HONDURAS CONFIDENT ICJ WILL RULE IN ITS FAVOR;

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TEGUCIGALPA 002221 SIPDIS STATE FOR WHA/CEN, WHA/PPC E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/18/2013 TAGS: PBTS ES HO SUBJECT: HONDURAS CONFIDENT ICJ WILL RULE IN ITS FAVOR; CONTENT WITH PROGRESS ON BORDER DEMARCATION WITH EL SALVADOR REF: A. TEGUCIGALPA 654 ¶B. EL SALVADOR 2226 (ALL NOTAL) Classified By: Political Chief Francisco Palmieri; Reasons 1.5 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: Honduran officials are confident the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will uphold its original 1992 decision demarcating the border between Honduras and El Salvador and are dismissive of El Salvadoran claims that new material unknown to the Court at the time would have been a decisive factor in the original proceedings. Honduras is also very pleased with the progress thus far by the OAS-sponsored effort (lead by NIMA specialist John Gates) to assist the two countries in demarcating their borders, predicting that the whole process should come to a conclusion by the end of 2004. END SUMMARY -------------- El Salvador's ICJ Appeal -------------- ¶2. (C) On September 17 PolOff met with Miguel Tosta Appel, President of the Honduran Special El Salvador-Honduras Border Demarcation Commission, to discuss the pending El Salvador appeal of the 1992 ICJ decision demarcating the border between the two countries. Appel optimistically predicated that the ICJ would uphold its original decision because El Salvador had not produced any new documentation unavailable during the 1992 decision that would have been a decisive factor in the original proceedings. Appel prognosticated that El Salvador's appeal was more a face-saving effort to demonstrate to the Salvadoran people that all avenues had been exhausted before finally implementing the Court's 1992 decision rather than a serious effort to convince the ICJ to reverse its earlier findings. ¶3. (U) Public hearings were held from September 8-12 in The Hague on El Salvador's Application for Revision of the ICJ's original 11 September 1992 decision concerning the border dispute between El Salvador and Honduras. At issue are 30 square miles on the Gulf of Fonseca that El Salvador claims it was wrongfully denied in the 1992 decision. To bolster its claim, El Salvador has produced a map and other documents from a Chicago library that it claims represents new material unknown to the Court when if first made its original decision. ¶4. (C) Commissioner Appel, who was also a member of the original Honduran delegation to The Hague in 1992, opined to PolOff that Honduras and El Salvador were both fully aware of the Chicago material prior to 1992, but neither side choose to bring it to the Court's attention (He was unsure why El Salvador had not referenced the Chicago material in 1992). Appel dismissed any differences between the Chicago material and the documents that formed the backbone of the Court's original 1992 judgment to the lack of effective copying material, noting that "copy machines didn't exist in the 1790's." -------------- OAS Border Demarcation Effort -------------- ¶5. (SBU) On August 18 Honduras and El Salvador began implementing the OAS-directed border demarcation decision for the first of six disputed areas ordered by the 1992 ICJ decision (ref B). Assisting in the effort is OAS envoy, NIMA specialist John Gates. Commissioner Appel praised Gates' professionalism and predicted that the process of demarcation and placement of border markers should come to a conclusion by the end of 2004 if the Government of El Salvador (GOES) and the Government of Honduras (GOH) sufficiently fund the effort. ¶6. (C) Commissioner Appel acknowledged that some of the border areas under review (particularly in the second area and the Gulf of Fonseca) are politically sensitive for El Salvador but he did not think Gates would deviate, even partially, from the original 1992 ICJ decision. Appel added he believes both the GOH and GOES will fully abide by Gates' decisions regardless of the final outcome, referring to a May agreement between the GOH and GOES that Gates' decisions would be final. ¶7. (C) Commissioner Appel did not belabor the slow progress on border demarcation, saying he understood the politics behind what he believes to be El Salvador's past "foot-dragging" on implementing the 1992 agreement. Appel was confident, however, that progress would increase significantly, particularly after the expected ICJ decision not to revisit its original 1992 findings. ¶8. (C) Comment: The ICJ's initial ruling gave two-thirds of the 168 square miles in dispute to Honduras, including territory on the Gulf of Fonseca with access to vital Pacific Ocean coastal and fishing areas, which explains Honduran resentment that El Salvador has been slow to implement the initial 1992 decision. The GOH is extremely confident that El Salvador's appeal to the ICJ to revisit the Gulf of Fonseca area seems to have little chance of success. The completion of the appeals process will remove the final legal obstacle to completing the border demarcation process. The rest depends upon the political will of the two governments and the resources available to implement the agreement. PIERCE