PORT ON THE AMAZON

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 21
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 26, 2012
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: March 2, 1970
• Content Type: CABLE

Declassified in Part - Sanitized CopyApproved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDPO8C01297R00-670012(1)011-2
( /LA/L._ le/r/V
/
DEPARTMENT OF STATE TELEGRAM MFG. 9/69
28183
CABLE SECRETARIAT DISSEM BY .5(..) PER # TOTAL COPIES: Z i.
FILE RF.
REPROBY
STAT
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE HCF2 60
PAGE 01 QUITO 00831 022232Z
gg
ACTION ARA-2 0
INFO, O'OT-01 CIAE-00 DODE-0 P11-05 H-02 INR-07 L-04 NSAE-00
NS-10 P-03 RSC-01 PRS-01 SS-2 CI USIA-12 AID-28 PC-04
, PSR- 01 ACDA-19 /138 W
069 955
R 02?2 055Z MAR 70
FM A-MEMBASSY QUITO
TO SECST ATE WASHDC 8343
AMEMBASSY LIMA
AMCON'SUL GUAYAQUIL
USCINCSO
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE QUITO 0831
USC INCSO FOR POLAD
SUBJ: PORT ON THE AMAZON
1. IN ARMY DAY ADDRESS ON FEB 27 , PRESIDENT AGAIN REFERRED
TO NEED FOR " HONORABLE TRANSACTION" WITH PERU WHICH WOULD
PROVIDE ECUADOR WITH. PORT ON AMAZON.
2. COMMENT: PROPOSAL FOR PORT FIRST MADE PUBLICLY BY
VELASCO ON ENTRY PRESENT TERM OFFICE. WHILE REPEATED
SEVER AL TIMES BY PRESIDENT , NO EVIDENCE TO DATE THAT PRO-
POSAL HAS BEEN R AISED WITH PERUVIANS THROUGH GOVERNMENT
CHANNELS. PROPOSAL WOULD COMPREHEND AS BEST ECUADOREAN
'OFFICIALS CAN EXPLAIN PRESIDENT' S THINKING, PERUVIAN CESSA-
TION STRIP OF LAND TO PORT (WHICH WOULD BE LOCATED ON NAVI.=
GABLE REACH ONE OF' PRINCIPAL AMAZON TRIBUTARIES, MOST
PROBABLY NAPO) .
3 RERUVIAN PUBLIC REACTION TO PORT PROPOSAL HAS BEEN -
NEGATIVE IN PAST, AND ECUADOREAN OFFICIALS SAY FRANKLY THEY
EK#,Ef4.,t LITTLE IF ANY RESPONSE FROM PRESENT PERUVIAN GOVERNMENT.
INDED, CONCERN APPEARS BE BREWING HERE ABOUT INTENTIONS
ITS 'PREDOMINANT' SOUTHERN NEIGHBOR AS INFORMATION ACCUMULATES
LIMITED OFFICIAL 1,1,p,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDPO8C01297R000700120011-2
DEPARTMENT OF STATE TELEGRAM
CABLE SECRETARIAT DISSEM BY PER # TOTAL COPIES: REPRO BY
FILE RF.
MFG. 9/69
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE .
9AGE 02 ?pima -0s83 : 022232Z
.THAT PERIjVIMIS CONTINUE UPGRADE .QUALITY THEIR ARMED
,FORCES .-AND! 2) MILITARY GOVERNMENT- FACES., INCREASING INTERNAL
DIFFICULTIES,. pRESIDE,NT! S., SPEECH ON FEB 25 TO ENGINEER
GRADUATES, AND: THAT OF MINDEF FOLLOWING:, DAY TO ARMY MILITARY
ACADEMY GRADUAtES BOTH : EMPHASIZED NEED "INVIGORATE
.ECUADOREAN ARMED : FORCES?. SOME NEW - EQUIPMENT IS ON -ORDER
.(E.G.,? NAVAL . PATROL CRAFT),A.ND, ADDITIONAL LARGE PURCHASES
CA N BE. ANT I CIF,iAT.ED MOVES, MODER NIZE ECUADOREAN' MIL IT AR Y
RELATED 'BOTH ,NECESSITY REPLACE: OUTDATED, EQUIPMENT USD
IMPROVE NAT I 0;NAL MILITARY DEFENSEIVE: CAPABIL IT Y.
THUS, WE 'MAY HEAR MORE. OF "THREAT FROM 'SOUTH" . OVER 'COMING'
MO NT FIB.
T 0 'N
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE
flpe.lassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDPO8C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDPO8C01297R000700120011-2
411,44
VA. ? 3 1141, Pp 1, -171,
Ccitt st. t.) V:c6 (-`(/C4_744, 44, kuep44: e %IOC". ei
THE
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU
By Georg Maier *
There is a saying that when a dispute lasts for a long time, it must be
about something small; for if it were not, it would be in the interest of the
parties to settle it. This, however, is not the case in the boundary dispute
between Ecuador and Peru. The dispute is not only one of the major inter-
national issues of Latin America, but it is also dangerous, because its long
history has clothed it with considerations of national prestige and honor and
because it involves a very considerable extent of territory with which
neither country is willing to part. Up to the present day, the two countries
have attempted to settle their differences through negotiations, treaties, arbi-
trations and wars?only to revive them again and again. Even the 1942
Protocol of Rio de Janeiro, which seemed finally to have settled the dispute,
was declared null and void by Ecuador in 1960.
The area involved in the boundary controversy is very extensive and can
be considered in three distinct parts: the territories of Tumbez, Jaen, and
the Oriente. The smallest of the three is the territory about Tumbez which
faces the Pacific Ocean between the Tumbez and Zarumilla Rivers. Ecua-
dor's claim to this region (which is under the Peruvian flag) is based on
the Royal Cedula of 1740.' The area is estimated at only 513 square miles.
Second in size is the province of Jak or, as it is sometimes called, Jaen de
Bracamoros. The region lies between the right bank of the Chinchipe River
and the left bank of the Mara??n or Amazon. This area contains about
3,242 square miles. During colonial days, it was first a part of the Vice-
royalty of Peru, and, later, of the Viceroyalty of New Granada, upon the
latter's formation in 1739.2 The territories of Tumbez and Jaen have been
subject to Peruvian sovereignty since 1822, the year Peru became an inde-
*Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.
1 "Starting from the Tumbes on the Pacific Coast, the line follows along the ridges
and other cordilleras of the Andes through the jurisdiction of Paita, and Piura to the
Maranon, at 6 degrees, 30 minutes South Latitude, and on the interior, leaving to
Peru the jurisdiction of Piura, Cajamarca, Moyobamba and Motilones; and by the
cordillera of Jeveros, crossing the river Ucayali, at 6 degrees of South Latitude, up
to the Javari or Jauri river at its confluence with the Carpi; and on the waters of
the latter to Solimoes or the Amazonas and from thence down to the most westerly
mouth of the Caqueta or Yapura, where the boundaries with Brazil begin." N.
Clemente Ponce, Limites Entre Ecuador y el Peru. Memorandum Para el Ministerio
de Relaciones Exteriores de la Republica de Bolivia 13 (3rd ed., Washington, D. C.:
Gibson Brothers, 1921).
2Fray Enrique Vacas Galindo, ColecciOn de Documentos Sobre los Limites Ecua-
toriano-Peruanos, Vol. I, p. 57 (Quito: Tipografia de la Escuela de Artes y Oficios por
R. Ji.ramillo, 1902).
28
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDPO8C01797Rnnn7nn1onni
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
ERU
ist be
.)f the
spute
inter-
long
r and
vhich
atries
arbi-
1942
;pute,
d can
and
which
Ecua-
ed on
miles.
en de
River
' about
Vice-
the
been
inde-
ridges
to the
'ng to
)y the
le, up
ers of
3sterly
" N.
