CHARGE REITERATES SECURITY CONCERNS TO VICE FM

C O N F I D E N T I A L LA PAZ 001406

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/21/2018
TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER ASEC ODIP KLIG KTIA BO
SUBJECT: CHARGE REITERATES SECURITY CONCERNS TO VICE FM

REF: A. LA PAZ 1391

B. LA PAZ 1359

C. LA PAZ 1302

D. LA PAZ 1301

Classified By: Charge d' Affaires, a.i. Kris Urs for reasons 1.4 (b) an
d (d)


1. (C) Summary. Charge and EcoPol Counselor reiterated
Post's security concerns in the aftermath of a violent June 9
protest at the Embassy to Vice Foreign Minister Hugo
Fernandez. The Charge delivered a diplomatic note asking
that appropriate action be taken regarding a march organizer
who continues to make public threats to "burn down" the
Embassy in future protests. EmbOffs urged that the
government live up to its 1961 Vienna Convention obligations
to protect the Mission and stop inciting and supporting
violent protests against us. We noted that Bolivian
government officials' statements meant to reassure us that
they will protect our Mission lacked credibility when
followed by accusations that we are conspiring. We also
registered our concern that firing the police commander for
allegedly protecting the Embassy too vigorously sends the
wrong signal to both police and protesters. Fernandez
initially minimized our concerns and tried to justify the
march and continued threats from march organizers as a
reaction to USG policy. But, when pressed, Fernandez said he
understood "how serious and important security is to the
United States," promising to raise it with his superiors.
End Summary.


2. (C) Charge and EcoPol Counselor explained Mission security
concerns to Vice Foreign Minister Hugo Fernandez June 19.
The Charge emphasized that the seriousness of Embassy
security concerns following a violent June 9 Embassy
demonstration prompted Washington to ask our Ambassador to
return to Washington for consultations. The Charge noted
that the government's public statements to date that appear
intended to reassure us of Bolivia's commitment to provide
adequate security of our Mission, in accordance with its
obligations under the 1961 Vienna Convention, lack
credibility given that they were coupled with accusations of
conspiracy.

Disturbing Signs: Punish Police; Ignore Embassy Threats
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


3. (C) The Charge highlighted that on the day of the
demonstration, the Ambassador's calls to the government were
not returned, and that no Bolivian government official had
expressed any concern to us about the violent incident.
Then, the Charge explained that Minister of Government
Alfredo Rada's removal of the La Paz Police Commander
following supposedly heavy-handed defense of the Embassy June
9, sent a signal to the police that they should not confront
"people who want to sack the Embassy." Likewise, such
punishment for protecting the Embassy emboldens protesters,
such as El Alto City Council Vice President Roberto de la
Cruz, who has threatened to "burn down" the Embassy before,
during, and after the demonstration. De la Cruz clarified
June 10 that sacking the Embassy was not a threat, rather "a
promise" on par with the promise Altenos made in 2003 to
bring down the government of then-President Gonzalo (Goni)
Sanchez de Lozada. The Charge then delivered diplomatic note
195/08 (text para 14 below),which asks the Bolivian
government to take appropriate action against de la Cruz's
threats. Charge explained that we were concerned that there
has been no government action yet against de la Cruz, despite
the clear obligation to do so in accordance with both
international obligations (Vienna Convention) and, according
to Embassy legal advisors, domestic laws regarding threats to
property and person. The Charge made the point that we
expected a reply to our diplomatic notes, remarking that we
had yet to receive any response to our April 17 diplomatic
note protesting aggressive surveillance of our Mission.

Putting Embassy Arson "In Context"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


4. (C) Fernandez said he did not wish to "diminish the
importance" of our concerns, particularly as they relate to
the Vienna Convention. However, he seemed to do exactly that
when he continued to "put our concerns in context:"
--De la Cruz is not a member of the government, and,
therefore the government cannot control his behavior. De la
Cruz has his own "project" and he and other Alteno leaders
are in campaign mode for the August 10
presidential/prefectural recall referendum. Anti-imperialist
allusions are part of their stump speeches to energize the
public and "not to be taken terribly seriously."
--The Embassy is a "fortress" and was not damaged during the
June 9 protest, nor "is there any danger" that it will be
significantly damaged or overrun in the future. To
illustrate the point, he added that the demonstration was
only minor annoyance to his family, who lives nearby.
--The police acted within their mandate to beat off the
protesters at the Embassy's front gate, but went too far by
gassing the demonstrators, the cause for the police chief's
dismissal. Fernandez argued the gassing had nothing to the
protection of the Embassy and, therefore, we should not be
concerned about the government's commitment to protect the
Embassy in the future.

