No, I have not seen the treaty. I based my statement on two web sites that said
that Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo were covered by the treaty along with the others
and the Office of Insular Affairs site that denies any other claims.
However, now that I am searching for specifics on the treaty, I find nothing
solid on these two banks. There are plenty of rightist web sites decrying that
they have been given away, but no proof. (One of these sites even lists Navassa
and Palmyra as having been given away, which we know not to be true.)
One seemingly scholarly paper in THE NORTH-SOUTH AGENDA (a publication of the
University of Miami), September 2003, entitled "The Caribbean Security Scenario
at the Dawn of the 21st Century; Continuity, Change, Challenge" by Ivelaw L.
Griffith) is found at www.ciaonet.org/wps/gri03/gri03.pdf . (Mike, you should
love this one!) Griffith provides an exhaustive table of all disputed land and
maritime claims in the Caribbean area as of Spring 2003 on his pages eight
through eleven. He says that Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Jamaica, and the US
either claim or reserve the right to claim Seranilla and Bajo Nuevo.
So, it appears that the USA has not formally repudiated its claim to these
specks, but it is going out of its way not to assert any claim either. Perhaps
the reason that we did not specifically name them in the 1972 treaty along with
Roncador Cay and Serrana and Quita Sueño Banks was that we did not want to be
seen by other claimants as endorsing the Colombian claim.
More as/if I can dig it out.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Islands in dispute between USA and others
>
> well as i say
> i dont know
> but i do see martin mentions both of them here in 2001
>
> http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:b0juLLtsGgsJ:www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS01Folder/PRATT.PDF+roncador+serrana+quita+serranilla+bajo&hl=en&client=safari
> aka
> http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS01Folder/PRATT.PDF
> footnote 3 on page 5
> in the same breath with the 1972 treaty that you &
> your apparently authoritative american web page
> mention in order to dispose of them
> & which you also seem to be not entirely satisfied
> with
> yet he seems to go so far as to deliberately avoid the
> opportunity to connect them with that treaty
>
> so until & unless he honors us with an explanation for
> his reserve
> have you or anyone else actually seen this treaty
>
> --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...> wrote:
>> The questions of Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla Banks
>> have been substantially
>> resolved, especially as far as the USA is concerned.
>> They were covered in the
>> same treaty (signed 1972, effective 1981) by which
>> the US recognized Colombian
>> sovereignty over Roncador Cay and Serrana and Quita
>> Sueño Banks. They just
>> don't get mentioned as often as the others because
>> of their lesser significance.
>> At that time, Honduras was still operating
>> lighthouses on Bajo Nuevo and
>> Serranilla, but they cleared out in 1986 in exchange
>> for Colombia's recognition
>> of Honduran sovereignty over a few islands closer to
>> home. I cannot speak as to
>> the current stands of Jamaica and Nicaragua relative
>> to Bajo Nuevo and
>> Serranilla.
>>
>> Most significantly as far as the USA is concerned,
>> the US Office of Insular
>> Affairs concludes its "Formerly Disputed" web page
>> at
>> http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/disputedpage.htm
>> with the statement,
>> "REMAINING US CLAIMS; None." Of course, this is
>> after discussing Navassa and
>> Wake as unquestionably ours. Of course, the dispute
>> over Machias Seal Island
>> and North Rock are entirely out of the purview of
>> the Office of Insular Affairs.
>>
>> Lowell G. McManus
>> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
>> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 12:20 AM
>> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Islands in dispute
>> between USA and others
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
>> McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Fabio wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > It would be nice to discover if and which are
>> the DISPUTED islands between
>> >> > U.S. and the other Countries.
>> >>
>> >> The CIA World Factbook lists:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Machias Seal Island and North Rock are
>> disputed with Canada as part of
>> >> maritime boundary disputes over the waters around
>> them and elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >> 2. Haiti claims Navassa.
>> >>
>> >> 3. The Republic of the Marshall Islands
>> claims Wake.
>> >
>> > & many other sources add
>> > variously
>> > tho i dont know what to believe
>> > 4 bajo nuevo bank aka petrel island or islands
>> > &
>> > 5 serranilla bank
>> > naming in both cases jamaica nicaragua columbia &
>> honduras
>> > at least somewhat
>> >
>> > which if true is staggeringly fantastic news
>> > since it elevates these banks to the level of
>> louisa reef & perhaps a very few
>> > other
>> > individual spratleys that have so many as 5
>> claimants each
>> > & thus present at least a 3 way tie for most
>> coveted individual speck in the
>> > world
>> >
>> >
>> >> Lowell G. McManus
>> >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Make Yahoo! your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>