Isterio
D. C.:
Eeua-
)s por
1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 29
pendent state. Whatever de jure rights Ecuador may have to these regions,
de facto it does not dispute either one of them.s
The Oriente is the third and largest of the parts in dispute and is esti-
mated as having an area of 167,000 square miles. It is a triangular region
between the head of navigation of tributaries to the Amazon on the west,
the watershed between the Putumayo and Napo Rivers on the northeast,
and the Chinchipe-Mara??n-Amazon Rivers on the south. The original
maximum claim of Ecuador in the southern part of the Oriente was far to
the south of the Mara??n River, a line running approximately parallel to
it, and extending to the Javari River. This claim was based on colonial
limits of the Viceroyalty of New Granada dated 1740, but was later changed
to the more natural line of the Chinchipe-Mara??n-Amazon claimed in the
Treaty of Guayaquil in 1829.
The vast area of the Oriente has to a much larger extent been subject to
the jurisdiction of Peru than to that of Ecuador. Parts of it have long
continued under the military and political control of Peru, and have been
organized into regular departments and districts of that republic. The
far reaches of this region have been made more accessible to economic pene-
tration by Peru than by Ecuador.
The inability of Ecuador to compete effectively in this territorial contest
with Peru has been due to the fact that this small nation, ill prepared for
independence, has had no surplus of men or money to enable it to under-
take to occupy all of the vast Oriente claimed to be part of the national
domain. If properly developed, the Oriente may well become Ecuador's
economic salvation. However, attempts on the part of the Ecuadorean
Government to colonize and develop the region have met with little success
and a large and potentially rich territory has remained virtually useless.
Peru, on the other hand, the center of a rich and prosperous Spanish
viceroyalty, possessed more resources, from independence to the present,
to develop and exploit the disputed territories. The rubber boom at the
turn of the century caused Peru to build more and better trails from the
highland to the Amazon region, new communities were founded, commerce
on the Amazon and its tributaries grew by leaps and bounds, and a flourish-
ing international trade was under way. So marked has been the progress
and development of the Amazon Basin, that it has become a very large
factor in the economic life of Peru. To quote a Peruvian source:
The ties that bind the Peruvian Amazon Basin to the rest of Peru
are strong. To contemplate in imagination the possibility of Maynas
being possessed by Ecuador suggests a troubled picture, for the unani-
mous resistance from within Maynas itself against Ecuadorean sover-
eignty would be devastating. No minority would lessen the resistance,
for there are no Ecuadoreans in the region. Maynas is Peruvian.'
S There is evidence of this in President Velasco Ibarra's Message to Congress on
Aug. 10, 1961. In it he speaks about the border problem but only refers to it as
"our Amazonian region." Ecuador: Message addressed by His Excellency, Doctor
jos6 Maria Velasco Ibarra, Constitutional President of the Republic, to the Honorable
National Congress, on August 10, 1961, P. 27.
4
Peru, The Boundary Line Between Peru and Ecuador 11 (Monograph from
Peruvian Embassy, n.d.).
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
30 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63
The actual occupation of the disputed Oriente for a long period lends
much weight to the Peruvian claim to the region by the doctrine of prescrip-
tion, recognized in internationl law and practical in international relations.
Thus, while Ecuador appears to have a better de jure title to the Amazon
region, Peru's claim rests on a strong de facto title. Somewhere between
these two claims the solution to the almost one hundred and fifty-year-old
boundary dispute may be found, and it is hoped that the two countries mai
soon solve their problem.
The conflicting territorial claims of Ecuador and Peru date back to colo-
nial days and are due largely to the uncertainty as to the limits of colonial
territorial divisions. In general, the territory of each of the Latin Ameri-
can countries is that of the immediately preceding colonial administrative
unit.6 This general principle has many exceptions, due to the indefinite-
ness and overlapping of colonial jurisdiction and to inaccurate and insuffi-
cient surveys.
Under Spanish colonial administration, political authority was vested in
the Viceroy (or captain general), the Audiencia (and its administrative
subdivisions: the gobernaciones or gobiernos, alealdias mayores, corregimi-
entes and alcaldias ordinarias), and the Church, with no clearly defined
divisions of power among these institutions.6 Consequently, the Spanish
officials were uncertain as to where their territorial jurisdiction exactly
started and where it ended, an uncertainty which has a direct bearing on
the confusion of titles of territory of the republics.
The King of Spain, through the Council of the Indies, sent voluminous
instructions to his overseas officials. These cedulas often involved the trans-
fer of territory from one jurisdiction to another, but they were in many
instances so ambiguous, inconsistent, or openly contradictory to other de-
crees that the royal officials were unable to reconcile their instructions and
thus left them unexecuted.7 The confusion was especially prevalent in out-
lying regions such as the Amazon Basin, which forms the heart of the con-
troversy between Ecuador and Peru. From a physiographical point of
view, this region lacks decisive natural boundaries which would facilitate
the drawing of political frontiers.
From this shadow-land of overlapping and involved colonial political
administration and of uncertain territorial jurisdiction, it is necessary to
attempt to draw in general lines, and without much exactness, the bound-
aries of the various colonial administrative units pertinent to the Ecua-
dorean-Peruvian controversy. This calls for an examination of the bound-
aries of the Viceroyalties of Peru and New Granada, and of the Audiencias
of Lima and Quito.
The Spanish dominion in the New World was originally divided into
two great administrative areas: the Viceroyalties of New Spain (Mexico),
6 Isaiah Bowman, "The Ecuador-Peru Boundary Dispute," 20 Foreign Affairs 759
(July, 1942).
6 Charles H. Cunningham, The Audiencia in the Spanish Colonies, "University of
California Publications: History," Vol. 9, p. 5 (Berkeley, Calif.: University Of Cali-
fornia Press, 1919).
7 Ponce, op. cit. 22.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
0
(D
0
(0
(.0
CD
-0
(I)
(D
0
%.<
Es)
(D
Oh
(D
(T
(.0
(D
n.)
n.)
-o
0
co
0
n.)
n.)
0 0
GALAPAGOS
ISLANDS
Itc) EI)Itr'' a.- 1:13. ? rn:;-/. 1E8. CD:
CQL
LI
0
SCALE
'CD 8 ti ?
4-c It It F'
ECUADOR
200
KILOMETERS
0
(D
0
(.0
(/)
0
? / N
?
/ .
\ ...- .60 ? V 9
?
/ A I ine, s,
/ it eStabi is
??.V(.2.
i' ra /
/ .
0
by eh:: ciedemonu..- 7 SCa. \..
?to \
?
/
(be.."^ . I Ecuadorian-
/ .._.
..
a.,
Bra z i 1 i an Treaty
e-stablished by the Treaty of Guayaquil, 1829 Boundary, 1904
PERU
Source: Ecuador. El Ecuador y el Amazonas, Quito: Publicaciones del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, 1961, and Peru. El Fiel Cumplimiento de los Compromisos Con-
traidos es Norma de Vida Civilizada, Lima: Editorial Minerva, n.d.
