovereignty.
1811
Spain removes settlers from Soledad, on East Falk-
land, as an economy measure.
1820
Argentina, now free of Spanish rule, claims islands.
1826-31
Concessions given to Louis Vernet, a Frenchman, for
exploitation of resources and upholding law leads to
seizure of American ships engaged in sealing and
fishing.
Reverse Blank
45
1831
In aftermath of earlier seizure and publicity over
incident, US warship largely destroys and plunders
Vernet's settlement, dispersing settlers, and claiming
rights of fishing and sealing in adjacent waters.
1833
British, with Argentine-sponsored settlement gone,
reoccupies islands.
1833-51
Argentina periodically protests Britain's occupation of
the islands. London encourages settlement, and by
1850 population reaches 800.
1966
Following many years of Argentina's protests and
after UN Resolution calling on the two nations to
resolve sovereignty issue, Anglo-Argentine talks com-
mence. After several years, agreements are reached
on communications, transportation, and various cul-
tural exchanges.
1977-81
New round of negotiations takes place that focuses on
Argentine claims; British soften position on sovereign-
ty issue.
1982
Argentina occupies Falklands in April (British mili-
tary presence absent), but after brief air, sea, and land
engagements Britain regains islands in June.
1984-85
Attempts to reopen London?Buenos Aires talks fail
over disagreement of the priority of items to discuss
and obdurate stand of Falklands' inhabitants against
change in political status quo.
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
aumulins-gman9
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Guyana-Suriname
The design of this report permits updating of border information. Changes
. and additions will be disseminated to holders of this Digest as necessary.
D
,
47 Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Guyana-Suriname Border
International boundary
? ? Guyanese region boundary
?i---i Railroad
Road
Scale 1:2,950,000
0 50 Kilometers
0 50 Miles
Nieuw
kerie
North Atlantic
56
Ocean
Skeldon
courantyn
amp 52
Bakhuys
8rownsweg
Prof. Dr. Ir.
W..1. van
Bloommestem
,Meer
oundary
in dispute
Oronoque
Camp
Alalapadu.
Isherton
Appikalo
Bits Ku .
Secret
800502 (A05701) 9-86
48
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Guyana-Suriname
Border Basics
The de facto Guyana-Suriname boundary follows the
Courantyne River inland for about 600 kilometers
from its mouth at the Atlantic Ocean to its headwa-
ters at the triborder point with Brazil. The boundary
lies along the left (west) bank of the Courantyne,
although Guyana has navigational rights to the wa-
terway. The southern third of the border, or about
225 kilometers, is in dispute over which of the two
princi al tributaries represents the main course of the
river.
Most of the border area consists of lowlands covered
either by dense stands of tropical rain forest or by
swamps. Exceptions occur along the coast and for a
short distance upstream, mostly on the Guyana side
of the river, where there are rice and sugarcane
plantations. In the higher uplands, scrub or savanna
may replace the tropical forests. In the interior,
elevations increase gradually to about 200 meters,
and a few isolated hills reach 300- to 400-meter
heights.
With minor exceptions, the border area is unpopulat-
ed. A few agricultural settlements are found near the
mouth of the Courantyne, and for some 100 kilome-
ters upstream there are widely scattered riverbank
settlements of Amerindians. Aside from an occasion-
al military post, the remainder of the border area is
uninhabited.
Other than a few logging trails, the Courantyne River
is the main means of transport in the border area.
The river is navigable by coastal ships for about 100
kilometers upstream from the coast until rapids and
falls force portages and use of small river boats.
Significant Developments
After Guyana gained its independence from Great
Britain in May 1966, several incidents took place in
the disputed territory, and there was an increase in
polemics. In 1967 several Surinamese, reportedly
workers tending a water metering station on the New
49
River, were evicted by Guyana. In 1969 a more
serious incident erupted when Guyana Defense Force
units forced Suriname troops from a post, including
an airstrip, that had been established in disputed
territory. The increased tension was followed by diplo-
matic efforts that terminated when the two Prime
Ministers issued a joint communique in June 1970
calling for demilitarization of the disputed area and
the establishment of a mixed commission to examine
ways to promote economic and cultural cooperation.
A subgroup was also established to resume discus-
sions, broken off in 1966, on possible solutions.
Frontier History
The Guyanese-Surinamese border dispute originated
near the end of Dutch rule over the entire region when
the metropolitan Government of Amsterdam ruled
that the territory of Berbice (now East Berbice-
Corentyne, the easternmost region in Guyana) extend-
ed to the west bank of the Courantyne River and its
presumed headwaters stream, the Kutari. The gover-
nors of the two areas confirmed this arrangement in
1799. At this time, however, Britain seized many of
the Dutch settlements, and in 1814 the Dutch ceded
what is now the territory of Guyana to Britain, who
named it British Guiana. In 1831 the two colonial
powers agreed that the Courantyne formed the bor-
der. Since most of the territory was unexplored and
unmapped, London commissioned Robert Schom-
burgk, a Prussian geographer-naturalist, to survey
and map Guyana's borders. Schomburgk's survey
(1839-42) included mapping the Courantyne and its
headwaters, which was assumed to be the border, and
his cartographic results were used on maps published
by both Britain and the Netherlands during the
remainder of the 19th century. Another explorer, the
British geologist Bannington Brown, discovered a
major left-bank tributary in 1871, named the New
River, that carried more water and was of greater
length than the Courantyne-Kutari.
Dutch claims to the land west of the Kutari?based
on the assumption that the true source of the Couran-
tyne was the New River?were not made until negoti-
ations were under way (1898-99) between Great Brit-
ain and Venezuela over the western boundary of
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Guyana. British reaction to the Dutch claim, which
has formed the basis for subsequent arguments by
Guyana, was that the Courantyne-Kutari had long
been recognized as the border and that subsequent
geographical discoveries did not change or invalidate
earlier arrangements.
