Nicolas Boeglin, Professor of Public International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Costa Rica (UCR). Contact: nboeglin(a)gmail.com

The military operation carried out by the United States against Venezuela on the night of January 2-3, 2026, has caused international astonishment. It included special forces, commandos launched from helicopters, 150 aircraft in support roles, and ships off the Venezuelan coast. In response, several Latin American countries have seen fit to speak out against this unilateral military action against Venezuela and its highest authority. It is also worth asking what prevented some from doing so, leaving them in heavy silence.

An analysis of official reactions in Latin America is of particular interest, given that the region is made up of sovereign states that suffered direct or indirect US military interventions during the 19th and 20th centuries, all aimed at promoting US interests in the region. Living in a region subject to this type of unilateral action or threats of US military intervention, which have marked the history and collective memory of this part of the world, is a characteristic unique to Latin America: from an international legal perspective, the only US intervention brought before international justice was related to military and paramilitary actions against Nicaragua, with a historic ruling in June 1986 condemning the United States. Will Venezuela now seek justice and compensation in 2026 before the same international court that ruled in Nicaragua’s favor in 1986?

Far from being considered a closed chapter in Latin American history, the events of January 3, 2026, indicate that this practice still has some supporters in political circles in the United States in the 21st century, and even more surprisingly, that some Latin American states do not consider it necessary to condemn it. How so? As you read.

It is worth noting that the events of early January should come as no surprise to international observers: the United States had already planned highly questionable military attacks in recent years, such as the one carried out in Iraq on January 2, 2020, against a senior Iranian official, based on information provided by the Israeli secret services (Note 1).

Immediate reactions from the United Nations

At the United Nations level, reactions were swift, starting on January 3, both from the United Nations Secretary-General and from the President of the General Assembly (see official statement from the United Nations).

The commission of inquiry into the human rights situation in Venezuela (a body created by the United Nations Human Rights Council) requested an investigation into what happened in order to ascertain the extent of the destruction and, in particular, the number of lives lost and people injured during this attack (see official statement). As is well known, Venezuela is a party to various human rights instruments, as well as the 1988 Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC): the recent example of Ukraine requesting the ICC to investigate abuses committed on its territory by Russia, without Ukraine being a State Party to the Rome Statute in 2022, is worth mentioning.

It is known, based on their nationality, that 32 people from Cuba died during the US attack on Venezuela on January 3 (see note from DW).

It can be expected that in the coming days, an initial vote in the Security Council will be vetoed by the United States and that the matter will then be considered by a vote of the 193 Member States in the General Assembly in the coming days, as requested by South Africa in its official statement condemning the United States (see text). Provided, of course, that Venezuela and its allies deem it appropriate to bring the matter to the attention of the members of the Security Council and then to the United Nations General Assembly.

We had the opportunity to analyze a very similar sequence (Security Council—Russian veto—General Assembly—overwhelming majority) in February/March 2022, following Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine on February 24 of that year (Note 2).

Notably, Colombia and Panama will serve as non-permanent members of the Security Council on behalf of Latin America starting January 1, 2026, with Panama being the last Latin American country to have suffered a US military intervention (1989).

The ignored warnings of the United Nations

It should be noted that long before January 3, 2025, United Nations human rights experts had strongly condemned the blockade imposed on Venezuela and the interception and destruction of ships suspected of drug trafficking with their crews on board, carried out by the United States military.

We refer our esteemed readers in particular to:

• the press release dated December 24, 2025;
• the statement of November 4;
• the statement issued by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on October 31;
• the joint statement of October 21, 2025;
• the statement issued by several experts on September 16, 2025, after the destruction of a first vessel was recorded.

Will our esteemed readers discover the existence of these official communiqués posted on the website of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, warning that these unilateral actions by the United States violated current international law, raising questions about international crimes and arbitrary and extrajudicial executions? If so, it is suggested that an investigation be conducted into what may have happened with international news agencies and media outlets that led them to largely ignore these official United Nations statements at the time.

It should be noted that Palestinian organizations are also asking themselves the same question in relation to certain statements posted by the United Nations on its official website since October 7, 2023, regarding the unspeakable tragedy unfolding in Gaza, which have received little coverage in the international press.

Current international rules that will soon be immutable

The use of force by one State against another State has been expressly prohibited in the Charter of the United Nations since 1945, as well as in the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) since 1948, and its prohibition has been invoked time and again by victim states and reaffirmed time and again by United Nations bodies, as well as by international courts since 1945 that have heard cases involving military actions by one state against another.

When a state has violated this rule in the recent past, it has taken pains to invoke legal concepts that do not exist in public international law, such as “preventive self-defense,” invoked by the United States in Iraq in 2003, or by Colombia in Ecuador in March 2008 (Operation Phoenix) and … pioneered by Israel in 1981 in Iraq (Note 3); or invoking the notion of “war on terror” to justify bombings in Pakistan and Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, devised by the US administration; or referring to the notion of “unlawful combatants” to send people from the Middle East who were illegally captured by the United States and sent on clandestine flights to Guantanamo to the US military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. More recently, Russia invoked a “humanitarian intervention” in Ukraine under the pretext of an alleged genocide committed against Russian populations in Ukraine in 2022. Since September 2025, the United States has sought to justify its actions off the coast of Venezuela by invoking the vague notion of a “war on narco-terrorism.” What we might call the boundless creativity of some states is due to the following fact: all states are always looking for ways to dress up the violation of the rule prohibiting the use of force as supposedly legal, as it is a fundamental norm of international law.

In effect, this rule constitutes the cornerstone of the entire regulatory framework built since 1945, as well as the principle of non-intervention by one state in the internal affairs of another state.

The unilateral action taken by the United States on January 3, 2026, further destabilizes an already turbulent region and world, confirming that for the current US president and his cabinet members, the rules in force in international law prohibiting the use of force …apply to other states.

It should be noted that since January 21, 2025, whether in the area of trade rules, immigration, human rights, respect for the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another State, or in matters of respect for the principle of prohibition of the use of force or the threat of force, or more recently in matters of international norms relating to the capture and seizure of drug shipments on the high seas, the current occupant of the White House has taken pains to systematically and shamelessly violate some existing international rules in these and many other matters.

In Latin America, the last military intervention carried out by the United States in Panama, which began on December 20, 1989, and ended with the capture of General Noriega on January 3, 1990, reminds us of the temptation that the highest US authorities have from time to time to “solve” political problems in their own way (military) without achieving much success (see link to various reports produced in Panama on this 1989 invasion). This press release from 2024 indicates that investigations are still ongoing in Panama to identify the Panamanian victims, whose exact number is unknown to date.

Unilateral military action by the United States in response to an already explosive domestic situation: where is Venezuela headed?

It is worth noting that when the highest authority in the United States stated at a press conference on January 3, 2026, that the United States intends to ensure a “peaceful transition” and “market Venezuela’s oil” while this transition is confirmed, the absolute disrespect for various sectors in Venezuela is confirmed, including sectors of the political opposition.

An editorial in the New York Times—which none of our esteemed readers can accuse of being favorable to the political regime in Venezuela—on January 3 warned of the risks to the United States and its image in Venezuela, Latin America (and the world) this unilateral action (see text).

A 30-minute documentary, “From Macedonia, with Love,” made by Venezuelan human rights activists in the wake of the mass protests seen on July 29, 2025, in Venezuela, provides a fairly comprehensive portrait of the discontent felt by many sectors of the population toward the Venezuelan authorities after the official results of the July 2025 elections were announced. Now, do these same sectors all support this illegal intervention by the United States that threatens Venezuela’s sovereignty, and will they support the idea that the United States should control the production of hydrocarbons extracted from Venezuelan soil?

Not to mention the fact that experience has shown that regime change through external military intervention has exacerbated the crisis rather than resolving it, as has been seen in Iraq since 2003, Afghanistan since 2002, Libya and Syria since 2011, and Yemen since 2014.

On strictly oil-related matters, it is worth adding that Iran, when Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized oil extraction, was the target of a coup d’état in 1953 led by the United States to install authorities much more favorable to its interests. These were finally overthrown in 1979 by the revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini. In mining matters, our esteemed readers from Chile and more generally from Latin America are well aware of what Chile suffered in 1973, with a coup d’état in which the United States was not uninvolved, declassifying sensitive documents little by little, the last installment being in 2023 (Note 4). In both cases (Iran, 1953, and Chile, 1973), the human rights situation deteriorated significantly, with the United States having a very different priority.