0
-0
co
0
7:1
0
0
0
0
0
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
32 Ti-IF AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [VOL 63
established in 1535, and that of Peru, established in 1542. These viceroyal-
ties were subdivided into eleven audiencias: four in New Spain, and seven
in Peru.8 At first, the Viceroyalty of Peru comprised the whole of South
America except for the Portuguese colonies and the Comandancia General
of Caracas, which was under the jurisdiction of the Audiencia of Santo
Domingo!' Of the seven audiencias, only the boundaries of the districts of
Quito and that of Lima alone are pertinent to the study of the frontiers
of Ecuador and Peru as they existed in colonial days. The Audienca of
Quito was given the following boundaries by the Cedula of November/ 29,
1563:
The Province of Quito shall have, as its districts, along the coast
towards the city of Los Reyes, to the port of Paita exclusive, and on
the interior to Piura, Cajamarca, Chachapoyas, Moyobamba and the
Motilones exclusive, including towards the said port, the towns of Jaen,
Valladolid, Loja, Zamora, Cuenca, La Zarza and Guayaquil, with all
the other towns within their borders which form a part of their popu-
lation; and towards the towns of Canela and Quijos, it shall have the
said towns, with any others that may be discovered; and on the coast
towards Panama, to the port of Buenaventura inclusive, and on the
interior to Pasto, Popayan, Cali, Buga, Champanchica and Guarchi-
cona . . . being bounded on the north by the Audiencia of Granada
and Tierra Firme, on the south by the city of Los Reyes, on the west
by the Southern Sea and on the east by provinces not yet discovered
or civilized.i?
The boundaries of the Audiencia of Lima were described as follows in the
same Cedula of 1563:
It shall have all the territory on the coast, from the City of Los
Reyes to the Kingdom of Chile exclusive, and to the port of Paita in-
clusive; and on the interior to San Miguel de Piura, Cajamarca, Cha-
chapoyas, Moyobamba and Motilones inclusive, and to Callao exclu-
sive by the boundaries fixed to the Royal Audiencia of La Plata and
the City of Cuzco with their own inclusive, touching boundaries on the
north with the Royal Audiencia of Quito, on the south with La Plata,
on the west with the Southern Sea and on the east with the undiscov-
ered provinces."
The frontiers of the districts of the Audiencias of Lima and Quito can be
ascertained from the descriptions in various colonial cedulas. The Lima
boundary was designated by the word "inclusive" as the northern line of
the Corregimiento of Piura and Paita and of the Provinces of Cajamarca,
Chachapoyas, Moyobamba, and Motilones, until the line becomes indistin-
8 The Viceroyalties of New Spain were Santo Domingo (1526), Mexico (1527),
Guatemala (1543), and Guadalajara (1548) ; those under the Viceroyalty of Peru
were Panama (1535, abolished in 1542 and re-established in 1563-64), Lima (1542),
Santa I'd de Bogota (1549), Charcas (1559), Quito (1563, abolished 1717, and re-
established 1723), Chile (1609) and Buenos Aires (1661).
9 Vicente Santamaria de Paredes, A Study of the Question of Boundaries Between
Ecuador and Peru 55 (Trans. by Harry. Van Dyke; Washington, D. C.: Byron S.
Adams, 1910).
io Ponce, op. cit. 9.
11 /bid. 9-10.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011
Vol. 63
ceroyal-
d seven
f South
General
f Santo
ricts of
rontiers
.ncia of
aber 29,
le coast
and on
and the
Df Jaen,
with all
popu-
lave the
'ie coast
on the
1-uarchi-
ranada
he west
covered
3 in the
of Los
aita in-
a, Cha-
? exclu-
ta and
on the
Plata,
, discov-
can be
Lima
line of
marca,
distin-
(1527),
,f Peru
(1542),
and re-
letween
iron S.
1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 33
guishable in the unknown lands of the Amazon Basin. It will be noted
that the boundary was described to include these Amazonian regions by
the use of the word "inclusive." By way of contrast, the southern bound-
ary of the Audiencia of Quito is largely defined by the word "exclusive"
referring to the same territories (Piura, Cajamarca, etc.). From the view-
point of Quito, its Audiencia embraced on the south the regions of Guaya-
quil, Jaen, Loja, and Cuenca; and on the east, those of Canela and Quijos.
This boundary line from the Pacific Coast to its vanishing point in the
jungles of Amazonia was not a rigid frontier, for although the political
jurisdiction of each audiencia was clearly delimited, ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion overran it in both directions. For example, the Audiencia of Quito in
political and administrative matters was first subject to the Viceroy of
Peru but came later under the tutelage of the Viceroyalty of New Granada
when the latter was created by order of the King of Spain in 1717; in ecclesi-
astical matters, however, it remained under the Archbishop of Lima. When
the Viceroyalty of New Granada was abolished in 1722, Quito came under
the jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of Lima only to change hands for the
third time upon the re-establishment of the former in 1739. A year later
the boundaries between the two viceroyalties were fixed in a clear and accu-
rate way. The southern boundary of the Viceroyalty of New Granada was
delineated in the following terms:
Starting from Tumbez on the Pacific Coast, the line follows by the
ridges and other cordilleras of the Andes through the jurisdiction of
Paita, and Piura to the 1Vraraii6n, at 6 degrees, 30 minutes South Lati-
tude, and on the interior, leaving to Peru the jurisdiction of Piura,
Cajamarca, Moyobamba and Motilones ; and by the cordillera of Je-
veros, crossing the river Ucayali, at 6 degrees of South Latitude, up
to the Javari or Jauri river at its confluence with the Carpi; and on
the waters of the latter to Solimoes or the Amazonas and from thence
down to the most westernly mouth of the Caqueta or Yapura, where
the boundaries with Brazil begin.12
This boundary line of 1740 was maintained until the turn of the century,
as evidenced in numerous general maps and descriptive memorials which
were produced at the request of the Viceroyalties of New Granada and
Peru."
With the turn of the century, a new factor entered the controversy, and
precipitated incessant and unmitigated debate. This disturbing element,
the, Cedula of July 15, 1802, issued by His Catholic Majesty Charles IV,
separated for ecclesiastical purposes the provinces of Mainas and Quijos,
except Papallacta, from the Viceroyalty of New Granada and transferred
them, to the Viceroyalty of Peru.14 This decree was intended for the
im-
12 Ibid. 13.
13 Santamaria de Paredes, op. cit. 62-63. The original Cedula of 1740 was dis-
covered by Dr. N. Clemente Ponce in 1894, up to which time Peru claimed not to know
anything of its existence. El Comercio, Quito, Dec. 18, 1960, p. 5.
14 The partial text of the Cedula reads thus:
"I am resolved to segregate, from the Viceroyalty of Santa Fe and the Province
of Quito, and add to that Viceroyalty, the Government and Comandancia General of
r'fd inParf - Saniti7ed Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
34 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63
provement of the Spanish missions in the upper Amazon Basin (the region
which today is known to Peruvians as the "Departments of Amazonas and
Loreto," and to Ecuadoreans as the "Oriente"). This historic document
is highly important, for it is upon its existence and fulfillment that the
Republic of Peru bases her legal claim to the disputed region.
The Cedula was a response to the result of two outstanding events: the
banishment of the Jesuits by royal decree in 1767, and the advance of, /the
Portuguese in the Upper Amazon.16 The expulsion of the Jesuit's by
Charles III in 1767 caused widespread deterioration in all the Jesuit mis-
sions, with the result that many parts of South America were less known
and less civilized in 1850 than in 1750.16 It also caused a decline in Spanish
authority in the Amazon regions and facilitated Portuguese penetration be-
yond the line of demarcation." This aggression was promptly reported in
1799 by the boundary commission sent out by the King of Spain to survey
the boundary in the northern sector in a report prepared by Francisco
Requefia y Herrera.
