Nicaragua claims against Costa Rica rejected by ICJ

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has rejected an application filed by Nicaragua in relation to its boundary dispute with Costa Rica, declaring the four counter-claims over Isla Calero, the small border territory between the neighbours, as inadmissible. Uniquely, the ICJ has also considered it appropriate to join two separate proceedings between the neighbours, at the request of Nicaragua, as to allow a single set of hearings and the delivery of a single judgement. 

In its reasoning for the joinder, the ICJ says that both cases, 'Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area' and 'Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River', concern the same parties, a common border, activities in the San Juan River, the surrounding environmental implications and the same disputed treaty.

These counter-claims were dismissed unanimously by the ICJ on 1 May 2013. The first of these, relating to environmental damage, was declared “without object”. The second and third claims, in which Nicaragua requested greater sovereignty and free navigation rights, were ruled inadmissible. Finally, the fourth claim, alleging that Costa Rica did not implement the provisional measures set out by the ICJ on 8 March 2011, was deemed not necessary to entertain, as it will be further examined in the upcoming proceedings.

The first proceedings were instituted by Costa Rica against Nicaragua in 2010, over the alleged occupation of Costa Rican territory in relation to dredging of the San Juan River by Nicaragua. They argue that this activity violated their territorial rights, as spelled out in the 1858 Cañas-Jerez Treaty and the 1888 Cleveland Award, which awarded ownership of the River to Nicaragua, although commercial navigation rights were afforded to Costa Rica.

The second proceedings were instituted by Nicaragua against Costa Rica in December of the following year, citing “major environmental damages” in its territory resulting from major works, namely the construction of a road on the Costa Rican side of the border. Then, on 6 August 2012, Nicaragua filed four counter-claims in the first case, which were raised objectionably by Costa Rica to the ICJ, as well as Managua's request that the two cases be joined.

Google Maps changes Costa Rica-Nicaragua border depiction

Google Maps' depiction of the border region in October 2010

Google Maps' depiction in April 2011

Google Maps has changed its portrayal of the controversial Costa Rica-Nicaragua border, giving Isla Calero back to Costa Rica.

In autumn 2010, Google Maps found itself at the centre of a border dispute, when its maps were highlighted by Nicaraguan politician and former military leader Eden Pastora as proof that his troops did not invade Costa Rica by occupying Isla Calero.

While the problem of a state relying on a private company like Google to supply information of its territorial claims were clear to see, the dispute took off over other, related issues of ownership in the region, and Costa Rica eventually took Nicaragua to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague.

The ICJ made its preliminary ruling on 8th March, when it ordered both countries to withdraw all troops and personnel from the disputed area. The exception to this is that Costa Rican civilians are allowed in the area for the purpose of environmental protection. The ICJ ruled that Costa Rica should consult with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, which governs wetlands, and inform Nicaragua prior to taking action.

The Nicaraguan government complained on Sunday 3rd April that Costa Rica had violated this part of the ruling, and said it would file a complaint with the ICJ on Monday. Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry official Cesar Vega said that in March, Costa Rican civilian staff had entered the conflict zone accompanied by Ramsar Convention representatives to verify environmental damage caused by Nicaragua along the San Juan River.

While seemingly in line with the ICJ ruling, Nicaragua considered this a violation of the decision because they were not informed prior to the visit and have yet to receive an official Ramsar report describing the inspection.

While it is true that the infraction by Costa Rica seems minor, communication between the two sides is crucial in maintaining decent relations. Costa Rica has accused Nicaragua of acting in 'bad faith' over the incident, but the same could certainly be said of Costa Rica. The ICJ ruling was clear on the issue, and it is up to both sides to uphold the ruling in every way.

Sources: Xinhua, UPI, Inside Costa Rica

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Costa Rica deploys border police force

New Costa Rican border police force Source: Tico Times

Army-less Costa Rica has garnered substantial international sympathy throughout the course of its dispute with Nicaragua. But it looks like the Central American country isn't willing to play the victim much longer, as it has activated its first border police unit as of Wednesday 30 March.