In this regard, it is worth mentioning the jubilation of some political sectors in Costa Rica and other parts of Latin America announcing the end of the current regime and the arrival of democracy in Venezuela: indeed, although the capture of Venezuela’s highest authority and his wife by the United States may have weakened the chain of command within the Venezuelan state for a few days, the existing political system quickly found a way to fill this void. Therefore, it is likely that the same regime will remain in place, particularly if the Venezuelan political opposition cannot find a way to form a common front. This makes the aforementioned rejoicing somewhat risky and brings to mind the popular Costa Rican notion of “alegrón,” which is not very legal but perfectly understandable.

There are numerous examples of political regimes that have remained in place for many years after the disappearance of their historic “leader,” despite fierce political opposition from the United States. As for the belief that the United States acted to restore democracy in Venezuela, a brief review of history shows us that the United States has other motives when it intervenes militarily.

An initial warning issued in… 2017 and almost universally rejected in Latin America

It should be noted that on August 11, 2017, this same President of the United States had stated, a few months into his first term, in statements to the press, that:

I’m not ruling out the military option. He’s our neighbor, and we have troops all over the world. Venezuela isn’t very far away, and people there are suffering and dying.

In August 2017, several Latin American countries issued official statements condemning the “military option,” ,” which we had the opportunity to analyze at the time, noting that Costa Rica did not consider it appropriate at that time to comment on the matter as many other states did (Note 5): a rather notable and conspicuous omission, and one that has been analyzed very little in Costa Rica.

Official reactions recorded in Latin America condemning the actions of the United States on January 2, 2026

Beyond the great uncertainty surrounding the acute internal crisis that Venezuela has been experiencing for several years, and which may be significantly aggravated by this US military intervention, among the various official reactions to the events of January 3, 2026, we can mention that of Brazil, which emphatically states (see official statement) that:

Os bombardeios em território venezuelano e a captura do seu presidente ultrapassam uma linha inaceitável. Esses atos representam uma afronta gravíssima à soberania da Venezuela e mais um precedente extremamente perigoso para toda a comunidade internacional.

Atacar países, em flagrante violação do direito internacional, é o primeiro passo para um mundo de violência, caos e instabilidade, onde a lei do mais forte prevalece sobre o multilateralismo.

A condenação ao uso da força é consistente com a posição que o Brasil sempre tem adotado em situações recentes em outros países e regiões.

A ação lembra os piores momentos da interferência na política da América Latina e do Caribe e ameaça a preservação da região como zona de paz“.

It can also refer to the vehement reaction of the Chilean diplomatic corps (see official statement) which points out, among other things, in a lengthy statement, which we recommend reading in full (Note 6), that:

For its part, in its official statement, Colombia indicated that:

Colombia reaffirms its ongoing commitment to regional peace and security, the sovereignty of States, and unrestricted respect for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the prohibition of the use of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes. The historical experience of the region, proclaimed a Zone of Peace, demonstrates that no dispute can be legitimately resolved through unilateral actions.

In its official statement, the diplomatic apparatus of Mexico specified that:

The Government of Mexico strongly condemns and rejects the military actions carried out unilaterally in recent hours by the armed forces of the United States of America against targets in the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in clear violation of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN).

Based on its foreign policy principles and its commitment to peace, Mexico urgently calls for respect for international law and the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, and for an end to any acts of aggression against the Venezuelan government and people.

Latin America and the Caribbean is a zone of peace, built on the basis of mutual respect, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the prohibition of the use and threat of force, so any military action seriously jeopardizes regional stability.

In the case of Uruguay, its diplomatic apparatus published a text on its official website (see official statement) which reads as follows:

Uruguay rejects, as it always has, military intervention by one country in the territory of another and reaffirms the importance of respecting international law and the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the basic principle that States must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

We reaffirm the character of Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace and free of nuclear weapons, as has been the consensus position of our region.

Reaffirming the principle contained in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter when it is violated in such a flagrant and gross manner is an obligation for a State that believes in and defends this and other fundamental principles contained in the Charter since 1945.

Official reactions were much more reserved and even supportive of the US military action

These official reactions on January 3, 2026, and possibly others that may be announced in Latin America, can be compared to the official statement from Spain, which refrains from referring to the principle of prohibition of the use of force in its respective texts.

In the case of the official statement a>from Norway, it is made clear that the United States’ military action violates existing rules of public international law, something that the Representative of the European Union (EU) foreign policy representative to point this out in her tweet (see link). As for the United Kingdom (see statement) and Canada (see press release), the evasiveness is striking and more than noticeable. Similarly, we can cite this official statement adopted within the framework of CARICOM (see joint statement from its “Bureau”).

Returning to Latin America, Costa Rica’s brief three-sentence official statement (see link) is completely silent (Note 7) when compared to those of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, or Uruguay. In this regard, a grammatical error in the first sentence with “has” instead of “have” shows that the text was drafted in a hurry, despite being released quite late in the afternoon in Costa Rica (4:19 p.m.). This same omission by Costa Rica in the face of flagrant violations of the principles and basic rules of international law has been observed in another recent case: Israel’s repeated violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza (Note 8).

While the official statement from Bolivia and the official statement from Peru avoid mentioning the United States, as does that of Nicaragua (see text), as well as that of Panama (see text), the official statement from Argentina (see link) welcomes the action taken by the United States, practically reproducing the language and assessments of the United States in a rather conspicuous manner. The diplomatic apparatus of Paraguay has made a similar statement (see official statement). It is striking that for these latter states, the objective of the fight against drug trafficking seems to justify actions such as those observed on January 3, 2026, in Venezuela. It is suggested that they review and evaluate the extent to which the capture of General Noriega in 1990 by the United States in Panama significantly reduced the flow of drugs to the US market.

As for Panama, the target of the last military intervention of this kind carried out in December 1989 by the United States, in violation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty, it appears that its current authorities were content to refrain from condemning and repudiating this action and considered it appropriate to avoid any reference to what Panama experienced in December 1989.

It is worth noting that in April 2018, the lawsuit filed by Guyana against Venezuela before the International Court of Justice in The Hague revealed US appetite for Venezuela’s hydrocarbons, with US diplomacy at that time led by a person whose only international experience was as CEO of a US oil company: Exxon Mobile (Note 9). These same interests in controlling Venezuela’s hydrocarbons were hinted at during the press conference given on January 3, 2026, by the current occupant of the White House.

One might also think that an official announcement such as this one from late August 2025 about multimillion-dollar investments by Chinese companies in Venezuela to extract oil could be considered in some economic circles around the White House in the United States as a serious threat to their interests, forcing the White House to develop some kind of strategy to protect them: By mere coincidence (or perhaps not so much…), in early September 2025, a first ship was eliminated by the United States off the coast of Venezuela, under the pretext of trafficking drugs to the United States (see note dated September 2, 2025).

Military interventions and official condemnations that fail to name those responsible
text of the judgment, in particular paragraphs 188 and 190, in which the ICJ expressly qualifies the prohibition of the use of force as a general principle as well as a customary rule (Note 10).

Despite the fundamental importance of the rule violated in the case of military intervention by one State against another, in Latin America it has sometimes been repudiated without expressly referring to the United States: Thus, in 2016, a resolution of the OAS General Assembly to “make amends” to the Dominican Republic for the United States’ intervention in 1965 referred to the “events of April 1965.” (see note published in OPALC with the final text of the resolution adopted).

It will be very interesting to see whether the various bodies of the OAS will comment on what happened on January 3, 2026, in Venezuela, or whether they will opt for a terrifying silence in the face of a violation of the 1948 OAS Charter by the United States. In this regard, the first press release from the OAS Secretary General (see text) suggests that semantic games and euphemisms, as well as omitting any reference to the United States, … will be very useful when drafting a resolution within the Permanent Council. A suggested comparison text with what the OAS may adopt (if it succeeds) in a future session of its Permanent Council could be this joint communiqué from Spain, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Uruguay, with five paragraphs, the first of which states that:

The OAS can also review the EU’s January 4 statement (see text), which includes all EU member states except Hungary (see text with details on the list of the 26 signatory states). As is well known, the current US president has excellent relations with his Hungarian counterpart, whom he calls frequently and considers an exemplary political leader.