Francisco Requefia's report not only noted the Portuguese advance into
Spanish territory but made recommendations accepted by the King, which
have been interpreted by Peruvians as evidence of their claims to the terri-
tory. In the first part, Requefia suggested that the Gobierno of Maynas
should become a part of the Viceroyalty of Peru because the region could
be reached much easier from Lima than from Quito. In the second part, he
charged the priests who had replaced the Jesuits as totally unfit to care
for the missions and recommended that all the missions should be entrusted
to the "Colegio Apostolico de Santa Rosa de Ocopa," whose missions on
the Huallaga and Ucayali Rivers had been very successful.16 In order to
effect a degree of unity necessary to the development of the missions, he
proposed in the third part of his report the establishment of a new Bishopric
of alaynas under the jurisdiction of the Bishopric of Lima. The report
was approved by the Council of the Indies in 1801, and the King of Spain
issued the Cedula a year later.
Mainas with the towns of the Government of Quijos (except Papallacta), they being
all on the shores of the Napo River or in its immediate vicinity; thereby extending
that Comandancia General, not only along the lower Maranon River to the frontiers
of the Portuguese Colonies, but also on all the other rivers which empty into the
Maraii6n from the north and south, such as the Morona Guallaga, Pastaza, Ucayali,
Napo, Yavari, Putumayo, Yapura and other small streams, as far as the point where
these same rivers cease to be navigable on account of their waterfalls and inaccessible
rapids; also the towns of Lomas and Moyobamba should remain in the possession of
the same Comandancia General, in order to uphold, as far as possible, the ecclesiastical
and military jurisdiction of those territories." Ponce, op. cit. 14.
15 Fray Enrique Vacas Galindo, ExposiciOn Sobre los Limites Ecuatoriano-Peruanos,
Vol. I, pp. 119-127 (Quito: Tipografia de la Escuela de Artes y Oficios por R.
Jaramillo, 1903).
16 Vacas Galindo, op. cit. note 2 above, Vol. I, pp. 153-161.
17 Vacas Galindo, Exposieion Sobre los Limites Ecuatoriano-Peruanos, cited note 15
above, Vol. I, p. 132.
18By the Cedula of July 12, 1790, these were entrusted to the Franciscan Fathers
of Quito. Vacas Galindo, Coleccion de Docuraentos Sobre los Limites Ecuatoriano?
Peruanos, Vol. I, pp. 114-115.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
ol. 63 1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 35
!egion
.s and
inaent
3,t the
s: the
of the
ts by
t mis-
cnown
)anish
on be-
ted in
.urvey
ncisco
e into
which
terri-
aynas
could
rt, he
) care
msted
DS on
ter to
is, he
opric
eport
.3pain
The Ecuadoreans attack the claims of Peru based on the Cedula of 1802
on the ground that it did not separate the territory of Alaynas from the
Viceroyalty of New Granada and add it to that of Peru; for the decree was
merely intended as an administrative measure for eccle:.iastical purposes
and did not signify formal transfer of political power. Furthermore, the
decree merely "segregated" administrative "services," and not the terri-
tory per se.
In regard to the first contention (i.e., that the Cedula was essentially ec-
clesiastical and not political), at first glance the argument appears plausi-
ble, as Spanish domination of the upper Amazon region consisted largely
of missions. These missions had preceded the establishment of civil govern-
ment, but transfer disposition of the "gobierno" from one administrative
unit to another would obviously require a change of episcopal administra-
tion for the missions. Political and ecclesiastical organization in a province
such as Maynas would naturally be so interrelated that a "political" decree
(affecting the civil government) would necessarily appear as largely "ec-
clesiastical." The reference to "Gobierno and Comandancia General of
Maas" obviously means the civil branch of the government, and "juris-
diction without territory for its exercise is incomprehensible." 19
The second contention (i.e., that the decree merely "segregated" admin-
istrative "services" and not relevant territory) has more weight. It is al-
leged that in colonial days changes in jurisdiction were often made without
involving alteration of territory.20 It is further alleged that it was the
custom of the Spanish Crown, when it ordered a change in territorial divi-
sion, to be more definite about it.21 To quote the Peruvian Dr. Carlos Wiese:
a distinction should be made between the Royal Cedulas of definite
demarcation, properly so-called, and those others which only separated
the political government, administration, military defense or similar
function, from a Viceroyalty or Captaincy General. That is to say,
the King of Spain united some provinces in a royal union and others
only in a political union.22
being It is clear that Minister Requeria in his report of 1799 requested two
ading separations: that of the government and that of the territory. However,
ntiers the King, after making mention of Requefia's request in the first part of the
o the Cedula, only ordered that the first should be carried out.23 "This should
ayali,
suffice to convince one that the Chinla of July 15, 1802, did not alter the
where
ssible territorial division between the two Viceroyalties." 24
on of " Dietamenes Juridicos Presentados a S. M. el Real Arbitro en la Memoria del
stical Peru, Art. I, p. 48 (Madrid: 1906).
/20-Honorato Vazquez, Memoria Histarica-Juridica Sobre los Limites Ecuatoriano-
tanos,
Peruanos 21 (2d ed., Quito: Imprenta Nacional, 1904).
;r R.
21L. A. Wright, "A Study of the Conflict Between the Republics of Peru and
Ecuador," 98 Geographical Journal 258 (November?December, 1941).
le 15 22 Ponce, op. cit. 20-21.
23 Modesto Chavez Franco, Cartilla Patria; Epitome de Historia y Geografia Ref-
hers erentes a las Fronteras entre Ecuador y Peru de 1531 a 1921, p. 63 (Quito: Imprenta de
ano-
"El Dia," 1922).
24ponce, op. cit. 16.
_ Ont-F - Ca niti7Pd CODV Approved for Release 2012/09/26 CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
36 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63
Additional evidence that the Cedilla of 1802 was not intended to separate
territory from New Granada is adduced from the cartography of the period.
The eminent German scientist and geographer, Baron von Humboldt, de-
fined the boundaries of Colombia in the terms of the Chinla of 1740.25 It
can be argued that when von Humboldt completed his survey of jthe equa-
torial regions by 1802, he may have been unaware of the existefice of the
Chinla issued in the same year; however, subsequent cartogra-phers such as
Restrepo (1827), Colton (1853), Blake (1854) and Villaicencio (1856),
follow a demarcation similar to that of von Humboldt.
The winning of independence from Spain did not put an end to the
boundary controversy between Ecuador and Peru. The long process of
emancipation, from the "first cry" in 1809 to the capitulation in Callao in
1826, profoundly affected Hispanic-American international relations, espe-
cially in regard to boundaries. As all of Spanish America had been re-
garded as the personal estate of His Catholic Majesty, no definite bounda-
ries had been surveyed and marked between the colonies. Consequently, the
new Latin American Republics formed themselves in general along the lines
of the preceding colonial administrative unit, which was the Audiencia. In
some cases two or more units joined to form a new international person-
ality, as is the case with the Republic of Gran Colombia formed from the
Audiencias of Santa Fe, Quito, and the Captaincy General of Caracas. In
the case of the provinces of Guayaquil and Jaen, the artificial bonds of
Spanish administration were disregarded, and the emancipated territories
gravitated to the new republic with which each possessed the more natural
affinity.
To prevent fratricidal strife over what each republic believed to be its
national boundaries, the doctrine of uti possidetis juris 26 of 1810, i.e., the
possessory status quo of 1810, was drawn up. A corollary to this doctrine
invoked the right of the provinces to attach themselves to whichever new
republic they chose; and under this latter qualification of uti possidetis,
Guaya uil became a part of Colombia, and Jaen of Peru.
The Treaty of Bogota of 1811 is generally regarded as the origin of the
principle of colonial uti possidetis in Latin America. By that treaty the
United Provinces of Venezuela and the United Provinces of New Granada
agreed to recognize and respect their boundaries as those possessed by the
Captaincy General of Venezuela and the Viceroyalty of New Granada."