The boundary controversy remained quiet for some
decades, partly because a Dutch geographer in the
1920s claimed that the New River basin was signifi-
cantly smaller than that of the Kutari?thus creating
doubt as to the relative significance of various physi-
cal criteria used in determining river sources. During
the period 1929-30, the Netherlands offered to settle
the boundary dispute on the basis of the Courantyne-
Kutari alignment if Britain would agree that the
boundary would follow the western bank of the river.
London agreed and negotiations led to a draft bound-
ary treaty (1939) that was never signed because of the
outbreak of World War II. Earlier a treaty had been
signed (1936), establishing the tripoint of the Guyana-
Suriname-Brazil boundary in accordance with the
Netherlands' suggestion that the boundary line should
be drawn from the source of the Kutari until it
intersected with the Brazilian watershed. The defini-
tive map of the trijunction was signed by the Nether-
lands, Great Britain, and Brazil.
The Netherlands' position on the boundary changed
after World War II. In 1962 the Dutch discarded the
Courantyne-Kutari alignment in favor of the New
River as the boundary and proposed that a midline
river boundary be adopted. The Dutch also unilateral-
ly renamed the New River the "Upper Courantyne."
Britain rejected these Dutch proposals. Prior to Guy-
ana gaining its independence (May 1966), the Surina-
me Government notified the British Government to
place on record that the boundary between Guyana
and Suriname was in dispute.
Current Developments and Outlook
The border dispute has been dormant in recent years,
and neither country appears anxious to publicize its
territorial differences nor to take steps to resolve the
issue. Suriname, upon gaining full independence in
1975, has maintained the claim. Guyana's refusal
(1981) to sign a nonobjection pact to Suriname's
proposed Kabalebo hydroelectric project?subse-
quently scrapped?that would have taken water from
Secret
the border river has worsened relations. Since 1980,
Suriname's chaotic political situation and its deterio-
rating economy have preoccupied the changing
leadership.
Although modest momentum to resolve the dispute
had come from the 1970 communique issued by the
Prime Ministers of Guyana and Suriname, a sub-
group charged with the exploration of border issues
reportedly made no progress. Recent border incidents
have been minor, compared with those of the late
1970s and early 1980s, when Suriname seized Guya-
nese fishing boats and lumber workers who ventured
to use the Courantyne River and when Guyanese
reportedly fired on Surinamese police posts. If Guy-
ana and Suriname agree to submit the dispute to
arbitration, factors favorable to Guyana would be the
long acceptance by Suriname of the Courantyne-
Kutari as the boundary, an earlier willingness by the
Dutch to formally settle the dispute on this basis, and
at least token occupation of the disputed area by
Guyana.
Border Treaties and Key Dates
1814-15
Convention of London is signed, confirmed at Paris
(1815), Suriname is returned to Netherlands (after
brief interlude of British rule), but Dutch territory in
neighboring Guiana (Guyana) is ceded to Great
Britain.
1831
Britain and the Netherlands by common consent
agree that Courantyne River forms the border.
1839-42
Britain commissions Robert Schomburgk to survey
and map Guyana; Schomburgk reports Kutari main
upper tributary of Courantyne.
1871
British geologist, Bannington Brown, discovers New
River?a tributary that contains more water and is of
greater length than the upper Courantyne-Kutari.
50
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
1899
During time of arbitral tribunal investigating
Venezuela-Guyana boundary, Netherlands raises is-
sue of New River as proper boundary, a proposal
rejected by Great Britain.
1929-30
Netherlands Government offers to settle boundary on
basis of "left bank of Courantyne-Kutari up to its
source."
1936
Treaty is signed by Great Britain, Netherlands, and
Brazil establishing boundary tripoint located in re-
spect to source of Kutari.
1939
Draft treaty along lines of earlier Dutch proposal is
readied but never signed because of outbreak of
World War II.
1966
Netherlands, acting in behalf of Suriname, reopens
border question and issues statement. prior to Guyana
gaining its independence, that border is in dispute.
1970
Joint communique is issued by Prime Ministers of
Guyana and Suriname, following several incidents in
disputed New River area, calling for demilitarization
of area and forming joint commission to work toward
cooperative programs.
1971-84
Periodic but generally minor incidents occur, princi-
pally involving use of Courantye River; boundary
status quo remains.
Reverse Blank
51
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
1uvAn9-BianzauaA
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Venezuela-Guyana
The design of this report permits updating of border information. Changes
and additions will be disseminated to holders of this Digest as necessary.
53 Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Guyana-Venezuela Border
Baran
Embalse
de Guri
L
Pastora
M eco
ritish
extension of
Schomburgk
Line, 1886
60 Punta
/ Playa
marsh
AvbitveMon swami
Mururuma
whanna
58
Inurrent bauriclaryl e"'
1.? Port Bait.
1 Sachinche
1 El ? Arakak
C ao ? Matthews
\ ? e
? '
il,'{.--
4 A
La
Paragua
La
OMB
North
Atlantic
Ocean
RGETOWN
Owed
Fort
Wellington
Amsterdam
8
ssano
Cuayaraca
Maporut
e
Boni
Mount
Roraima
Santa
a
Orinduik
urupukari
I abarti
.0wentick
upununi
ethem
- e International boundary,
in dispute
- Railroad
Road raceraioi;
Scale 1:4,500,000
Secret
100 Kilometers
100 Miles
Ishorten
Bile Ku
54
eau
Promtation h
enthartheve
800501 (A05700)9-86
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Venezuela-Guyana
Border Basics
The Venezuela-Guyana border with an estimated
length of 743 kilometers extends from Punta Playa
on the Atlantic coast inland to the tripoint with the
Brazilian boundary. From Punta Playa, the bound-
ary is a straight line extending southeasterly for
about 35 kilometers until it intersects the Barima
River. From that point, the boundary is predominant-
ly aligned in the midchannels of several rivers?the
Mururuma, Amakura, Cuyuni, and Wenamu?or
uses local water divides. The last 107 kilometers is a
straight line cutting across mountainous terrain be-
fore terminating at Mt. Roraima, at an elevation of
about 2,800 meters. This section of the border closely
corresponds to the water divide separating tributaries
of the Essequibo in Guyana and the Orinoco in
Venezuela.
