PERU-ECUADOR BOUNDARY DISPUTE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP08C01297R000700110007-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 24
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 2, 2012
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: March 12, 1959
• Content Type: CABLE

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' ~