Colombia maintained the principle, applying it to the year 1810. The same
principle was enunciated in the unratified Mosquera-Galdeano Treaty be-
25 Alexander von Humboldt and Aim 6 Bonpland, Personal Narratives of Travels
to the Equinoctial Regions of America During the Years 1799-1804, Vol. I, p. 125
(Trans. and ed. by Thornasina Ross; London: Bell and Daldy, 1871).
26 The doctrine of uti possidetis is based upon Roman law and has been adopted in
international law to designate the principle of the possessory status of territories. It
is in this sense that the principle of uti possidetis has been adopted by all the Latin
American nations as the basis for the settlement of their boundary disputes. The
latter term is applied to peace treaties confirming conqueror's possession in absence
of specific treaty provision.
27 Santaraaria de Paredes, op. cit. 270.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
63
rate
iod.
de-
It
Iua-
the
a as
56),
the
3 Of
o in
spe-
, re-
nda-
, the
Lines
In
'son-
the
In
s of
>ries
ural
its
the
:ine
iew
'tis,
the
the
Ida
the
a.27
me
he-
125
in
It
tin
11,7he
1, tee
1969] T-Frg BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETTVEFN ECUADOR AND PERU 37
tween Colombia and Peru in 1823, in the Treaty of Giron, March 28, 1829,
after the Peruvian defeat at Portete de Tarqui, and in the definitive treaty
of peace, signed at Guayaquil on September 22, 1829. The doctrine of uti
possidetis is contained in many other Hispanic-American documents, and
even Simon Bolivar considered it inviolable.28
The doctrine of "Uti Possidetis of 1810" is clear and reasonable; but its
application has been a matter of extraordinary difficulty. In studying its
application to the boundary controversy between Ecuador and Peru, one
must be aware of widely divergent modes of interpretation adopted by the
two countries. Publicists and protagonists of both nations unite to praise
the general principle; but Peruvians interpret the doctrine as ``subsequent
to the gaining of independence" 29 and therefore in the light of the Cedula
of 1802, while Ecuadoreans interpret it as " uti possidetis prior to in-
dependence,' "? thereby bringing in the Cedulas of 1563, 1717, 1739, and
1740.
The period from 1822 to 1829 marked the consummation of the indepen-
dence movement and the parting of ways between Colombia and Peru. In-
dependence from Spain was gained by both nations in this period, but hopes
of SimOn Bolivar, the Liberator, for a federation never materialized. Sub-
sequently, an exchange by the two nations of proposals on the boundary
question not only failed to solve the problem, but the dispute intensified
and war broke out in 1829. Colombia was the victor. The Treaty of
Guayaquil which was the result of Colombia's victory over Peru brings us
to the very core of the boundary controversy. It shares, along with the
Cedula of July 15, 1802, the distinction of being the legal basis for claim
to the disputed area. In Article V the treaty provided that "both parties
acknowledge as the limits of their respective territories, those belonging
to the ancient Viceroyalties of New Granada and Peru prior to their in-
dependence with such variations as they deem it convenient to agree upon
. . . ," 31 and in Article VI, that a boundary commission shall fix said
limits.
In the second conference, Minister Gual of Colombia proposed that the
boundary between the two countries be drawn according to those fixed by
the Cedulas of 1717 and 1739.32 The Peruvian Plenipotentiary gave his
consent to this proposal and suggested that it would be better for both
parties if the boundary line were drawn along the Tumbez-Chinchipe-
Marafion line. This proposal by Peru was a natural one and is in keeping
28 In his letter of Feb. 21, 1825, to Marshal (then General) Sucre, regarding the
five northern provinces of Argentina, he said: "Neither you, nor I, nor the Peruvian
Congress itself, nor the Colombian, can break or violate the basis of public law which
we have recognized in America. This basis is that the republican governments are
founded within the bounds of the old viceroyalties, captaincies general, or presidencies
as that of Chile." Vicente Lecniia, Cartas del Libertador, Vol. IV, p. 263 (Caracas:
Litografia y Tipografia del Cothercio, 1929).
29 Santamarla de Paredes, oj. cit. 275.
30 Ibid.
H. Woolsey, "Te Ecuador-Peru Boundary Controversy," 31 A.J.I.L. 98-99
(1937).
52Ponce, op. cit. 48.
e,
Annroved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDPO8C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
38 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63
with the growing feeling that the Maralion was the logical boundary in the
Amazon Basin. The Colombian Minister expressed his pleasure at the pro-
posal and said that both countries were approaching the desired point of
reconciliation. The Tumbez-Chinchipe-Mararion proposal was a diplomatic
victory for Peru, as it gave that country more territory (as well as access to
the Marafion River) than did the Cedillas of 1717 and 1739.33
The treaty, duly drawn up and ratified by both countries, provides for a
clear and unambiguous definition of the boundary as that of the Viceroyal-
ties of Peru and New Granada in 1739, with reciprocal cessions to effect a
most natural and easily defined frontier. That the boundary was under-
stood to be that of "Tumbez-Chinchipe-Maralion" is clearly seen in the
opinion (dietamen) rendered by the "Comision Diplomatica" of Peru in
forwarding the treaty to the Congress for its approval (October 14, 1829).34
This line is alleged by the Commission to be more advantageous to Peru
than the "Uti Possidetis of 1809." With this in view, the Commission pro-
posed that the treaty be approved without alteration. This was done by
the Peruvian Congress on October 16, 1829.
No doubt exists as to the validity of the Treaty of Guayaquil. It was
duly signed by the plenipotentiaries of the two countries and ratified by
both governments. Serious doubts are alleged regarding its present va-
lidity and its pertinency in the present boundary controversy between
Ecuador and Peru. The contention that the treaty is no longer in force
rests upon three general points: first, that it provided no definite statement
on boundaries, the exact definition being left to a Joint Boundary Com-
mission which never met; second, that one party to the treaty has ceased to
exist since the division of Colombia in 1830 into three independent repub-
lics, Venezuela, New Granada, and Ecuador; and third, that the treaty was
superseded by the Treaty of July 12, 1832, between Peru and Ecuador."
As for the first point, it appears evident that the Joint Boundary Com-
mission provided for in Article VI was to survey the line described in
Article V, and that it was empowered to make such rectifications and varia-
tions as in its judgment would be necessary to create a natural frontier be-
tween the two countries. It is hard to conceive that the whole boundary
question was referred to the Commission and that therefore the treaty's
validity is affected.
In this connection, the Protocol of August 11, 1830, signed by the Peru-
vian Foreign Secretary Pedemonte and the Colombian Minister at Lima,
General Mosquera, can be considered. Under the Protocol, Peru was given
title to Maynas by virtue of the Cedula of 1802, a claim which was not
allowed by the Colombian interpretation of Articles V?VII of the Treaty of
Guayaquil. As a result, the Tumbez-Maralion line was agreed upon, with
33 Present-day Ecuadorean maps erroneously show an identical boundary line for the
Treaty of 1829 and that fixed by the Royal Cedulas of 1717 and 1739. Roberto Crespo
Ordofiez, El Descubrimiento del Amazonas y los Derechos Territoriales del Ecuador 5
(Cuenca :Nucleo del Azuay de la Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, 1961).
34 Vacas Galindo, Coleccien de Doeumentos, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 265-267.
35 M. F. de Martens, Memoire Sur l'Arbitrage Entre le Peron et l'Equateur 53
(Paris: A. Pedone, 1906).
