中美洲的貿易與衝突及其對貝里斯與瓜地馬拉的意涵 ( 2001 -2013) - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)International Master’s Program in International Studies National Chengchi University 國立政治大學國際研究英語碩士學位學程. 政治大 Trade and Conflict in Central America: 立. ‧ 國. 學. The Implication on Belize and Guatemala (2001-2013). ‧. 中美洲的貿易與衝突及其對貝里斯與瓜地馬拉的意涵 ( 2001 -2013). er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. n. iv n C Advisor:hWEN-YANG i U e n g c h CHANG. By: MELISSA NICOLE RODRIGUEZ. June, 2015.

(2) 2. ABSTRACT. Over the years of progression of the Central American territorial disputes, the Central American nations have successfully incorporated measures which have with time reduced the possibilities of militarize boarder disputes. This research explores whether or not the argument that trade reduces the likelihood of territorial conflict applies to the case of Central America. An illustrative case study and a time-series cross-dyads GEE (Generalized Estimating Equations) model applied to analyze the impact of trade on territorial conflict in Central America; were used. 政治大. to conclude that higher trade interdependence between two countries decrease the likelihood of militarized conflict.. 立. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(3) 3. Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Puzzle .................................................................................................................................. 10 1.2 Research Question ............................................................................................................... 10 1.3 Research Purpose ................................................................................................................ 11 1.4 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 14 1.5 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 15 Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 17. 政治大 2.1 Trade Reduces Conflict ....................................................................................................... 17 立. Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 17. 2.2 Trade Does not Deter Conflict ............................................................................................ 20. ‧ 國. 學. 2.3 Hypothesis ........................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 24. ‧. Trade and Territorial conflict in Central America: a Quantitative Analysis ................................ 24 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 24. y. Nat. sit. 3.2 Why Study Central American Territorial Conflict .............................................................. 25. al. er. io. 3.3 Case of Territorial Disputes in Central America................................................................. 26. v. n. El Salvador and Honduras .................................................................................................... 26. Ch. i n U. Nicaragua – El Salvador – Honduras .................................................................................... 27. engchi. Nicaragua and Honduras ....................................................................................................... 28 Costa Rica and Nicaragua ..................................................................................................... 28 Guatemala – Belize ............................................................................................................... 29 3.3 Research Design .................................................................................................................. 30 Research Sample and Unit of Analysis ................................................................................. 31 Operationalizing Variables: .................................................................................................. 31 3.4 Results ................................................................................................................................. 32 3.5 Chapter Summary:............................................................................................................... 33 Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 35 Trade and Territorial Conflict-A Case Study of Belize and Guatemala: Qualitative Study......... 35.

(4) 4 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 35 4.2 Historical Background......................................................................................................... 36 4.3 Historical Research Context ................................................................................................ 40 4.4 Trade and Conflict: Case study of Belize and Guatemala .................................................. 42 4.5 Chapter Summary................................................................................................................ 49 Chapter 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 51 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 51 5.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 51 5.2 Policy Implications/Recommendations ............................................................................... 54 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 57. 政治大 Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 63 立. Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 63. Figures ....................................................................................................................................... 67. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(5) 5. LIST OF TABLES. Table. Page. 1. 1.1 Territorial Disputes in Central America prior to 2001. 11. 2. 1.2 Territorial Disputes in Central America between 2001 and 2013. 12. 3. App. Belize Trade with Guatemala: 1994 – 2000. 63. 4. App. Disputed Areas in Central America After 2001. 63. 5. App. Product Group: Belize’s Imports from Guatemala. 64. 政治大 7. App. Belize Trade with Guatemala 立 2001-2013 6. App. Belize Trade with Guatemala Key Figures. 65. ‧ 國. 學. 8. App. Guatemala Trade with Belize Key Figures. 65. 9. App. Guatemala’s Trade with Belize 2001-2013. ‧. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 66 66.

(6) 6 LIST OF FIGURES. Figure. Page. 1. App. El Salvador’s Export growth from the other Central American Countries. 67. 2. App. El Salvador’s Imports growth from the other Central American Countries. 67. 3. App. Belize’s export growth to the other Central American Countries. 68. 4. App. Belize’s Import growth from the other Central American Countries. 68. 5. App. Guatemala export growth to the other Central American Countries. 69. 6. App. Guatemala’s Import growth from the other Central American Countries. 69 70. 8. App. Panama’s Import growth from the other Central American Countries. 70. 9. App. Nicaragua’s export growth to the other Central American Countries. 71. 10. App. Nicaragua’s Import growth from the other Central American Countries. 71. 11. App. Honduras’s export growth to the other Central American Countries. 72. ‧ 國. 學. 7. App. Panama’s export growth to the other Central American Countries. ‧. 立. 政治大. sit. y. Nat. io. er. 12. App. Honduras’s Import growth from the other Central American Countries. 72. 13. App. Costa Rica’s export growth to the other Central American Countries. 73. 14. App. Costa Rica’s Import growth from the other Central American Countries. Ch. 73. 15. App. Trade Relations between Honduras and El Salvador. 74. 16. App. Trade Relations between Nicaragua and El Salvador. 74. 17. App. Trade Relations between Honduras and Nicaragua. 75. 18. App. Trade Relations between Belize and Guatemala. 75. 19. App. Trade Relations between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. 76. 20. App. The location of Conejos Island, the English translation for Isla Conejo. 76. 21. App. Map of Golf Fonseca. 77. 22. App. Map highlighting Petén Verapaz alongside the claimed territory of Belize. 77. n. al. engchi. i n U. v.

(7) 7 23. App. Guatemala‘s Claims to Half of the Territory. 78. 24. App. Salience of Disputed Areas. 79. 25. App. Territorial Conflict Salience. 80. 26. App. Belize Trade Balance with Guatemala 2001-2013. 81. 27. App. Belize and Guatemala Imports and Exports Relative to GDP. 81. 28. App. Guatemala Trade Balance with Guatemala 2001-2013. 82. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(8) 8. List of Abbreviations. Abbreviations. Meaning. APP. Appendix. CAFTA. Central American Free Trade Agreement. MID. Militarized Interstate Dispute. ICOW. Issues Correlates of War. CA. Central America. GEE. 立. ICJ. y. sit. Dominican Republic-Central America FTA. al. Free Trade Agreement. n. SICA. io. FTA. Partial Scope Agreement. er. DRCAFTA. Organization of American States. Nat. PSA. Caribbean Community. ‧. OAS. United Nations. ‧ 國. CARICOM. International Court of Justice. 學. UN. 政治 Generalized Estimating Equations 大. Ch. i n U. v. Central American Integration System. engchi.