The Paris Arbitration Tribunal Award defined the
boundary by geographical description in 1899. A
mixed British-Venezuelan boundary commission
(1900-05) marked the boundary on the ground.
Twenty-five irregularly spaced points were located,
identified by geographical coordinates at river
mouths, river confluences, headwaters location, and
by other mainly physical features. Each location is
marked by a concrete post. Only the initial section
from Punta Playa to the Barima River was cleared
and marked as visible on the ground. In 1932 an
exchange of notes resulted in minor adjustments in
the location of the tripoint of the Venezuela-Brazil-
Guyana border.
The border area is almost uninhabited. A combina-
tion of dense tropical forests and rough mountainous
terrain limits population, agriculture, and transpor-
tation routes. There is a little cultivation around
Mabarum, in Guyana, near the coast, but otherwise
only lumbering or minerals extraction brings settlers
to the border area. Rivers are the only practical
means of transborder movement; both the Amakura
and Cuyuni are navigable border rivers.
55
Secret
Significant Developments
The 12-year moratorium provided for by the 1970
Protocol of Port-of-Spain, a time when the two sides
were to refrain from statements and actions detrimen-
tal to each other, ended in June 1982. Although there
were provisions for renewal of the moratorium, Vene-
zuela refused, and the two countries entered a three-
month period during which they were to attempt to
agree on a means of settling their territorial dispute.
This failed: Guyana rejected Venezuela's proposal for
bilateral negotiations, and Venezuela rejected
Guyana's plan for a judicial settlement by the Inter-
national Court of Justice. The next stage provided for
in the Geneva Agreement of 1966 was the referral of
the dispute to an international organization or the
United Nations Secretary General to determine the
means of peaceful settlement?mediation, concilia-
tion, arbitration, judicial, or other?to be used. Guy-
ana accepted (March 1983) Venezuela's suggestion
that the UN Secretary General, Javier Perez de
Cuellar, be the mediator. Accordingly, the Secretary
General designated Diego Cordovez, the UN Assis-
tant Secretary General for Special Political Affairs,
as his special envoy to confer with representatives
from each country before reaching a decision.
Frontier History
The Venezuelan-Guyanese' boundary dispute re-
volves around the ambiguities of ancient treaties, the
uncertainties of historical events and their interpreta-
tion, and the legal weight to after-the-fact disclosures
pointing toward judicial compromise.
The Spanish explorer Ojeda claimed the land at the
mouth of the Orinoco in 1499, but it was Dutch
traders who established trading posts (1626) in the
area between the Orinoco and the Essequibo Rivers.
It was not until the end of the Thirty Years War
(1648), however, that Spain, which had been awarded
most of South America by Papal Decree in 1493,
recognized Dutch possessions in the New World?
though the Treaty of Munster did not specify either
what or where those possessions were.
'Before 1970 the spelling was Guiana.
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
During the latter half of the 17th century, Dutch
traders established additional posts well inland on the
upper Cuyuni and on other rivers. Considerably later
(1724), Spanish missionaries founded settlements in
the Guyanese interior, though all were destroyed in
1750 by an Indian uprising. In 1796 the British seized
all Dutch settlements, and, in 1814, following a brief
reassertion of Dutch control, the entire area?though
not precisely defined in the treaty?was ceded to
Great Britain by terms of the Treaty of London.
Upon gaining independence from Spain, Venezuela
(part of the state of Gran Colombia from 1821-30)
informed Great Britain on several occasions that the
boundary with British Guyana followed the course of
the Essequibo River?diplomatic assertions that Lon-
don neither accepted nor rejected. Because Guyana
was mostly unexplored and unmapped, a Prussian
geographer-naturalist, Robert Schomburgk, was em-
ployed (1839-41) by the British to explore, map, and
recommend "convenient boundaries." Schomburgk's
recommended boundary was approximately 150 to
200 kilometers west of the Essequibo, a territorial
division promptly protested by Venezuela. Subsequent
attempts in the 1840s to negotiate a boundary solution
with Great Britain failed. Paradoxically, both coun-
tries would have apparently agreed to a compromise
boundary?the Moruka River some 100 kilometers
northwest of the Essequibo?had negotiations contin-
ued.
The discovery of gold in the Guyanese interior in the
latter half of the 19th century led to a reopening of
the border dispute. Britain, because of the gold dis-
coveries, enlarged its claims while Venezuela contin-
ued to press for the Essequibo boundary. Although
Venezuela enlisted support from the United States, it
was only when the Venezuelans hired William
Schrupp, an effective lobbyist and former US Consul
to Caracas who skillfully tapped anti-British senti-
ments in Washington, that greater pressures were
placed on London to settle the dispute. An arbitration
agreement between Venezuela and Great Britain was
signed in February 1897 authorizing an arbitration
panel consisting of two Venezuelans, two Americans
Secret
(both US Supreme Court Justices), and a Russian
chairman, Frederick de Martens. The arbitrational
panel's decision, the Paris Award of 1899, defined a
boundary allocating to Britain more than 80 percent
of what London had claimed. Because Venezuela
received the mouth of the Orinoco River, the commis-
sion's award was reluctantly accepted by Caracas. A
mixed commission worked for five years (1900-05) to
fix the boundary on the ground.
Venezuela reopened the border issue in 1962 when it
declared the 1899 agreement null and void.
Venezuela's action was taken after Britain had an-
nounced that Guyana would be granted independence.
