(LATAM-POLITICS) Border Problems Won’t Go Away

By Thelma Mejía Reprint | | Print |

Thelma Mejia

TEGUCIGALPA, Feb 28 1997 (IPS) - The festering border problem between Honduras and El Salvador has flared up again, despite a five-years- old agreement that finally defined frontier areas.

Salvadoran settlers who live in territory ceded to Honduras in the 1992 agreement, laid seige to a sector of the border on Feb 21 to protest their inability to transport 16 truckloads of hardwood. The wood was cut illegally, according to Honduran officials, who demanded the settlers pay taxes in accordance with Honduran law.

The episode took place in the border region near Pasamonos, in the central department of La Paz, about 110 miles from Tegucigalpa, an area that was given to Honduras in 1992 following an international judgement.

Two thousand of the 10,000 Salvadorans who ended up on the Honduran side of the border seized machetes, sticks and stones to back their demands to be allowed to take their wood to Salvador where they customarily sell it.

The Salvadorans also submitted a list of nine disputed points relating to social questions, legal procedure and land tenancy, which reflect their refusual to go along with terms laid down in the 1992 judgement by the International Court at The Hague.

The inhabitants of Pasamonos – mostly sympathizers or discharged soldiers of Savador’s former guerrilla force – lit bonfires and shouted politically-charged slogans in front of the Honduran military checkpoint.

Their actions brought a quick response from both governments who sent delegates to the contested zone to soothe wounded feelings, to open formal negotiations and to avoid armed conflict.

Salvador’s President, Armando Calderon Sol, said that his country is not interested in exacerbating border tensions with Honduras, since social problems arising from the legal judgement are already being discussed by a binational commission.

Calderon ordered Salvador’s chief of civil police, Rodrigo Avila, to go to the conflicted zone in order to appraise the situation. Meanwhile, Honduras’ government formed a delegation from the Frontier Commission – whose purpose is to reinforce actions currently being put into effect by the National Commission on Frontier Zones – headed by Abraham Garcia Turcios.

According to Honduran press reports, the Salvadorans who live in the contested zone do not acknowledge the area as Honduran territory and want to continue living there under the same terms that applied prior to the International Court’s decision.

Salvador’s chief of civil police, Rodrigo Avila, however, told people living in the area that the border question was settled settled and that “it is necessary to respect Honduran laws.”

Avila went on to say: “This land is not yours and you have to obey Honduran laws whether we like it or not, just as Hondurans settled in Salvadoran territory have to accept our laws”.

On Tuesday, Honduras’ vice-minister, Roberto Arita, said that conversations held last weekend weekend with the rebellious inhabitants of Pasamonos revealed that the situation was “practically under control”.

Arita declared: “We needn’t worry about any future border incident. Salvadoran settlers must respect our laws and we have been clear that we will not tolerate the sacking of our forests”.

In Arita’s opinion, the Salvadorans who ended up on the Honduran side of the border, have grown accustomed to trafficking forest products since there was no established authority nor legal context to control such activity before the border dispute was settled by the 1993 ruling.

“However, now things are different, and they are coming to realize they are in Honduran territory. Furthermore, Honduras, like El Salvador, doesn’t want a new war, but rather prefer to solve their problems by means of dialogue.

In 1969 Honduras and El Salvador engaged in armed conflict for a period of 100 hours due to the same border dispute settled five years ago when 316 kilometers out of 419 disputed kilometers were placed in Honduran hands.

The Foreign Ministers of both countries agreed earlier this month to present to their respective countries a list of protocols – to be ratified by both parliaments – whose purpose is the solution of social problems deriving from the International Court’s decision.