Blaming the Victim
- - - - - - - - - -


5. (C) Fernandez then changed course and rebutted that De la
Cruz's criticisms of the former Defense Minister Carlos
Sanchez Berzain's asylum case are not the ravings of "some
crazy man in the desert." According to Fernandez, the
perceived U.S. protection of Sanchez Berzain is a legitimate
issue for the people of El Alto, and, "in this sense, the
march was a result of what you did in this case." Fernandez
also used the opportunity to argue that although the
government "understands" the legal/jurisdictional reasons we
cannot comment on the case, "in this special case" the
government should have been informed of his asylum status.

Justifying the Soft Hand: What is Terrorism, Anyway?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


6. (C) Fernandez segued into a philosophical discourse on the
definition of terrorism, saying he did not "want to use the
term lightly, lest it lose all meaning." (Comment: implying
that we had. End Comment.) He argued that if we are
concerned about de la Cruz's "terrorism," it stood to reason
that we should be concerned about opposition-aligned group
"attacks" on the Constitutional Assembly, on assembly
members, and on officials from the Ministry of Justice,
referring to an assortment of recent events. He also
mentioned opposition groups' denying access to parts of the
country for government officials, including President Evo
Morales. "The Ambassador needs to denounce these things too;
these things are also terrorism." In an apparent and strange
attempt to justify the government's less-than-ideal handling
of our security concerns and at the same time compel us to
reign in opposition radicals, Fernandez argued that a
consistent approach to security issues would require an
equally tough approach to opposition-led Santa Cruz
Department (state) radicals as with pro-government radicals
such as de la Cruz. "Unfortunately, this is the country we
have; you have to take it in context."

Back to Reality
- - - - - - - -


7. (C) The Charge retorted that Fernandez's analogy is
inappropriate and illogical: the United States Government has
no mandate or authority over Bolivian citizens, as opposed to
the Vienna Convention obligation that countries protect
foreign missions on their soil. Moreover, the Charge argued
that the United States does not have relations with the
groups in question nor does it control opposition groups in
general, despite government accusations to the contrary. The
Charge also pointed out the inconsistency of implying we
should involve ourselves in domestic political issues while
the government vehemently criticizes the Unites States for
imagined breaches of Bolivian sovereignty. The Charge then
steered the conversation back to Embassy security and asked
if the government planned to initiate any legal actions
against de la Cruz.

Government Inciting the Next Attack
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


8. (C) The Charge also asked for a clear public statement in
support of the security of the Embassy. He said remarks by
Bolivian officials, including Fernandez himself, assuring
Bolivian support for foreign mission security were always
coupled with critical remarks about U.S. policy or Ambassador
Goldberg, giving a mixed message to would-be protesters. The
Charge also noted the comments of senior officials, including
President Morales, condoning the June 9 march, congratulating
its participants, and endorsing violent protests as a
legitimate form of dissent with U.S. policy. The Charge
argued that instead of trying to quell angry mobs, rhetoric
from senior officials is contributing to a hostile
environment for the U.S. Mission, contradicting Vienna
Convention obligations to protect the Mission. The Charge
also questioned if government support for the march was
financial as well as rhetorical, as many marchers were
publicly paid for participation.

Fernandez: We'll Talk to de la Cruz
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


9. (C) After rehashing how overly "sensitive" our concerns
were, Fernandez said de la Cruz would be talked to so that he
"understands the gravity of threatening the Embassy."
Fernandez said any public denouncement or detention of de la
Cruz would be "ill advised and counterproductive." He added
that if we had any proof linking government ministers to the
march, we should provide it.

Fernandez: "We Will Never Break Relations"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


10. (C) Fernandez said he believed we were acting in good
faith with the government, including the Sanchez Berzain
case, and suggested we continue to be "neutral" and keep a
low profile on domestic issues. He said he gave the same
advice to Venezuelan officials. He called opposition leaders
daring the government to break ties with the United States
"imbeciles." "We will never break relations with the United
States." Fernandez ended the meeting by emphasizing the
government's support for mission security and suggesting
subsequent meeting with Minister Rada and Defense Minister
Walker San Miguel "so you can ask them your questions and we
can come to a better understanding."