(9) 9. Acknowledgements I am first and foremost grateful to the God for the strength, health and wellbeing that were necessary to complete this research. Secondly, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Taiwan ICDF, had it not been for their generosity, none of this would have been possible. Though illuminating and enlightening, the research process at times became very challenging, therefore I further take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my advisor, Professor Wen-Yang Chang, my committee members: Professor Sally Ping, Professor Hsin-Wei and the faculty and staff of the International Masters in International Studies program for their. 政治大 I also wish to express my 立most sincere thanks to Ana Lucia Barrientos, Albert Melendez,. support and assistance in providing all the necessary facilities for the research.. Oscar Rene Vargas Delgado, Janine Cayetano and Janel Rodriguez for their insights to this. ‧ 國. 學. research, the time they have willingly spared editing and helping me with putting the pieces together. I will forever be grateful for their assistance.. ‧. I thank my parents John Rodriguez, Loma Rodriguez and all my loved ones, who have. y. Nat. supported me throughout the entire process; this would not have been possible without them.. n. al. er. io. in this venture. All efforts and assistance are certainly appreciated.. sit. Lastly, I put across, my sense of gratitude to all whom directly or indirectly, lent a helping hand. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(10) 10. Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Puzzle Concerns of territorial conflicts have taken post among the most salient issues of international relations. Enduring Territorial Disputes: Strategies of Bargaining, Coercive Diplomacy and settlement by Wiegand points out that up until 2011, 71 disputes involving nearly 40 percent of all sovereign states remained unresolved (Wiegand 2011). In the midst of these controversies, lays a complex web of land and maritime territorial disputes fastened in the social,. 治政 The Central American territorial claims involve land 大 and maritime areas of economic and 立 These values of wealth and physical security are strategic importance to the countries.. economic and political livelihood of Central Americans. 1. ‧ 國. 學. detrimental to the countries national identity. However, with all at stake, these countries, embroiled in years of territorial dispute, have in recent years managed to abstain from. ‧. military actions in times of heightened tensions.. Critical to the question of this thesis is the growing economic interactions in the region.. Nat. sit. y. Central America’s burgeoning period of peace has been accompanied by growing economic. io. er. interactions between the periods 2000 and 2013 (see Figure 1-14). Has economic trade promoted stronger collaborative ties among these countries thus decreasing the prospect of. al. n. iv n C U America. h eto nthegcase the likelihood of territorial conflict applies c hof iCentral. militarized conflict? This thesis seeks to explore whether or not the argument that trade reduces. 1.2 Research Question Does greater trade interdependence reduce the likelihood of militarized territorial conflict among neighboring Central American countries? Central America exhibits territorial disputes varying from contested demarcation lines to territorial occupation. The territorial dispute between Belize and Guatemala which persisted due to poorly defined borders versus Honduras occupation of the Conejos Island heightening political tension, and Nicaragua’s. 1. “Central America is the southernmost part of North America, linking the continent to South America and consisting of the countries of Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama”. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Central-America.

(11) 11 occupation of land within the limits of Costa Rica’s border in 2010 (Palmer et.al 2013) ; demonstrates the diverse nature of territorial conflict in Central America. These territorial conflicts should have increased the stake for the occurrences of militarized dispute thus increasing the probability for the escalation of wars; however, recent years have been characterized by lower levels of violence (Orozco 2001; Ruiz-Dana et.al 2007; Palmer et.al 2013). 1.3 Research Purpose Fundamental to the formation of a nation state is the creation of borders and the ways in. 政治大. which conflict based on the agreements of the territorial boundaries are resolved. Subsequent to the period ending the Spanish colonialization; Central America became a homestead for several. 立. land conflicts ranging from land demarcation to territorial occupation. Majority of the historical. ‧ 國. 學. disputes in Central America settled prior to the year 2000, resulted in military confrontation (Orozco 2001; Ruiz-Dana et.al 2007; Palmer et.al 2013). The dispute between El Salvador and Honduras which was centered on the demarcation of boundaries initiated in the year 1910. ‧. escalated in the year 1969; both countries went to war. Land dispute between Honduras and. y. Nat. Nicaragua initiated in the year 1912 also developed into a military clash in the year. io. sit. 1957 (Orozco 2001; Palmer et.al 2013). In addition to the already mentioned land disputes were. n. al. er. territorial conflicts between Honduras and Guatemala and Costa Rica and Panama. These. i n U. v. historical Central American disputes also resulted in military confrontation.. Ch. engchi. Table 1: Territorial Disputes in Central America prior to 2001 Historical Territorial Conflicts in Central America Year Dispute Started Year Dispute Escalated into major conflict Guatemala – Honduras 1843 1928 Costa –Rica - Panama 1879 1921 Honduras – El Salvador 1910 1969 Honduras - Nicaragua 1912 1957 Costa Rica –Nicaragua 1981 1985 Parties in Dispute. Status. Solved Solved Solved Solved Solved. in 1933 in 1941 in 1999 in 1963 in 1985. Information retrieved from Issues of Correlates of War (ICOW) 1.01 Territorial Claim Data –Paul R Hensel updated April 15 2014.

(12) 12 Table 2: Territorial Disputes in Central America between 2001 and 2013 Territorial Disputes In Central America between 2001 and 2013 Parties in Dispute Area Disputed Year Dispute Status Prior to 2013 Initiated Honduras-El Salvador Fonseca Golf 1854 In dispute Nicaragua - El Salvador Fonseca Golf 1913 In dispute Guatemala –Belize Southern Belize 1946 In dispute Honduras- El Salvador – Fonseca Golf 1981 Settled 2003 Nicaragua Honduras – Nicaragua Maritime dispute 1986 Settled2007 Costa Rica – Nicaragua San Juan River 1997 In dispute Information retrieved from Issues of Correlates of War (ICOW) 1.01 Territorial Claim Data –Paul R Hensel updated April 15 2014. 治政 Unlike some of the historical land disputes which resulted 大 in military clashes; the current 立 to the year 2000) indicates lower level conflict. Despite territorial conflicts (conflicts subsequent ‧ 國. 學. numerous recent border incidences, which ranges from issues of illegal settlements to threat to human life (Perez 2009); patterns of interaction shows relatively low levels of violence. ‧. (Orozco 2001; Ruiz-Dana et.al 2007; Palmer et.al 2013, Hensel 2013). From August through November 2010, Nicaragua felled trees and dredged the San Juan River to build a canal across. sit. y. Nat. Isla Portillos. In doing so, Costa Rica asserted that Nicaragua's Army incurred onto and occupied Costa Rican territory in violation of Costa Rica's rights. This demonstrates a sharp contrast to the. io. al. er. manner in which these neighboring nations dealt with the past territorial conflict, heightened. n. iv n C On a larger note, trade analysishofeeconomic interaction n g c h i U between the Central American. tensions did not lead up to armed conflict (Palmer et.al 2013).. nations indicates trade growth between the periods 2000 and 2013 (see Figure 15 - 19). Could. this succinct division between the historical and current period of territorial conflict be linked to the presence of a more interactive network of trade among these stronger democracies? This research aims at analyzing the reason behind the previously stated phenomenon. The research looks at the relationship between trade and territorial conflict. It seeks to analyze the possibility of attributing lower levels of violence in territorial conflicts to greater levels of interdependence within the region. Analysis of the case should prove whether territorial conflict among the Central American countries is supported by the Liberal argument to trade and conflict propositions. It advances in hopes of supporting the idea that economic interdependence creates mediums for communication and ultimately brings about peace and security (Collins 2012)..