At the time of writing (January 8), no condemnation of this flagrant violation of its own charter had been issued by any OAS body: the Permanent Council meeting on January 5 merely listened to the positions of each State, without further action. As for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, its website remains silent on what happened on January 3 (see link). It is worth noting that with regard to the U.S. military operations to eliminate suspicious vessels and their crews, which began in early September 2025, it was not until December 2, 2025, that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed its concern in a press release (see Allegedly”? Yes, that’s right: “allegedly.” Nevertheless, in this belated and rather weak official statement to the United States, the Commission reiterates what it has said countless times to OAS member states:

When military or security forces use lethal force outside national territory, states have an obligation to demonstrate that such action was strictly legal, necessary, and proportionate, and to investigate ex officio any loss of life in that context. These obligations remain in force regardless of where the operations are carried out or the status attributed to the persons affected by them. Similarly, persons under the control of the State must always be afforded full respect for due process and humane treatment.

In conclusion

Whether collective or individual, the official reactions recorded since January 3, 2026, are characterized by a wide variety of tones and vocabulary: as we have always taught our students, diplomacy resides above all in the art of language.

However, in the face of a serious violation of a basic rule of public international law such as the absolute prohibition of the use of force, the cacophony observed in Latin America is quite striking, with some of these official reactions showing that for some (few) Latin American states, the United States’ action on January 3, 2026, does not set a dangerous precedent … and is legally valid (or, at least, does not warrant condemnation or repudiation in an official statement).

This article published in the United Kingdom by a renowned jurist indicates from its very title that there is no legal basis to justify such action in Venezuela by the United States. Similarly, this other article published in EJIL -Talk on January 5, 2026, and this other article in OpinioJuris on January 6. In this other article by a Mexican jurist, also published on January 6, the conclusions state that:

These principles were not negotiated and adopted simply on a whim by the States, but as a way to maintain international peace and security after two world wars that caused millions of deaths and destroyed material infrastructure created by the labor of millions of people. The world order is a response to that pathology. It is a rational and minimal measure to enable the peaceful coexistence of the international community.

When the DI disappears as a norm for dispute resolution and peaceful coexistence, it gives way to the politics of force, bringing us closer to world war.

For those who argue, echoing the narrative of the United States and others, that the defense of human rights and the eradication of illegitimate authorities justify such actions, it is worth remembering that the end does not always justify the means: authorities that are considered illegitimate by other states can be found in many parts of the world, whenever an electoral process is carried out in conditions that lack transparency and in which the political opposition cannot participate on a completely equal footing. However, to think that the solution lies in military intervention from outside is more than illusory, and there are many recent and less recent examples, both in Latin America and elsewhere, of foreign military interventions that have only served to aggravate the internal political situation they sought to “resolve.” As for the argument of the fight against drug trafficking (which seems to have convinced several political circles in Latin America, particularly in Argentina and Paraguay), it is worth remembering that:

• Just one month ago, the current occupant of the White House pardoned the former president of Honduras who had been sentenced in the United States to 40 years in prison for drug trafficking (see BBC report of December 3, 2025) and that;
• Many experts have questioned the notion of Venezuela being a major hub for drug trafficking to the United States.

With regard to human rights violations, several of which qualify as crimes against humanity in Venezuela, it is worth noting that two investigations have been pending before the International Criminal Court in The Hague since 2018 (see details at this link and this other link); in addition to numerous reports and repeated calls from various United Nations bodies on the prevailing human rights situation in Venezuela. Report A/HRC/51/43 of 2022, produced by a commission of inquiry of the United Nations Human Rights Council, available at this link.

Beyond the misjudgments of some, of circles that gravitate around US embassies (and repeat their narrative without reservation), and of a US president who has been as unpredictable as he has been erratic since taking office in January 2025 (with growing discontent within the United States just a few weeks before completing his first year in office), it is extremely interesting to compare the reaction of these same Latin American states to Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine on February 24, 2022 (Note 11): clearly, the consistency of some in defending the principles of respect for the territorial integrity of a state and the absolute prohibition of the use of force is not such, but has been transformed for several of them into total inconsistency between February 24, 2022, and January 3, 2026.

From a legal standpoint, both the events of February 24, 2022, and January 3, 2026, constitute flagrant violations of a fundamental rule enshrined in the United Nations Charter since 1945. The fact that in both unilateral military actions, in 2022 and 2026, the perpetrators are Permanent Member States of the Security Council should challenge all other Member States of the United Nations and lead them to condemn both actions with the same vehemence: in fact, progressively replacing the right to force with the force of law in relations between States has been a long and hard battle, which began with the enshrinement in 1945 of the prohibition of the use of force between States in the United Nations Charter. This battle is not over, and it is in the interest of all States on the planet that it not be abandoned.

Notes:

Note 1: See our note BOEGLIN N., “The assassination of Ghassem Soleimani by the United States in Iraq: brief notes from a legal perspective,” January 4, 2020. Full text available here.

Note 2: See our note BOEGLIN N., “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine: overwhelming vote in the United Nations General Assembly,” March 2, 2022. Full text available here.

Note 3: It should be remembered that Israel was the first state to officially refer to the notion of “preventive self-defense” in 1981, when the Israeli air force decided to bomb the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, which had been built under a cooperation agreement between France and Iraq. See in this regard FISCHER G., “Le bombardement par Israël d’un réacteur nucléaire irakien,” Vol. 27 AFDI (1981), pp. 147-167, available at this link.

Note 4: Regarding the latest release of documents from the United States recorded in 2023, see BOEGLIN N. “The recent ‘declassification’ of secret documents by the United States 50 years after the 1973 military coup in Chile: some reflections,” September 11, 2024. Full text available here.

Note 5: See our note BOEGLIN N. “The rejection by MERCOSUR and other Latin American states of the use of force in Venezuela” August 12, 2017. Full text available at this link.

Note 6: The full text of Chile’s official statement reads as follows:

“As the government of Chile, we express our utmost concern and strong condemnation of the military actions that the United States has been carrying out in Venezuela. In particular, we condemn the announcement that a foreign state intends to exercise direct control over Venezuelan territory, administer the country, and, as its president has stated, continue military operations until a political transition is imposed. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent for regional and global stability.”

Chile reaffirms that respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states is a red line that must not be crossed under any circumstances, and that it is also an essential pillar of international law. Sovereignty is not a formality; it is the essential guarantee that protects countries from external arbitrary actions and the law of the strongest. Today it is Venezuela, tomorrow it could be any other country. Likewise, the threat of unilateral external control of natural or strategic resources constitutes a serious violation of the principle of territorial integrity and jeopardizes the security, sovereignty, and stability of all states in the region. If they can do it there, why couldn’t they do it elsewhere in the future?

This development is taking place in an alarming geopolitical context, in which force is increasingly replacing rules as a mechanism for resolving international conflicts. Normalizing this logic erodes the multilateral system, weakens democracy on a global scale, and exposes all countries, especially those with less relative power, to unilateral decisions imposed by military force.

Democracy cannot be built through force or imposition. Chile urgently calls on the United Nations to take an active and immediate role, using all available mechanisms to prevent military escalation, protect the civilian population, and reestablish a framework for a political and peaceful solution in accordance with the United Nations Charter. To this end, we are coordinating with various governments. Given this scenario and its possible regional effects, as a government we have arranged for permanent monitoring of our borders in case of a possible increase in the flow of migrants from Venezuela to Chile, activating the various state institutions, and we will strengthen all monitoring and consular protection protocols, paying special attention to the situation of Chilean citizens in Venezuela.

Chile will act as it always has, responsibly, consistently, and firmly, defending principles that we consider non-negotiable: non-violence, the sovereignty of states, the prohibition of the use of force or threats, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and the full enforcement of international law.

Note 7: The full text of the official statement released by the Costa Rican diplomatic apparatus reads as follows:

“Foreign policy”

January 3, 2026, 4:19 PM

Statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Government of Costa Rica on the situation in Venezuela.

San José, January 3, 2026. The Government of the Republic of Costa Rica is closely monitoring the actions taken by the United States in Venezuelan territory on January 3, 2026, which have resulted in the arrest of Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores and their transfer to the United States, where they will be prosecuted.

The Costa Rican government calls for a democratic and peaceful transition in Venezuela that restores institutionality, the rule of law, and the will of the people expressed in the elections of July 28, 2024.

Costa Rica reaffirms its willingness to contribute to a peaceful, sustainable solution based on international law and the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Democratic Charter of the OAS, which promote regional stability, respect for human rights, and full regional commitment to the fight against drug trafficking and transnational organized crime.

