VZCZCXYZ0015
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHLP #1406/01 1751308
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 231308Z JUN 08
FM AMEMBASSY LA PAZ
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7807
INFO RUEHAC/AMEMBASSY ASUNCION 8080
RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 5426
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 9370
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 6589
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 3693
RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA 3970
RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO 5556
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO 6317
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 1035
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RUMIAAA/USCINCSO MIAMI FL
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA 1216
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHINGTON DC
RHMFISS/HQ USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL

C O N F I D E N T I A L LA PAZ 001406 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/21/2018 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER ASEC ODIP KLIG KTIA BO
SUBJECT: CHARGE REITERATES SECURITY CONCERNS TO VICE FM 
 
REF: A. LA PAZ 1391 
     ¶B. LA PAZ 1359 
     ¶C. LA PAZ 1302 
     ¶D. LA PAZ 1301 
 
Classified By: Charge d' Affaires, a.i. Kris Urs for reasons 1.4 (b) an 
d (d) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary.  Charge and EcoPol Counselor reiterated 
Post's security concerns in the aftermath of a violent June 9 
protest at the Embassy to Vice Foreign Minister Hugo 
Fernandez.  The Charge delivered a diplomatic note asking 
that appropriate action be taken regarding a march organizer 
who continues to make public threats to "burn down" the 
Embassy in future protests.  EmbOffs urged that the 
government live up to its 1961 Vienna Convention obligations 
to protect the Mission and stop inciting and supporting 
violent protests against us.  We noted that Bolivian 
government officials' statements meant to reassure us that 
they will protect our Mission lacked credibility when 
followed by accusations that we are conspiring.  We also 
registered our concern that firing the police commander for 
allegedly protecting the Embassy too vigorously sends the 
wrong signal to both police and protesters.  Fernandez 
initially minimized our concerns and tried to justify the 
march and continued threats from march organizers as a 
reaction to USG policy.  But, when pressed, Fernandez said he 
understood "how serious and important security is to the 
United States," promising to raise it with his superiors. 
End Summary. 
 
¶2. (C) Charge and EcoPol Counselor explained Mission security 
concerns to Vice Foreign Minister Hugo Fernandez June 19. 
The Charge emphasized that the seriousness of Embassy 
security concerns following a violent June 9 Embassy 
demonstration prompted Washington to ask our Ambassador to 
return to Washington for consultations.  The Charge noted 
that the government's public statements to date that appear 
intended to reassure us of Bolivia's commitment to provide 
adequate security of our Mission, in accordance with its 
obligations under the 1961 Vienna Convention, lack 
credibility given that they were coupled with accusations of 
conspiracy. 
 
Disturbing Signs: Punish Police; Ignore Embassy Threats 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶3. (C) The Charge highlighted that on the day of the 
demonstration, the Ambassador's calls to the government were 
not returned, and that no Bolivian government official had 
expressed any concern to us about the violent incident. 
Then, the Charge explained that Minister of Government 
Alfredo Rada's removal of the La Paz Police Commander 
following supposedly heavy-handed defense of the Embassy June 
9, sent a signal to the police that they should not confront 
"people who want to sack the Embassy."  Likewise, such 
punishment for protecting the Embassy emboldens protesters, 
such as El Alto City Council Vice President Roberto de la 
Cruz, who has threatened to "burn down" the Embassy before, 
during, and after the demonstration.  De la Cruz clarified 
June 10 that sacking the Embassy was not a threat, rather "a 
promise" on par with the promise Altenos made in 2003 to 
bring down the government of then-President Gonzalo (Goni) 
Sanchez de Lozada.  The Charge then delivered diplomatic note 
195/08 (text para 14 below), which asks the Bolivian 
government to take appropriate action against de la Cruz's 
threats.  Charge explained that we were concerned that there 
has been no government action yet against de la Cruz, despite 
the clear obligation to do so in accordance with both 
international obligations (Vienna Convention) and, according 
to Embassy legal advisors, domestic laws regarding threats to 
property and person.  The Charge made the point that we 
expected a reply to our diplomatic notes, remarking that we 
had yet to receive any response to our April 17 diplomatic 
note protesting aggressive surveillance of our Mission. 
 