(13) 13 This research takes a different approach to highlighting the changing tides of the territorial clashes among Central American countries. Over the years of progression of the Central American territorial disputes, the Central American nations have successfully incorporated measures which have with time reduced the possibilities of militarize boarder conflict . However, consumed by the nature of the dispute and the possible outcome, scholars have often ignored or missed the relationship that has developed from the conflict. For example, in the case of Belize and Guatemala prominent scholars have always placed the focus of their literature on historical dynamics of the dispute in hopes of formulating stronger augments reasserting Belize’s right to sovereignty over its territory. (Humphrey 1961; Shoman 2000; and Boland. 政治大 historical aspects of the dispute paying little or no considerations to the impact of even the 立. 2003); all prominent scholars of Belizean history, reiterates the significance of both political and. slightest of economic relations/trade. This has been the same for literature on Central American. ‧ 國. 學. territorial disputes; Orozco pays more attention to the historical aspects of territorial disputes in Central America placing only surface attention to the effects or impact of economic factors.. ‧. Does past literature focus on the historical and political dynamics of Central American. Nat. sit. y. dispute because the past chain of events illustrates that political and historical considerations. io. er. have outweighed the economic ones? Regardless of whether or not this is true, this is an aspect of the Belize/Guatemala territorial dispute and the other Central American territorial conflict. n. al. i n U. v. which has not yet but should be explored. It is essential that the impact which the emergence of. Ch. engchi. new dynamics (the need for further expansion of economic wealth) has on the decision to further militarize territorial conflicts be explored. Disputes over territory have taken its place among the most salient issues of international politics. Scholars of international relations have identified conflict over territory as one of the leading source of state war (Hensel and Mitchell 2006). Hence the reason understanding the dynamics of territorial disputes should be of great importance. By studying issues of territorial conflict in Central America, one can develop a greater understanding of strategies that has aided in maintaining the peace between countries struggling to retain title and sovereignty over much valued territory..

(14) 14 1.4 Methodology This paper seeks to prove whether strengthening trade relations between the neighboring Central American countries, contributed to the decrease in military tension. This paper will include mixed methods of statistical analysis, quantitative research and a case study to test the validity of the hypothesis. The quantitative study will analyze the relationship between trade and militarized territorial conflict in Central America. The expected outcome of the quantitative analysis should respond to the research question by indicating an inverse relation between trade and militarized territorial conflict; an increase in trade relations should result in the decrease in military tension.. 治政 International organizations have been shown to be大 effective at mediating conflicts in 立 Central America, therefore in order to grasp a thorough understanding of the reasons behind ‧ 國. 學. Central America’s long period of peace as it pertains to territorial disputes; it is essential that the research examines the extent to which international organizations have been effective in. the case of Belize and Guatemala.. Nat. y. ‧. resolving these conflicts. Therefore international organization will be discussed when examining. io. sit. The statistical analysis is expected to support the literature review which argues that. al. er. economic interdependence ultimately brings about peace and security. The literature review also. n. iv n C democracy is included as a control variable 3. The literature review will incorporate h einnchapter gchi U consistently reveals democracy as a contributing factor to peaceful relations; therefore. published books and journals, so as to grasp a deeper understanding of the relationship between trade and peace among Central American countries.. The fourth chapter of the thesis will include a case study of Belize and Guatemala. The case study attempts to prove whether or not Belize and Guatemala are less likely to engage in militarized territorial disputes because they are connected through bilateral trade. In the case of Belize and Guatemala, characterized by 190 years of territorial dispute; the clash over valued resources being used in trade should create mistrust and thus propel conflict due to the countries resentment for each other..

(15) 15 Conversely most existing empirical evidence supports the expectation that; trade interdependence reduces interstate militarized disputes. Scholars often support that trade accounts for strong economic benefits that would otherwise be lost in the case of conflict (Hegre 2005; Simmons 2005; Huth and Alee 2012). Literature on the Belize and Guatemala territorial dispute hardly ever focus on the trade relationship between the two countries. Literatures are normally consumed with the history of the dispute and future outcomes of settling the dispute. Therefore understanding the significance of the trade relationship between the two countries will present a new way of analyzing the dispute and will further test the strength of the research question, hypothesis and the validity of the statistical results.. 立. ‧ 國. 學. 1.5 Limitations. 政治大. The grand framework of liberalism has two mainstreams: political institutions and. ‧. economic exchange. In order for liberal peace to materialize, democracies have to be stable. Stability cannot be understood only in military or economic terms. The core of the liberal peace. y. Nat. sit. theory constitutes a definition of long term peace and security which is based on democracy. al. er. io. respect and interdependence (Doyle 2005). However, this thesis focuses less on how. v. n. democracies relates to conflict but more on how interdependence among nations minimizes. Ch. i n U. conflict. The primary concern of this paper is to analyze the impact of trade on militarized territorial conflict.. engchi. Secondly, Central America is a Spanish speaking region, all the countries with the exception of Belize, has Spanish as a first language. This poses great limits to this research because most published journals on the relationship between trade and conflict within the Central American region are written in Spanish. In addition to this, the few English written academic works on Central America’s territorial dispute covers issues that took place prior to 2001. However English written scholarly works of Latin American territorial conflict ,though limited , are more accessible, even though very little is covered on Central America; these articles have proven very useful in providing background information on current territorial dispute in Central.

(16) 16 America providing grounds for further expansion of research in the field of trade and conflict in Central America.. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(17) 17. Chapter 2 Literature Review Trade Conflict Propositions. 2.1 Trade Reduces Conflict Economic interdependence reduces the incidence of interstate conflict (Oneal, Russett 1999; Hegre 2005; Simons 2006; Ruiz-Dana et al. 2007; Lee and Mitchell 2012). “The natural effect of commerce is to bring about peace. Two nations which trade together render themselves reciprocally dependent: if the one has interest in buying the other has interest in selling; all. 政治大 quoted in Hegre 2005: pg 29). A lot can be derived from trade or exchange, it is observed that 立 the key element of any exchange: “give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you. unions are based upon mutual needs” (Montesquieu De L’esprit des Lois Book XX 11 1748. ‧ 國. 學. want”; (Smith 1776/1904: I1.2), is self-interest. Self-interest motivates exchange and in turn motivates the marketplace (Collins 2012). The reconciliation of exchange and self-interest. ‧. highlights that which Kant refers to as mutual self interest; a component necessary for fostering corporation and thus minimizing the likelihood of conflict (Kant 1970).. sit. y. Nat. al. er. io. Peace is the natural outcome of trade, trade allows states to interchange with each other. n. and become reciprocally dependent. The reciprocal dependence generated through trade as a. Ch. i n U. v. result of mutual self-interest or their mutual necessities leads to the formation of unions between. engchi. states (Oneal and Russett 1999). Cooperative relationships, formed as a result of mutual exchange provide opportunities for conversation about issues that matter to the nations involved. It also provides a way of seeing into the domestic policies of the trading partner (Collins 2012). States make vital economic choices in carrying out their exchanges, and like domestic policies and actions, their foreign policies and actions are considerably shaped by domestic factors. States foreign policies are shaped by the political rudiments that determine: who rules, who makes decisions, whose perspectives and preferences are in charge. For instance, the domestic political struggles and competing bureaucratic interests, perspectives, the pressures from elites, interest groups, and others in the society, are important. The shifting results of the clashes between domestic actors eventually determine foreign policy (Collins 2012)..