Institutional Communication 001-2026 Statement on the situation in Venezuela Saturday, January 3, 2026

Note 8: See BOEGLIN N., “The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Israel signed by Costa Rica on December 8, 2025: reflections and questions, some of them uncomfortable,” December 22, 2025. Full text available at this link.

Note 9: See BOEGLIN N. , “Guyana’s claim against Venezuela before the International Court of Justice (ICJ): brief background,” April 6, 2018. Full text available at this link.

Note 10: It should be noted that in this case, the ICJ ruled against the United States’ actions; however, on September 12, 1991, Nicaragua chose to withdraw the claim filed for the second stage of the proceedings (compensation) to obtain compensation for the damage caused, thus bringing this long process to an end (see press release from the ICJ dated September 27, 1991). An initial estimate of the damages caused by the United States to Nicaragua can be found in this document submitted by Nicaragua to the ICJ in 1988. Paragraph 372 reads: “Therefore, the Court is requested to award Nicaragua a lump sum of US$2,000 million as appropriate compensation for the enormous social losses it has suffered due to the wrongful acts of the United States.”

Note 11: See our note BOEGLIN N., “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine: official reactions in Latin America,” February 24, 2022. Full text available at this link.

The origins of the “Golden Bean”

The history of coffee in America began around 1720, when the first seeds of the Coffea arabica species, Typica variety, arrived on the island of Martinique in the Antilles. From there, at the end of the 18th century, cultivation spread to various regions, including the province of Costa Rica.

At that time, the country lived off subsistence agriculture, but everything would change in 1808 when, under the government of Governor Tomás de Acosta, coffee began to take root in the fertile volcanic soils of the Central Valley. This crop would not only set the course for the nation’s agriculture, but also its economic, cultural, and social history.

Costa Rica became the first Central American country to establish a coffee industry, and Father Félix Velarde is credited with being the first recorded coffee grower in the country. In 1816, Velarde mentioned that he owned a plot of land with coffee plants located 100 meters north of the current Metropolitan Cathedral, in the heart of San José.

Factors that contributed to its development

Coffee developed in Costa Rica due to a unique combination of factors: fertile volcanic soils, well-defined rainy and dry seasons, and relatively constant temperatures throughout the year.

After independence in 1821, municipal governments, particularly the government of San José, promoted cultivation through policies of free plant distribution and land grants. Cities such as Cartago and Tres Ríos followed suit, thus encouraging the expansion of coffee farming.

Between the national leaders who understood the potential of coffee, Heads of State Juan Mora Fernández and Braulio Carrillo stand out, who saw in this bean an opportunity to boost the economy. Another key figure is Don Mariano Montealegre, recognized as one of the main promoters of coffee cultivation between 1830 and 1840.

First exports and trade boom

In 1821, Costa Rica had 17,000 coffee trees in production, and the following year, the first export of 2 quintals of coffee to Panama took place. Over time, coffee production gained momentum: in the 1830s, pioneering merchant George Stiepel made sales to England through Chile.

The trade with Europe was consolidated in the 1840s, thanks to English captain William Le Lacheur, who, upon arriving at the port of Caldera aboard the sailing ship The Monarch, negotiated the purchase of crops with Santiago Fernández Hidalgo, owner of the “El Laberinto” plantation and the first major exporter of coffee to the Old World.

In 1841, the ship Alción transported goods between London and Puntarenas, and Costa Rican coffee began to establish itself in European markets. Fernández also introduced improvements to the processing method, financed the development of trade routes, such as the road to Sarapiquí, and developed the port of Tárcoles, consolidating the infrastructure for foreign trade.

History of Coffee: Engine of Progress

The growth of coffee farming was accompanied by advances in infrastructure. In 1846, the completion of the road to Puntarenas revolutionized trade by allowing transport by mule to be replaced by carts. From then on, coffee became the country’s main export product until 1890, transforming itself into the backbone of the national economy.

The “Golden Bean” spurred the emergence of export companies and encouraged the import of manufactured goods from Europe. Local and foreign families and businessmen, including Hipolite Tournon, Emilio Challe, the Lindo brothers, Max Koberg, the Rohrmosers, and the von Schroter family, played a crucial role in consolidating the sector.

Innovations for the beneficiary

At first, producers dried coffee in their yards and husked it manually with pestles. The big technological leap came in the 1830s, when Buenaventura Espinach Gaul, a catalan, built the first wet mill on the El Molino farm, south of Cartago.

The fermentation introduced in this process significantly improved the flavor of the coffee and raised the quality of the Costa Rican product in international markets. Over time, new technologies such as pulpers, guards, polishers, and sorters were implemented, reducing processing time and improving bean consistency.

Evolution of varieties

During the 19th century, the Typica or Criollo variety predominated, which was tall and of high quality, although with low planting density. Later, other varieties such as Bourbon and the Tico Hybrid were introduced.

In the mid-20th century, with the arrival of the “Green Revolution,” Costa Rican coffee farming adopted low-growing, higher-yield varieties such as Caturra and Catuaí, thereby increasing the yield per cultivated area. Modernization included the use of fertilizers and pest control, which adopted low-growing, higher-yielding varieties such as Caturra and Catuaí, thereby increasing the yield per cultivated area. Modernization included the use of fertilizers and pest control, transforming production from extensive to intensive.

Sensorial Sunsets

The first of December 1, 1948, the President of the Government Junta, Mr. José Figueres, smashes one of the rocks of the Bellavista Barracks to knock it down and thus, in a symbolic act, decrees the abolition of the Army, beginning the transfer and remodeling of the old Bellavista Barracks to turn it into what would become the current National Museum of Costa Rica.

On December 1, 1948, I smashed a wall of the Bellavista Barracks to symbolize the elimination of the vestige of Costa Rica’s former military spirit and handed over the facilities to house a Museum of Anthropology that today continues to radiate culture.

On the 11th of that same month and year, by decree N° 749, the Founding Board of the Second Republic transferred the Bellavista Barracks to the University of Costa Rica so that the National Museum could be installed there. But it was not until October 31, 1949, in Act N° 178, that the approval of the constitutional article that suppresses the Army as a permanent institution and creates the Civil Police, for the protection of public order, appears.

Abolition of the Army

Something very important is that on that day, Don José Figueres Ferrer, better known as Don Pepe Figueres, abolished his Army, that is, the Army of the Second Republic or National Liberation Army, but never the National Army of Costa Rica. The truth is that on December 1, 1948 the National Army of Costa Rica was never abolished. That has to be very clear, because it has been misinterpreted to this day.

After having eliminated the Army, the handover is given to the President of the Republic on November 8, 1949, and we see President Don Otilio Ulate Blanco after having pronounced his oath to the country and assuming the presidency of the republic. From left to right: José Figueres, Dr. Marcial Rodríguez, President of the Constituent Assembly, Otilio Ulate and Jorge Guardia Carazo, President of the Supreme Court of Justice. Interestingly, Mr. Ulate is standing below the drawing of the Statue of Liberty. The young cadet holding the flag is Abel Pacheco E.

Invasion from Nicaragua to Costa Rica in 1948

As a proof of this, on December 8, 1948, elections were held for a National Constituent Assembly of 45 deputies, who would have the responsibility of drafting the new Constitution of Costa Rica. But that same day, the Junta informed the country that from Nicaragua, and with the support of the dictator Anastasio Somoza García together with Rafael Ángel Calderón Guardia and Teodoro Picado, they had organized a military force to invade Costa Rica, overthrow José Figueres and take over the government by force.

Abolition of the Army

The invasion was scheduled for December 8, coinciding with the constituent elections, but practically all of Nicaragua and even some towns in the north of Guanacaste were paralyzed by the famous “Gritería”, coinciding with the feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. However, the invasion was delayed for 4 days. It was on December 12 that we woke up with the news that we had been invaded and the enemy was advancing without any foreseeable obstacle towards Liberia. The Junta declared a state of national emergency, Don Pepe Figueres assumed supreme command of the loyal forces and sent troops to Guanacaste to counterattack the invading forces.

That same December 17, 1948, a demonstration was held by the Costa Rican people in support of President Figueres and the Government Junta on the occasion of the invasion of Costa Rica by Nicaragua.

On December 17, Don Pepe Figueres leads a battalion of volunteer government forces, who, with other members of the Revolutionary Junta, enter Liberia, Guanacaste, to attack the invading forces. That same day an improvised historic meeting of the Government Junta is held at the Liberia Barracks to plan the military strategy to defend Costa Rica.

