HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF THE ECUADOR/PERU BORDER DISPUTE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120008-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 26, 2012
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: October 28, 1976
• Content Type: CABLE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700120008-6* V
t;-6 DftFaA& 4--i IviCi' i 1 Wr.+ru ' i'r-a....
C' `t:p
TO:
INFO:
FROM:
E.O. 11652:
REF:
TAGS: 1
SUBJECT: I
.------_..-~ [J LI- T_ DIST tip F'.,; TION -
OI11GIr1 l'C: 'T'ON 1
LILIJ
P760I70-0008
CL ASSIFIC AT! ON ----- T E55AGE REFERENCE. NO.
A-100
? '~ 5.44.x'`"`?`.
Department
Amconsul GUAYAQUIL
Amembassy LIMA
Amembassy QUITO
GDS
PBOR, PFOR, PINT, PE,
Historical Summary of
A) USUN 4102
DATE:Oct. 28, 1976
EC
the Ecuador/Peru Border Dispute
B) Quito 6367
C) Lima 9111
The Ecuador/Peru border dispute has been a major
issue of both countries' domestic and international
politics since their independence. The U.S. during
the thirties and forties was much involved in efforts
to settle the disagreement, and there are still
Ecuadorean resentments toward the U.S. for the r.e
we played, particularly with respect to t.e 1942
Rio Protocol.
Peru is particularly important to Ecuador on the LOS
question and the two countries try to maintain 4
united position in this area. Peru and Ecuador *lso
have similar interests within the Andean Pact vis-
a-vis Colombia and Chile. Notwithstanding theses areas
of cooperation, Ecuador still regards Peru with great
suspicion and resentment. There are frequent rumors
which are given credence among the Ecuadorean military
nching a
f l
1N ;
v
.~~3N1
SUGG E' TC L) DI~S~ F:: Fi :.~ 11ON
A S S I I- 1 C A T I rO N
DAVE -!ONE N O, CON TENT5 AND CI-A SST FICAY'IO APPROVED BY:
10-19-76 309 The Ambassa or
au
that the Peruvians are on the verge o
military attack against Ecuador.
When Foreign Minister Armando Pesantes made his first
policy statement in January 1976, he said that one
tives of the new
of the primary foreign policy objec
government would be the question of recovering lost
territories in a negotiated settlement with Peru.
Enclosure: yK a-f,
1. Historical Summary of the Ecuador/Peru Border
Dispute (
pnr,_SHMuller/DCM:EGCorr:dva
POL - Mr.Sutto
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700120008-6
 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12: CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700120008-6
Quito, A-100
CONFIDENTIAL
When Chile and Bolivia began to discuss with each other and with
Peru a settlement which would satisfy Bolivia's historical quest its for access to the sea, Ecuadorean hopes for a
revived. feel-
own frontier problem with Peru
.ings have again been renewed and strengtheenedgbyMthsrecentmarado
assertion of the Ecuadorean position by
Pesantes in the UNGA (ref A).
Embassy officers were informed confidentially by holding
Ecuador officials that the Military Government had been problem
secret talks with the Government of'Peru on their frontier p
and had stated with satisfaction that the Peruvians had acknowledged
for the first time since 1942 that a frontier problem existed
(ref B)
At the same time the Foreign office official thaiout
with the public precedent of statements made by prev.
including Velasco Ibarra, would probably be willing to accept a
settlement in which Ecuador recovered access to the Maranon River
s
and gave up its claim to the vast majority of disputed
claimed in the remainder of the Amazon basin. It appears
the exchange between the Ecuadorean and Peruvian Foreign Ministers
at the recent UNGA, however, that the Peruvians have not admitted
the existence of a border problem and that any.Ecuadorec._i percep-
tion of progress on recovery of its lost territory was unfounded.
It is likely that Ecuador's attempts to esolveothis borderaissue
to its satisfaction will persist for years
understanding of the Ecuador/Peru frontier dispute is esseential
for any U.S. diplomat dealing with Ecuadorean affairs,
attached unclassified historical summary of the dispute has been
prepared.
CONFIDENTIAL
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700120008-6
 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120008-6
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 1 of 4
Enclosure No. 1
Quito A-.100-
Historical Summary of the. Ecuador/Peru Border Dispute
The dispute has its historical roots in the fact that
Francisco de Orellana discovered the Amazon in
having set out from Quito, and (2) there is a historical
disagreement over the boundary line supposedly
in 1563 between the Audiencias of Quito and Lima. Following
independence from Spain and a brief war -- fought in part
over boundary issues;-- Gran Colombia (Venezuela, Colombia
and Ecuador) and Peru signed the Treaty of Guayaquil in
1829 specifying that their frontier would correspond to that
of the old vice-royalties. The exact demarcation was to be
established by a boundary commission.
