PARAGUAY: GUIDANCE REQUEST ON RECASTING SOFA

C O N F I D E N T I A L ASUNCION 000176

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/02/2027
TAGS: KTIA MARR MASS MOPS PGOV PREL PA
SUBJECT: PARAGUAY: GUIDANCE REQUEST ON RECASTING SOFA
WITHIN FRAMEWORK OF 1961 AGREEMENT

REF: A. EILAND/READ EMAIL (3/7/07)


B. STATE 12028

C. ASUNCION 0037

Classified By: PolCouns James P. Merz. Reason 1.4(b),(d).


1. (U) Action request: See paras. 2 and 6.


2. (C) SUMMARY. Both MFA lawyer Tito Velasquez and
Vice-Presidential advisor Juan Facetti praised the new draft
SOFA text (reftel B) as a significant improvement over prior
texts in terms of addressing GOP concerns. Velasquez still
does not believe the MFA could "sell" the new text to
Congress as comparable to the Argentine and Brazilian
agreements as the U.S. draft expounds on a wider range of
privileges. Lacking our readiness to make another run at
trimming back our draft, he suggested we look at recasting
our SOFA within the framework of a 1961 agreement between
Paraguay and the U.S. that he recently uncovered which would
allow us to bypass seeking Paraguayan Congressional approval.
Post requests guidance. END SUMMARY.


3. (C) MFA lawyer Tito Velasquez welcomed the new draft
SOFA text as a more amenable text in meeting with PolCouns on
March 5. However, he did not think it politically advisable
to submit our text alongside the Argentine and Brazilian
agreements as ours spoke to a considerably longer list of
privileges. He would only recommend that course if we could
essentially duplicate the Argentine and Brazilian agreements.
Otherwise, opponents would immediately seize on differences
in the texts.

Looking to 1961 Agreement as a Framework


4. (C) Velasquez presented PolCouns with a text of a 1961
agreement (only in Spanish see ref A) between the U.S. and
Paraguay relating to economic and technical assistance
extended to Paraguay in the context of the Kennedy
administration's "Alliance for Progress." He drew attention
to Article III which speaks to the extension of privileges
and immunities, consistent with those accorded to the
diplomatic mission, to those individuals who come to
Paraguay on a "special mission" to carry out responsibilities
in conformity with this agreement. Velasquez maintained this
agreement was still valid and, on its face, could provide
legal grounds to claim the extension of privileges and
immunities to U.S. military technicians and doctors who come
to Paraguay in the context of our military cooperation
activities. He wanted to consider further whether it would
also extend to armed troops after exploring what kind of
agreements Paraguay has with Argentina and Brazil. However,
he believed that the 1961 agreement could serve as the
framework for our introducing our new SOFA text via an
exchange of dipnotes and in that way acquire all of the
privileges and immunities articulated in that text for the
military personnel we send to Paraguay.


5. (C) According to Velasquez, if we were to pursue this
approach, the MFA would notnot need to send our draft SOFA
text to Congress for approval as it would be working off an
already legal and valid agreement that speaks to technical
assistance. If we were to pursue this course, Velasquez said
we would need to introduce some perambulatory language in our
SOFA text recalling the 1961 agreement. He also recommended
we change the title of our agreement to read "Agreement on
Technical Military Assistance Between the Government of the
United Sates of America and the Government of Paraguay" and
to use similar terminology throughout our text as part of an
effort to offer our SOFA text as consistent with the terms of
the 1961 agreement.


6. (C) COMMENT AND GUIDANCE REQUEST: The MFA's proposal on
the 1961 agreement is nothing if not creative. It may even
be legal. As to whether it passes political muster is
another question. President Duarte remains almost singularly
focused on winning the Congressional votes he needs to pursue
reelection and practically every issue that comes before him
is considered through that prism. Meanwhile the opposition
within Congress rarely passes on an opportunity to attack the
President for any perceived misstep. This course could
provide an avenue to avoid confrontation or just another
pretext to foment controversy. Both Velasquez and Facetti
have signaled their predisposition to recommend this course
to their respective bosses -- FM Ramirez and the VP
Castiglioni. We are prepared to quietly sound out the
President and perhaps even select Congressional leaders.
First, however, we request the Department's legal take on
this approach. END COMMENT AND GUIDANCE REQUEST.
CASON