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
d.. 63
a the
pro-
at of
natic
ss to
for a
.oyal-
!ect a
nder-
a the
ru in
29) .34
Peru
t pro-
le by
t vvas
:d by
t va-
,ween
force
ment
Corn-
ed to
pub-
was
r.35
Com-
d in
aria-
r be-
dary
'Ay 's
'eru-
Jima,
iven
not
'y of
with
r the
'respo
lor 5
r 53
1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 39
the issue unsettled as to whether the Chinchipe or Huancabamba River
should be used for the middle section of the frontier.36
The authenticity of this document is strongly defended and also strongly
impugned. Its existence was not mentioned by Colombia until 1892 and
only in 1904 was it disclosed to Ecuador.37 From this date on, it has had
an important bearing on Ecuador's case despite the fact that Peru calls it
a forgery. As L. A. Wright says:
In effect, the Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol is by no means essential
to her case. Even if all that is claimed of it could be proved, it could
do no more than give evidence for an intention on the part of Peru,
and this intention is clearly established by other proofs. If it is clear
on the one hand that Mosquera did not set his hand to any boundary
arrangement binding on Peru, it is equally clear that his mission was
a success in that it had the effect of showing what Peru thought and
hoped for at that time, of showing that she was ready to give up
Tumbez, that she was determined at all cost to hold on to Jaen, and
that she was prepared to consent to an unfavorable division of Maynas,
taking the Mara??n as a boundary. And this is enough to upset the
Peruvian contention "that Tumbez, Jaen, and Maynas were an integral
part of Peru since the time of her Constitution in 1823." 38
The second allegation as to the validity of the Treaty of Guayaquil is
based upon the fact that one of the parties to the contract ceased to exist
when the Republic of Colombia disappeared as a national personality. Ac-
cording to the doctrine of the succession of states, however, Ecuador is
without question the successor to the former Colombia boundary on the
south. This is evidenced by her assumption 912._p2rtion of the debt_of
Colombia as of December 31, 1829, _and by the fact that she received a
pro rata share of the debt owed by Peru to Colombia as a consequence of
-C-Cilombian expenditures on Peruvian soil in the campaign of 1822-1824.
The third allegation is that the Treaty of 1829 was voided, at least as far
?
as the Ecuadorean-Peruvian boundary is concerned, by the Treaty of Amity
and Alliance of 1832. In Article XIV of this treaty, it was stated that
"while negotiating a convention for the adjustment of boundaries between
the two states, the present boundaries should be recognized." 39 Basing its
contention on this article, Peru has tried to imply that tIA,Tzeaty of 1832
nullified that of 1829, but no such statement is found in .the-a-eaty. Fur-
thermore, although it was duly ratified by both governments, the ratifica-
tions were never exchanged. It is therefore impossible to construe the
Treaty of 1832 as rendering the Treaty of Guayaquil null and void. If it
could be substantiated that the Treaty of 1832 was ever in force, its bound-
ary provision contained in Article XIV would have to be interpreted as a
confirmation of the boundary provided for in the Treaty of Guayaquil.
36 Ram% de Delmar y de Olivart, Marqu6s de Olivart, La Frontera de la Antigua
Colombia con el Peru: Contribucion al Estudio de la Cuesti6n de Limites entre el
Ultimo y el Ecuador 137-138, 151-152, 161-162 (Madrid: Establecimiento Tipografico
"Sucesores de Rivadeneyra," 1906).
37 Wright, /oc. cit. 265.
38 Mid.
39 Ibid. 266.
No-r6
in Dmrl? - Ca niti7Rd Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
40 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63
If, however, the Treaty of 1832 were never in force, it would have no bear-
ing on the Treaty of Guayaquil which stands as a valid obligation between
the Republic of Peru and the successors of Old Colombia.
Almost a century and a half has passed since the Treaty of July 12, 1832,
provided a status quo recognition of boundaries between Ecuador and Peru
pending the achievement of a definite settlement. It has been a century
and a half of sporadic efforts and failures, of mutual suspicion and inter-
mittent ill will, of strained relations and the clash of arms.
Although neither country was idle in its attempt to exercise jurisdiction
over the territory that both claimed, no negotiations were carried on for a
period of eight years. In 1840 Ecuador became suspicious of the long
quiet and set up a demand that the boundaries should be fixed along the
lines set by the Treaty of Guayaquil. Peru denied that the latter was in
force: so far as she was concerned, only the Treaty of 1832 was valid. As
a consequence, a set of conferences was arranged, not all of which tended
to improve the relations of the two republics. In 1853 the Peruvians set
up a political and military government in Loreto (Maynas). They quoted
the Cedula of 1802 as the basis of the Peruvian claim to the entire region.
Ecuador answered with a declaration of the Congress in Quito on November
26, 1853, which dealt with the freedom of navigation on a number of tribu-
taries of the Amazon. Peru registered a protest claiming that the territory
in question was part of Peru by the Cedula of 1802. Ecuador replied that
it regarded the Cedula of 1802 as having no validity, and nothing more was
said or done by either side until 1857.4?
In that year another diplomatic flurry was created by Ecuador, which
attempted to liquidate its foreign debt by selling unused territory_ to some
British bondholders. This met with resistance from Peru, as part of the
territory in question was claimed by her under the Cedula of 1802. The
move proved unsuccessful and the United States and Great Britain hur-
riedly withdrew from the transaction when they realized the controversial
nature of the territory their nationals were to receive under the contracts.42
The friction over the boundary question intensified the already bitter
feelings between the two republics. On October 26_ 1858, Peru declared a
blockade along, the entire coast of Ecuador. The war which lasted until
1860 was waged on a small scale, due to the Peruvian control of access to
the sea and the chaotic conditions of Ecuadorean politics. The war was
climaxed by the Treaty of Mapacingue, January 25, 1860, which empha-
sized the validity of the Peruvian title in accordance with the provisions of
the Codula of 1802, and likewise declared null and void the Ecuadorean
adjudication of lands in the Oriente to British bondholders.42 The Treaty
was ratified by President Castillo of Peru and General Franco of Ecuador.
It was disap nizzeA, hoIygye_r,,by the P,eruvian ,Congress, and the Constitu-
tional Government of Ecuador, which replaced General Franco, did like-
wise.
40 Vaeas Galindo, Coleecion de Doeumentos, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 387-399.
41 'Wright, loc. cit. 267.
42 Vacas Galindo, Coleecion de Doeumentos, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 417-437.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
1. 63 1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 41
bear-
ween
1832,
Peru
tury
titer-
ction
for a
long
..); the
as in
? As
.nded
ts set
uoted
itaber
tribu-
7itory
1 that
e was
which
some
if the
The
hur-
ersial
acts."
bitter
tred a
until
ess to
r was
mpha-
ons of
lorean
Preaty
uador.
astitu-
1 like-
For a period of twenty-six years, comparative quiet and great politeness
were maintained between the two countries. In 1887 the Espinoza-Bonifaz
Convention was signed, and ratified a year later. This convention provided
that "the pending questions of boundaries between both nations should be
submitted to the King of Spain as 'Arbitrator of Points of Law' defini-
tively and without appeal." 43 In ease the King of Spain refused to act as
arbitrator; the President of France, the King of Belgium, and the Council
of the Swiss Federation, in the order named, were to be asked to serve as
arbitrator. The two countries had to present their ease before the arbi-
trator within a year of his acceptance.
Article VI provided that direct negotiations might be undertaken simul-
taneously with the arbitral proceedings, and as a result, the Garcia-Herrera
Treaty was signed on May 2, 1890. In this treaty both countries attempted
to reach an equitable settlement by modifying their extreme claims and
recognizing their respective rights in the Amazon Basin. Under the ar-
rangements made by the two plenipotentiaries, Peru was to receive Tumbez,
Jaen and the parts of Maynas where she held establishments. To Ecuador
were awarded the zones of the Maynas General Command which lay close to
her, Macas, Quijos, and also the northern strip next to Colombia's frontier
which usually goes by the name of Sucumbios Missions and which encloses
Canelos.