Costa Rica's President Laura Chinchilla and Public Security Minister José María Tijerino attended a ceremony inaugurating the new police unit in the rural community of Los Chiles in Costa Rica's Northern Zone, just a few kilometres from the Nicaragua border.

Chinchilla said that the 153 men will be tasked with ensuring "Costa Rica's flag will never be lowered by foreign troops", a reference to the dispute over Isla Calero where the Nicaraguans allegedly raised their flag.

Tijerino said at the ceremony that the border police would be there to fight the “trafficking of drugs, people, currency and weapons, as well as providing for the protection of national sovereignty.”

“Costa Rica doesn't need an army. Costa Rica has not denounced its pacifist approach. Costa Rica doesn't envy its neighbors. And Costa Rica is satisfied with protecting its borders, having a police force that identifies with its people and is willing to guarantee the peace and tranquility of its residents,” Tijerino said.

The unit will be present at both the Nicaragua and Panama borders. A second police unit is also being trained and will be deployed in coming months.

Costa Rica and Nicaragua have been in dispute since October 2010, when Costa Rica accused Nicaragua of occupying its territory and working to divert the San Juan River in order to increase their territory.

The dispute is currently at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. A preliminary ruling on 8th March saw both sides ordered to keep troops and police away from the disputed area.

Sources: Tico Times, Inside Costa Rica

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Oil interests behind Costa Rica-Nicaragua case

The current dispute between Nicaragua and Costa Rica has been constructed in a number of ways. First of all, it was the story of Nicaragua the aggressor, moving by stealth onto undefended Costa Rican territory, aided by dodgy maps produced by Google.

Then the story of environmental damage came about, and questions arose about whether Nicaragua was trying to claim more land by dredging – and therefore rerouting to a certain extent – the San Juan River.

But now, as the case sits with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, a new narrative is emerging; one where Isla Calero is not being seen as valuable in its own right, but rather as an opportunity for both sides to make claims to potentially oil-rich maritime territory.

According to the Argentinian daily, La Nación, the dispute is really about access to the Caribbean coast and where each territory's claim ends on the coast. The preliminary judgement issued by the ICJ on 8th March states:

'Costa Rica asserts that Nicaragua is seeking to divert the flow of the San Jan river to what the State erroneously describes as its “historic channel” by cutting a canal which would join the seaward course of the river to the Laguna los Portillos'.

In other words, because the boundary between the two neighbours is understood to be the right bank of the San Juan river, Costa Rica claimed that Nicaragua was trying to cut this canal in an effort to grab some of Costa Rica's land.

La Nacion says this is to increase their access to Block 11, an area discovered in the 1980s by Costa Rica's state refinery, the Refinadora Costarricense de Petroleo (RECOPE), which covers some 523 sq km of the Caribbean Sea.

Costa Rica and Nicaragua currently don't have a formal maritime boundary agreement and so oil exploration off of their coasts has been problematic. Where the land border terminates is crucial to determining maritime territory claims, and this perhaps explains why there has been such a fuss over such a small marshy area.

If the line is drawn from where Costa Rica believes the border to be, Punta Castilla, then Block 11 falls completely within Costa Rican waters. If the boundary follows Nicaragua's claims, they own part of the block, and can therefore claim some of its oil.

Nicaragua published a map in 2002 which featured petroleum blocks - including Block 11 - and border demarcation markings. Costa Rica disputed the map. According to Bloggings by Boz, in 2008 Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega gave two contracts to an unnamed US firm to explore the area for oil, to which Costa Rica, unsurprisingly, protested.

Last March, the dispute also came to involve UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, when Nicaragua disputed a note sent to Ban by Costa Rica regarding the border definition. The situation really kicked off in October, when Nicaragua moved onto the Isla Calero, citing drug trafficking concerns, and sparking the dispute that has resulted in the ICJ case currently underway.

The ICJ made its preliminary judgement on 8th March, which ordered both countries to keep military and police authorities out of the disputed area. It did not, however, order Nicaragua to completely stop its dredging programme. The court will likely take three or four years to reach its final verdict.