Nevertheless, in the Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol of 1830,
Peru indicated acceptance of the Maranon-Amazon River line
as her northern frontier. After Ecuador withdrew from the
Gran Colombian federation in 1830, Ecuador maintained the
that
effectiveness of the Protocol. Peru, however,
Ecuador had become the successor to Gran Colombian terri-
tory.
Tensions rose and fell throughout the nineteenth and into
the twentieth century as Peruvian traders and settlers came
to outnumber those of.Ecuador in the disputed territory, a
vast rain forest between the Putamayo and Amazon Rivers
known as the Oriente. An agreement in 1887 to have the King
of Spain arbitrate the dispute was not implemented. Instead,
the Garcia-Herrera Treaty of 1890 divided the disputed area
roughly in half. Reluctantly the Ecuadorean Congress ratified
the Treaty. Peru's Congress gave its ratification subject to
reservations. The Ecuadorean Government broke off relations
with Peru. Mediation efforts by Colombia forestalled a war,
but the Ecuadorean Congress withdrew its ratification of the
Garcia-Herrera Treaty in 1894.
Arbitration by the King of Spain from 1895 to 1910 found many 9
of Peru's claims valid, but awarded more territory to Ecuador
in the had
access tortheaAmazon. aEccuadordexpressly
granted Ecu right
UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120008-6
 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12: CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700120008-6
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 2 of 4
Enclosure No~+: 1
Quito A-100 .
rejected the award in.1910. To avert a possible war the King
of Spain withdrew as arbiter. Only .the mediation of the United
States, Argentina, and Brazil prevented a full-scale war.
Peru indicated a willingness to continue discussions, while
continuing to extend effective. control over the disputed area.
Ecuadorean military garrisons offered little resistance, and
in some cases even found themselves economically dependent
upon nearby Peruvian settlements. Every few years there were
incidents and protest notes to indicate that Peru's expansion
did not go unchallenged.
In 1924 a protocol was signed between Peru and Ecuador pro-
viding for continued discussion of the issue in Washington,
with the President of the United States to act as arbiter
if no agreement could be reached. President Roosevelt agreed
.in February 1934 to.meet with the Ministers of both countries,
and in July 1936 a protocol was signed in Lima establishing the
arbitration proceedings. The same protocol also called for the
maintenance of the status Quo as indicated by a line that
both countries recognized as showing their respective areas
of control as of July 1936. (This was practically identical
with that later agreed upon in Rio de Janeiro in January .942,
as the "final and permanent" border between the two countries).
The talks ended without positive results in 1938.
In May 1941, the United States, Argentina and Brazil, anxious
to maintain unity in the Western Hemisphere at the onset of.
World War Ii, offered to mediate. Ecuador immediately accepted,
but Peru refused. On July 5 large-scale fighting broke out.
A Peruvian invasion began on July 23 and halted on July 31
after a cease-fire order of the three intervening powers.
Ecuador had not been able to stop the Peruvian advance. Peru
had committed a force of 5,000 to 10,000 troops, whereas
500
Ecuador had only between 800 and 1,600. Of approximately
casualties, counting both killed and wounded, at least two-
thirds were Peruvians. All of El Oro Province (on the coast)
was occupied, as were several thousand square miles of the
Oriente beyond the status auo line of 1936.* The invaded sector
of the Oriente was largely uninhabited.
The military situation remained essentially static until Sep-
tember 13, when Lima offered an ultimatum to the mediators.
Peru would evacuate El Oro Province only if Ecuador would
agree to a final and binding solution to the border problem
within six months. The settlement procedure was to be con-
ducted under the supervision of the three original mediating
powers and Chile, which expressed interest in participating
TTNr'T.ASSTFIED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08CO1297R000700120008-6
 - Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120008-6
Page 3 of 4
UNCLASSIFIED Enclosure No. 1
Quito A-100
in any conference that would settle the Peru-Ecuador dispute.