Latest Rabid Rada Ramblings
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -


11. (C) Although Fernandez's attempts to minimize and take a
light-hearted approach to our concerns seemed awkward and
misapplied to our serious security concerns, he seemed at
least willing to work towards a resolution of the issue.
Other senior government officials, including President
Morales (reftels),have instead mocked our legitimate
concerns and used them as a base to launch spurious attacks.
This latest volley from Interior Minister Rada June 19:
"What's the Department of State's concern? The security of
its Embassy. And to this concern the Bolivian government
says they have the same guarantees of security that other
embassies have, so therefore this is a fictitious concern.
But okay, since they have that concern, we have the concern
of guarding our sovereignty in the face of the political
interference that Philip Goldberg has been up to in recent
months. We are concerned about the impunity that Sanchez
Berzain and Sanchez de Lozada have in U.S. territory. We
give the Embassy full guarantees, but we ask for respect.
Therefore, if there is going to be any dialogue, or whatever
it is called, then there has to be (respect). Both sides
have concerns."

Police Close Book on Police Chief's Undefined "Errors"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


12. (U) Bolivian National Police Commander General Miguel
Gemio said June 19 that the police committed errors in the
confrontation with the Embassy protesters. "We have
evaluated it and it's now a closed book. We identified that
the police effectively committed certain errors that we will
correct." La Paz daily La Razon interviewed an anonymous
"other high-level police chief" who said that "everything
that was done at the Embassy was under police norms. Any
officer who sees, hears or reads what occurred that day will
discover that what they did was correct. I'm surprised that
they haven't listed what those 'errors' were, if they were
worth knowing."

Comment
- - - -


13. (C) Like most of our conversations with senior
government officials we consistently get inconsistent
answers: Fernandez accepted the government has international
obligations to take security seriously, but he did not commit
to take a serious approach to our general concerns or the
specific case of de la Cruz. Only after being pressed,
Fernandez did accept that the government had to do something
to temper de la Cruz's behavior, hence the offer to talk to
him. And, while offering to help, Fernandez remarked he is
"only a cog in the machine, and not an important one."

Diplomatic Note 195/08
--------------


14. (C) Begin Text.

June 19, 2008

No. 195/08

The Embassy of the United States of America presents its
compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of
the Republic of Bolivia.

In accordance with the rights and privileges accorded to all
diplomatic missions in the Republic of Bolivia, Embassy La
Paz registers its profound concern regarding the security of
the U.S. Mission in Bolivia following a large, violent
demonstration at the Embassy June 9. As we informed the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Ambassador Goldberg
was asked to return to Washington to review the Embassy's
security situation.

The Mission understands the role of public marches and
demonstrations in the expression of public opinion in
democratic societies. We further understand the intent of
many of the June 9 marchers was to peacefully register their
disagreement with perceived U.S. policies, irrespective of
actual U.S. policy or their understanding of the same.
However, both the intent and the actions of a sizable
minority of the marchers were clearly violent, as evidenced
by unambiguously hostile public statements aimed at violently
targeting the Embassy. Peaceful protesters do no throw
dynamite or other explosives at the police protecting the
Embassy or over the Embassy walls. These actions resulted in
injuries to police and civilians.

Roberto de la Cruz, Vice President of the Municipal Council
of El Alto, is responsible for the most egregious and overt
calls to violently attack the Embassy. De la Cruz repeatedly
and consistently stated before, during, and after the June 9
incident his intent to "burn down the Embassy." He publicly
reiterated this intent as "to take down the Embassy of the
United States" as recently as June 16 (see attached DVD). De
la Cruz also has clarified his intent to "return to the
Embassy to take it" in the future. We take these terrorist
threats seriously and in accordance with the Bolivian
government's public assurances that it will abide by its
international obligations to protect foreign missions under
the 1961 Vienna Convention, we expect the government to take
appropriate action against Mr. de la Cruz.

Our highest priority is the safety of our U.S. and Bolivian
employees. We trust that the Bolivian government shares our
security concerns and will ensure the protection of the
Mission should there be violent demonstrations in the future.

The Embassy of the United States of America avails itself of
this opportunity to renew to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Worship of the Republic of Bolivia the assurances of its
highest consideration.


To the Honorable Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship Of
the Republic of Bolivia, La Paz. End text.
URS