Sources: Tico Times, Inside Costa Rica, ICJ, Blogging by Boz

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Google Maps: Virtual Land Grabs and ‘Google Recognition’

Considering the Ilemi Triangle for two previous Menas Borders pieces, it was interesting to note its treatment in Google Maps (Map 1). Ethiopia, Kenya and Sudan all make territorial claims to the Triangle while Kenya is the state that polices and de facto administers the territory. This notwithstanding, it is important to note that there has never been any cession of territory by the state with the recognised de jure territorial claim, Sudan.

Map 1: The Ilemi Triangle at http://maps.google.co.uk/ – Retrieved 19 January 2011

Google’s treatment of Ilemi is perhaps indicative of its responses to the problems represented by the ‘symbology’ of territorial borders. (As noted in a Google blog, border position and image resolution are two other problematic areas.) Google argues that it has attempted to address the qualitative aspects of positional and territorial disputes and that its concern with symbology involves the recognition that territorial disputes and settlements do not represent any static horizon. Their evolution, it is argued, means that Google has to use a degree of nuance in its depiction of territorial borders and employ several methods to denote the uncertainty and conflict that surrounds the site, and even mere existence, of many territorial borders.

The current line used in Google Maps to denote the northern extent of Ilemi is seemingly based on the 1938 Wakefield Line. Wakefield is a revision of the 1931 Red Line that was never intended to delimit an international boundary. Indeed, the sole official boundary, recognised in 1914, is that surveyed by Captain Maud’s expedition in 1902. So the function of Wakefield was to show the extent of Kenyan administration upon the territory of colonial Sudan, its condominium government having afforded its Kenyan counterpart a ‘right of hot pursuit’ across the international boundary in 1928.

For its part, the 1938 extension of Wakefield was drawn in order to accommodate more adequately the transhumant grazing patterns of the Turkana people. This extension has, of course, suited Kenyan interests well and has provided the basis for the claim that is still exercised by Kenyan governments. However, as far as I can tell, no Kenyan government has made any application, to any authority, for a formal transfer of territory other than in 1967. At this point, after independence, Kenyatta’s government sought British intervention in support of the cession of the Triangle to Kenya. For a variety of reasons—perhaps because of the waning British influence, or maybe the formulation of the 1964 OAU declaration on the sacrosanctity of territorial borders (itself consistently flouted by Kenya in its practice on Ilemi)—nothing came of this. Since, other pressures—most obviously a number of armed conflicts—have meant that the matter remains unresolved and the de facto control of the Triangle territory preserved, however informally. But by excluding the 1914 Line Google Maps ‘silences’ the only internationally recognised boundary. In so doing it reinforces the tenuous Kenyan claim to the Triangle and the Red/Wakefield Line as an international boundary which it is certainly not. Google Maps in effect performs its own geopolitical action by silencing Maud’s line and performing a virtual territorial grab on the part of Kenya.

So how far has Google Maps come to represent a proxy for international recognition of a border? It could not be argued that ‘Google recognition’ has arrived to supplant the mechanisms of public international law since Google Maps’ launch in 2005 and yet Google Maps does serve to reinforce particular interests. It does so through perhaps nothing more than the sources of its data (including, for example, the US State Department). Particular cartographies serve particular policies, privileged interests and parties to alliances; so the Google Maps data cannot be regarded as authoritative or impartial statements on the authentic positionality of territorial borders. It can do little more than privilege the interpretation of the source which, if needs be, is to the cost of international law. (The positions adopted by the US toward Kenya and Sudan might prove instructive in this sense, but there is no space for consideration of that here.) The point is, then, that the Google Maps is a powerful tool which, given its accessibility, has the capacity to gain a measure of seeming-legitimacy and penetrate the geopolitical imaginations of those who, in the best of faith, consume its depictions of space. On this view Google has a responsibility that must extend further than simply tailoring the depiction of particular disputed borders according to the location of an IP address.

