EL SALVADOR-HONDURAS BOUNDARY ISSUE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP08C01297R000400140014-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 12, 2012
• Sequence Number: 14
• Publication Date: June 23, 1983
• Content Type: MEMO

t1/4 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0 tat
tT');
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Washington, D.C. 2020
June 23, 1983
Ambassador Pickering
INR/GE - J. Millard Bur
El Salvador-Honduras Boundary .Issue
We have attached a short precis which addresses the
problem of the El Salvador-Honduras boundary on land and in
the Gulf of Fonseca.
Attachment:
As stated.
cc: ARA/CEN - Mr. Romero
INR - Mi. Thorne
INR/IAA - Mr. Knepper
INR/GE:JMBurr:bjm
,S
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0
;. Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0
EL SALVADOR-HONDURAS BOUNDARY
Although efforts were undertaken to delimit the El Salvador-
Honduras boundary (1880, 1886, 1895, 1918, 1962) it can be
claimed that no actual delimitation document had been agreed
upon by both States until 1980.
Traditional boundaries exist. They generally follow
the colonial boundaries of Spain's Central American possessions.
The most noteworthy and unchallenged segments exist on either
side of the Goascaran, Torola, Lempa and Sempul Rivers.
On various occasions efforts were made to demarcate por-
tions of the boundary (1861, 1869, 1881, 1889). As is the
case with boundary delimitation, no document existed that ex-
pressed official agreement as to the location of, or agreement
on, boundary markers. The El Salvador-Honduras General Peace
Treaty of October 1980 calls for the demarcation not only of
those portions of the boundary in dispute, but redemarcation of
the boundary considered free of dispute.
Background to the 1980 Treaty:
Honduras has consistently claimed that a boundary must
be based on the uti possidetis juris of 1821; i.e., that land
possessed by the colonial Provinces of Honduras and El Salvador
were, in turn, possessed by the newer independent Republics of
Honduras and El Salvador. The question of archaic maps and
questionable territorial limits has been the cause of numerous
Latin American disputes.
Honduras claims that:
1. At six points along its border El Salvador has taken
possession of land either located north of a colonial river
boundary, or land actually owned by a Honduras municipality.
(Note map, following page.) Citizens of El Salvador purchased
Honduran municipal lands (ejidos) which led in turn to the
de facto possession of Honduran territory. In the past, Hon-
duras has not objected to the purchase of the lands, but it
claims it retains sovereignty by virtue of municipal ownership
and by dint of the principal of uti possidetis juris.
2. The location of the Honduras-El Salvador-Guatemala
tripoint, although legally fixed through the Guatemala-Honduras
arbitral award of 1933, did nothing to determine the question
of territorial ownership of land adjacent to the tripoint itself.
Honduras has claimed that El Salvador illegally occupies approx-
imately 50 square kilometers of land in the region.
3. The location of the El Salvador-Honduras boundary
terminus in the Gulf of Fonseca should be located at the de-
bouchment of the Goascaran River at the Conchagua inlet.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0
4. That all islands facing the southeast coast of El
Salvador in the Gulf of Fonseca rightly belong to Honduras.
They can point to important historical incidents that occurred
on the islands in the 1840s when the islands seemed to be in
the possession of Honduras; however, there appears to be no
mention in colonial times of actual ownership. It seems that
the islands were occupied by Salvadoreans some time after 1860;
by 1916 El Salvador was considering the emplacement of a
penal colony on one of the islands then occupied by citizens
of El Salvador. It has generally been assumed that Honduras
has claimed all the islands facing El Salvador; however, a
1960 study undertaken by a Honduran claimed that Conchaguita
Island had never been claimed by Honduras. (Note Map, following
page.)
El Salvador claims that:
The actual deboucliment of the Goascaran River lies further
east than the present de facto boundary. It disputes, of
course, all Honduran claims to territory in dispute.
