PERU TAKES CHILE BORDER DISPUTE TO THE HAGUE

C O N F I D E N T I A L LIMA 000072 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/04/2018 TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR CI PE SUBJECT: PERU TAKES CHILE BORDER DISPUTE TO THE HAGUE Classified By: POL/C ALEXIS LUDWIG FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) ¶1. (C) Summar id: 137434 date: 1/15/2008 22:55 refid: 08LIMA72 origin: Embassy Lima classification: CONFIDENTIAL destination: header: VZCZCXYZ0003 PP RUEHWEB DE RUEHPE #0072/01 0152255 ZNY CCCCC ZZH P 152255Z JAN 08 FM AMEMBASSY LIMA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7654 INFO RUEHAC/AMEMBASSY ASUNCION PRIORITY 1880 RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA PRIORITY 5420 RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA PRIORITY 7717 RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES PRIORITY 3234 RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS PRIORITY 0997 RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ JAN 4686 RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO PRIORITY 9400 RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO PRIORITY 1679 RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO PRIORITY 1682 RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE PRIORITY 0941 RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RUMIAAA/USCINCSO MIAMI FL PRIORITY -------------- header ends -------------- C O N F I D E N T I A L LIMA 000072 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/04/2018 TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR CI PE SUBJECT: PERU TAKES CHILE BORDER DISPUTE TO THE HAGUE Classified By: POL/C ALEXIS LUDWIG FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) ¶1. (C) Summary: The GOP plans shortly to submit to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague its legal brief in support of adjusting Peru's maritime border with Chile. The Peru-Chile boundary dispute dates to the 19th Century War of the Pacific when the victorious Chile seized a substantial chunk of southern Peru. Since the war, most of the land border has been successfully delineated, but debate over the maritime boundary continues to animate Peruvian nationalists, eager politicians and others. While Chile's position is that there is no dispute, Peru believes that a formal agreement is needed to settle the maritime boundary matter definitively. Officials in Peru's border regions and in the Foreign Ministry stress the broad positive relationship with Chile and hope the Hague process will resolve a thorny issue that has prevented further integration. Peruvian officials also believe they will win concessions at the Hague, and the recent appointment of former Defense (and Foreign) Minister Alan Wagner to oversee the GOP's case at the Hague underscores the seriousness of Peru's intentions. Some officials justify their optimism by citing the October 2007 ICJ decision to resolve a similar Nicaragua-Honduras maritime dispute by splitting the two countries' claims down the middle. End Summary. Roots of the Maritime Dispute -------------- ¶2. (U) Peru has disputed its border with Chile periodically since the War of the Pacific (1879-1884),when Chile seized a large piece of what was then southern Peruvian territory. The two parties demarcated their shared land border in a 1929 treaty, starting from "a point on the coast denominated 'Concordancia', located 10 kilometers north of the Lluta River bridge, continuing eastward parallel to and ten kilometers north of the Chilean section of the Arica-La Paz railroad". In accordance with the treaty, a bilateral commission established a series of boundary markers called "hitos" to delineate the border. Hito 1 is located several hundred meters inland, within sight of the Concordancia (on the shoreline where the land meets the sea); subsequent 'hitos' extend northeastward through the desert into the interior. These 'hitos' and the terrestrial borderline they describe are undisputed. ¶3. (U) The 1929 treaty, however, did not explicitly discuss the maritime border. Peru and Chile eventually addressed this issue implicitly in two fishing agreements in 1952 and ¶1954. In the first accord, the parties agreed to respect their neighbors' sovereign rights over a zone of 200 nautical miles extending from each country's shore. In the second, they agreed to establish a band on either side of a "maritime border" where boats could move freely in order to protect innocent fishermen that accidentally crossed into the neighboring country's sovereign waters. The 1954 agreement established this band along the "parallel that constitutes the maritime limit between the two countries." That is, for the purposes of fishing vessels from either country that strayed into the territorial waters of the other, the agreement tacitly recognized Peru and Chile's maritime border as a line projecting westward into the ocean along a geographical lateral (latitide parallel). In joint protocols in 1968 and 1969, Peru and Chile confirmed this interpretation and explicitly established "Hito 1" as the point of departure for the maritime border. ¶4. (SBU) In the absence of a formal treaty describing the maritime boundary between Chile and Peru, Chile observes the boundary implicitly described in the 1954 fishing agreement and