Perhaps this is to overstate the case. Nonetheless, it is to show that supposed objectivity counts for little and that uncertainty over a territorial disposition counts for far more when it is only partially reproduced in Google’s software. Indeed, it is a testament to the legitimacy that Google Maps now seems to bestow upon these dispositions that governments are seemingly prepared to act militarily where and when a virtual territorial grab may be construed as threatening the interests of states. One such example is in the recent Nicaraguan incursion into Costa Rican territory (October 2010), although this orthodox interpretation arguably neglects the background to the incident: the commander of the Nicaraguan military unit perhaps refers to Google Maps to explain a Nicaraguan mistake rather than truly stake a claim to territory. Indeed, Google admitted to a mistake, blaming incorrect data supplied by the US State Department; perhaps there is the risk of unfairly vilifying Google in this case. Nonetheless the dispute still escalated, the Nicaraguans subsequently claiming, in something of an about-turn, the validity of the Google map. The ICJ ruling that put a formal end to the territorial dispute in 2009 relied heavily on the Canas-Jerez Treaty (1858) which, especially in an era of sophisticated mapping and cartographic technologies, can only contain manifold ambiguities and inspire a variety of competing interpretations. Perhaps Google’s failing—which is only the equivalent of that of any archival hermeneut of treaties and the associated geographical information—is that it cannot itself act as the arbiter of objectivity, truth and coherence, a status to which it is perhaps popularly elevated by consequence of its accessibility and ready availability. So perhaps the important question is how the Google Maps interpretation—which, Google having parted ways from its private partner, Tele Atlas, is derived from government data sources—has become the dominant interpretation.

This month Tajikistan’s lower house of parliament ratified a border agreement with China. This must still be ratified by the Tajik Senate but the agreement would end a dispute that dates back to the nineteenth century and result in a significant transfer of territory (1,000 sq km to China and 27,500 sq km to Tajikistan). Controversy surrounds the agreement and its ratification: rumours have circulated as to the extent of the territorial transfer, parliamentary deputies have claimed to have been unaware of the agreement (made in 2002) until the last few weeks, others have claimed that any transfer represents a violation of the Tajik constitution or a diplomatic defeat despite the limited proportion (c. 1%) of Tajik territory affected. Given this uncertainty perhaps it is fortunate that Google, however inadvertently, has effectively hedged its bets (see Map 2). The data with which it has drawn its dotted, equivocal border is seemingly far vaguer in terms of image resolution than is the Bing Maps equivalent (Map 3). (Bing is Microsoft’s equivalent service which did, interestingly enough, have the Costa Rica-Nicaragua border in the usual location.)

Map 2: The China-Tajikistan border at http://maps.google.co.uk/ – Retrieved 19 January 2011

Map 3: The China-Tajikistan border at http://www.bing.com/maps/  – Retrieved 19 January 2011

Above all, therefore, it is perhaps only due to the considerable weight, high profile and accessibility of Google Maps that it has become the focus of ire over the last few years and as other services emerge to challenge its dominance the picture may only become more uncertain with the addition of different sources and interpretation. In the meantime, Google Maps must persevere in its concerns with symbology, positionality and image resolution in order to address the contingency and dynamism of the territorial dispositions that it has chosen to relay. We should also be wary of parties using the ambiguities of these maps, vilifying Google and its sources in the process, in justifying their actions, and journalistic sources jumping on the bandwagon in speaking of ‘21^st Century War’.

Mexico holds talks with Costa Rica and Nicaragua on river border dispute

Mexican secretary for foreign affairs, Patricia Espinosa

As Costa Rica and Nicaragua await the first part of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision on their border dispute case, specifically the alledged Nicaraguan military presence on the disputed Calero and Portillos islands, Mexican-led talks continue in an effort to find a diplomatic solution.