Peru felt that her plenipotentiary had made too large concessions; never-
theless, she ratified the treaty with reservations. Ecuador, which had also
ratified the treaty, insisted that Peru should do so unconditionally. This
the Congress of Peru refused to do and Ecuador withdrew its ratification
on July 25, 1894. It seems unfortunate that the treaty was not ratified as
signed, for the compromise appeared to be an equitable settlement of this
troublesome boundary question. The extreme claims of both sides were
modified materially, and the rights of both countries in the Amazon Basin
were recognized.
The provisions of the Garcia-Herrera Treaty caused Colombia's entrance
the dispute. She alleged that, if it were fulfilled, territory claimed by
her would be affected. The three governments, therefore, signed the Sup-
plemental Arbitral Convention of December 15, 1894.44 By this conven-
tion Colombia became a party to the arbitration before the King of Spain,
who was to consider the question not only as a matter of law, but also as
one of accommodation between the contracting parties. Ecuador refused
to approve the convention, feeling that Colombia and Peru would undergo
irresistible temptations to settle their differences by dividing the Oriente
between them.45
In 1904 Ecuador and Peru agreed to ask the King of Spain to proceed
with the arbitration, which had been suspended, and to appoint a commis-
sion to study the material bearing upon the boundary issue. The King
43 Arbitrator of Points of Law serves as translation of " Arbitro de Derecho " which
apbears in the original text.
44 Vacas Galindo, Colecci6n de Documentos, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 468-601.
"Wright, be. cit. 269.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
42 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63
accepted the role of arbitrator and sent Ramen Menendez Pidal as his spe-
cial commissioner to South America. On January 22, 1908, Menendez
Pidal presented the King of Spain with a report in which the proposed
boundary changes were favorable to Peru.
In the year 1909 there was increasing uneasiness among Ecuadoreans that
their case before the Royal Arbitrator was not going well. In his message
to the National Congress on August 20, 1910, President Eloy Alfaro de-
clared:
Since the time of my first administration, there have been rumors
which were not favorable to us as regards the decision which Spain was
going to pronounce; these were to such an extent that a notable Central
American diplomat who came from Madrid was not afraid to state that
the decision would be entirely adverse to Ecuador. I received this in-
formation in 1900 from General Leonidas Plaza, who came from Costa
Rica, and I used it within my power to free the country from such a
peril."
These fears were crystallized in a conversation between Spanish Minister of
State Juan Perez Caballero and Victor M. Rendon, Minister of Ecuador in
Madrid. In this conversation, the Spanish Minister is alleged to have said
that the natural boundaries of Ecuador were in the eastern range of the
Andes, and that Ecuador should content herself with being the South
American Switzerland.47 Ecuadoreans became greatly alarmed by such in-
formation and the special plenipotentiary of the country, Honorato Vaz-
quez, made great efforts to secure a copy of the dissenting opinion of
Sanchez Roman, one of the Spanish counselors. Upon procuring it, Mr.
Vazquez had it printed and circulated.
A very unfortunate and embarrassing situation was created through such
advance notice of the findings of the King's counselors. Uprisings oc-
curred in both Ecuador and Peru, and war between the two countries
seemed imminent. Actual hostilities were, however, averted by two fac-
tors: first, by the timely offer of mediation by the Governments of Argen-
tina, Brazil, and the United States, who pointed out that it would be "Un-
American" to fight about a cause which was still up for arbitration; 48 and
second, by the indefinite postponement of the arbitral award on the part of
the King of Spain.49
The prolonged efforts on the part of the mediating Powers to reach a
settlement proved disappointing, primarily because Ecuador and Peru did
not share the confidence which the above-mentioned Powers were especially
desirous to inspire through their friendly action. For more than a decade
(1910-1924), there is no record of an attempt to settle the dispute. In
1924 the statesmen of both nations undertook to devise a new procedure by
which the dispute might come to an end. Thus, the mixed formula came
into being. It was conceived by the eminent Peruvian President Billing-
46 1910 U. S. Foreign Relations 434 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1915).
47 Ibid. 430.
49 Wright, be. cit. 269.
49 1910 U. S. Foreign Relations 491.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
63
pe-
lez
ed
tat
ge
le-
DTS
:as
cal
iat
in-
ita
I a
of
in
iid
the
ith
in-
AR-
of
?Ir.
ich
oc-
ac-
, 2n-
Jn-
nd
of
1. a
lid
lly
tde
In
by
rrie
rig-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
1969] THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 43
hurst in 1913 and was crystallized and defined in the Ponce-Castro Oyan-
guren Protocol signed in Quito on June 21, 1924. This Protocol provided
that direct negotiations be undertaken in Washington. In the event that
the negotiations should fail, the Governments of Ecuador and Peru should
determine by common accord tile zones that were mutually recognized by
each of the parties and that which should be submitted to the arbitral de-
cision of the President of the United States.5?
In accordance with the provisions established in the Protocol of 1924, the
two countries began direct negotiations in Lima in 1929. Internal diffi-
culties caused by the fall of the Leguia government brought the negotia-
tions to a standstill. In 1933 Peru proposed the resumption of the talks,
but new difficulties ensued during the course of the conferences, and the
negotiations were therefore transferred to Washington. Regular sessions
were held at different intervals for a period of two and a hall years, but a
satisfactory outcome was not produced. Incredible as it may seem, the
already long-standing controversy became more acute as the conference ad-
vanced, and a solution to the problem appeared more difficult than ever
before.
The sessions in Washington were finally broken off October 4, 1938,21 and
small-scale fighting was conducted by the border patrols of the two coun-
tries. On July 15, 1941, the skirmishes developed into an undeclared but
real war. A brief and uneven struggle ensued between the well-equipped
and highly trained Peruvian army and air force units and the almost de-
fenseless Ecuadoreans. The climax of the war came in the battle of Zaru-
milla-Chacras in which the Peruvian Colonel Manuel Odria52 decisively
defeated the Ecuadorean forces who soon thereafter laid down their arms.
Shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, the United States, Brazil, and
Argentina offered their friendly services as mediators. At the Conference
of Western Hemisphere Foreign Ministers which met in Rio de Janeiro in
January, 1942, the so-called "Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Bounda-
ries" 53 was drawn up and signed by the Foreign Ministers of the contract-
ing parties and those of the mediatory Powers, to which Chile was added.
Subsequently the Protocol was ratified, the Peruvian legislature voting for
it unanimously, while an extraordinary Congress in Ecuador approved it
on a plurality basis.
The boundary line which the Protocol provided for not only caused
Ecuador to lose two-thirds of the Oriente she had previously considered
hers but also deprived her of an outlet to the Amazon River. In spite of
this loss, however, there grew the general feeling that the once insoluble
50 Francisco Tudela, The Controversy Between Peru and Ecuador 41 (Trans. Lima:
Imprenta Torres Aguirre, 1941).
51 Earl Beyerleber, "Last American Boundary Dispute," 105 World Affairs 128
(June, 1942).
52 Manuel Odria's successful military campaign against Ecuador gave him the great-
est prestige in Peru. His wartime association proved useful to him seven years later,
when he staged a military coup d '?t and emerged as dictator of Peru. Tad Szulc,
Twilight of the Tyrants 171-172 (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1959).
53 56 Stat. 1821; 36 A.J.I.L. Supp. 168 (1942).
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy A proved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDPO8001297R000700120011-2
44 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63
conflict had finally been settled to the satisfaction of both countries. But
this was not to be so. For the past two and a half decades, Ecuador has
continually revived the boundary question, claiming that as the weaker
country it had little choice but to accept the outcome of the Conference.