(18) 18 International trade policies displays and signals domestic preferences; these signals creates room for predictions and trust in pursuing mutual self-interest and thus peaceful relations between nations (Marrow 2009). Trade serves as a media through which a wide range of affairs beyond commercial matters are communicated. These communications forms important channels which can forestall interstate conflict (Oneal, Russett 1997). The pursuit of mutual self-interest, through trade, can be seen as a mode of state interaction which encourages productivity by assuring. each. state either the fruits of. their labor or something better for which it can be exchange. Trade allows states to cooperate for mutually advantageous goals. It enables opportunities for a mutually profitable interaction, providing the states involved with stakes in each other’s economic welfare (Oneal, Russett 1997).. 政治大 services. This forces states to seek, alternative sources for the provision of resources with the risk 立 Militarizing a conflict would jeopardize the importing state’s supply of needed goods and. that goods and services would be less satisfactory in price and quantity. Military conflict also. ‧ 國. 學. damages exporter’s interests. The need to transfer the reliance for market to substitute trading partners, may involve high costs which makes states susceptible to a disruption of trade (Oneal,. ‧. Russett 1997). Conflicts inhibit trade, therefore conflict and trade cannot exist side by side (Hegre 2005). This makes trade a mechanism for avoiding international conflict enabling nations. y. Nat. sit. to live in peace (Kant 1970; Collins 2012).. al. er. io. Kant’s Treatises on Perpetual Peace (1991[1795]) assumes that peace among nations. n. comes as a result of, economic interdependence. States involved in extensive trade relations with. Ch. i n U. v. each other will less likely wage war against each other. Economic interdependence creates. engchi. transnational ties that aids in the reinforcement of constitutional constraints and liberal norms. In so doing transnational ties foster peace because they encourage accommodation and communication rather than conflict. Economic ties require credible commitments regarding the terms of trade and capital flows; hence, states should develop trust to secure profitable trade.. In addition to this, Hegre (2005) supports the notion that international trade leads to peace through changes within the states. The trade patterns affect rational leader’s foreign policy behavior since it influences the country’s ability to maximize social welfare. The cost of conflict signifies lost of welfare gains linked with possible trade losses. Even if conflict does not completely cease trade, it will lead to inferior terms of trade resulting in welfare losses..

(19) 19 Therefore leaders are dissuaded from initiating conflict with important trading partners (Polachek 1980). Trade generates wealth that reduces conflict and invites compromises. Hegre also points out that trade leads to cooperation on mutual elimination of trade restrictions (Hegre 2005). This cooperation can be formalized into an international regime. The regimes can be used as a forum to facilitate dialogue among states, bringing to the forefront common interests. According to Hegre these regimes dampen conflicts (Hegre 2005). “They serve as forum for negotiations, highlight the states’ common interests, broaden the involved states’ repertoire of non-military means of force through issue-linking, and ease the inclusion of third-party mediators to conflicts. Thus, trade helps to put into practice Kant’s second and third definitive articles of a perpetual peace” (Hegre 2005: 31).. 治政 In keeping with the Kantian perspective, Russett大 and Oneal (1997) concludes that 立 economic interdependence have strong and statistically significant effects on reducing the ‧ 國. 學. probability that states will be involved in militarized disputes. The relationship between interstate trade and conflict generally indicates a negative relationship between dyadic trade and. ‧. the initiation of militarized dispute (Polachek 1980; Gasiorowski 1986; Oneal et al. 1996; Oneal and Russett 1997, 1999; Polachek, Robst, and Chang 1999; Russet and Oneal 2001; Hegre 2005;. Nat. io. sit. y. Lee and Mitchell 2012).. al. er. It is also commonly agreed that international trade prevents conflict because states fear the. n. iv n C Rationalist Explanation of War critiquedhrationalist arguments e n g c h i U for not examining high cost as an. perceive cost of war, especially as it relates to the disruption of trade relations. Fearon in. explanation for the prevention of conflict. “War is costly and risky, so rational states should have incentives to locate negotiated settlements that all would prefer to the gamble of war” (Fearon 1995:380). Therefore the possible loss of trade reduces the willingness of both sides to fight. Countries bounded by economic ties, gains benefits and therefore have strong interest in maintaining peaceful relations (Polachek 1980; Simmons 2006). Hegre has argued that a greater fear of loss is a greater fear of conflict cost; therefore the incentive for conflict significantly decreases (Hegre 2005). Hence the reason, state’s expectation of future trade is a crucial determinant of the state’s decision to maintain peace or to wage war. It is more likely that business interest have influence over foreign policy decisions, this therefore implies that states are far more likely to choose trading strategies above war (Polachek 1980; Polachek and.

(20) 20 McDonald 1992; Huth and Alee 2012). Business interest generally doesn’t fear war since they fear a cut off of trade with the adversary (Morrow1999; Hegre 2005) It is less likely that states connected through trade militarize conflict because they risk losing access to markets forcing them to search for new markets (the alternative market mechanism). Militarizing conflict provokes and threatens the business insights of investors or domestic and international actors. When states threaten to use force, domestic and international economic actors are forced to seek alternative market suppliers out of fear of loss. Militarizing conflict generates an overall sense of distrust among major economic partners. The high dependence on international trade makes threats costly; therefore, it is less likely that states. 治政大intentions (Hegre 2005). the danger of wars due to the miscalculation of the opponent’s 立. misrepresent their intentions through threats as this would reduce economic gains. This decreases. ‧ 國. 學. Therefore an economic tie between states makes it highly unlikely for leaders to utilize military force towards other states. Market reactions enable leaders to credibly signal their intention. Threatening to use force is likely to induce domestic and international economic actors. ‧. to seek alternative markets or suppliers, or to prefer to invest in other countries. As long as high. y. Nat. levels of interdependence can be maintained, liberals assert, we have reason for optimism. io. sit. (Polachek 1980; Gasiorowski 1986; Oneal et al. 1996; Copeland 1996; Oneal and Russett 1997,. al. er. 1999a, 1999b; Polachek, Robst, and Chang 1999; Russet and O’Neal 2001; Hegre 2005; Lee. n. iv n C possibility of war by increasing the value Democratic nations are more inclined to h eofntrading. gchi U and Mitchell 2012). All in all the Liberals maintain that economic interdependence decreases. trade in contrast to the alternative option of aggression (Polachek 1980; Gasiorowski 1986;. Oneal et al. 1996; Copeland 1996; Oneal and Russett 1997, 1999a, 1999b; Polachek, Robst, and Chang 1999; Russet and O’Neal 2001; Hegre 2005; Lee and Mitchell 2012).. 2.2 Trade Does not Deter Conflict According to realist “the first duty of the state is to defend itself” 2; therefore the very survival of the nation state, its national and international security concerns are of utmost 2. Immanuel Kant, The Philosophy of Law Trans .W.Hestie ( Edinburgh:T. and T Clark,1887) p.218.

(21) 21 importance. The security concerns which poses immediate threat to the viability of the nation state is classified as high politics. Secondary or subordinate to high politics, by realist definition, are matters of economics, low politics. Realist scholars relegate matters of trade as minor factors of little to no relevance in comparison to other aspects in shaping the incidence of international conflict. Barbieri argues that economic considerations remains’ subordinate to military assessment of leaders decision (Barbieri 1996). According to the realist logic, as import as trade ties might be, trade does not create significant deterrent to conflict. Trade is seen more like a tool of influence. “Trading relationships with states that provides strategic commodity is valuable however leaders do not evaluate potential harm that might be caused to a trading partner” (Barbieri. 政治大 path to peace . “ when demands change , trade ties can easily be broken , in no way does trade 立 1965 :37) trade is more representative of the means used by states secure power rather than a. preclude the use of alternative strategies including the use of force” (Barbieri 1996 :33).. ‧ 國. 學. In stark contrast to liberalist optimism, realists are rather pessimistic in their view of the relationship between trade and conflict. According to realist, high interdependence increases. ‧. rather than decreases the probability of war (Mearsheimer 1992; Waltz 1979). Barbieri (1996) concludes that interdependence is positively related to the militarized interstate disputes from. sit. y. Nat. 1870 to 1985.. al. er. io. Given the anarchic nature of the international system, competition for resources makes. n. cooperation difficult. Powerful states are inclined to seek out complete control of finite assets. Ch. i n U. v. and marketplace (Barbieri 1996). Being that states are primarily concerned about their security,. engchi. and achieving power to ensure security: interdependence; meaning mutual dependence and thus vulnerability, gives states an incentive to initiate war, to secure continued access to necessary materials and goods (Mearsheimer 1992; Waltz 1979; Barbieri 1996) . Trade creates economic ills and challenges due to the unequal division of benefits. Asymmetrical economic relationships can lead to dependency, exploitation, and conflict (Mearsheimer 1992). Mearsheimer argues that interdependence increases the possibility of war. States are primarily concerned with their survival/security; consequently, their access to control of resources and markets are a top priority. Therefore, the more dependent a state becomes on the resources of others, the more vulnerable it will be to the decisions of other states. This makes.

