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