Opinions:
1. The land boundary dispute is by far the most difficult
problem to resolve because both sides are probably prepared to.
provide a mountain of paper and a bushel of maps to prove a
point. The land boundary is not, however, the most crucial
element of the 1980 Treaty. The possession of islands, and
the potential for a limits in the sea agreement in the Gulf
of Honduras is by far a more important strategic consideration.
2. As it now stands, if the equidistance method is em-
ployed to determine coastal waters, El Salvador and Nicaraguan
possession of headlands to the Gulf of Fonseca prevent Honduras
from having a corridor to the high seas. Even if El Salvador
were to cede its possession of Meanguera Island, Honduras would
still be "locked in" the Gulf of Honduras. The Government of
Honduras may not be aware of this fact.
3. In 1914, by a "Convention Respecting a Nicaraguan
Canal Route" signed by a representatives of the USA and Nicaragua,
the US obtained a 99 year right to the establishment, opera-
tion, and maintenance of a naval base on the Gulf of Fonseca.
(Treaty terminated in 1970.) This right was bitterly attacked
by El Salvador. Since 1913 the Government of El Salvador has
maintained that sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Gulf of
Fonseca are vested jointly in the Republics of El Salvador,
Honduras and Nicaragua, and not divided among those three countries.
The Central American Court of Justice held in 1917 that the
Gulf of Fonseca was "a historical bay" and a "closed sea",
and further declared that the grant for "a naval base in the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0
4. That all islands facing the southeast coast of El
Salvador in the Gulf of Fonseca rightly belong to Honduras.
They can point to important historical incidents that occurred
on the islands in the 1840s when the islands seemed to be in
the possession of Honduras; however, there appears to be no
mention in colonial times of actual ownership. It seems that
the islands were occupied by Salvadoreans some time after 1860;
by 1916 El Salvador was considering the emplacement of a
penal colony on one of the islands then occupied by citizens
of El Salvador. It has generally been assumed that Honduras
has claimed all the islands facing El Salvador; however, a
1960 study undertaken by a Honduran claimed that Conchaguita
Island had never been claimed by Honduras. (Note Map, following
page.)
El Salvador claims that:
The actual debouchment of the Goascaran River lies further
east than the present de facto boundary. It disputes, of
course, all Honduran claims to territory in dispute.
Opinions:
1. The land boundary dispute is by far the most difficult
problem to resolve because both sides are probably prepared to.
provide a mountain of paper and a bushel of maps to prove a
point. The land boundary is not, however, the most crucial
element of the 1980 Treaty. The possession of islands, and
the potential for a limits in the sea agreement in the Gulf
of Honduras is by far a more important strategic consideration.
2. As it now stands, if the equidistance method is em-
ployed to determine coastal waters, El Salvador and Nicaraguan
possession of headlands to the Gulf of Fonseca prevent Honduras
from having a corridor to the high seas. Even if El Salvador
were to cede its possession of Meanguera Island, Honduras would
still be "locked in" the Gulf of Honduras. The Government of
Honduras may not be aware of this fact.
3. In 1914, by a "Convention Respecting a Nicaraguan
Canal Route" signed by a representatives of the USA and Nicaragua,
the US obtained a 99 year right to the establishment, opera-
tion, and maintenance of a naval base on the Gulf of Fonseca.
(Treaty terminated in 1970.) This right was bitterly attacked
by El Salvador. Since 1913 the Government of El Salvador has
maintained that sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Gulf of
Fonseca are vested jointly in the Republics of El Salvador,
Honduras and Nicaragua, and not divided among those three countries.
The Central American Court of Justice held in 1917 that the
Gulf of Fonseca was "a historical bay" and a "closed sea",
and further declared that the grant for "a naval base in the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0
Gulf of Fonseca threatens the national safety of El Salvador
and violates their rights of joint ownership in the waters
of said Gulf."