The 'facilitation' exercise took place in the Mexican city of Cuernavaca on Wednesday 19th January and involved representatives from Mexico, headed by secretary for foreign affairs, Patricia Espinosa, and her Guatemalan counterpart, Haroldo Rodas holding broad-reaching talks with delegations from both Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

The Costa Rican delegation was headed by Melvin Saenz, while Nicaragua was represented by Denis Moncada. The Costa Rica delegation and the Nicaraguan delegation did not speak directly, although in a joint statement issued at the end, they thanked Mexico for its hospitality and expressed their appreciation to Guatemala for offering to host the second meeting of the facilitation exercise.

The facilitation exercise is being seen as a political mechanism that is taking place in addition to the ICJ process. The ICJ is expected to produce a judgement on the first issue on question – Nicaragua's military presence – in the coming weeks, while the other issues – Nicaragua's dredging of the San Juan river, and the construction of a canal in the area, which Costa Rica is saying is causing environmental damage – will likely take a few years for a judgement to be made.

While local media is reporting the talks as a success, the fact that the two sides will not engage in direct discussions with each other suggests resolution is a long way off. A statement released by the Costa Rica's Foreign Ministry on Monday 17th January said the they would not have direct dialogue with Nicaraguan officials while troops remained on the Isla Calero.

Costa Rica has gone on the offensive in recent weeks as Foreign Minister Rene Castro makes the round of European cities garnering support. He has confirmed that Germany's foreign minister has offered him support in the conflict. Castro has also visited the UK, where he met with British UN Ambassador Henry Bellingham to discuss he 'grave destruction' caused by the Nicaraguan troop presence on 17h January. He also met with the UK's Energy Secretary Chris Huhne to discuss the conflict.

Costa Rica has also taken steps to increase the security along their border. Public Security Minister José María Tijerino announced last week that work had begun in late December to enhance security along three Costa Rican rivers that join the San Juan River. They have set up heliports where the Colorado, Saripiquí and San Carlos rivers join the San Juan to facilitate government air traffic and to monitor security along the border. Tijerino also said that they planned to install fences around the river deltas and build new roads to provide better access to border regions.

Prime Minister Laura Chinchilla also said recently that the number of police on the border would likely increase in coming months. The Costa Rican moves come hot on the tails of a new defence-law package in Nicaragua, which is likely to result in the further militarisation of the Nicaraguan border.

Sources: Tico Times, Inside Costa Rica, ISRIA

For more on the Nicaragua-Costa Rica dispute, see the Menas Borders website, here.

Costa Rica and Nicaragua present border cases at ICJ

The Costa Rican delegation at the ICJ

Costa Rica and Nicaragua have made their opening arguments regarding their border dispute over the San Juan River to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.

The hearings started last Tuesday, 11th January, when Costa Rica accused Nicaragua of engangering the stability and peace between the two countries and asked the court to rule that Nicaragua must remove their troops from their 'illegitimate' occupation of the Isla Calero. The Costa Rican contingent, headed by foreign minister Rene Castro, also asked the court to rule that Nicaragua must cease the 'imminent and irreparable environmental damage' being caused by Nicaragua in the border region.

Nicaragua responded in the afternoon of the 11th, arguing that Costa Rica 'creates a dispute' every time Nicaragua begins work on the San Juan River. Nicaragua's ambassador to the Netherlands and main representative at the hearing, Carlos Arguello, also attempted to discredit the claims that Nicaragua 'invaded' Costa Rican territory by arguing that the dispute was caused by a lack of well-defined borders.

This is not the first dispute between the Latin American neighbours over the San Juan River. In 2009 the ICJ ruled that while the San Juan River was Nicaraguan territory, with the bank constituting the border, Costa Rica had the right to free navigation.

Both sides are claiming they have the upper hand in the dispute. Foreign minister Castro said on Tuesday that he was feeling very confident. “There has been irrefutable damage done to Costa Rican territory and we feel the court has heard our argument. Our presentation is very consistent, as it has been since this issue began.”

Costa Rica's President Laura Chinchilla echoed Castro's words. Speaking to the press on Tuesday afternoon, she said, “We are very pleased with the results of the proceedings this morning and the case presented by Costa Rica at The Hague.”