(22) 22 their survival less certain; it therefore, increases vulnerability because it increases the chances of a state being cut off from access to goods which it is dependent on (Mearsheimer, 1992). Regardless of arguments of the irrelevance or risks of trade in international conflict, Trade does matter in some relationships, It can contribute to conflict and is capable of creating an atmosphere of peace hence the reason prior. statistical studies have at times observed. insignificant results. The instances under which trade contributed to conflict and where it contributed to peace, balanced against each other; generating results that indicates the irrelevance of trade as it pertains to conflict. Complementing ideas from both the liberalist and realist thinkers Copland presents an alternative way of understanding the relationship between trade and conflict. In analyzing trade. 政治大 that the benefits of trade which gives states an incentive to avoid war with the realist assumptions 立 interdependence Copeland considers trade expectation. Copeland theory fuses the liberal insight. that the risk of being cut off pushes states to war to secure vital goods. Trade expectations theory. ‧ 國. 學. introduces, the expectations of future trade as a causal variable, examining its impact on the overall expected value of the trading option if a state decides to forgo war (Copeland 1996).. ‧. Copeland agrees that interdependence can foster peace, however, peace is inevitable only when states expect that trade levels will be high into the foreseeable future. Under. y. Nat. sit. circumstances where interdependent nations foresees restricted trade (if their prospect for future. al. er. io. trade are low) then the realist presumption that highly dependent states will instigate war, for. n. fear of losing the economic wealth that supports their long term security is accurate. High. Ch. i n U. v. interdependence can be either peace-inducing or war-inducing, depending on the expectations of future trade (Copeland 1996).. engchi. Additionally scholars like Polachek and McDonald suggests that factors such as trade elasticity should be of great significance in identifying the relationship between trade and conflict. The nations import demand and export elasticity should be taken into consideration when determining the gains obtained from trade (Polachek and McDonald 1992).Trade is often seen as beneficial to more powerful nations. Trading process can exacerbate inequalities as dependent states may risk being manipulated or coerced by the powerful states. Even though negative consequences of trade are more prominent in asymmetrical trade, costly aspects to trade can be found in every economic relationship (Copeland 1996)..

(23) 23 2.3 Hypothesis. In Perpetual Peace, Kant strongly suggests that trade and war cannot coexist side by side. This he attributes to the idea of mutual self-interest, naturally fashioned through the initiation of trade relations. Mutual self-interest is hence detrimental to understanding the link between trade and peace or trade and the prevention of military conflict (Kant 1970). In analyzing how trade relates to interstate peace, this thesis branches from Kant’s analysis of mutual benefit to explore how the perceived cost of war, alternative access mechanism, reciprocal dependence and the ways in which economic ties between states associated with trade affect state leaders decision of. 政治大 Liberalists argue that the market economy is intrinsically peaceful; states that trade with 立. militarizing territorial conflicts.. pacific. effects. for international. trade. 學. 2001). Finding. ‧ 國. each other have less war than pairs of states without such relationship (O’Neal, Russett opportunities in. the. midst. of. extremely controversial territorial matters can lead to positive outcomes for international actors.. ‧. Consequently, this thesis proposes that greater trade interdependence between two countries decrease. the. likelihood. of. militarized. territorial. dispute. Therefore: if. Nat. y. trade. sit. interdependence between country A and country B increases, then country A and country. n. al. er. io. B are less likely to engage in militarized territorial disputes.. i n U. v. With the rapid advancement in research on Kant’s proposal for perpetual. Ch. engchi. peace, extensive social scientific evidence is now being used to attest initiatives that economic interdependence reduces interstate conflict (Jervis 2002). These encouraging results have been noted outside academe. The World Trade Organization (WTO) supports that trading system sustains peace through sales and highlights that disputes are handled constructively among trading partners. Fighting customers and service providers is not a healthy business strategy (World Trade Organization 2003)..

(24) 24. Chapter 3 Trade and Territorial conflict in Central America: a Quantitative Analysis 3.1 Introduction Does greater trade interdependence reduce the likelihood of militarized territorial conflict among neighboring Central American countries? Territorial claims are among the leading causes of militarized dispute onset and escalation of interstate war (Huth 1996; Hensel 2001; Huth and Allee 2002; Hensel and Mitchell 2005; Senese 2005). However, studies have proven that economically interdependent states, even those engaged in territorial disputes, are. 政治大 Huth and Allee 2012). Countries 立 connected through trade are less likely to use militarized less likely to engage in militarized conflict despite competition over salient issues (Hegre 2005,. ‧ 國. 學. strategies to resolve territorial disputes because governments who depend on reciprocal exchange for economic growth and development tend to be more restricted in the coercive foreign policy (Hegre 2005; Huth and Allee 2012).. ‧. This chapter analyzes the relationship between trade and conflict in the context of the. y. Nat. Central American territorial conflict. It is predicted that higher trade interdependence between. sit. two countries decrease the likelihood of militarized territorial dispute. Therefore, in order to. al. er. io. examine the impact of trade on the conflict propensity of all 21 Central American dyads with. n. iv n C applied to analyze the impact of trade on territorial conflict U h e n g c h i in Central America. This chapter will proceed as follows: Section 3.2 of the chapter presents a general territorial conflict, a time-series cross-dyad GEE (Generalized Estimating Equations) model was. research context which discusses the major territorial claims, their significance, and the consequence endured by the dyads after militarizing or inciting further tension as it relates to the territorial dispute. Section 3.2 is intended to aid the reader in identifying the value of the territorial claim to the parties involved and their importance to the research. Section 3.3 of the chapter will explain the research design. In this section, the writer presents the research sample and units of analysis, operationalize both the dependent and independent variables, and introduce the control variable. Section 3.4 provides the results and analysis of the quantitative study. Lastly section 3.5, in brief, concludes the chapter by summarizing the findings..

(25) 25. 3.2 Why Study Central American Territorial Conflict The migration crisis that overwhelmed the southwestern U.S border in 2013 brought to the forefront the many challenges faced by the Central American population. According to the US Department of Homeland Security, 52,000 unaccompanied Central American children were apprehended between October 2013 and august 2014. The crisis highlighted issues of poverty, crime, violence and the large-scale drug trade flowing through the C.A region as causes for the migration. Nevertheless, mention is hardly ever made of the porous C.A borders. Poverty, crime, violence, and migration are all issues that can be linked back to the large scale drug trade. 治政大attention. territorial conflict within Central America rarely receive public 立 Efforts placed into the peaceful resolution of Central American territorial conflicts does. facilitated by the regions porous borders as a result of the territorial conflicts. Yet issues of. ‧ 國. 學. not receive much public attention, however, they certainly constitute towards wards the struggle against drug trafficking and in extension poverty , crime , violence, and migration. It is therefore. ‧. in that light that this chapter seeks to highlight the toll exacted by these disputes in order to create greater awareness of the need to resolve these territorial disputes peacefully and. Nat. sit. y. permanently. If territorial disputes continue to be examined without taking into consideration the. io. er. broader context which includes the country’s long term interests, goals and developmental plan; it should be expected that these conflicts continues to linger and occasionally deteriorate bilateral. al. n. relations.. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Trade is seen as a possible way of building communication and trust to resolve these disputes. Therefore this chapter examines the relationship between the increasing trade interdependence and the CA territorial conflicts. This chapter will analyze whether trade can be used as a tool to build these Central American economies and reduce conflict. Identifying possible solutions to the Central American territorial conflict are steps made closer to making the region more hospitable to its population..