The Government of Nicaragua denied the jurisdiction of
the Court and ignored and rejected the judgment rendered
against it. Honduras has refrained from taking a stand re-
garding whether the Gulf is held jointly or severally by
bordering states.
4. It is highly unlikely that Nicaragua will relinquish
its territorial claim in the Gulf of Fonseca. It now protests
any violation of its "territorial waters" in the Gulf (UN
Security Council S/15719, 21 April 1983). With regard to
El Salvador, the land boundary negotiations are moving slowly
and to our knowledge the question of the maritime regime to
cover the Gulf of Fonseca is yet to be considered. It also
appears that a new Constitution is in the process of being
written in El Salvador, and it is felt that its promulgation
will await conclusion of the maritime problem.
5. In contrast to previous El Salvador Constitutions
which noted that the waters of the Gulf were the undivided
property of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua, its Constitu-
tion of 1950 claimed only that "The Gulf of Fonseca is an
historic bay subject to a special arrangement." This point
was reiterated in its currently active Constitution of 1962.
With regard to Honduras it is known that in August 1981 the
Honduras Ministry of Foreign Relations was searching for ma-
terial that would permit it, "to propose in the near future,
an outline for a possible juridical statute for the Gulf".
It is believed that their search came to nothing, for its Con-
stitution of 1982 mentions only that "The Gulf of Fonseca
may be put under a special regime." Thus, there appears to
be room to negotiate a territorial waters arrangement if both
El Salvador and Honduras feel that it is no longer feasible
to claim that the waters of the Gulf appertain, indivisibly,
to all three States.
Conclusion:
It is possible that El Salvador could strike an easy
bargain with regard to land in dispute if it were willing
to give up something at sea in exchange. It might consider:
1. Giving up a corridor west of Meanguera Island which
would provide Honduran unimpeded access to the sea. (By
doing so, Nicaraguan vessels would have to pass through
Honduras' territorial sea to reach El Salvador's territorial
sea within the Gulf of Fonseca.)
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0
-40?-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R0004:00140014-0
2. It might consider some folm of joint- use of waters
not claimed by Nicaragua, with both States having the same
legal rights in the dual portion of the Gulf.
3. Relinquishment of one or more islands. As noted,
however, this would not eliminate the Honduras' problem of
being "locked in" unless some other foLm of partition or
equal sharing were agreed upon.
INR/GE: Ji.`LBurr : bjm
6/23/83
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0
My/
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/09/12 : CIA-RDP08001297R000400140014-0
I.
SlaI I%l?less
. r
%,111.10,1. ?
7,
,_
_
awe.
qr.
CIED
I. SAUCE 1
.00
Se a.
ROSA
PA SOO .10
2 r ). "lormart
MO V)
BOLIVAR is
NT Ps ,
Kea loam.
7.1f?wOusjt441KO.
PAS (WIN
.1 (1,,Ssathwee
IS OM
5
EL SALVADOR - HONDURAS:
Conflicting Claims in the
A TEGUCAGALPA Golfo de Fonseca
Traditional Honduran claim
Revised Honduran claim, based on
.1 information dated 1960
Salvadoran claim
YUCLIAIQUIN
? IWO*
Ls L.
C?sgalall
:We if
is Ma 4. lisloIs
Sets a a 4?-
sae
ISLA ,PE STO
ISLA CONEJO
MLA CNUCNITO
lassrad.
SW del Gans
? ISLA ZACA 440
MLA ILCA
Ivy
yr)IcAN DE '
CONCNAGUA !
? EL ICAC
lam les as
yowl* II /AGES.'
,/
?
PL A VA, A MARTIN
PLAX, AS
?
?
?
? onshmsis
?
a ISLA ONCNAGUITA
?
PLAYA EL FLOP ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
i?
PLAYA EL YANIAPINO0
"Ildtb. ? 1~00
MOP Ia. pijnlA AM?1?14
I PLAYA LAI TUNAS PLAYA NEON*
ISLA ANI IJENA
Saha* ?
MEANGUI