elaborated in 1968-1967 protocols. For this reason, it has become and remains Chile's contention that there is no maritime boundary dispute with Peru. By contrast, Peru contends that the 1952 and 1954 fishing agreements were never intended to establish the formal maritime boundary between the two countries, and do not do so now. Peru believes that a formal agreement explicitly describing this maritime boundary is needed to settle the matter once and for all. In that sense, the core disagreement is whether there is a dispute at all, with Peru claiming 'yes' and Chile saying 'no.' ¶5. (SBU) Many Peruvians further argue that the informal maritime boundary established in the 1954 fishing agreement unfairly favors Chile because Peru's landmass north of the parallel juts westward into the Pacific; as a result, Chile holds sovereignty over a larger maritime zone, including coastal waters "in front of" Peru's land mass. (One Peruvian living near the border told POLOFF the parallel runs so close to land that in some areas one steps off Peruvian soil into Chilean waters.) Peru argues that the maritime border should begin at the point of Concordancia -- rather than Hito 1 -- and travel southwest along a line equidistant between Chilean and Peruvian land (rather than along the established lateral). Peru says this is the solution prescribed by international law and the implicit intention of the 1929 treaty, which cannot be overridden by a separate agreement on fishing rights. In arguing for an equidistant line, Peru claims an additional 37,900 square kilometers of maritime sovereignty. In arguing that the line should depart from the point of Concordancia rather than the Hito 1 -- ocated slightly north and inland from the Concordancia -- Peru also claims a small triangle of 37,000 square meters of barren coastal land. A Nationalist Issue -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Peruvian politicians regularly exploit the border dispute to appeal to the population's nationalist sentiments. In 2004 then-President Alejandro Toledo, as his poll numbers dropped to single digits, stirred up the border dispute by publicly calling on Chile to open negotiations. In November 2005, Toledo signed a law, unanimously passed by Congress, unilaterally re-establishing the maritime border in accord with Peru's claim. In April 2007, Nationalist Party (PNP) leader Ollanta Humala, along with politicians from the Tacna border region, organized a protest march to the disputed border. In conjunction with the march, PNP congressman Juvenal Ordonez published a flyer titled "Chile Usurps Our Sea and Land" that outlined the conflict and criticized Chile's "expansionist vocation". In June 2007, when Tacna Regional President Hugo Ordonez (brother of Juvenal) welcomed the Chilean Ambassador to lay flowers in homage to Peruvian war heroes, a popular local radio station called out anti-Chilean protestors to burn the flowers. Cross-Border Commerce and Integration Continues -------------- -- ¶7. (C) Tacna Regional President Ordonez stressed to POLOFF that, despite the maritime dispute, cross border trade with Chile is increasing rapidly. He noted the large numbers of Chileans who cross the border daily to find inexpensive bookstores, pharmacies, doctors, optometrists, dentists, and casinos in Tacna city. He also highlighted the success of Tacna's duty free "Zona Franca", which allows the import of electronics, alcohol, and used cars via the port in the Chilean town Arica. Peru's consul in Arica has publicly stressed the positive relations between authorities and residents along both side of the border and described the Nationalist Party protest in April as serving only to "disturb the peace existing in this zone." Our Foreign Ministry contacts also emphasize positive bilateral cooperation and highlight the success of a series of biannual border conferences held between representatives of the two countries. Comment: Not Just Political Posturing -------------- ¶8. (C) Peru's appeal to the ICJ enjoys broad political and popular support, and represents more than a simple banging on the political drums or continued crying over historical spilt milk. Political party and civil society representatives from across the spectrum met January 10 under the auspices of the National Accord to approve the GOP's plan. Moreover, Peruvian officials appear to believe Peru's legal case is compelling. Some have privately said they expect the court to draw a new maritime boundary that splits the difference between the two countries' claims, as it did in the Honduras-Nicaragua dispute. Rather than an attempt to further politicize or publicize the case, President Garcia's recent appointment of former Defense and Foreign Minister Alan Wagner to direct Peru's efforts in The Hague can be read as a signal of the GOP's commitment to see the issue through in earnest. In a best case scenario, the successful and impartial resolution of the maritime boundary issue, supported by both countries, would take away a blunt instrument wielded by political opportunists and radical nationalists to pressure and intimidate the government of the day. This could pave the way to a more robust bilateral integration that overcomes the longstanding impediments of history. NEALON =======================CABLE ENDS============================