If Ecuador did not propose an acceptable treaty within f the
specified half-year, Peru was to impose a solution by
The Ecuadorean Defense Minister agreed in principle to the
traditional border between the two countries in the west (on
the coast and in the Sierra) and to a line connecting tfethe
navigable limits of the major streams in the Oriente,
mediators would participate in the negotiations. Brazil's
Foreign Minister took the initiative at a Rio de Janeiro
meeting in attempting to induce the disputants to reach agree-
ment. The Ecuadorean delegates, headed by Julio Tobar Donoso,
tried to obtain possession of the Santiago River as a minimum
fulfillment of Ecuadorean national aims, but
to settle essentially on Peru's terms. The Protocol of Peace,
Friendship and Boundaries between Ecuador and Peru (popularly
called the Rio Protocol) was signed on January
and guaranteed by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the United
States. Although some 70,000 square miles of disputed ter-
titory had been awarded to Peru, Ecuadorean officials were
generally relieved that the results had not been more damag-
ing. Even after the government of President Carlos Arroyo
del Rio was overthrown in 1944, Jose Maria Velasco Ibarra,
who succeeded him, stated Ecuador's acceptance of the 1942
Rio Protocol.
At the end of World War II it seemed that public emotion ou
the Peruvian border question had subsided. All indications
were that the Ecuadoreans had resigned. themselves to the loss
of their national claim in the Amazon basin. Ins1946,how-
ever, the United States Air Force, in the proces of photo
mapping the area between the Santiago and Zamora
discovered an additional 120-mile-long
had been known to
the other two. The river, the Cenepa,
exist, but it was thoughtto be short and insignificant. Now
it greatly complicated the problem of marking the border
between the two countries because, according to the Rio
Protocol, the division between the watersheds of the Santiago
and the Zamora river systems was to serve as the boundary.
The problem was that now there were two such divisions in-
stead of one and that the Cenepa River, which ihento then-
Maranbn, revived Ecuador's hopes for territory o became
An.a'on. Between 1947, when the geographic discovery
common knowledge, and 1951, when Ecuadorean
placing boundary markers stopped, with full vigor.
On August 10,,1951, the Ecuadorean President, Galo Plaza
r
boundary Congress stated
Lasso, in his annual message
would not recognize a
5,000 square miles) unless his country were
eegiven anrou Jett,
on the Maranon-Amazon. The next day, the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120008-6
 Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120008-6
Page 4 of 4
UNCLASSIFIED Enclosure No. 1
Quito A-100
Manuel Odria, replied that his country would refuse to discuss
the issue. Serious border incidents soon broke out, followed
by a series of mutual protests. A few months after Velasco
Ibarra won the presidency in 1952., through a campaign stress-
ing the border issue, his government declared the Peruvian
ambassador to be persona non grata on a question of protocol
and severed diplomatic relations.
Incidents continued throughout 1953 and 1954, but the situa-
tion cooled somewhat. in 1956. Diplomatic relations were
reestablished, and affairs remained calm, if cool, until 1960.
When Velasco Ibarra was reelected in June 1960, the issue
flared up again. The Ecuadorean Congress, alleging the con-
centration of Peruvian troops on the country's borders,
declared that the Rio Protocol was void. On September 28,
Ecuador's Foreign Minister announced the country's nullifica-
tion of the 1942 Rio Protocol to the General Assembly of the.
United Nations. Soon thereafter, Ecuador's Supreme Court of
Justice also declared that "the absolute nullity of the Rio
Protocol is an incontrovertible thesis of scientific and
juridical value and ?a matter which originates a problem of
life and death for Ecuadorean nationhood." When the United
States and other guarantors rejected Ecuador's unilateral
abrogation of the Protocol there were strong demonstrations
in Ecuador.
Once again diplomatic relations between Ecuador and Peru were
severed. The guarantors conferred and in December 1960 reported
to Ecuador their decision to continue to uphold the Rio Protocol.
Diplomatic relations were resumed in early 1964, negotiations
were undertaken, and for a time the issue subsided. It was
revived, however, in 1968, as Velasco Ibarra, campaigning for
his fifth term in the presidency, rejected the Protocol and
pledged to present the Ecuadoreans with the right to access
to the Amazon. In office his tone was more moderate and diplo-
matic, but his rejection of the Protocol and his demand for a
river port were reiterated. This aroused indignation in Lima,
where the Chamber of Deputies resolved that there was no
territorial dispute that had not been finally disposed of by
the Rio Protocol., and the Foreign Minister pointed out that in
any case the Protocol provided navigation rights for Ecuador
on the Amazon River and certain tributaries.
By 1972 the issue had subsided publicly but, from the. Ecuadorean
point of view, it remained far from resolved. The frontier
problem lay publicly dormant until Foreign Minister Pesantes
assumed office in January 1976 and renewed Ecuadorean claims
to the disputed territory.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/12/12 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120008-6