Earlier (1949) there had been sensationalized revela-
tions by one of the US counsels, Severo Mallet-
Prevost, who had represented Venezuela at the 1899
meeting, that a deal had been struck between the
Russians and the British to agree to a compromise
favoring Great Britain. There was considerable pub-
licity in both countries over the changes made in
Mallet-Prevost's memorandum. In 1966 Britain, Ven-
ezuela, and Guyana met at Geneva and agreed to
establish a mixed Guyanese-Venezuelan commission
to seek "a practical settlement." Since the commission
failed to agree by February 1970, a preset date
established by the commission, and because border
incidents had increased tensions, the two countries
signed the Protocol of Port-of-Spain (June 1970),
which essentially froze boundary discussions for 12
years.
Current Developments and Outlook
The UN Special Envoy, Diego Cordovez, has visited
Guyana and Venezuela twice (August 1984 and
March 1985) to explore each nation's position before
recommending means to settle the dispute. Both sides,
however, still appear far apart in their views as to
what constitutes acceptable compromises.
For Venezuela, the dispute is less a matter of regain-
ing territory than a means for redressing perceived
injustices and restoring national honor. To bolster its
56
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
case, Venezuela has assembled ancient maps and
documents to support its contention that the Essequi-
bo River was the traditional boundary. Great empha-
sis is placed on the "political" rather than the juridi-
cal nature of the 1899 boundary award, based on the
revelations (1949) made by one of the participants, S.
Mallet-Prevost, as to how the award may have been
determined. (When the dispute resurfaced in the
1960s, however, the Office of the Legal Adviser,
Department of State, believed on the evidence ad-
duced at the time that an international tribunal would
not support Venezuela's claim that the 1899 award is
invalid.) Venezuelan pursuit of their reclamacion de
Guyuana Esequiba program?going so far as to indi-
cate the area on their maps?also reflects the changed
political relationships since 1950. Britain is no longer
the world power of the 19th and early 20th century,
whereas Venezuela has shed its weak and disorga-
nized mantle and has achieved some regional impor-
tance. This newly developed sense of nationalism is a
potent force sustaining Venezuelan objectives of some
form of territorial readjustment. Additionally, poten-
tial offshore resources could be a factor if the land
boundary is adjusted.
The dispute is more critical to Guyana since 60
percent of its territory would be lost should the
Essequibo River boundary prevail. This territory also
contains much of Guyana's resources including baux-
ite, oil, and hydroelectric potential. Guyana believes it
has a strong legal position and that world opinion
would be favorable if the dispute were to be resolved
by an international body. As Guyanese officials state,
Venezuela accepted the 1899 award and signed the
1905 agreement, formally acknowledging the delimi-
tation of the boundary on the ground. The timing of
Venezuela's claim, coming soon after Britain an-
nounced its planned withdrawal from Guyana, would
favor Guyana's role as a small state bullied by a
larger, more powerful country. Guyana might, howev-
er, make minor territorial adjustments in exchange
for assistance in developing resources in the disputed
territory.
57
Border Treaties and Key Dates
1499
Spanish explorer Ojeda lands near mouth of Orinoco
and claims area for Spain.
1613-26
Dutch traders establish coastal settlements on
Essequibo River.
1648
Treaty of Munster ending Thirty Years War confirms
Dutch and Spanish territorial rights in the New
World, but without specifying what or where they
were.
1658-1700
Dutch settlements are established in Guyana interior.
1724-50
Spanish mission settlements are founded in Guyanese
interior; then destroyed in 1750 Indian uprising.
1814
By terms of Treaty of London, Netherlands cedes
Dutch settlements on coast and the Essequibo to
Britain.
1839-41
British commission survey and boundary recommen-
dations to be conducted by Robert Schomburgk, to
determine the extent of the Guyana territory.
1824-50
Britain and Venezuela conduct nonconclusive bound-
ary negotiations, end with status quo declarations.
1863-75
Gold strikes in interior attract large numbers of
British prospectors and adventurers.
1887-96
British-Venezuelan tension over border issue in-
creases; Venezuela secures US assistance, and a rise
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
in anti-British sentiment eventually forces Great Brit-
ain to enter agreement with Venezuela to form arbi-
tration commission.
1899
Arbitration Tribunal announces award favoring Brit-
ish version of boundary; Venezuela reluctantly
accepts.
1905
Border is delimited by mixed commission and its work
ratified by Britain and Venezuela.
1949
Publication of S. Mallet-Prevost memorandum (writ-
ten in 1949) suggesting pro-British bias and pressures
in the 1899 arbitration commission.
1962
Venezuela declares 1899 award null and void.
1966
Britain, Venezuela, and Guyana sign Geneva agree-
ment to set up mixed commission to resolve border
issue, with various procedures to follow if agreement
is not reached.
Guyana becomes independent over Venezuelan
protests.
1970
Because of no border agreement, Protocol of Port-of-
Spain is signed, providing for 12-year "cooling off
procedures" freezing claims as of that time.
1982
Moratorium ends and Venezuela refuses to renew; no
agreement on method for a solution.
1983
Venezuela and Guyana agree to permit UN Secretary
General to recommend appropriate diplomatic mecha-
nism to resolve dispute.
Secret 58
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Other Latin American
Boundaries and Territorial Disputes
The design of this report permits updating of border information. Changes
and additions will be disseminated to holders of this Digest as necessary.
Reverse Blank
59 Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Other Latin American Boundaries
and Territorial Disputes
Nearly all remaining Latin American international
boundaries have been demarcated and major disputes
resolved. Many of these boundaries, however, have a
history of controversy, and some boundary disputes
have only recently been resolved. Most disputes arose
because of imperfect knowledge of the physical char-
acteristics of the borderlands?commonly located in
remote and largely uninhabited areas?and from map
errors or unclear written descriptions of border fea-
tures in treaties delimiting the boundary. Arbitration
often has been used to resolve border disputes. Future
boundary disputes are possible, particularly where
boundary markers are widely spaced or where rivers
form the boundary and the course of the river changes
because of flooding.
