Ecuador - Information on Security Dialogue

C O N F I D E N T I A L QUITO 000947 SIPDIS PM AND WHA/PPC E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/11/10 TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR MASS EC SUBJECT: Ecuador - Information on Security Dialogue REF: STATE 112900; QUITO 885; QUITO 570; 08 QUITO 1128 CLASSI... id: 234188 date: 11/10/2009 22:18 refid: 09QUITO947 origin: Embassy Quito classification: CONFIDENTIAL destination: 08QUITO1128|09QUITO570|09QUITO885|09STATE112900 header: VZCZCXYZ0002 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHQT #0947/01 3142218 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O R 102218Z NOV 09 FM AMEMBASSY QUITO TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0318 INFO RHMFISS/CDR USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL RHMFISS/COGARD INTELCOORDCEN WASHINGTON DC RHMFISS/HQ USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC RHMFISS/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC RHMFISS/USSOUTHAF DAVIS MONTHAN AFB AZ RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 0091 RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 0123 RUEHGL/AMCONSUL GUAYAQUIL RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC -------------- header ends -------------- C O N F I D E N T I A L QUITO 000947 SIPDIS PM AND WHA/PPC E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/11/10 TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR MASS EC SUBJECT: Ecuador - Information on Security Dialogue REF: STATE 112900; QUITO 885; QUITO 570; 08 QUITO 1128 CLASSIFIED BY: Andrew Chritton, Charge d'Affaires; REASON: 1.4(A), (B),(D) ¶1. (SBU) Embassy Quito responds to the questions in Ref A, as follows: ¶2. (SBU) Does the United States currently have an established security dialogue with your country? Answer. The U.S. and Ecuador have a Bilateral Dialogue mechanism to discuss a range of issues of bilateral interest, including four pillars: Security, Trade and Investment, Technical Assistance, and Migratory Issues. The discussion of security so far has been limited primarily to law enforcement-related issues. However, under the Security pillar, "Security Cooperation in the Northern Border Region" was included in 2009 to allow for a discussion of military to military assistance and cooperation in Ecuador's northern border region. ¶3. (SBU) When was the dialogue or mechanism first established? By what means was it established? Is the frequency of such meetings controlled through a binding agreement, or is this dialogue regulated by an informal understanding? Answer. The USG and GOE agreed to a Bilateral Dialogue mechanism in 2008, and held its first plenary in Quito on November 24, 2008 (Ref D). On July 8, 2009, Coordinating Minister of Internal and External Security Miguel Carvajal requested (Ref C) that security be added as a pillar to the agenda for the second plenary, which took place on November 10, 2009, in Washington. The USG agreed and negotiated the content of the Security pillar with the GOE. ¶4. (SBU) When did the group last meet? Does the USG or host government have a set schedule or any general expectations regarding the frequency of this exchange? When is the next scheduled meeting? Answer. Although there is no formal agreement on the schedule for Bilateral Dialogue meetings, the GOE stated during planning meetings that it would like the Bilateral Dialogue to meet annually in plenary, and working groups to meet more frequently to explore opportunities for cooperation and plan for plenary meetings. ¶5. (SBU) Does the USG or host government hold any expectations as to the level of leadership hosting the exchange? Answer. Plenary meetings to date have been led by an Assistant Secretary or DAS for the USG and an Under Secretary for the GOE. ¶6. (C) PM would also be interested in Post's brief, honest assessment regarding the overall utility of the dialogue. Are new issues frequently broached, or has the dialogue devolved into a stagnant exchange of power point slides? If necessary, please use classified communication to convey this honest assessment. Answer. The Bilateral Dialogue is a relatively new mechanism, and to date the plenary meetings have had extensive agendas that allowed both countries delegations to express only very brief statements on each topic. Military cooperation with the U.S. has been a sensitive topic with the GOE, which has been critical of U.S. military presence at the Forward Operating Location at Manta (now closed) and in Colombia following negotiations of the U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement. The GOE is generally very testy on any subject that it might perceive as an affront on its sovereignty. It has publicly asserted the need to diversify its military relations with other countries (lessening dependence on the USG) and has been extremely skittish with regard to military to military relations with the U.S. (Ref B). While we do not expect significant security-related decisions to be taken at the Bilateral Dialogue, the Dialogue is useful as an education mechanism and one that keeps open the lines of communication. CHRITTON =======================CABLE ENDS============================