On the left, in this historic photograph, we see the Costa Rican troops entering Liberia, December 17, 1948. From left to right: Father Benjamín Núñez, Don Otilio Ulate Blanco, Don José Figueres Ferrer, Don Gonzalo Facio, Don Bruce Masís (behind Don Otilio in the third row) and, on the right, photographer Don Francisco Coto.

On December 19, 1948, members of the Organization of American States’ Commission of Inquiry make their way down a dusty trail to the city of Liberia from that city’s airfield. President Figueres leads the group escorted on the right by a soldier with his rifle.

At December 22, after a fierce and decisive battle, El Amo was taken and two days later, La Cruz also fell into the hands of the Costa Rican Government. The invaders fled to El Murciélago and in passing murdered Father Jorge Quesada González, Antonio Facio Castro, Jaime Gutiérrez Braun, Óscar Mainiere Ibarra, Jorge Manuel Delgado Flores and Edgar Ardón Brenes, none of them combatants, they were all collaborators of the Costa Rican Red Cross.

The OAS ordered Costa Rica and Nicaragua to “immediately suspend hostilities” and organized an International Military Commission to appear in the field to see that the order was complied with. However, after the defeats of El Amo and La Cruz, the invaders in their flight surprise the Government garrison in Puerto Soley and assassinate Eloy Morúa Carrillo, Bernal Vargas Facio, Efraín Roldán Pérez and Víctor Manuel Víquez Arguedas. Another 35 men were captured, taken to Nicaragua and later released and returned to Costa Rica. As a historical testimony of what happened in El Murciélago, a commemorative plaque was later unveiled.

The Cardonazo

In the back you can see the front of the Universidad Santo Tomás; later the Banco Anglo Costarricense and today the Ministry of Finance. This photograph on the right was taken from the rooftop of the Gran Hotel Costa Rica in San José.

The pact was fulfilled, but in addition, Figueres himself carried out a series of social reforms also of a socialist nature. Two in particular provoked great disagreement from the conservative groups of the hardest and most oligarchic right wing: the nationalization of the banks and the 10% tax on capital. Cardona, supported by these groups, decided to stage a coup d’état to depose Figueres, taking the Bellavista Barracks along with several military rebels. Cardona demanded, in addition to the repeal of these laws, the resignation of the ministers Alberto Martén of Economy and the priest Benjamín Núñez of Labor.

The government responded immediately by surrounding the Artillery Barracks, where Edgar Cardona was located, and the Bellavista Barracks, with Fernando Figuls Quiros, who had also taken up arms, together with loyal military volunteers such as Frank Marshall Jimenez. There was a slight confrontation between both sides inside the facilities, which allowed the entrance of Figueres himself to negotiate. José Figueres ordered the surrender, which the rebels refused. After several hours of siege, they finally surrendered at 3 o’clock in the afternoon of April 3, 1949, with a toll of nine dead and thirty wounded.

Abolition of the Army

On April 4, 1949, at the end of the armed movement known in Costa Rican history as “El Cardonazo”, Don Pepe Figueres arrived once again at the Bellavista Barracks, surrounded by some of his men loyal to him and to the Founding Government Junta of the Second Republic. They defeated Colonel Edgar Cardona, head of the rebellion, who held the position of Minister of Public Security and had also been one of the bravest and most distinguished combatants of the triumphant army in the Revolution of early 1948.

A Sleeping Giant Of Soccer

Club Sport Cartaginés, founded in 1906, is one of the oldest and most historic soccer teams in the CONCACAF region. Throughout its existence, it has won four Costa Rican championship titles (1923, 1936, 1940 and 2022) and one CONCACAF championship title in 1994.

However, its greatness has been marked by a painful drought of local titles that began in 1940, the year it won its last national championship. Since then, the team has come eight times close to winning the title, but has always finished runner-up.

The Curse Emergence

Cartaginés’ last victory in a local tournament in 1940 gave rise to a popular mythology that explains the team’s title drought.

On January 12, 1941, after winning the championship, the players of Cartaginés, in the midst of euphoria, entered the Basílica de los Ángeles in Cartago on horseback and in a state of drunkenness. According to legend, their disorderly conduct during the celebration was punished by the priest officiating at the time, who issued a curse: “The team will not be champions again until the last of the players who participated in this sacrilege dies”.

Superstitions And Popular Beliefs

The Los Angeles Basilica, where this legend originated, is the main catholic temple in Costa Rica. Every year, millions of Costa Ricans make pilgrimages to this place to worship the Virgin of the Angels. The story of the Cartaginés curse, with its religious connotations, has captured the imagination of soccer fans for decades. Another popular legend has it that someone buried an evil spell doll under the grass of the Cartaginés stadium, thus perpetuating the team’s bad streak.

Breaking The Curse

In 2012, the last survivor of the 1940 champion team passed away, which some interpreted as the possible end of the curse. However, it was not until 2022 that Cartaginés broke its 81-year title-less streak by defeating Liga Deportiva Alajuelense in an agonizing final that was decided in extra time.

The victory was seen by many as a true miracle, closing a chapter of suffering and giving hope to new generations of fans who were finally able to see their team as champions.

Sensorial Sunsets

Henri Pittier was a Swiss engineer, geographer, painter, naturalist and botanist. He was a pioneer in the creation of national parks in Venezuela, where he finally settled and to which he dedicated a good part of his life.

Background

Little is known about Pittier’s life in Switzerland or Europe.

He studied at the University of Jena (Germany), where he graduated as a civil engineer. Pittier also received a doctorate in philosophy in 1885 from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. He then worked as a professor of natural sciences at the college of Cháteau d’CEx. And then at the Department of Geography of the University of Lausanne where he was awarded the title of “Doctor Honoris Causa in Sciences”.

Life And Travel

Towards the middle of the eighth decade of the 19th century, he traveled to the Mediterranean and the Near East to enrich his knowledge of these regions of the world.

At the age of 30 he traveled to America to settle in Costa Rica in 1887. He had been contacted by Mauro Fernández and Ricardo Jiménez, who sought to modernize education and hired him for the Liceo de Costa Rica.

Projects In Costa Rica

He soon founded the National Meteorological Institute and took over the direction of the Instituto Físico Geográfico, where the National Herbarium, a meteorological station, a geography service and a natural science museum are currently in operation. He also published the Bulletin of that scientific establishment.

With two of his fellow countrymen, Paul Biolley and Adolphe Tonduz, and the Costa Rican Anastasio Alfaro, he created the National Museum. At the same time, he dedicated himself to the study of the flora and fauna of Costa Rica and was involved in cartographic surveys and in the management of roads and railways.

In 1894, Mr. Henri François Pittier was the creator of a Plant and Animal Garden.

After 15 years of life in Costa Rica, he traveled to the United States in 1901, where he joined the United States Department of Agriculture in the area of Botany and began to study the collections he made in Costa Rica. As a product of these investigations he published, in 1907, the work Primitia Flora Costaricencis. .

In 1904, he mapped one of the most detailed maps of Costa Rica.

In 1916, in this Botanical Garden, he founded the Zoológico Simón Bolívar in San José.

The International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition, celebrated every August 23, aims to inscribe the tragedy of the transatlantic slave trade in the collective memory. It also promotes reflection on the causes and consequences of this dark chapter in human history.

This date is commemorated in memory of the uprising that began on the night of August 22-23, 1791 in Saint Domingue, now Haiti, which was key to the eventual abolition of the transatlantic slave trade.

The slave trade began in 1518, parallel to the colonization of the Americas, where Africans as well as destitute Europeans, criminals and kidnapped children were treated as commodities. Although exact figures vary, it is estimated that around fifteen million Africans were forcibly transported to the Americas.

Costa Rica And The Slave Trade

In Costa Rica, slavery did not reach the scale seen in other colonies due to its small population and limited trade. Nevertheless, slavery existed and had a notable impact.

Slaves were used in the production of cocoa and tobacco. In some cases, they were part of the marriage dowries of the wealthiest families, especially in Cartago.

A study published in 1976 by Revista del Pensamiento Centroamericano, conducted by professors John N. Riismanole and James H. Levitt of the University of Potsdam in Germany, provides a quantitative analysis of slavery in Costa Rica during colonial times. According to the study, between 1607 and 1824, about 2480 black slaves were counted in the country, distributed mainly in Cartago (2226), with smaller numbers in Alajuela (6), Guanacaste (26), Heredia (126) and San José (60).