(26) 26 3.3 Case of Territorial Disputes in Central America El Salvador and Honduras Conejo Island, in Spanish Isla Conejo, meaning “rabbit island”, is a disputed island between El Salvador and Honduras located in the Gulf of Fonseca (see figure 20 ) . Isla Conejo is a small island measuring approximately 1,000 sq meters, located 600 meters off the Honduran coast. Despite the small size, the island is of strategic value to both El Salvador and Honduras. The island is a tactical naval and military point for both Honduras and El Salvador. It also provides Honduras with access to the Pacific and secures for El Salvador, the security of one of its main ports. With the sovereignty of both countries being threatened, the territorial issue further. 政治大 construction of the El Tigre dam立 in 2006. The dam would have supplied energy to 70 percent of. threatened other aspects of both countries bilateral relations. Negotiations were delayed for the. El Salvador’s population; however the 1.5-billion-dollar project lost key allies as a result of the. ‧ 國. 學. conflict sparked by El Salvador’s claim of the Conejo islands. “The Honduran Parliament voted to ask the Executive Branch to hold off the construction of El Tigre hydroelectric dam, on the. ‧. Honduras-El Salvador border, until the conflicts between the two countries were resolved. El. y. Nat. Salvador jeopardized the construction of a dam that was to benefit the country greatly, because. sit. its energy supply is dwindling. Now the government will have to renew its strategy,” 3 Adolfo. al. er. io. Facussé, president of a Honduran Industrial Association, in an interview with Tierramérica.. v. n. Despite the tensions over sovereignty of the Conejo Island, the countries have insisted on. Ch. i n U. peaceful resolution of their difference. Militarizing the conflict would have had negative effects. engchi. on regional integration which provides trade benefits that are difficult to access by any single developing nation in the global market. The dispute over the Conejo Island also intensified at a time when Honduras and El Salvador were negotiating a free-trade agreement with Taiwan. The second round of negotiations started October, 16th, 2006, with completed agreement expected at the end of 2006 to facilitate Taiwan's entry into US markets through the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Allowing the conflict over the Conejo Island to spiral out of control. 3. support/. http://www.ipsnews.net/2006/10/ecobreves-honduras-el-tigre-hydroelectric-dam-loses-.

(27) 27 would have been costly for the countries involved. Therefore it was in the interest of both countries to employ diplomatic strategies to resolve their differences. According to data retrieved from the World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) website El Salvador ranks as a part of Honduras’s top 5 trading partner, with El Salvador holding a total of 4.45 percent shares in Honduras’s exports and 4.47 percent in imports in the year 2012 4. While Honduras, also a top 5 trading partner for El Salvador held 14.25 percent shares in El Salvador’s exports, and 4.52 percent in imports. Both countries hold weight in each other’s trade. Honduras and El Salvador enjoys a wide range of benefits from their trading relations. Both countries have gone to war over territory in the past (see table 1 pg 11) and understands the implications of heightened conflict on their social, political and economic welfare.. 立. 政治大. Nicaragua – El Salvador – Honduras Golf Fonseca. ‧ 國. 學. The Gulf of Fonseca is situated along the Pacific coast of Central American and borders. ‧. the Republic of Honduras to the North, the Pacific Ocean to the South, the Republic of El Salvador to the west; and the Republics of Nicaragua and Honduras to the east (see figure 21). sit. y. Nat. The Gulf of Fonseca has been the source of lengthy dispute for Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras. The 1992 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave shared control of. io. n. al. er. Golf Fonseca to El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. However, the continuous conflicts in the. i n C h earea. opportunities are implicated in the disputed ngchi U. v. shared zone triggers fear for potential escalation of clashes when resource development. For example, it is in the interest of all three countries to develop the Gulf Fonseca. El Salvador and Honduras have been making plans to improve areas nearest to both countries. However, as recent as August 2013, in the final stages of planning, El Salvador expressed interest in backing out until Honduras returns Conejo Island, a small island in the middle of the gulf. The dispute over the Conejo Island has hindered the peaceful development of the Fonseca Gulf. El Salvador further confirmed in a press conference, its interest in taking whatever. 4. 2012 is the last year data was recorded for Honduras on the World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) website. In 2006 El Salvador held a total of 4.15 percent shares Honduras’s exports and 4.18 percent in Imports..

(28) 28 measures necessary to reclaim the island before moving forward with any joint programs with Honduras. The Gulf comprises of land and maritime area of great economic and naval importance to all countries involved. However, they are aware of the implications of militarizing their disputes and have therefore committed to communicating with each other in order to diplomatically resolve their disputes.. Nicaragua and Honduras Cayo sur :. 政治大 Nicaragua since 2000. The island is less than two hectares (0.0200 km )with a couple of 立. Cayo Sur is a small uninhabited Caribbean island that has been disputed by Honduras and 2. palm trees as its main resource. Nicaragua accused Honduras of using the island as a military. ‧ 國. 學. post creating tension between both countries. In 2001, the two countries initiated communication under the observation of the Organizations of American States. The case was taken to. ‧. the International Court of Justice, which unanimously granted Honduras sovereignty over Cayo Sur and three other Cayes on 8 October 2007.. al. er. io. sit. y. Nat Costa Rica and Nicaragua. n. iv n C U and Costa Rica. The San Juan River demarcates ahborder e n gbetween c h i Nicaragua. The river is. 192.06 km and flows east out of Lake Nicaragua into the Caribbean Sea. This border has given cause for conflict on many different occasions between the two states for years. Sovereignty of the San Juan River was granted to Nicaragua. However Costa Rica has the permanent rights to navigate with “purposes of commerce” but is not allowed navigate the river with “vessels of war,” except with the consent of Nicaragua. In October 2010 conflict escalated between the two nations. Nicaragua was accused of entering Costa Rican territory when dredging 33 kilometers on the San Juan River. The claim was rejected by Nicaragua. As a result, Costa Rica sent 70 police reinforcements to the border area on October 22. Nicaragua stationed around 50 soldiers in Isla Calero..

