CONTROVERSY CONTINUES REGARDING PERU'S DRAFT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 LIMA 004673

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/02/2015
TAGS: PGOV PINR PREL CI EC PE
SUBJECT: CONTROVERSY CONTINUES REGARDING PERU'S DRAFT
MARITIME LIMITS LAW

REF: A. LIMA 4662

B. SANTIAGO 2240

Classified By: Ambassador Curt Struble for Reason 1.4 (B, D)


1. (C) SUMMARY: The controversy between Peru and Chile
over the GOP's introduction of legislation defining its
maritime limits continues, although Foreign Minister Oscar
Maurtua informed the Ambassador that the two countries are
talking and should eventually calm things down. Meanwhile,
the Foreign Ministry presented a diplomatic note to the
Chilean Ambassador on 11/1, terming Chile's note of 10/28
"unacceptable," and issued a press statement on 10/31, noting
that there is no/no similar dispute with its other Pacific
Ocean neighbor, Ecuador. The Congressional Constitutional
Affairs Commitee approved the maritime limits bill on 10/31,
and the full Congress is expected to pass the legislation at
its 11/3 plenary session. END SUMMARY.


2. (C) Foreign Minister Maurtua phoned the Ambassador on
11/1 to thank him for for telling the Peruvian press that the
maritime dispute between Peru and Chile is a bilateral matter
for those countries. The Ambassador replied that the press
account Maurtua was relying upon had not accurately reported
his comment. (NOTE: In an interview with the press
following a ceremony where the Embassy donated two planes to
the Peruvian Air Force for anti-narcotics missions, the
Ambassador was asked whether the United States was going to
intervene in the Peru-Chile maritime dispute following
President Lagos' convocation of Ambassador Kelly. The
Ambassador replied that he had no instructions on the matter
from the State Department, adding that maritime boundaries
are highly technical issues that are usually worked out by
the countries directly concerned. END NOTE). Maurtua
breezed over that, saying that the dispute was indeed a
bilateral issue between Peru and Chile. The Chilean reaction
had been overblown (sobredimensionado),he added, but the two
countries were talking and would get things calmed down.


3. (U) In the meantime, the Peruvian Foreign Ministry
issued two official press releases on this issue. A Press
Release by the Ministry dated 10/31 stated that regarding
Ecuador, the Peruvian draft law established a point of
reference which defined the western end of the Peru-Ecuador
land border, consistent with the findings of the Demarcation
Commission of 1944, and noted that the Ministry had expressed
repeatedly that there was no maritime border dispute between
Peru and Ecuador. The local media, which has made this a
page-one issue, provided extensive coverage on 11/2 to
reported remarks by Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Francisco
Carrion to the effect that his country, "Has no pending
problem with Peru."


4. (U) In a Press Release dated 11/1, the Ministry stated
that Foreign Minister Maurtua had presented a Diplomatic Note
to the Chilean Ambassador in Lima stating that Peru found
Chile's Diplomatic Note of 10/28 to be "unacceptable." The
Note reportedly took issue with Chile's statement that Peru
was acting in contravention of the international rule of law,
went on to state that the draft law was a sovereign decision
taken in accordance with the provisions of Article 54 of
Peru's Constitution, which required the legal definition of a
"Base of Maritime Control," and that Peru still considered
the definition of its maritime border with Chile an open
issue.


5. (C) On 10/31, British Ambassador Richard Ralph compared
notes with Ambassador Struble about the Peru-Chile dispute.
Ambassador Ralph shared our view that the GOP had been so
focused on the domestic angle of the maritime baseline
legislation (using it to build Congressional support for
ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty) that it completely
failed to anticipate Santiago's reaction. Ambassador Ralph
said that the FCO's reply to Lagos' demarche to his colleague
in Chile would be sympathetic, but would urge the parties to
work the matter out bilaterally.


6. (C) In a 10/28 conversation with DCM, her Chilean
counterpart, Hernan Mena Taboada, said Peru's draft law had
serious implications not only for Chile, but for Ecuador and
Bolivia as well. He added that the matter would likely be a
topic of conversation at the upcoming Summit of the Americas
in Mar del Plata.


7. (C) D/Polcouns contacted Chilean Embassy Political
Officer Fernando Velazco on 11/2 to seek his views regarding
the dispute. Noting that he was reluctant to speak frankly
about the matter over a cell phone, Velazco nonetheless
observed that there was a real affront to Chilean sovereignty
in the Peruvian legislation, in that the point of referecnce
it would establish for the maritime border was 300 meters
south of the currently recognized marker post which
represents the end point of the Peru-Chile land border.
Velazco explained that this discrepancy with the 1929 treaty,
for which the U.S. is guarantor, was the GOC's justification
for bringing this matter to the attention of U.S. authorities.


8. (U) The full Congress is expected to pass the bill on
maritime limits during its 11/3 plenary session, after the
Constitutional Affairs Committee approved it on 10/31.
STRUBLE