Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 27, 2016
Document Release Date: 
October 2, 2012
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
March 12, 1959
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP08C01297R000700110007-8.pdf2.22 MB
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700110007-8 PRIORITY (Security Classification) / FROM TO REF FOREIGN SERVICE DESPATCH Amcbba33y, Rio de Janeiro 90 D E S P. NO. qUs ~~ 12, 1959 THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON. Eobtels 10599 Feb. 7; 10 Feb. 13; asps. 809, Jan. 163 928, Feb. 16, 1959. The boundary dispute between Peru and Ecuador in the Santiago- Zamora sector has for nearly a decade defied the efforts of the Guarantor states urAer the Rio Protocol of 1542. Nevertheless, the Guarantors are committed to assure the final demarcation of the boundary line, and it is highly important to the peace and unity of the Hemisphere that this and be achieved. Looking back on the four years that I have participated in futile efforts to settle this dispute-one year as Ambassador in Lima and three in Brazil--I have been struck at the timidity of the four Guarantors, who seem to have operated on the``ory that wishful thinking, plus polite attention to the interminable con- flicting statements of the two disputants, would eventually produce a settlement. Both Peru and Ecuador have shown intransigence and have behaved truculently in their public postures. Peru, favored by the Protocol, has incessantly denar~ded her pound of flesh when a conciliatory gesture would have been in order; Ecuador has foolishly harped on the Naratton, which is many miles away from any boundary envisaged in the Protocol. The present despatch undertakes to review developments in the past year and to assess the courses of action open to the Guarantors. The conclusion is reached that the best procedure is probably arbitration, which in the past has been at least partially successful, and which has the advantage of permitting each of the contendinG parties to accept a prior commitment to arbitration, legally unassailable,, for the final results of which they could not be meld directly responsible. A proposal for arbitration must, however, be carefully drafted, and presented by the four Guarantors acting in unison. Clearly what is now needed is for the Guarantors to restate their responsibilities under the Protocol and their determination to discharge them. The declaration should include a stateiaent as to the validity of the raarkoru in the southern zone, north of E1Jende1irq/EQBr: ;s/j jh INFOR~TA'TCOPY Retain in divisional files or cr-s , .,,, accordance with security rc,,-ulations. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700110007-8 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700110007-8 ar~vjrvtl~sei aw0 ave Rio do Janeiro the Qusebrada do San Francisco (which would have the effect of re- defining the problems namely to draw the boundary between the northernmost marker ratified by the Guarantors in the southern part o,f the Santiago Zamora sector and the southernmost marker ( 2O do NoviembrO) in the Taupi sector. The Guarantors should then call upon the disputants to arbitrate and should set forth the terms of reference. Admittedly it may not be easy to galvanize the 0,,arantors into making a declaration along the foregoing lines, but in my opinion the effort should be made. As will be observed from the appended study and its enclosures, the Brazilian Foreign Office is already moving, albeit very cautiously, in that direction. The Argentine Goverment may be better disposed now than previously. We have no information concerning the attitude of Chile. As to the prospect that Ecuador and Peru might accept,, we believe the proposed declaration, if vigorously promoted by all four Guarantor govern ants, might stand a fair chance of success. Peru would probably be gratified by Guarantor ratification of markers (almost any markers) north of the upper end of the Quebrada de San Francisco, and Ecuador would have obtained support, via arbitration, of a determination of "geographical realities". On the other hand, should the Guarantors continue along the indecisive line followed for the past decade, I should anticipate that a decade hence we would probably be dancing around the same maypole. It is now a year since the former Foreign Minister of Brazil, redo Soares, made his major effort In Quito to obtain acceptance by Peru and Ecuador of a formula that would permit renewal of contact between the two countries with some prospect of progress toward a solution of the boundary dispute in the southern portion of the 2amora'Santiago area. The reasons for his failure are well known to the Department.l.,,f Since then two further proposals have been put forward looking toward a solution of the boundary question. A proposal for arbi- tration was originally put forward by the Chilean representative and discussed at the Guarantors* meeting in Rio de Janeiro on March 18, 1957. The Department at first took a negative position (Department?s telegram No. 864 of March 25, 1957) but later, in Reference Embassy telegram Nos 1207, March 209 1958 and Embassy despatch No. 809 of January 16, 19590 COOIDBNTIAL Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700110007-8 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700110007-8 Rio de Janeiro a a mot q otion fors bitration0 The question of arbitration h not been discussed in recent meat s of the antors ? repre ntativea in Riog pending the result of a t prehenaive study of the question undertaken by the Brazilian re a Office. M is study Is now being actively pursued in@luding- the feasibility of arbitr*tiono and the subject will undoubtedly be considered at a future meeting of the C antors ? representatives. In Septc berg 1958 Argentine Fo ign l#nister Florit while in W on discuses a proposal calling for a suing of the Peruvian and or Presidents of the Mxed BBourAAry Commission with the Brazilian bou aasty e rt8 General Bwdeira Caelhoq acting as goexpcrt arbitrator"e to establish the bases for a continuation of the interrupted d ationo " (Text furnished by the Argentine Ambassador in Rio is attached as Enclosure Nip, 2Q) This proposal resales that put forward by the Brazilian Foreign Minister a yew M9 wept that the latter carefully limited the rdle of General Beira Coelho to serving, "not as an arbitrator nor as a diator0 but simply as a collaborator fl by reason of his high authority s well-recognized cotoncos~ As the Department Is aaareD this Argentine initiative has never been presented to the Guarantors as a formal proposal (the Bra lan Foreign Office learned of it only indirectly throu6rh this Embassy a later through a cossu ieati on from the Peruvian Embassy),, It may be observed that the Florit proposal is drafted along lines reflecting the Peruvian position and the Government of Lisa has made every effort to push for its adoption by the Guarantors. In a confidential memorandum given the Brazilian Foreign Office by the Peruvian Ambassador late in January (with text of Florit proposal attached) reference is made to President Frondizie s discussion of the subject with President Predo in Samna on route to the gaited States. The memorandum states that the Foreign Minister of Peru has recently expressed to the American, Ambassador in Lim the necessity for the United States of Arica to modify its abstentionist policy which favors the plans of Ecuadora as has reiterated to him that unless an agreement is reached on this stion it will not be possible for Peru to att the next Inter-American Conference which will set in ,too" A copy of this mmorandum has been made available to the sassy by the Feign Office and is transmitted herewith (closure No. 3Y, partment?s telegram No. 8 September 10,, 1958 and instruction No,, CA-4443 of November 17, 1958, Embassy telegram Na 12079 Mauch 209 1958 and despatch a 8099 January 169 1959. CCZ'D tie@ided that this approach might be worth trying and Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700110007-8 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700110007-8 no, with Fr-'ezw+z95ivWt, o~,Nt+rro' ~