The accompanying table lists boundary status (demar-
cated or delimited), pertinent boundary treaties and
agreements, and, where available, the International
Boundary Studies (IBS) prepared by the Office of the
Geographer, Bureau of Intelligence and Research,
Department of State.
Reverse Blank
Secret
61 Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
Argentina-Bolivia
Status: Demarcated (1894-1939)
Treaty: Argentina-Bolivia Treaty
(1889); modification agree-
ments (1891, 1925, 1938,
1941)
IBS: No. 162, November 1977
832
Argentina-Brazil
Status: Demarcated (1904)
Treaty: Argentina-Brazil Treaty (1898);
clarification treaty (1910) and com-
plimentary treaty (1927)
IBS: No. 168, May 1979
1,224
Reverse Blank
ar 66
-..*"..-
---" . m,A
a DM
BO
65
'VIA
Vb
24
64
Yacuiha
Villa -
u . e
'0
-.E.
Villazon
?
2`.
2
22
San
Pablo.
'V.
IV
Tarila
is- vr, illazdn
w
-22
11
,,,,
0
-s)
a
O
Pocitos
Duran
Tartagal
-
PARA.,
La Ouiaca
'
CHILE
.1.,?, s
,.., ,,,ns
(-1
Humahuac
an-Silv
JO
'Embarcaci'
EN NA
or
---
-.. '-.-- Railroad
Road
Scale 1:7,500,000
0 75 Kilometers
4
87r.,2,,6
' i
64 0 , 75 Miles
? 25X1
681
ARGENTI
t. SWUM
A
o,
56
Puerto Iguacu
I a rica a no. 1111k
Stroessner

'?6
...
?
elririfte;
-A
_
ma
-
Core.:
Cuat `
30 Al
G
11 A Y
k
e
Santa
Bodo Cruz
....." Santa
rete Maria
Rosa
Pbrto Uniio
BRAZIL
28
.t,
: -
_
.
-- .
,
56
-
w
__ _
- una-
lbera _1
?
___ .
_
---__"- r.,
di Pe
' Artig
1:MUGU
Alta
Passe
Rai
I road
/
--..---.?
Road
o Scale 110,000,000
100 Kilometers
P.,
84% .
"
rtr:trrgrtre= t. 54
0 100 Miles
63 Secret
800509 (A05707) 9-86
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
25X1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
Argentina-Chile 5,150
Status: Demarcated
Treaty: Argentina-Brazil Treaty (1881) and
numerous subsequent agreements
fixing individual border sectors
IBS: No. 101, May 1970 (covers only
Palena sector of 72 kilometers)
Note: For information on Beagle Channel controversy and extreme
southern section of the boundary, see page 5.
Reverse Blank
20
Isla
San Folic
(CHILE)
(CHILE)
30
-40
A?qu
PAZ
0 BRAZIL
Iquique
Antofagasta
Copia
CHIL
SANTIA
"Archipielogo
Juan Ferande,
(CHILE)
Concepcio
South
Pacific
Ocean
- -----
50
Railroad Rio Gallegos no
Puerto
Ma' ti
AY
ION
Rio
00
Rawsbn
?Na,
TEVIDEO
?,) km du
la Plata
del Plata
IL
South
Atlantic
Ocean
40
?jr
Road MStraitlan ot "
FALKLAND ISLANDS
agel (ISLAS MALVINAS)
Scale 136,000,000
I ladnentsterod by U.K.,
0 500 Kilometers nuaia claimed by Argenlina)
1 1
I Beagle
,0 500 Miles "cap Ho?, Channe160 50
65 Secret
800510 (A05708) 9-86 25)(1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
Argentina-Paraguay
Status: Demarcated (1876-1945)
Treaty: Argentina-Paraguay Treaty (1876);
modification treaties (1939, 1945)
IBS: No. 166, January 1979
1,880
Argentina-Uruguay
Status: River boundary demarcated by se-
ries of points (1961, 1973)
Treaty: Argentina-Uruguay Treaty (1961)
and (1973); latter treaty defines
border south of Punta Gorda
IBS: No. 68 (Rev) October 1975
579
Belize-Mexico
Status: Delimited, using rivers and geo-
graphic coordinates
Treaty: Great Britain?Mexico Treaty
(1893)
IBS: No. 161, February 1977
250
Reverse Blank
67
-24
26
62
iscal
Estiga ia
La Esmeralda
ndgg7:=.
Minas-cue
56
13R
- I
A Pedro-Jua
.Caltille
Crie-cepci
2,
guna Yem
- -a.
-
ARGE
Monte
Ouemado
Clertn
Tormos
-0--+-Railroad
Road
Scale 112,500,000
O 100 Kilometers
0 100 Miles
R sten nen
58 _-
ante
Rosa
BRA28
resenlation
r aulhorltatire
Cur
800511 (A05709) 9-86
Railroad
Road
Scale 110,000,000
o 100 Kilometers
I
O 100 Miles
Road
Scale 1:2,000,000
0 30 Kilometers
-0 30 Miles
EN
AIRE
800512 (A05710) 9-86
Bahia
de
Chetumal
Chichanha - te ? - Arebe gno
- 18?00 Ovvraanigke
--...?
..--:_ _
CO
Er
Cat' 1 OW
San Pedro
..0
_. B E LEZE ? Caribbean Sea
7 ,_
.,,.__?e
0,
_ ___?.77,1_,,,, Hicks 0
Gays 0
- ,4,.. ,6 0
GUATEMALAr _
I 89?00 _
11 .