As all the sacrifices were unilaterally hers, Ecuador considers the 1942
Protocol an imposition and not a treaty. In the early fifties, Ecuadoreans
were calling for a revision of the Protocol because it was unjust and im-
posed." And even in 1953 Emilio Murillo Ordoiiez called the Rio Pro-
tocol "unexecutable and null." 55
On September 8, 1955, Ambassador Jos?hiriboga Villagomez of Ecua-
dor submitted a note to the Council of the Organization of American States
invoking the Rio Treaty and requesting that the Council convoke a Meeting
of Consultation of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Ecuador charged that
the Government of Peru was endangering the territorial integrity, sover-
eignty, and independence of Ecuador by concentrating its forces on the
border and by stationing naval vessels near the Ecuadorean coastline. The
Council held a special meeting in which it was noted that Ecuador had as,
?
ready submitted the matter to the Governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
and the United States?the four guarantor states of the Rio Prot?col of
1942. It was informed that representatives of the guarantor states were
planning to launch an on-the-spot investigation of the charges and there-
fore decided to defer to the guarantor states. Due to this development, the
Rio Treaty was not applied to the controversy and Ecuador withdraw its
request.56
On August 17, 1960, President Jos?aria Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador
again revived the boundary issue. In an address in the city of Riobamba,
he affirmed: "The Rio de Janeiro Protocol is null. We do not want war.
But we will never ackno\Niectge the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro." 57 On Sep-
tember 28, 1960, the head of the Ecuadorean Delegation to the United Na-
tions, Jose Chiriboga Villagomez, addressed the General Assembly in order
to create "an atmosphere of sympathetic understanding for Ecuador's just
cause." In nullifying the Treaty,58 Velasco Ibarra referred to the Pan
American Pacts of 1933 and 1938, which "condemn the acquisition of terri-
tory by military occupation or any other means of force by another state,
directly or indirectly, on any ground whatever." Re even quoted the
President of Peru as having recognized that the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro
was the result of a military victory in 1941 made with a strong hand.
While Ecuador has been attempting to attract world-wide attention to
64 Lilo Linke, Ecuador: Country of Contrasts 180 (3rd ed., New York: Oxford
University Press, 1960).
66 Emilio Murillo Ordoilez, El Protocol? de Rio de Janeiro y sus Consecuencias en los
Rios Cenepa, Morona y Marafion 8 (Cuenca: Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriaua, Nucleo
del Azuay, 1953).
56J. Lloyd Mecham, The United States and Inter-American Security: 1889-1960,
p. 407 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961).
67 Demetrio Aguilera Malta, "El Prololema Limitrofe Ecuatoriano-Peruano," ?116
Cuadernos Americanos 38-40 (Mayo-Juni? de 1961).
68 Message to Congress, 1961, op. cit. 26.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26 : CIA-RDPO8C01797Rnnn7nn1onni n
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
)1. 63
But
r has
;aker
-ence.
1942
reans
I im-
Pro-
Ecua-
3tates
;eting
1 that
sover-
a the
The
ad al-
Chile,
col of
were
there-
at, the
aw its
uador
Jamba,
A war.
n Sep-
ed Na-
order
''s just
te Pan
E terri-
r state,
-ed the
Taneiro
id.
tion to
Oxford
is en los
? Nucleo
89-1960,
'o,' 116
1969] TEE BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN ECUADOR AND PERU 45
the boundary dispute, Peru has remained comparatively calm.59 As far as
the latter country is concerned, the dispute was definitely settled by the
Rio Protocol of 1942. Peruvian sentiment on the subject was recently
summed up by its Charg?'Affaires in Washington, who, in referring to
the Rio Protocol, stated:
. . . This document constitutes a valid, current and binding interna-
tional Treaty which is further guaranteed not only by Argentina, Chile
and Brazil but also by the United States. These four Powers uphold
the Treaty as they consider that it is fully within the terms of inter-
national law and that it furthermore reconciles the legitimate aspira-
tions and the historic titles of both Peru and Ecuador. This Treaty
confirmed the sovereignty of Peru on a land that has always been Peru-
vian and constitutes one of the pillars of peace and legal order in the
Hemisphere.6?
Thus, Peru considers the whole affair settled and contends that there is no
border dispute with Ecuador. This is reflected in the postwar literature
on the subject. Peruvians have written comparatively little on the bound-
ary controversy since 1942, and have in most eases contented themselves in
defending their views whenever a particularly sharp verbal or written at-
tack has been made by Ecuadoreans or those sympathetic to Ecuador's
cause.
Ecuador, on the other hand, has continuously attacked the Protocol
which it considers void. Ecuadoreans show particular resentment towards
the United States. To them, the United States Government favored Peru
in the settlement of the dispute in order to avoid an unfavorable impact on
U.S. commercial interests in Peru, especially those in oil." As a result
Ecuador has turned towards Brazil for support in its cause. Brazil is the
only country bordering with Ecuador which has shown no desire to expand.
Furthermore, Ecuador and Brazil signed an agreement in 1958 which calls
for, the construction of a combined vehicle and river-transportation route
connecting the Pacific port of San Lorenzo with the Atlantic port of Belem.
/ Although this so-called Inter-Oceanic Highway is still in the planning stage,
it will open up hitherto unexploited land and enhance the economic po-
sition of both countries.
A similar project, the marginal forest highway, was proposed by Peru's
President Fernando Belaunde Terry in 1963. This highway would run
across the eastern slopes of the Andes and extend roughly from Cucuta,
Colombia, to Santa Cruz, Bolivia, a distance of about 3,720 miles. The
proposed highway will undoubtedly be of great economic significance to
the four countries which it will cross. As it will run through the territory
which Ecuador lost as a result of the Rio Protocol, however, political re-
percussions will certainly develop. The highway, once completed, will
59 According to Peru, the Protocol of Rio de Janeiro gave her nothing that she did
not own by virtue of her historical titles and it took away from Ecuador nothing that
Ecuador possessed before the difficulties which led to the signing of the treaty. Peru,
The Boundary Line Between Peru and Ecuador, op. cit. 4.
80 The Washington Post, Jan. 26, 1967.
"La Cane, Quito, No. 350, Nov. 22, 1963, p. 22.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
46 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 63
help strengthen Peru's de facto title to this territory, thus further mini-
mizing Ecuador's chances of eventually recovering it. Ecuadoreans are
fearful of this possibility, although they approve of the project. They
have shown further concern that, in the process of constructing the high-
way, Peru might use it as a "Corridor of Expansion" and that "the cater-
pillar tracks of tractors are mixed up with those of tanks." 62 Such dis-
trust is obviously not conducive to the construction of the highway but it
does generally reflect Ecuadorean-Peruvian relations at present. As long
as this distrust persists, little will and can be accomplished in bringing
about a settlement which will be to the satisfaction of both countries.
From an historical perspective, the de jure title of Ecuador based upon
the colonial decrees of 1563, 1739, and 1740, plus the Treaty of Guayaquil,
appears to be better than that of Peru. Peru, on the other hand, has a
strong de facto title to part of Tumbez and to all of Jaen by the adhesion
of those regions to the country in the movement for independence, and in
all subsequent national history, and to a large part of Maynas, due to long
occupation and development of the regions. Somewhere betweei>tlm ex-
tremes of these de jure and de facto claims lies an equitable solution of the
boundary dispute. Instead of searching for an equitable solution, how-
ever, the two countries have shown greater interest in exploiting the issue
both on the national and international level. As long as this persists, the
boundary dispute will remain a vexatious issue in the lives of twentieth-
century Ecuadoreans and Peruvians and will show Hemispheric solidarity
to be only an expression of sentiment.
62 Revista Militar de las Fuerzas Armadas Ecuatorianas, No. 2 (June, 1965), pp.
60-61.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/26: CIA-RDP08C01297R000700120011-2
C:
Ili
Fi
f;:
Th