“The more the world knows about this situation, the more the world will favor Costa Rica,” she added.

Castro has remained in Europe, and is said to be making the rounds of a number of European cities to garner support for Costa Rica's position.

The Nicaraguans, however, are feeling similarly confident. Well-known Nicaraguan conservationist and presidential advisor Jaime Incer said Cost Rica was surprised by the 'brilliant' presentation made by Arguello.

“The arguments presented by Nicaragua were overwhelming and well presented and made Costa Rica's foreign minister doubt his own belligerent position,” the Tico Times reported Incer as saying.

“I think that in the first round, Nicaragua refuted Costa Rica's phantom arguments, and that gives us lots of hope.”

Nicaraguan representative Arguello has been quoted as saying he was sure that the Court would not approve the provisional measures requested by Costa Rica, and noted that Costa Rica itself was not positive about it.

Hearings took place from Tuesday January 11th to Thursday January 13th. The court is now deliberating, and a decision is expected sometime this week.

For more information on the dispute, see the Menas Borders website, here.

Top 10 Border Stories of 2010

2010 was a busy year in the border world: historic agreements were reached, conflict threatened, and as the year ended, all eyes were on Sudan.

1. Norway and Russia maritime agreement - April
2010 saw increased focus on the arctic region as the continued receding of ice makes oil and gas exploration increasingly tempting and shipping routes more plausible, and in April Norway and Russia came to an agreement over the Barents Sea. The agreement saw the extension of their maritime boundaries through 175,000sq km of previously disputed territory. The resulting 'Barents Sea Pact ' was signed by leaders of each country in September, and now require ratification by parliaments.

2. Slovenia's arbitration referendum - June
The lack of a firm maritime boundary agreement in the Piran Bay has been the main thorn in the sides of the former Yugoslav neighbours, and Slovenia had been threatening to block Croatia's EU entrance until the situation was resolved. In June, Slovenia voted in a national referendum to send the case to international arbitration, thereby creating a path for resolution.

3. Eritrea and Djibouti negotiation - June

The two year standoff between Eritrea and Djibouti over Ras Doumeira inched towards resolution when, in June, it was announced that both sides had agreed to a Qatar-mediated resolution process. The UN welcomed the move, but Eritrea's former master and regional enemy Ethiopia said Eritrea's actions should be viewed with caution.

4. Burkino Faso and Niger refer to ICJ - July

The African Union Border Programme encouraged all African nations to resolve their border disputes by 2012. Likely motivated by this, Burkina Faso and Niger decided to send their dispute over the central section of their border to the ICJ , and they jointly submitted their request in July. ICJ cases have a tendency to last for many years, and in an effort to avoid Nigeria-Cameroon style difficulties, Burkina Faso and Niger have established their own, very strict timeline, and have asked for a panel of experts to be appointed.

5. Thailand and Cambodia temple standoff - July-August
Cambodia's ownership over the eleventh century Preah Vihear temple was accepted by UNESCO in 2008, and tensions rose over the 2010 summer when Cambodia submitted new management plans for the temple and the surrounding area to the organisation. Thailand threatened to drop out of UNESCO, and both sides stepped up their military presence around the temple area. Diplomacy prevailed, and several rounds of talks have been held since.

6. China and India war of words - August
While both countries have tried to emphasise their good relations this year, problems remain between China and India over their disputed Himalayan border. In August, Beijing reportedly denied a visa to an Indian general on an official visit because he oversaw army actions in Indian-controlled Kashmir. India is said to have responded by freezing military exchanges, although exactly what was effected was not clear. Indian concerns over China's actions in neighbouring Burma and Pakistan continued throughout the year, and no progress was made in resolving the decade-long dispute over their shared border.

7. China and Japan island dispute - September
After a Chinese fishing trawler was intercepted and arrested in disputed waters near the Diaoyu (or Senkaku) Islands, relations between China and Japan reached a low. Anti-Japanese protests broke out across China, which continued, even after the captain and crew were released back to China a few weeks later.