Secret
800513 (A05711) 9-86
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
Bolivia-Brazil
Status: Demarcated
Treaty: Bolivia-Brazil Treaty (1903) and
subsequent protocols and supple-
mentary treaties through 1958 for
individual border sectors
IBS: None
3,400
Bolivia-Chile
Status: Demarcated (1904-05); minor
changes in 1907
Treaty: Bolivia-Chile Treaty (1904)
IBS: No. 67, March 1966
861
Bolivia-Paraguay
Status: Demarcated (1936); minor changes
in 1969
Treaty: Bolivia-Paraguay
IBS: None
750
Reverse Blank
69
- Road
Scale 1:21,000,060
0 200 Kilometers,,
0 200 Miles
800514 (A05712) 8-86
72
110
,
haraiia
0 1 41111( *
-18
.
Arica tit
Pisagu
South
1
?
4 ,
, .ii.ce
Huac alla
'
?is
40
Lago
N Poopo
? '
?
-20
-22
0
Pacific
lquiqu
Ocean
Railroad i
....`
'0-
.1
t
I
i?
ij
1ja
0
f
' ,
ILE 'r ' '
Oy ,,..
,
Uyuni
San
Pablo.
ARG:
386
0
zoo
._......_,...-
'SSW
Road
Scale 1:10,700,000
100 Kilometers
1 INA
I 100 Miles
800515 (A05713) 9-88
IVIA
0 Mayor Paula
-Lagerenza
S..
ia arS
Fortin
Ravel()
Puerto Ba
Negr
Pilcfo6:-rayo
La Esme Ida
ARGE A
Mariscal
Estigarribia
fre,
Fuerte Olimpo
Railroad
Road
Scale 1:7,000,000
0 , 10,0 Kilometers
100 Miles
Secret
22
800516 (A05714) 9-86
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
Bolivia-Peru
Status: Demarcated (1937)
Treaty: Bolivia-Peru (1909) and later
agreements
IBS: None
900
Brazil-Colombia 1,643
Status: Demarcated (1937)
Treaty: Brazil-Colombia (1907)
IBS: No. 174, April 1985
Brazil?French Guiana
Status: Demarcated (1959)
Treaty: France-Portugal (1713); Arbitral
Award (1900) and Letter of Agree-
ment (1962-63)
IBS: None
673
Reverse Blank
71
Road
Scale 1:14,000,000
0 100 Kilometers
100 Miles
800517 (A05715) 9-86
4
72
70
C lamar
p
Mite
MBIA
Rio
68 86
" San Carlos
de Rio Negro
VENZUELA
rit
Le
Pedrera
P,turnavo
PERUTera io
,7 c
Loretoi
i
7
? ?,9?
ate-
Alegre
R.
?
!pane
"za-
Tagyiucuara
BRAZI
Rio JaPura
Japurt
2
Fonte
Amazon
Boa
`43?
?
Tabatinga
Road
Scale 1:12,000,000
0 100 Kilometers
100 Miles
25X1
800518 (A05716) 9-86 25)(1
Boundfly repruencotioy it
e
I BRAZIL,
53
BRAZIL
.Cacipore
Road
3
Scale 1:5,000,000
0 50 Kilometers
Secret
50 Miles
800519 (A05717) 9-86
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
25X1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
Brazil-Guyana
Status: Demarcated (1938)
Treaty: Brazil?British Guyana Treaty
(1926); Exchange of Notes fixing
boundary (1940)
IBS: None
1,119
Brazil-Paraguay
Status: Demarcated (1874)
Treaty: Brazil-Paraguay Boundary Treaty
(1872)
IBS: None
1,290
Note: Dispute over Guaira Falls sector flared during mid-1960s.
Brazil-Peru
Status: Demarcated (1910-12); redemar-
cated (1981)
Treaty: Brazil-Peru (1909)
IBS: None
1,560
Reverse Blank
73
ENS US LA
Rio
BRAZ
Urar coer/
Boa Vista
racarai
Boundary represealitiPia
nal nresaarily.ildhoritali've
60
Holmia
Ori ik
them
orrNope
GUYANA
herton
58 Road
Scale 1:8,000,000
O 100 Kilometers
O 100 Miles
? SURINAME
dispute
60 58
R
Appikelo
^ ?
BRAZIL
800520 (A05718) 9-86 25)(1
BOL VIA Stare
Corumbe?
- Campo
22
?uer
Bahia
0 Negro
Mt jag rairsrci ba a
Minas-cue_
Kmv.?61:;,r ?
10_ Casado Pedro--Jua
1
MaIS
54
Rail road
Road
Scale 114,000,000
O 100 Kilometers
O 100 Miles
ZIL
Dourados Presid?ie 22
finticio
- Marine'
ARGE
Puerto
Presidente
Stroessner
ao ?Formos
o Iguagu
R. 19"e
TINA
52
26/
800521 (A05719) 9.86 25)(1
74
---i----i-- Rail road - N-aa--ta-
RoaW\-
Scale 1:15,000,000
0 150 kilometers 1
150 Miles ../e
XI
(
ts
0c?
do Sal
'Iquitos
.Requen
Tarapoto
Juan
Contamana
8
Ptical
P E\
10
oyllarisquizga
ache
,\
Puerto
Portillo
2_ iria5.7.7
Camas
74 72
OLOM
eticia
Tbatinga
Rio
Eirunepe.,,,-,-
Feiji
Oc'
68
4
Carauari.
S
AZIL
?
Boca do
Acre'
Us
Sena,
Madureir
Bra
leia
aria CO
obda
70 BOLIVIA
6
Secret
800522 (A05720) 9-86
25)(1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
Brazil-Suriname
Status: Demarcated (1938)
Treaty: Brazil-Netherlands (1906)
IBS: None
597
Brazil-Uruguay
Status: Demarcated (1920-35)
Treaty: Brazil-Uruguay Treaty (1851), ad-
justments and modifications (1852,
1909, 1913, 1933, 1972)
IBS: No. 170, November 1979
985
Note: Low-key disputes exist concerning Brazilian islands at
confluence of Uruguay and Rio Quarai, and over the Arroyo de la
Invernada area; Uruguay has without success, attempted to engage
Brazil in talks to resolve problems.