(29) 29 An OAS proceeding called for the withdrawal of troops from the conflict zone on the 12th of November, however, the OAS resolutions were disregarded by Nicaragua on grounds that the OAS was not the proper authority to resolve the territorial dispute. The Dispute was taken to the ICJ by Costa Rica.. Guatemala – Belize. Of Belize’s 22,966 square km area, Guatemala claims 12,272 square km. The claimed area initiates at the Sibun River and runs down Sarstoon River to the extreme south of Belize,. 政治大 territory. The claimed area comprises of large percentages of Belize’s indigenous population, 立 and includes both land and maritime areas. This claim constitutes more than half of Belize’s. protected forest reserves/national parks, archeological reserves, which has been significantly. ‧ 國. 學. affected by the claim.. ‧. Harvesting of forest products, particularly of the multi-million dollar business of harvesting the precious palm Chamaedorea, locally known as Xate, is seen as a major threat on Belizean territory. With yields plummeting elsewhere, up to 1,000 xaté collectors (xatéros) are reported to have been illegally crossing into Belize to exploit such pristine resources since the 1970s. Risking their lives in the jungles of Belize, and ignoring the dangers of getting lost or being arrested and jailed, they have reportedly ventured up to 60 kilometers inside Belizean territory since 2006 ( Perez 2009:17). er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. n. iv n C There are records of up to 50,000 h illegal e nGuatemalans g c h i Ua year in Belizean territory. Their. activities range from illegal logging for rosewood, mahogany, cedar and other hardwoods to illegal fishing. Illegal fishing is one of the main causes assigned to the explanations as to why fish stocks are declining in Belizean waters (Perez 2009). There have also been many recorded cases of illegal settlements inside the area claimed by Guatemala. The illegal activities along the poorly defined borders of Belize and Guatemala have resulted in numerous casualties that have lead to the loss of lives within the disputed region.. However, despite the numerous incidences along the border, data indicates significant decreases in the total number of militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) over the past thirteen years of this dyadic claim (2000 -2013). The ICOW, (Issues Correlates of War) project data files.

(30) 30 covering territorial claims across the entire interstate system between 1816-2001, indicates that between the said period, the Guatemalan territorial dispute resulted in five militarize interstate disputes. The conflict settlement process have seen many difficulties, however opportunities for economic prosperity has always sparked the initiation of conflict and appeared among viable solutions proposed for the resolutions of the conflict. The southern half of Belize claimed by Guatemala would give Guatemala access to the Caribbean ports. This has been the bone of contention in the Belize Guatemala dispute; Guatemala further request access to the Caribbean in order to enhance its economy. Data indicated that up until the year 2000, bilateral trade between Belize and Guatemala. 政治大 between Belize and Guatemala amounted to less than 1.8 percent of Belize’s total trade and 2 立 percent of Guatemala’s total trade. However bilateral trade between the two nations have since. remained trivial with more benefits for Guatemala (see table 3). Up until 2000 bilateral trade. ‧ 國. 學. grown ( Korres 2007). Both countries have experienced growth in Trade. The data collected by the Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) project dispute version 1.1 and narratives for years 2001-. ‧. 2010 Correlates of War Project MIDv4.0 shows no indications of militarized interstate conflict in regards to the territorial conflict between Belize and Guatemala. Guatemala’s long standing. y. Nat. sit. claim to the British colony of British Honduras (Belize) to be Guatemalan territory had become. er. al. n. conflict.. io. less intense over the years. Both countries have committed to the peaceful resolution of their. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 3.3 Research Design “Peace by no means requires a natural harmony of interest between states but at minimum a commitment to seeking non military ways of resolving conflict of interest that do arise” ( Barbiery 196 : 30 ). It is by following in that line of thought, assuming that the lack of conflict rather than the presence of cooperation is more in line with peace: that the case of Central American territorial conflict was selected. Central America comprises of 7 countries complexly meshed into a web of historical and current territorial conflict, therefore it is the ideal context for this research. Evidence of cooperation in the Central American region, consumed by land and maritime conflict can illuminate the expectation that trade interdependence conditions.

(31) 31 relationship in a manner that constrains the type of conflict behavior which is displayed in interstate relations. It is expected that trade interdependence creates circumstances under which the involved parties find it within their best interest to maintain peace. Therefore if the countries are mutually dependent on trade with each other, they are more inclined to avoid militarizing their territorial conflict as a means of resolving the issue.. Research Sample and Unit of Analysis This quantitative study is limited to the states of the Central American Region and. 治政 the current 21) making all possible CA dyads. The time period 大for this quantitative study extends 立the validity of your results. from 1981-2006 in order to expand. comprises of 5 dyads (see table 2 pg 11) the dyads were expanded from the original 5 to. ‧ 國. 學. Operationalizing Variables:. ‧. sit. y. Nat. 1. Dependent Variables It is expected that trade interdependence should have a positive correlation with. al. er. io. militarized conflict, the dependent variable. The possibility of militarized conflict among Central. v. n. American countries decreases with the increase in trade interdependence. Data to measure the. Ch. i n U. Dependent variable was retrieved from militarized conflict onset. This data set clarifies the. engchi. countries incentives for war, for example: aids users in understanding whether or not countries enter war due to intense economic exchange. Territorial disputes are covered in this data set.. 2. Independent Variable and Control Variable Literature review reveals varying ways of measuring trade interdependence. However this paper operationalizes its independent variable by dividing bilateral trade by the countries overall trade volume by year, and then taking the log (log is usually used in statistics in order to get data linear) (logged. flow 1+flow2. trade 1+trade 2. ) . Trade data for this quantitative study was retrieved from the data set.

(32) 32 hosted by Barbieri, Keshk, and Pollins . The data set presents the total national trade and bilateral trade flows between states from 1870 -2009.. The research further assesses whether the relationship between trade and territorial conflict is affected by democracy. Democracy was consistently identified in the literature review as a variable which alters the conflict propensity therefore it is included in the study as a control variable. Polity scores of both states in each dyad was retrieved from Polity IV project and the lower scores of the two was used as the baseline. STATA will be the tool used to undergo the statistical analysis. STATA will be used to calculate the descriptive summary statistics. The descriptive summary statistics will summarize. 政治大. the data, and indicate the correlation between the independent and the dependent variables.. 立. ‧ 國. 學. 3.4 Results. Table 1: The effects of Trade Interdependence on Central American Territorial conflict. Nat. y. ‧. 1981 -2006. Std. Err. Z –value. P>|z| Value. [95%. Demo. -.0235113. .0277482. -0.85. 0.397. -.0778969. .0308742. lninter. -.4166008. -1.74. 0.083. -.8870893. .0538877. _cons. -4.673903. al 1.409072 Ch. er. n. .2400496. sit. Coefficient.. io. Onset. -3.32 0.001 i v n engchi U. Conf. Interval]. -7.435634 -1.912172. A total of 21 dyad observations were used to conduct this quantitative analysis. The study took into consideration trade interdependence, militarized conflict between each of the dyads and their democratic rating between the period 1981-2006 The GEE model illustrates the relationship between trade interdependence and militarized conflict with considerations of democracy as the control variable to analyze the extent to which the variable democracy diverts conflict. The results indicate that (logged) trade interdependence can reduce the likelihood of militarized conflict onset among CA dyads. The p-value is 0.083, which is less than the significance level of 0.1 This demonstrates that the relationship between the independent.

