PERU SURPRISED BY CHILEAN REACTION ON DRAFT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 LIMA 004662 SIPDIS WHA FOR JMONSERRATE E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/01/2014 TAGS: PGOV PINR PREL EC PE SUBJECT: PERU SURPRISED BY CHILEAN REACTION ON DRAFT MARITIME LIMITS LAW REF: A. ACHRITTON E-MAIL ¶B. 10/28/05 Classified By: Ambassador J. Curtis Sruble. Reason: 1.4(b/d). -------------- Summary: -------------- ¶1. (C) Embassy Santiago's reporting (Ref) has laid out the Chilean perception of what the GOP is doing with its draft "Law on the Bases of Maritime Control," which is now under review by the Peruvian Congress. In our view the GOP impulse behind the law is far more anodyne; it was part of an effort by the Foreign Ministry to reassure Congress that ratification of the law of the sea will not undercut Peru,s maritime claims. The GOP appears to be surprised by the strong Chilean reaction, which it failed to anticipate. Unfortunately, the high profile Chilean response to the law has likely guaranteed its swift passage. End Summary -------------- Why Did Peru Submit this Legislation -------------- ¶2. (C) Embassy Santiago's reporting (Ref) has laid out the Chilean perception of the GOP's draft "Law on the Bases of Maritime Control," approved 10/24 by the Congressional Commission of the Congress. (The draft law is now with the Constitutional Commission with no date yet set for presentation to the full Congress.) The Chileans fear that the Peruvian draft law contravenes existing maritime agreements with Chile, and may make it more difficult for Bolivia to obtain an outlet to the sea. The GOC suspects it may be intended to provoke a politically convenient confrontation to bolster President Toledo (Ref). ¶3. (C) In our view, the reason behind the GOP action is fairly pedestrian. The law's timing is related to a pending proposal from the Foreign Ministry to have Peru join the Law of the Sea. The Foreign Ministry would like to reassure Congress that ratifying the Treaty would not weaken Peru's long-standing claims to a bigger area of the Pacific than Chile recognizes. While MFA believes that the odds are against Congress taking action on the Law of the Sea Treaty in an election year, the new Foreign Minister, who only expects to stay in office until the new administration is sworn in next July, is giving ratification a serious go nonetheless. The draft law, which originated with the Executive (signed by President Toledo and PPK),simply re-states the GOP's long-standing interpretation of where maritime borders and the baselines for a 200 mile exclusive economic zone should be drawn. In this, the GOP is not wavering from what it told the UN in 2001 when Peru expressed reservations about Chile's maritime claims when the latter deposited papers with the Secretary General on this issue. ¶4. (C) We don,t believe the law is intended either to spike eventual Chilean-Bolivian negotiations on the latter,s access to the sea, although Santiago is right to be concerned about Peruvian complications. In August 2004, then Foreign Minister Manuel Rodriguez initiated an hour-long conversation with the Ambassador and visiting A/S Noriega on Bolivian maritime access. Rodriguez exhaustively laid out Peru,s claim to where the maritime boundary with Chile should be drawn and spoke of how he hoped to leverage talks between Chile and Bolivia to compel Santiago to discuss Peru,s aspirations. At the same time, Rodriguez said that he had no problem with Chile granting a land corridor to Bolivia in what was Peruvian territory before the War of the Pacific and Peru would cooperate with Bolivia and Chile to grant the former a non-sovereign maritime corridor. ¶5. (C) The Chileans allege that the GOP draft law would abrogate the 1952 and 1954 Chile/Peru/Ecuador treaties on fisheries. The GOP maintains that these accords are not the legal equivalent of a maritime treaty. -------------- -------------- No/No Indication of GOP Desire to Enforce the Claim -------------- -------------- ¶6. (C) Peru has given no/no indication that it intends to enforce its maritime claim. Should the GOP send a naval vessel into the zone in question, that action could provoke a genuine crisis. We will keep a weather eye on this aspect and do all we can to discourage any such action, should such a proposal surface. -------------- -------------- Comment: GOC High Profile Response Put Law on Fast Track -------------- -------------- ¶7. (C) We do not see complex ulterior motives in the GOP's proposal. The vociferous Chilean reaction, however, has transformed what had been a low key piece of legislation into a matter of national sovereignty. We suspect this will have the perverse effect of greasing the skids for swift passage of the law and has made it virtually impossible for any Peruvian politician to waiver on this issue: i.e. on Peru's right to state its maritime claim in its own legislation. -------------- Action Request: -------------- ¶8. (C) Since the Chileans made reference to the 1929 Peace Treaty, to which the US is guarantor, we recommend that the Department take another look at that agreement and see what US obligations are. We think it unlikely at this juncture that Peru would join Chile in inviting our role as a guarantor. STRUBLE