Brazil-Venezuela
Status: Demarcated (1940-73)
Treaty: Brazil-Venezuela (1859) and sever-
al subsequent agreements ratifying
demarcation work through 1973
IBS: No. 175, July 1985
2,200
Reverse Blank
75
800523 (A05721) 9-86
Boundary representation:is
not necessarily ion ritati
,gas
in,
dispute
-
Arroyo de In
Inyernada
alto
Grande
South
Atlantic
Ocean
32
--....-r-- Railroad
Road -34
Scale 1:10,500,000
100 Kilorneters
MONTEVIDEO 54
100 Miles
800524 (A05722) 9-86
1 jf
' E EZUELA
WI;
t?
_
)0.1,
=, /Icahn
'nail '
-14
, .
?.4*,
---. .
_
Esmeralda
?
Bocar
M a v ilia t .
-'
7,--. ,.?
/- thar(C.,
RAZ
3
Boa Vista
I._ 0?,'
an-Gailos -
C-Rio Negro_
' k.-_
Chu / :
ne
-
66
#4,-2,
A
Boundery,repre u4 sentetion iS ,
J-
necessarily whom.. f
Scale
)
R d
1 10 000,000 ,
.
15jKtlsnseters
_ 0
O.rtr50 Miles,
Secret
800525 (A05723) 9-86
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
Colombia-Ecuador 590
Status: Demarcated (1919)
Treaty: Colombia-Ecuador (1908 and 1916)
IBS: None
Colombia-Panama
Status: Demarcated (1938)
Treaty: Colombia-Panama Boundary
Treaty (1924)
Exchange of Notes (1938)
IBS: No. 62, January 1966
225
Colombia-Peru
Status: Demarcated (1930)
Treaty: Colombia-Peru (1922)
IBS: None
2,900
Reverse Blank
77
North
Pacific
Ocean
2
78
Popayin
Tumaco
RIO
San
Loren
OM
Pasto
Railroad
Road
Scale 1:7,000,000 _
0 75 Kilorneters
I 11
IA 0 75 Miles
ocoa
La
Tola
Puerto
sis
Puerto
Ospina
Apuela
QUITO
Sant
Domingo
0 ta,
Latacung
Nuevo
ocafuerte
PERU
78
Npr.31111I.IiIIII Is
not necusndly nth
76
800526 (A05724) 9-86
78?30'
830
8?00
9111?
Golfo de Pa
San
Moguel
76 0
PA
Gulf
of
Panama
Jague
7?30'
78?30 78?00'
7roo?
Caribbean Sea
?Mulatos
Yaviza
/
Golfo
de
Urab
8?30'-
Necocli
?1m57-a71
vi
WWI
? =
Road
_
tS- cale 1:3,000,000
o 50 Kilometers
O Miles
0
800527 (A05725) 9-86
Tagiia
in
dispute
E
,1%,
Rio
iz....
74
Pue e
rto
'
72'.-7--c.
,
Road

4
Scale 1:9,500,000
COLOMBIALa
Puerto
0 1 oo Kilometers
n 0
rrio
C,
Pe
100 Miles
drera
11.
-
0
Calzon
PERU
Nanay
Artur
Rio Puturna
lor de Agosto
MO Vidal
,
Iquitos
? Arica
Pucaurco,,
' YaguaS
/
Pebas Ta p
-7;01?-6 /Boo
% n '''''', Lo6to
ca
os
Ai as
e ,...0
, atinga
Boundary ,epresentalion is
no, netass. it +ulhoritntive,
RIO Yavari
BRAZIL 70
Secret
25X1
25X1
800528 (A05726) 9-86 25)(1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
Colombia-Venezuela
Status: Demarcated (1932);
redemarcated (1982-83)
Treaty: Colombia-Venezuela (1891) and
several subsequent awards and
agreements
IBS: None
2,050
Costa Rica?Nicaragua
Status: Demarcated (1900)
Treaty: Costa Rica?Nicaragua Treaty
(1858) and five arbitral awards
(1897-1900) clarifying individual
sections
IBS: No. 158, August 1976
309
Costa Rica?Panama 330
Status: Demarcated (1944)
Treaty: Costa Rica?Panama Treaty (1941)
IBS: No. 156, July 1976
Reverse Blank
79
Caribbean
Aru t,
N '.6 9V?14T
racaibo ' `."-:.1
Lag
r cai
,
-
Arauca
arren
k
00
da
VI b
Sea
RA,CAS
Ir '
2
.-
1-
Barrantmill.-.
Cartamln
.
bo
4
: mntak
,,
,
in
ii ?
.
ucu,? terk.Airez?
- IAe
OGOTA'
?
0
cl
'Puerto
Ayacucho
dad ?
m
o
Railroad
72
0000'are uert)
,,o Inirida
'6 Or'.4
o.
---.---.7-
Road
, ? ,
' Stale 122,000,000
0. / 200 Kilometers
r - t ,
..--6
Mitt
BAZIL
1 i
0 200 Miles
85?00' 84530'
800529 (A05727) 6-86
25)(1
84?00',.'
*3
Rivas
Pet
lancas
Lago
de
Nicaragua
NICARAG11,A
Caribbean
Sea
North
Pacific
Ocean
Coco
-10?30
Santa
us
RTC
ZA
/ Scale 1:3,500,000
50 Kilometers
60 Miles
800530 (A05728) 9-86
? N
83
13
Caribbean
Sea
Boca del Toro
North
Pacific
Ocean
Imar, 4- -..;_, ?---... ?