In Costa Rica, slaves were treated as exchangeable goods. They were used in various commercial transactions, such as sales, wills, donations, mortgages, and leases. Given the commercial nature of Costa Rican colonial society, the importation of slaves was significant, with the majority being young men between the ages of 16 and 30, considered the most apt for physical labor.

Construction Of The Atlantic Railroad

Slavery in Costa Rica was abolished in 1824 along with the rest of Central America. However, in 1870, black workers were imported from Jamaica for the construction of the Caribbean Railroad. Aboard the ship Lizzie, on December 20, 1870, 123 workers arrived in Limón, who performed the hard work for the construction of this crucial infrastructure for the economic development of the country.

In The National Literature

Limón Blues by Anacristina Rossi is a historical novel that narrates the life of the Afro-Caribbean community in Costa Rica, especially in the province of Limón, during the first decades of the 20th century. The story follows Orlandus Robinson, a young Afro-descendant who arrives in Costa Rica from Jamaica to work on the construction of the Atlantic Railroad.

Through his life and that of other characters, the novel explores themes such as identity, racism, cultural resistance, and the difficulties of immigrant life in a country that, although it needed them, did not fully accept them. Against a backdrop of blues and spirituality, Limón Blues portrays the struggle for dignity and recognition of a community that has been fundamental to the construction and development of Costa Rica, but has remained largely marginalized in its official history.

From 1850 Onwards

After 1850, Afro-descendants began to be fully integrated into Costa Rican society, although their visibility and recognition have been limited. Historian Nina Friedman points out that the invisibility of the Afro-descendant population in Latin America is due to a historical tension between indigenism and hispanization, resolved through mestizaje and the adoption of a homogeneous culture in terms of language, religion and race.

In Costa Rica, this process is complicated by the official narrative that emphasizes the homogeneity of its population, mostly white and of Spanish origin, with a minimal indigenous presence, which differentiated it from the rest of Central America. However, the Afro-descendant history in the country is rich and its contribution to the construction of Costa Rican identity is undeniable, although historically underestimated.

During the 17th and 18th centuries, African slaves in Costa Rica worked in agriculture, cattle ranching, pearl fishing, shipyards and port activities, in addition to playing important roles in commerce and urban work in free status. The Costa Rican colonial economy, although stagnant for a period, diversified and stabilized, allowing the integration of the Afro-descendant population into the country’s social and economic structure.

Sensorial Sunsets

October 9, 1931 marked a before and after in the history of Costa Rica. On this date the canton of Pérez Zeledón was founded, an event that significantly transformed the south of the country. The inhabitants of the El General Valley, until then united to Dota, experienced a sense of freedom with this separation, highlighting the importance of the creation of the new canton.

Leaders And Founders

The founding of Pérez Zeledón would not have been possible without the guidance and direction of the priest Federico Maubach and the teachers Gustavo Meza and Enrique Táuler, of German, Chilean and Spanish nationalities respectively.

Under his leadership, the local inhabitants began a movement to persuade the doteños to accept the separation. Finally, canton number nineteen of the province of San José was established by decree number thirty-one on October 9, 1931, with the districts of Ureña, El General, Daniel Flores and Rivas.

Challenges And Development

The development of Pérez Zeledón was not without its challenges.

The conquest of Cerro de la Muerte was an arduous and painful process for many families, due to the extreme climate and lack of adequate roads. However, the construction of the Interamerican Highway between 1936 and 1945 significantly improved communication with the Central Valley and the Los Santos area.

Pérez Zeledón was also the scene of important events during the Civil War of 1948. The landing field in the area allowed José Figueres Ferrer to bring arms and men into the country, and crucial battles were fought in places such as the present-day Escuela 12 de marzo de 1948 and the district of Daniel Flores. These events left an indelible mark on the history of the canton and the country.

Growth And Economy

Thanks to the determination of its inhabitants, Pérez Zeledón has grown and prospered. In 2021, the estimated population was 145,000 people, distributed in eleven districts. Agriculture is a key economic activity, with the production of basic grains, tubers, sugar cane, fruits, coffee and bananas. Livestock is also successfully developed thanks to the abundance of water.

Tourism And Education

The geographical location of Perez Zeledon is privileged, with access to beaches, waterfalls, rivers and mountains. Cerro Chirripó, the highest point in the country, attracts thousands of tourists every year. In addition, the canton has focused on promoting tourism and local culture, organizing events such as the Festival Luces del Valle (Lights of the Valley Festival) and the night athletics race.

In terms of education, Pérez Zeledón has a solid infrastructure ranging from preschool to higher education, with the presence of public and private universities.

Sensorial Sunsets

Last Thursday, May 30, was commemorated in Costa Rica (and in Nicaragua) the 40th anniversary of La Penca bombing, in which 4 Costa Rican and foreign journalists were killed and 22 were wounded: the attack took place on May 30, 1984 during a press conference held on the banks of the San Juan River by the then commander of the ARDE (Alianza Revolucionaria Democrática), Eden Pastora, in the Nicaraguan town of La Penca (see note published for CRHoy’s 29th anniversary). Being a leader of the so-called Nicaraguan “contra”, his physical elimination, at that time, could have been the objective of both the Nicaraguan government authorities of the time, as well as those of the United States.

La Penca Bombing

In this video, entitled “La Penca: a survivor’s account”, one of the surviving Costa Rican journalists who attended Edén Pastora’s press conference where an explosive device went off, recounts what happened. The note published on June 1, 1984 by The Washington Post also merits a detailed re-reading, inasmuch as, as has repeatedly happened in the history of the United States, a rebel group that is initially supported in arms and ammunition by the United States, … is then subjected to actions to eliminate its leaders.

Although the events occurred in Nicaragua during the period of civil war in the early 1980s, the surviving Costa Rican victims and the families of the deceased have requested that an investigation be ordered into what happened, without receiving any response to their various requests.

The union of information professionals has also supported their claims without much success. This situation has led the victims to turn to the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, which, 40 years after the events, has still not managed to bring the case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. How so? As you can read.

The United States And La Penca Bombing: Between Shadows And Obscurity

In 1990, Costa Rica formally requested the United States to extradite a U.S. national (see note from the New York Times), but the U.S. failed to extradite him. It reads in this document from the U.S. Department of Justice entitled “G. DEA’s Investigation of Information It Received About Contras or Contra Sympathizers” that Costa Rica renewed such request in 1993 against this person for La Penca bombing:

In March 1993, Costa Rica submitted a renewed request for Hull’s extradition which contained documents indicating that the Superior court in Costa Rica had dismissed the drug trafficking charge against Hull for lack of evidence and that his extradition was no longer sought for that offense. This left the “Hostile Acts” and murder charges against Hull. However, on reviewing the documentation supporting the murder charge, based on Hull’s alleged involvement in the La Penca bombing, the OIA found no evidence of Hull’s involvement in this crime, indeed no evidence that he even knew about the bombing before it occurred.

In the following lines, the aforementioned document states that, according to cables from U.S. diplomats accredited in Costa Rica:

A “comment” by the cable’s author interprets Calderon’s statement as meaning that “On Hull, Calderon is putting us on notice that there’s no way he can turn a request off but is clearly hoping that Hull will not be extradited.

La Penca Bombing

It is worth noting the writing of one of the authors of a book that brought her and her husband a defamation action in court by the aforementioned American citizen, whom the United States later refused to extradite to Costa Rica (see article from 1991 of the Washington Post entitled ‘The man Washington doesn’t want to extradite’), when he points out in this article published in the Tico Times in 2013, that:

And, during Arias’ tenure, Costa Rica’s Legislative Assembly carried out investigations that implicated North, Hull, the U.S. ambassador and CIA station chief, and others in Contra-related drug trafficking and other “hostile acts” against Costa Rica. Judicial authorities reopened the stalled La Penca investigation, ultimately bringing murder charges against both Hull and CIA operative Felipe Vidal. Both fled the country. 

However, unanswered questions about the La Penca bombing have continued to haunt us.

As indicated, the author wrote a book that was published and immediately the subject of a defamation lawsuit that was ultimately unsuccessful. The full text is available at this link.

Timeline Of A Long Legal Battle

During the month of September 2005, Costa Rican survivors and relatives of the victims filed a complaint against Costa Rica before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for not properly investigating this attack (see note from La Nación): they could have done it 20 years earlier (1985), but something happened so that they … they didn’t.