8. Nicaragua and Costa Rica San Juan dispute - October

Nicaraguan dredging of the San Juan River, the border between the two countries, but which Nicaragua controls, caused Costa Rican concern, and they accused the Nicaraguan army of occupying some of their land. Reports that Nicaragua were acting based on Google Maps grabbed headlines, and Nicaraguan refusal to leave the land has resulted in the case being taken to the ICJ.

9. North and South Koreas' military clash - November-December
South Korean military execises in disputed waters around Yeonpyeong Island in late November provoked an artillery response from the North, which resulted in four South Korean deaths. South Korea continued to carry out the exercises, supported by US, and while Pyongyang promised further retaliation, they never carried it out.

10. Sudan's run up to the referendum - year long

Preparations for the 9th January 2011 Southern Sudan independence referendum progressed relatively smoothly, despite the South accusing Khartoum of delaying tactics, and Khartoum's displeasure at the presence of UN troops on the North-South border. Talks over Abyei brokedown, however, and it is extremely unlikely that the mooted separate referendum for residents of the oil-rich border region will go ahead. The start of 2011 is likely to see the creation of the first new African nation since 1993, but whether peace can be maintained is yet to be seen.

For more information on any of these stories, see the menas borders website, here.

Help offered, but progress slow on Nicaragua-Costa Rica border dispute

Nicaraguan President Daneil Ortega

Another country has joined the queue of parties offering to mediate between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. On 12th December, Costa Rica's vice-chancellor Carlos Roverssi and Ecuador's Ministro de Defensa Javier Ponce confirmed that Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has contacted both Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla several times to offer his mediation.

The dispute between Nicaragua and Costa Rica dates back to October this year, and is centred on their border along the San Juan River. Nicaragua, who has sovereignty over the river, began a river dredging project in October, and was accused of dumping silt from the river onto Costa Rican land. Costa Rica also complained that the way it was being dredged would encourage the river to change course and move into Costa Rican territory. Nicaragua also stands accused of militarily occupying an island on the river.

Costa Rica, which does not have a military, asked the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) to intervene, and, in November, the organization twice requested that Nicaragua removed its troops, but Nicaragua refused. The case has now been referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, whose ruling on the matter will be binding.

With the case now in the hands of the ICJ, President Ortega seems to have given up on talks. Costa Rica's foreign minister, Rene Castro, said on 10th December, that the government of Nicaragua has rejected their proposal for dialogue. Costa Rica had apparently proposed a series of talks in Liberia, Costa Rica, for 20th December, but Ortega has said that now that the case is referred to the ICJ, he had no business attending Costa Rican-mediated talks.

Contradicting reports say that Ortega has agreed to have a dialogue with Chinchilla in the presence of 'friendly' nations and without conditions. On 10th December, Ortega said, "I am ready today to go anywhere presidenta Laura Chinchilla says, without any conditions."

It seems to be the question of conditions that is the sticking point. It was Chinchilla who apparently proposed the talks for 20th December, but said she would only attend them if Ortega had his troops removed from the disputed territory, and if OAS officials could act as mediators. Ortega is refusing to be restricted by any conditions whatsoever. He has said, however, that he is interested in carrying out the talks with 'friendly' nations as witnesses.

Costa Rica, however, argues that Ortega is being disingenuous. "President Correa proposes a commission of friend countries, but Nicaragua has refused. For that, the position of president Ortega is a lie: because President Correa has offered his country as well as Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico as guarantors to the discussion or solution and Nicaragua rejected it", Roverssi said. Spain and the US have also offered their help in solving the dispute.

According to Roverssi, however, "There is nothing pending, the subject is frozen".

Sources: InsideCostaRica, Fortuna Times

For more information on the Costa Rica-Nicaragua border dispute, see the menas borders website.

Nicaragua and Costa Rica in border row over Google maps

The 'Bing' map with the 'Google' map inset

Google maps has been in the news again, this time at the centre of a dispute between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. The events have played out curiously over the last week, receiving huge media attention, and it is not yet clear how it will be resolved.