(33) 33 variable, Trade Interdependence and the dependent variable, Militarized Conflict, is statistically significant at the 90% confidence level. Therefore it is safe to reject that Trade Interdependence has no effect on territorial conflict among neighboring Central American countries. It is also safe to conclude that democracy in this particular case does not alter the conflict propensity of the dyads due to its p-value of (0.397). The study therefore fails to reject the relevance of control variable at the 90, 95 and 99 percent confidence level because its calculated p-value is larger than the 1, 5, 10 percent significance level.. 3.5 Chapter Summary:. 政治大. This chapter discussed the relationship between trade and territorial conflict among the. 立. neighboring Central American countries. It utilized a GEE model to conclude that trade has. ‧ 國. 學. successfully minimized militarized territorial conflicts among the Central American countries in recent years (2001-2013). In responding to the question of this research, this chapter disqualified the null hypotheses: Trade Interdependence has no effect on territorial conflict among. ‧. neighboring Central American countries, in order to have proven that trade interdependence has. y. Nat. a positive impact on the Central American Territorial Dispute. This chapter demonstrated that: if. al. er. io. are less likely to engage in militarized territorial disputes.. sit. trade interdependence between country A and country B increases, then country A and country B. n. iv n C countries.h These values ofUwealth engchi. The Central American territorial claims involve land and maritime areas of economic and strategic importance to the. and physical security are. detrimental to the countries national identity. However, with all at stake, these countries, embroiled in years of territorial dispute, have in recent years managed to abstain from military actions in times of heightened tensions. Vital to the question of this thesis was the growing economic interactions in the region. Central America’s burgeoning period of peace has been accompanied by growing economic interactions between the periods 2000 and 2013 (see Figure 1-14). This trade interdependence has indeed promoted stronger collaborative ties among these countries decreasing the prospect of militarized conflict? Despite all the ongoing territorial conflicts and incidents, the Central American Nations have successfully refrained from militarizing their territorial conflicts .The succinct division between the historical and current period of territorial conflict can be linked to.

(34) 34 the presence of a more interactive network of trade among these stronger countries. Base on this quantitative analysis, this thesis supports the argument that trade has contributed to the reduction of militarized territorial conflict in Central America.. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(35) 35. Chapter 4 Trade and Territorial Conflict-A Case Study of Belize and Guatemala: Qualitative Study 4.1 Introduction It is commonly argued that international trade averts conflict because the possible loss of trade reduces the willingness of benefiting countries to fight (Oneal, Russett 1999; Hegre 2005; Simons 2006; Ruiz-Dana et al. 2007; Lee and Mitchell 2012). Since 2001, Belize and Guatemala, neighboring countries embroiled in 190 years of territorial dispute, have managed to abstain from. 治政 collaborative ties among the neighboring countries thus 大 decreasing the prospect of 立 militarized clashes?. military actions in times of heightened tensions. To what extent has trade promoted stronger. ‧ 國. 學. As both countries now seek to finalize the settlement at the International Court of Justice, “fear of lost territory has sparked great apprehension in citizens and has led to issues of: illegal. ‧. settlements, illegal logging, illegal hunting, illegal fishing, illegal harvesting of forest products, illegal farming, illegal land subdivisions, loss of property, threat to human life” and further. sit. y. Nat. escalation of tension between the two countries (Perez 2009:1). These incidents should have increased the stake for the occurrences of militarized dispute thus increasing the probability for. io. al. er. the escalation of war; however, recent years have been characterized by lower levels of. n. iv n C U h e n gbuilding continue to insist on strengthening confidence to refrain from militarized c h i measures violence (Palmer et.al 2013). The governments of both countries have remained composed and. conflict.. According to data by World Bank and the Issues Correlate of War, there has been an increase in bilateral trading and contrastingly, a decrease in militarized conflict between the neighboring countries during the period 2001 to 2013. Chapter three utilized statistical method to prove that trade interdependence have contributed to the decrease in militarize territorial conflict in the Central American region. However, this chapter conducts an illustrative case study to analyze the extent to which the argument that trade reduces the likelihood of militarize territorial conflict applies to the case of Belize and Guatemala..

(36) 36 Chapter three utilized statistical method to prove that trade interdependence have contributed to the decrease in militarize territorial conflict in the Central American region. However , this chapter conducts a case study to analyze the extent to which trade have promoted peace in the case of the Central American dyad with the most salient territorial conflict . Chapter 4 proceeds as follows: section 4.2 presents a simplified historical background of the Belize - Guatemala territorial conflict, in order to bring the readers up to date with the complexities of the dispute. Section 4.3 introduces the research context; the historical, political and economic grounds under which the research question was formed and analyzed. Section 4.3 lays the foundation for the introduction of section 4.4, which is the case study of trade and territorial conflict in the case of Belize and Guatemala. Section 4.4 discusses trade as it relates to. 政治大 interdependence has influenced the reduction of militarized conflict for the dyad being studied. 立. the Belize-Guatemalan territorial conflict in order to grasp the extent to which trade. Lastly, section 4.5 summarizes the findings of the chapters and presents another variable which. ‧ 國. 學. is believed to have also contributed to the decrease in militarized territorial conflict between Belize and Guatemala.. ‧ y. Nat. io. sit. 4.2 Historical Background. al. er. Belize stands out among the Central American countries as the only English speaking. n. iv n C which paved the way for the formation of American nations directed by two different h the e nCentral gchi U. country in the region. This distinction is as a result of the geographical and historical dynamics. colonial powers; the British and the Spanish. Understanding the basis of the difference aids one in fully comprehending the source of the long standing Belize-Guatemala territorial dispute. The unresolved Belize - Guatemala bi-national territorial dispute can be traced back to the Spanish colonialization of the new world (Shoman 2000, 2010). Spanish explorers landed in Central America, explored the region and claimed sovereignty for Spain as implied by “their right of divine conquest”. Belize at the time, being a land of swamp, mountains and jungles, with its eastern coast guarded by dangerous off shore shoals and reef, was of little interest to the Spanish who merely passed through on their way to Honduras (Shoman 2000, 2010). On the contrary the British buccaneers and pirates saw timeless opportunities in the hazardous shoals and reef which laid offshore of Belize. From the shoals, they were able to.

(37) 37 launch numerous unexpected attacks on Spanish gallon transporting highly valued recourses from South America to Europe. The swampy treacherous shores which were of very little interest to the Spanish became a haven for British pirates and buccaneers. This was the beginning of the long standing territorial conflict inherited by Belize and Guatemala from their colonial powers. The official claim by Guatemala to Belizean territory was placed in the year 1839 after the breakup of the Central American federation 5. Even though, the territory which was later identified as Belize, at the time was occupied by the British; it was still an “undifferentiated part of the coast of Central America that was considered subject to Spanish sovereignty by virtue of the papal bull of 1493”( Shoman 2010 23: 2 ). Guatemala therefore argues that it inherited. 治政大 Treaty of Tordesillas (which west of the ‘Line of Demarcation’ established in the 1494 立 apportioned all “New World” territories either to Spain or Portugal). Belize fell to Spain and was imperial Spain’s territorial rights to Belize upon independence in 1821. As one of the countries. ‧ 國. 學. only later settled by British and Scottish Baymen in disregard of the treaty. With the breakup of the Central American federation and in the process of dividing the. ‧. different boundaries in Central America; Guatemala declared Belize a part of the Petén Verapaz region of Guatemala, which it asserted was inherited from Spain (see figure 22) .. Nat. sit. y. The British rejected the Guatemalan claim on grounds that neither Spain nor any other Central American entity had ever occupied the said territory. British presence on Belize dates. io. n. al. er. back to the early 17th century where they hid and rob Spanish ships coming out of South America.. i n U. v. After the 1670 treaty of Madrid which ended piracy , the British buccaneers and pirates settled. Ch. engchi. along the coast of the Belize River to cut log wood which was used to supply dye to the industry in Europe in the colonial days and later switched to mahogany which is a hard wood used to make furniture ( Shoman 2000, 2010) Spain made many efforts to dislodge the British from the territory, however in 1763, 1783, the Spanish granted rights to the British to log and export logwood from Rio Hondo River to Belize River through the treaty of Versailles and up to the Sibun river in 1786 (see figure 2).. 5. The Central American Federation was formed in 1821 after the Central American countries declared independence from Spain. In the year 1823 an assembly in Guatemala city Proclaimed the United Province of Central America. Countries included Guatemala , El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.( Shoman 23: 6-9).