Within this link of Primera Plana (Colegio de Periodistas de Costa Rica), you can review the details of the action filed in 2010.

In March 2012, the lawsuit was expanded to include the Nicaraguan state investigative bodies.

In June 2013, the Commission was asked to include some testimony found in recent documentaries produced on this case, in particular interviews by a Swedish filmmaker with Nicaraguan officials (see documentary “Good Bye Nicaragua“).

It should be noted that, at the end of 2013, the Costa Rican Prosecutor’s Office closed one of the lines of investigation, upon confirmation in Buenos Aires of the death of one of the nationals of Argentina considered as one of the possible leads and main suspect of placing the bomb that exploded that May 30, 1984 (see article of La Nación of 3/12/2013). It reads (see note from Teletica Canal 7) that:

Jorge Chavarría, fiscalía general de la República, “Se había reactivado la orden de captura en el 2008 a la Organización Internacional de Policía Criminal (Interpol), porque no sabía si había fallecido o no. Ahora ya lo tenemos claro y con eso cerramos esta línea de investigación, vamos a ordenar la cancelación del asiento de la captura internacional que se había dado a Roberto Vital“.

La Penca Bombing

An article in the Prensa Libre (Costa Rica) of the same day read that:

Con base en restos óseos que fueron recolectados luego del asalto al cuartel la Tablada en Argentina, en 1989, que estaban conservados por las autoridades de ese país, se realizaron análisis de ADN. De acuerdo con las conclusiones a las que llegan los médicos forenses de la Corte Suprema de la Nación de Argentina, se establece con un 99,99% de certeza que un grupo de los restos óseos pertenecen a Roberto Vital Gaguine”, afirmó el fiscal general Chavarría.

While in 2013 the Costa Rican authorities announced the closure of a line of investigation, it turns out that already in an article of August 1, 1993 in The Independent (UK) referred to the death of this suspect in 1989 when it is specified that:

Gauguine’s family knew nothing of his involvement with La Penca, but others have furnished details of his life: he came from a middle-class family and his ERP nom de guerre was Martin el Inglés. He arrived in Britain in 1978, where he later applied for asylum. By 1980 his whereabouts were again unknown. He will never be brought to justice: in 1989, he died, with 18 others, in a guerrilla attack on an army barracks on the outskirts of Buenos Aires.

The 10 years that separate the article in The Independent and the statements of the prosecutor in charge of the investigation in Costa Rica raise very valid questions.

In 2017, it was the School of Collective Communication Sciences (ECCC) of the University of Costa Rica that raised its voice in the face of the lack of progress in relation to the complaint filed in 2005 before the Inter-American Commission (see communiqué).

In 2018, it was indicated in the Costa Rican press that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights “accepted” the complaint, but without any official document of the complaint being made public (see note from the Semanario Universidad).

40 Years Of La Penca: Victims, Press and Costa Rican Citizenship Awaiting Justice

For the 30th anniversary of La Penca attack, on May 29, 2014, some deputies of the Legislative Assembly declared before cameras to support the efforts of the Costa Rican Journalists Association before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (see video).

On the same May 30, 2014, widely heard morning radio broadcasts were dedicated to the topic such as Hablando Claro by Vilma Ibarra and Boris Ramirez and Nuestra Voz by Amelia Rueda, with extensive multimedia material made available to the Costa Rican public at that time.

As part of the 30th anniversary commemorations, the University of Costa Rica’s (UCR) Channel 15 presented the documentary: “Goodbye Nicaragua” (Note 1) by Swedish director Peter Torbiörnsson. The film, which includes interviews of the filmmaker in Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba, France and Nicaragua, caused some impact and reactions in Nicaragua when it was presented in 2011 (see note from the Semanario Universidad de Costa Rica).

In a note published in a Costa Rican legal portal, we gathered this and other information a few days after the 30th anniversary of La Penca attack (Note 2).

Also on Friday, May 30, 2014, the documentary “La Penca: Onda Expansiva”, (see link) a joint production of the College of Journalists (COLPER) and Channel 15 of the UCR, was broadcast, which includes interviews with persons from the Costa Rican judicial system in charge of the investigation carried out (documentary produced in 2004 to commemorate the 20th anniversary).

La Penca Bombing

In these interviews, it is indicated that the official steps taken with the United States to extradite two individuals were not concluded due to errors by the Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign Affairs in their processing (see video, at min 32:27). The same interview also indicates that documents sent from the United States to the Costa Rican judicial authorities arrived … crossed out, making it impossible to read names, places and dates.

Note however the existence – online – of this publication posted by the US intelligence services (see link), entitled “La Penca, Pastora, the press and the CIA” in which a multitude of collected data offer some clues without being able to corroborate them. Being an intelligence agency whose authorities had an interest, in 1984, in physically eliminating Edén Pastora, everything that appears on its site deserves caution. It should be noted that the final part of the document reads: “Approved for release 2010/09/15”. This is evidence that for many years since 1984, this document was kept without being uploaded by this entity, for unknown reasons and it would be of great interest to know. What happened in 2010 that did not happen before, making it impossible for the U.S. intelligence services to put this publication online?

La Penca Bombing

A article in the 1993 New York Times reads that:

A Costa Rican prosecutor, Jorge Chaverria, said that he had no plans to withdraw the charges against the two men. His investigation in the late 1980’s found no evidence to point to the Sandinistas, and he said he was not convinced that the Sandinistas alone were behind the bombing.

For his part, the Swedish filmmaker, with his documentary “Goodbye Nicaragua” presented in 2011, suggests definitively ruling out the possibility that it was an action commanded by the U.S. intelligence services and clearly points out the direct responsibility of members of the Nicaraguan intelligence apparatus in this painful episode that took place in 1984, and the executing arm in charge of carrying it out. For the victims and their families, this is a documentary that sheds some light on the possible masterminds of this attack.

An article published in 2014 on the La Penca attack refers to other deaths of journalists that occurred in Costa Rica after 1984, and is titled “The country of impunities 30 years after La Penca: Costa Rica”.

In Conclusion

As of May 30, 2024, investigations by entities other than the Costa Rican and Nicaraguan investigative bodies have not been able to identify the masterminds of this attack: conjectures of all kinds have not been validated by a court record.

Given the maneuvers of all kinds to slow down or complicate the investigations carried out by the Costa Rican Judiciary, and the processing errors within the same Costa Rican state apparatus, external investigations by journalists have not allowed to reach conclusions validated by the facts.

Since May 30, 2104, as well as since May 30, 2014, very little progress has been made. This May 31, 2024, the Rapporteur on Freedom of the Press in the Inter-American system promised to reactivate the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, making it evident that this body has not been most effective in processing this complaint that was initially presented to it in 2005 (see nota of Semanario Universidad): except for our error, there is no record of a complaint filed before the Inter-American human rights system that, in 19 years, has not given rise to a report on its admissibility by the Commission.

La Penca Bombing

With regard to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it seems, for reasons difficult to explain, that its members do not know to which State apparatuses to request information on this case: since 2005, except for our mistake, no public decision has been made regarding this specific case. If the complaint was initially made against Costa Rica, and then extended to Nicaragua, to date there is no known report from the inter-American body on the steps taken on its part to both States. Much less a report on the admissibility of the complaint (if it exists, for some reason it is not available on the website of this body of the inter-American human rights system).

In the show Hablando Claro by Vilma Ibarra and Boris Ramirez on May 31, a very extensive interview with one of the survivors of La Penca bombing could be heard (see link to this radio broadcast).

Given the suffering it has caused to the victims and their relatives, these 40 years that have passed could well be the occasion for some consciences to release some secrets that they keep closely guarded, and for some classified documents filed in some embassies in Central America to be finally declassified: this is a request that we had the opportunity to express also on the occasion of the date on which the 40th anniversary of the death of the young student Viviana Gallardo was commemorated, in July 2021 (Note 3).

La Penca Bombing

If these documents are no longer in these embassies, some capitals may be asked to order their declassification, given the long period of time that has elapsed since that fateful May 30, 1984: these are diplomatic steps that any State may take with another State in which it suspects that there is information that may shed light on a matter of public interest. In this sense, clarifying the shadows and doubts that persist in Costa Rica about La Penca bombing is a matter of public interest.

Unless the impunity with which some, both in Costa Rica and abroad, seem to maintain this tragic episode, ends up imposing itself with the passing of time.