LIS 2.**,?,,,, -7.',:Sab li
,(. olfiti..,
Railroad
Road
Scale 1:3,100,000
0 25 Kilometers
- 0 25 Miles
Puerto
muelles
Golfo de Chiriqui
Secret
25X1
800796 (A05929) 9-86 25)(1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
_Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
Cuba?United States (Guantanamo)
Status: US naval base on 116 square kilo-
meter leased site flanking outer
port on of Guantanamo Bay
Treaty: Treaty (1934) reaffirmed in 1963;
provides that only US abandon-
ment of area or a mutual agree-
ment can terminate the lease
IBS: None
Dominican Republic?Haiti
Status: Demarcated (1930 and 1935)
Treaty: Dominican Republic?Haiti Treaty
(1929); minor revisions (1935)
IBS: No. 5, May 1961
275
El Salvador?Guatemala
Status: Demarcated (1940)
Treaty: El Salvador?Guatemala Treaty
(1938)
IBS: No. 82, July 1968
203
Reverse Blank
81
0 , , mums 000000,0000,000r
,-iiri.01 iv ,
_ .
, Boquerin
....
Air _
ferry -.feral,
?v.
Itn
,
Now*
r
19 ,,
I
?
mill/.
t nam
Y
I
Po
Railroad
,?.., -4' ;v
?
.i"..
Caribbean Seap
-Road
m
(4 Scale 1.260.000
6 "i itlirgtera '
9 75,
.2 ...,? ?9.., ,,.1 9844 44444,:sem.44,4 q , 4
Mile
!.52, v a aa,A. 'el oat , PecourlIV .11,0101144j ,P :".,, 1010:666616:: ,.,3
qa
.
.?ce"
3.400.0001
',143rerefft
HaItie ciScale
, ,
al 4 F1'OMINIC
.1) Miles'
?
? 0 RE -
e, 0 fasiot
mr;baiii apiiiiNz ' ,
Man evillr 4.`\-
(`,..13ORTJAUIPRINCE" , il
..1,4.4.4 .?,...,.,
,,,,,,a vin,? ? .
Oft

Alba
A
Ceribbea
See
,Le,ogane , .....
q-
noeu to
&Inlet .4
- a44a, 44 arahon
,
Ca,,b n,se'a 4,..,/.4., atornales
r7 I
800531 (A05729)9-86
"I'll
49
40
-%419
89'30iffr;D
Al
, ;a
...,
i,
agoA94 ewk N4.1 Aetiiiiin
e Gui thdif 3
e-
FI.P.,_.....
0 '
0
4.
.4
R ilmad
itzlik
25 Kilometer
-11111.1r25
? 4
'

441
'
Miles
I' I
Culla
'
'CI)
Otippa
c.,
00
411
Pacific
Ocean
T.
'
''ffa-
Aeuachipin1.?:86 ,
6Acalutla
8
'44 a if
.11 l*bi
AN
DOR
4-
Scale 1.42007000
oT
Secret
25X1
25X1
800532 (A05730) 9-86
25)(1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copyr Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
French Guiana?Suriname
Status: Demarcated, except for southern
section
Treaty: Arbitral Award (1891); modifica-
tion (1905, 1915)
IBS: None
510
Note: Draft treaties to settle southernmost border section have been
readied in 1939 and 1979 but not signed.
Guatemala-Mexico
Status: Demarcated (1899)
Treaty: Guatemala-Mexico Treaty (1882);
modified by 1895 convention
IBS: No. 159, December 1976
962
Guatemala-Honduras
Status: Demarcated (1936)
Treaty: Guatemala-Honduras Treaty of
Arbitration (1930) and subsequent
award (1933)
IBS: No. 157, July 1976
256
Reverse Blank
83
BoOnder; repfeientillitO If
not, neensefilyloothioitlItivt,
800533 (A05731) 986
-nommom,
Mahe
1
4XII.
1
Tanosiq
-te? '11
isimmIllowl
ni,
'e
Beliz
u?e?
- -- season-ay=
-- mundated--
.7._z
_
airtiistab
,idiai"Cis
-Sv4,
I
f
?miter' i
isii-,
0...
%?
rezie??"-
Ores
00 ,G,P
EIJZEJ
Ci
Go of
Ho du a
AirRiniainit
y .Griride
hueten e .., i0
Coban
Alta
'Saimaa
.
Iv.-.--,-,
Ft4 d
00
lorree
15 9l43
Tap
North
Pacthc A____Allillit:17
Ocean 'Nerillrall=li
,l;"7-ea,, 1361 IN"
ezalten
, t
AT
1 - r ''''''
Ts
f JA
Soale4sof0
oir-riak7,
kor,/,,P. 6-1Piez3
25X1
800534 (A05732) 9.86
25)(1
Boundary;repriiiiiehorrisiu,
nal !warily ' authant
-r
tore. "fto,
? 89?00'
,
lifitoi?
"" Laga de
.- M . '
t
I otagua
0
a
1
Gulf of
arta Hon ., duras..
ries f '

,,,( S'&
' an PeteSUiLt
E4,41
0
?D,,l0tR. ,9..
rfAe'o ttEl
74)
ooL
Jr
d
000
5 Izabal
Aerail
0
4
,
Rio
HOT do
16
NO
Chiquimul
r
acibalt
0
',CPA
. d4 te
VA
Nueva
itY-,'
antiatos
de Copan
.."'tn,
Railroad
"lt
R
.
S o'i 2 00
0 ()meter
li 14
-
o r-agiN
c)
1
8
TO), 22aMiles
Secret
800535 (A05733) 9-86
25)(1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Boundary
Length
(Kilometers)
Honduras-Nicaragua
Status: Demarcated (1963)
Treaty: Honduras-Nicaragua Treaty
(1894);
Arbitral Award by King of Spain
(1906) and International Court of
Justice (1960) decision
IBS: No. 36, October 1964
922
Reverse Blank
A G U
6,,cild _+---,-+ Railroad
- Road
c. S ale 1:6,500,000
0 75 Kilometers
0 75 Miles
86 25X1
85 Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
25X1
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6
Secret
Secret
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/01/21: CIA-RDP97R00694R000600350001-6