The dispute centres around the San Juan River, which starts in Lake Nicaragua, and becomes the natural border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica for much of its 120 mile course to the sea. For more than a century, the countries have sparred over navigation and fishing rights on the river, although the issues were largely settled by an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in 2009.

The ICJ decision regarded that Costa Rica has navigational rights on the river, but that Nicaragua maintains the power of regulation. In essence, they ruled that in the regions under dispute, the border lay, not in the middle of the river, but on the Costa Rican bank. The river itself is in Nicaraguan territory.

The problem with boundaries based on natural features like rivers is that they can change, sometimes naturally and sometimes due to human intervention. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega started a dredging project in the river in October this year, and it is this that caused the dispute to flare up.

The dredging project aimed to remove the river sediment that makes it hard to navigate the water; it was also however, hoped that deepening the river would redirect the water back up to Nicaragua, after heavy sedimentation had driven the flow into Costa Rican territory for the last 20 mile stretch toward the Caribbean.

The Costa Ricans, unsurprisingly, were not happy about the plan, especially when Security Minister Jose Maria Tijerino revealed photos showing that the river sediment was being dumped on Costa Rican territory. Ortega had communicated his plans to San Jose, of course, but the Costa Ricans accused the Nicaraguans over breaking promises.

“We had a guarantee,” Costa Rican Vice Foreign Minister Carlos Roverssi, told reporters Tuesday 26th October. “They were going to conduct only a small dredging that wouldn't affect Costa Rican territory. But what happened is a violation of our national sovereignty … that changes the circumstances.”

Farmers on the Costa Rican side have also alleged that a group of armed men have invaded their land, harassed workers and killed livestock.

It is this land invasion that has gotten Google in trouble; it is also the point in which most media coverage starts, ignoring the crucial background to the story. The leader of the dredging project is Sandista revolutionary hero Eden 'Comandante Cero' Pastora, a close ally of the Nicaraguan president. Upon being accused of crossing the border, setting up camp on a disputed island and replacing a Costa Rican flag with a Nicaraguan one, he blamed Google Maps, saying he was in territory that internet giant had said was Nicaraguan. Many commentators have pointed out that it would be worrying if any government was that reliant on Google Maps, and have suggested that the Nicaraguans are using the map to justify a land grab.

Costa Rica put up a fuss, Google admitted the map was incorrect and blamed the US State Department for providing it with information that put the border 1.7 miles away from where it should be. On Friday 5th November Google geopolicy analyst Charlie Hale said in a Google blogpost that the State Department had provided a corrected version and "we are now working to update our maps."

The problem could have been solved there, except that the Nicaraguan government spoke up, saying the current Google map was actually correct. A further issue has possibly arisen too, with unconfirmed sources saying that Pastora has denied the Google connection. Apparently, he says that he was on Nicaraguan territory as prescribed by the Canas-Jerez Treaty of 1858.

The dispute has become so serious that the Secretary General of the Organisation of American States (OAS) Jose Miguel Insuza has flown to the region to help solve the conflict. He is expected to report on his progress on 9th November. On Saturday 6th November, Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla said she was prepared to take the dispute to the UN Security Council if the OAS could not find a solution.

"Costa Rica is seeing its dignity smeared and there is a sense of great national urgency [to resolve this problem]," Chinchilla said after meeting Insulza.

There is no easy answer to this dispute. The 2009 ICJ decision relied heavily on the 1858 treaty, but there was great difficulty in determining the exact meaning of the treaty. It is interesting that both sides have claimed that the treaty will prove their view of the border region to be correct. Hale, for example, said Google was going to use the First Award of Arbitration of 1897, which affirmed the Cañas-Jerez Treaty of 1858, to redraw its border based on the Costa Rican request, while Pastora has said that the Treaty gives him the right be where he was. The situation will not descend into war – Costa Rica lacks an army – but both sides have increased official presence in the area. What Google will do awaits to be seen.

Sources: Globalpost, AFP, Google Blog, The Galloping Beaver Blog