Text shared by Nicolás Boeglin, Professor of Public International Law, School of Law, University of Costa Rica (UCR). Contact: nboeglin@gmail.com

Notes

Note 1: The trailer for the documentary “Goodbye Nicaragua” is available here. The last part of the documentary (part 3), subtitled in Spanish, is also available on Youtube and available here.

Note 2: See BOEGLIN N., “El Atentado de la Penca 30 años después: conmemoración y preguntas sin responder”, DerechoalDía, June 5, 2014 issue. Text available here.

Note 3: See BOEGLIN N, “On the 40th anniversary of the murder of Viviana Gallardo in Costa Rica: brief notes”, July 1, 2021. Text available here.

The formation and consolidation of feminism in Costa Rica underwent a process similar to that of other countries in the world, with the first proposals being the product of intellectual women, mostly from countries such as England and France. They were the first promoters to elaborate theories with a gender focus, based on questioning the biological, social and religious superiority attributed to men in an accepted manner.

Costa Rica, being located in a peripheral zone of the great European intellectual centers, had contact with these currents later. However, it was a trend that was firmly defined in the following decades. In addition, during the early twentieth century, Costa Rican intellectual women such as Angela Acuña and Carmen Lyra, two of its greatest exponents, were discarded.

Beginnings of the Feminist Movement in Costa Rica

The starting point can be dated back to 1893 during the government of José Joaquín Zeledón. In this year a bill was presented to grant women the right to vote.

This project was rejected by a large number of deputies, since the idea of suffragettes was not well regarded by an important sector of the Costa Rican population. Despite the unfavorable situation, it served as a basis for the movement’s advance and its influence within national politics.

According to Alvarenga (2006), both in Costa Rica and in the rest of the Latin American region, the criticism of the patriarchal system came through anarchism and suffragist feminism. This current asserts that women, being a model for the upbringing of children at home, should set an example for them in matters related to voting, such as the civic duty to get involved in national political participation.

In 1923 the Costa Rican Feminist League was founded, whose organization served to formalize the organized feminist presence within the country.

The organization was founded by intellectuals such as: María Ester Acuña, Isabel Calderón, Lela Campos, Rosario Floripe, Lidia Fernández, América de Hern, Ana María Loaiza, among others. Ángela Acuña was appointed as the first president of the league, while Esther de Mézerville was appointed as vice-president.

According to Solano (2014), Acuña had the opportunity to witness the suffragette demonstrations that occurred in England, having witnessed such events as the kidnapping of the prime minister, Mr. Asquith, by leaders such as Lady Pankhurst.

In the following years, the feminist movement in Costa Rica focused on obtaining the right to vote. By the mid-twentieth century, several European countries already had this right, however, in the case of Costa Rica, it was not approved until 1949, after the Civil War.

The Feminist Movement After the Vote: Main Achievements and Contributions

The first woman voter in the history of Costa Rica was Bernarda Vázquez Méndez on July 30, 1950, in the municipal elections in the canton of San Carlos.

The struggle for women’s rights continued with international trends. Beyond the vote, during the following decades, the Feminist League and organizations have fought for new guarantees of gender parity. Laws and decrees on reforms to the Family Code, as well as an increase in women’s political participation, ensured that, from the 1970s onwards, the protection of women in family and social relations had greater support. Likewise, the reforms to the conditions of divorce support women to be in more equal conditions. In addition, the INAMU (National Women’s Institute) was created.

In 1990, the Law for the Promotion of Real Equality for Women was created, which was the basis for the creation of more specific laws in the search for equality. The reforms to the Electoral Code made between 1996 and 2001, “expanded the possibility of having a greater number of women in political positions, and by 2007 it became a mandatory condition” (Universidad Nacional, 2021, p.1).

The Vision of Current Feminism in Costa Rica

Within the socio-cultural diversity of this country, perspectives that benefit not only a certain group of women, but also seek to ensure that all women benefit equally, have been proposed.

Feminist collectives are an example of the search for representation within this group.

Feminism in favor of trans women, Afro-descendant and indigenous women, immigrant women, working class women, and sex workers has been one of the struggles that has been most promoted in recent years.

During the last decade, the government policies of political parties such as the Partido Acción Ciudadana and the Frente Amplio, together with influential female deputies, have promoted bills aimed at improving the quality of life of women.

In 2019 the use of the “morning after pill” was approved. However, there are struggles that are still pending in the country, such is the case of the bill 22,421 called “Menstruation and Justice”, with the aim of reducing the cost of the price for menstrual hygiene products. The menstrual issue shows a slow progress compared to other countries, although it is growing steadily.

The issue of a free, safe and legal abortion, which still presents a lot of opposition, especially from conservative groups, whether from political parties such as Nueva República or the Catholic Church. The representation of women and decisive collectives has generated that, in Costa Rica, in spite of continuing with pending struggles, the presence of feminism has allowed the country to advance in order to guarantee spaces where their voices are heard, for the betterment of this population.

As a final point, the following is a list of some of the most representative collectives currently in Costa Rica:

• Volcánicas: Collective oriented to Nicaraguan refugee women.
• Akoben: Afrofeminist Collective
• Colectiva Feminista La Hoguera: Focused on women mainly in the province of Guanacaste.
• El Garaje de Tiquicia: Collective on activism and intersectional feminism.
• Colectiva por el derecho a decidir: Advocates mostly for women’s sexual and reproductive rights.

Text shared by Elisabet M. Jiménez, Historian at the University of Costa Rica (UCR). Contact: eli02.mena@gmail.com / instagram: elis_abetm.

Defining a country’s territory is always an extremely delicate and important action, as each nation has its own needs and interests.

In order to define the territory of Costa Rica, it was necessary to create several treaties, as a result of the dialogue between the different countries bordering Costa Rica. In this article we will review these treaties.

Border with Nicaragua

The border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica was established thanks to the Treaty of Cañas-Jerez of 1858.

This treaty was an agreement between Costa Rica and Nicaragua that arose as a solution to a growing border tension between the two countries. All this occurred due to Nicaragua’s discontent with the https://www.sensorialsunsets.com/en/guancaste-annexation-of-nicoya/ to Costa Rica. On top of that, none of the border treaties of previous years had been able to mitigate the tensions.

To improve their relations, Nicaragua sent General Máximo Jerez Tellería, Plenipotentiary Minister to San José to try to negotiate a new agreement. Costa Rica then appointed General José María Cañas Escamilla to conduct the dialogue.

The treaty was approved days after the meeting by the majority of the Congress of Costa Rica and received the approval of the Constituent Assembly of Nicaragua.

Border with Panama

With respect to the border with Panama, the boundary was agreed by means of the Echandi-Fernández Treaty of 1941. This negotiation was carried out between the Costa Rican foreign minister Alberto Echandi Montero and the Panamanian ambassador Ezequiel Fernández Jaén.

The boundary dispute between the two countries began in the 19th century since Panama claimed as its own the Mosquitia territory (from the Sixaola River to Cape Gracias a Dios). In turn, Costa Rica claimed the territory from Escudo de Veraguas Island, in the Atlantic, to the mouth of the Chiriqui Viejo River, in the Pacific.

After the occupation of the Bocas del Toro region by New Granada in 1836, Costa Rica and Panama signed several agreements to try to resolve the border disputes. However, both countries finally agreed on the Echandi-Fernandez.

The treaty establishes a free navigation regime for both countries on the Sixaola and Yorkín rivers, in the part where they serve as a border.

Maritime borders

Regarding maritime borders, Costa Rica borders Ecuador, Colombia and Panama.

Ecuador

Thanks to the Gutiérrez-Terrán Treaty, it has been possible to define the maritime limits between Costa Rica and Ecuador in the Pacific Ocean. This agreement was signed in 1985 by the chancellors of both countries.

Colombia

Costa Rica borders Colombia in the Caribbean Sea according to the Facio-Fernandez Treaty, signed in 1977 by the Ambassador Plenipotentiate of Colombia in Costa Rica and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica.

There is also the Gutiérrez-Lloreda Treaty, signed in 1984 between the foreign ministers of Costa Rica and Colombia.

The agreement formally establishes the border limit in the Pacific Ocean between these two countries. In addition, it is the first international recognition of the marine and submarine areas that Costa Rica declares as belonging to it, based on Isla del Coco.

Panama

Finally, there is the Calderón-Ozores Treaty of 1980, which delimited the borders corresponding to the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean.

Sensorial Sunsets