The errors of arrogant diplomacy

Colombia has lost more than half of its national territory to neighbouring countries due to its erratic diplomatic policy. The Colombian chancellery has not known how to deal with border disputes with neighbouring countries, which is why Colombia is ceding more and more territory. In the maritime dispute with Nicaragua, it has been more unsuccessful than successful. Colombia's diplomacy with Nicaragua has been arrogant and misguided. Prior to 1803, Colombia had dominion over the Mosquitia coast, from Cape Gracias a Dios to the San Juan River, and over the San Andrés archipelago. The doctrine of utti posidetis juris of 1810, which was imposed after the end of Spanish colonialism in the former colonies in America to define the borders between the nascent states, ratified Colombia's rights over those territories.

In fact, the dispute that had existed since 1803 between the Captaincy General of Guatemala and New Granada over the Mosquitia and the islands was resolved with the Molina-Gual border treaty of 15 March 1825, signed between the United Provinces of Central America and New Granada. This treaty ratified Colombian paternity over those territories and islands. From 1890 to 1894, Nicaragua invaded the islands of Mangrove and the Mosquitia coast, and the mistake of Colombian diplomacy was to allow Nicaragua to exercise sovereignty over those usurped territories for several years. Things changed when, during the government of Miguel Abadía Méndez in 1928, the Esguerra-Bárcenas treaty was signed, and it was through this treaty that Colombia handed over dominion to Nicaragua over territories that belonged to Colombians. In the opinion of lawyer and historian Enrique Gaviria Liévano: "Colombia handed over two territories and gained sovereignty over another that belonged to it".

For Gaviria Liévano: "If Colombia had not ceded the Mosquitia coast, the Nicaraguans would have no way of claiming the San Andrés archipelago". With the Esguerra-Bárcenas treaty, Colombia granted Nicaragua sovereignty over the Mosquito Coast from Cape Gracias a Dios to the San Juan River and over the islands of Mangles, Corn Island and Littie Corn Island. On the other hand, Nicaragua recognised Colombia's dominion over San Andrés, Providencia, Santa Catalina and the islets of Quitasueños, Roncador and Serranilla, which were already Colombian territory.

Colombia's mistake was to hand over those Caribbean territories to Nicaragua, and it is now suffering the consequences of that diplomatic blunder. In 1980, when Nicaragua decided to declare the nullity and invalidity of that treaty, it was an opportunity to renegotiate a new treaty based on Colombia's historical rights over the Nicaraguan Caribbean coast.

Nicaragua's thesis was that, due to the US occupation, the treaty signed with Colombia was the product of a US imposition. Therefore, a treaty signed under those circumstances had no legal validity. I recall some arrogant statements made by the Foreign Minister of Andrés Pastrana's government, Guillermo Fernández de Soto, when he said: "There were neither conciliations nor renegations of the Esguerra-Bárcenas treaty, because it was signed and ratified in accordance with international law".

It was the Pastrana government's mistake of opposing direct negotiations with Nicaragua that led to the lawsuit before the Hague Court. Colombia could have renegotiated with Managua because, between 1976 and 1993, it signed maritime delimitation treaties with Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama.

The thesis of the 82nd meridian as the maritime boundary with Nicaragua was a fallacy that was not clearly defined in the agreement. That is why historian Jorge Orlando Melo has called it "an illusion without basis". Managua never accepted that reference as a border line, and because of the errors of the Esguerra-Bárcenas treaty, three islands that are part of the archipelago were ceded and its geographical unity fractured.

In the opinion of the treatise writer Gaviria, this matter should be considered as a single unit because it is a state archipelago. According to Gaviria, this thesis has been accepted by several countries, which establishes that archipelagos in the middle of the oceans belong to a continental state. But it was ignored by the Colombian representation. In conclusion: this is not the time for populist political calculations for electoral purposes. What the Hague Court said in this new ruling is that Colombia violated the ruling that favoured Nicaragua ten years ago. So Colombia has no choice but to respect the ruling and renegotiate a new boundary treaty with Nicaragua.

@j15mosquera.