Putting Embassy Arson "In Context" 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶4. (C) Fernandez said he did not wish to "diminish the 
importance" of our concerns, particularly as they relate to 
the Vienna Convention.  However, he seemed to do exactly that 
when he continued to "put our concerns in context:" 
--De la Cruz is not a member of the government, and, 
therefore the government cannot control his behavior.  De la 
Cruz has his own "project" and he and other Alteno leaders 
are in campaign mode for the August 10 
presidential/prefectural recall referendum.  Anti-imperialist 
allusions are part of their stump speeches to energize the 
public and "not to be taken terribly seriously." 
--The Embassy is a "fortress" and was not damaged during the 
June 9 protest, nor "is there any danger" that it will be 
significantly damaged or overrun in the future.  To 
illustrate the point, he added that the demonstration was 
only minor annoyance to his family, who lives nearby. 
--The police acted within their mandate to beat off the 
protesters at the Embassy's front gate, but went too far by 
gassing the demonstrators, the cause for the police chief's 
dismissal.  Fernandez argued the gassing had nothing to the 
protection of the Embassy and, therefore, we should not be 
concerned about the government's commitment to protect the 
Embassy in the future. 
 
Blaming the Victim 
- - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶5. (C) Fernandez then changed course and rebutted that De la 
Cruz's criticisms of the former Defense Minister Carlos 
Sanchez Berzain's asylum case are not the ravings of "some 
crazy man in the desert."  According to Fernandez, the 
perceived U.S. protection of Sanchez Berzain is a legitimate 
issue for the people of El Alto, and, "in this sense, the 
march was a result of what you did in this case."  Fernandez 
also used the opportunity to argue that although the 
government "understands" the legal/jurisdictional reasons we 
cannot comment on the case, "in this special case" the 
government should have been informed of his asylum status. 
 
Justifying the Soft Hand: What is Terrorism, Anyway? 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶6. (C) Fernandez segued into a philosophical discourse on the 
definition of terrorism, saying he did not "want to use the 
term lightly, lest it lose all meaning."  (Comment: implying 
that we had.  End Comment.)  He argued that if we are 
concerned about de la Cruz's "terrorism," it stood to reason 
that we should be concerned about opposition-aligned group 
"attacks" on the Constitutional Assembly, on assembly 
members, and on officials from the Ministry of Justice, 
referring to an assortment of recent events.  He also 
mentioned opposition groups' denying access to parts of the 
country for government officials, including President Evo 
Morales.  "The Ambassador needs to denounce these things too; 
these things are also terrorism."  In an apparent and strange 
attempt to justify the government's less-than-ideal handling 
of our security concerns and at the same time compel us to 
reign in opposition radicals, Fernandez argued that a 
consistent approach to security issues would require an 
equally tough approach to opposition-led Santa Cruz 
Department (state) radicals as with pro-government radicals 
such as de la Cruz.  "Unfortunately, this is the country we 
have; you have to take it in context." 
 
Back to Reality 
- - - - - - - - 
 
¶7. (C) The Charge retorted that Fernandez's analogy is 
inappropriate and illogical: the United States Government has 
no mandate or authority over Bolivian citizens, as opposed to 
the Vienna Convention obligation that countries protect 
foreign missions on their soil.  Moreover, the Charge argued 
that the United States does not have relations with the 
groups in question nor does it control opposition groups in 
general, despite government accusations to the contrary.  The 
Charge also pointed out the inconsistency of implying we 
should involve ourselves in domestic political issues while 
the government vehemently criticizes the Unites States for 
imagined breaches of Bolivian sovereignty.  The Charge then 
steered the conversation back to Embassy security and asked 
if the government planned to initiate any legal actions 
against de la Cruz. 
 
Government Inciting the Next Attack 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶8. (C) The Charge also asked for a clear public statement in 
support of the security of the Embassy.  He said remarks by 
Bolivian officials, including Fernandez himself, assuring 
Bolivian support for foreign mission security were always 
coupled with critical remarks about U.S. policy or Ambassador 
Goldberg, giving a mixed message to would-be protesters.  The 
Charge also noted the comments of senior officials, including 
President Morales, condoning the June 9 march, congratulating 
its participants, and endorsing violent protests as a 
legitimate form of dissent with U.S. policy.  The Charge 
argued that instead of trying to quell angry mobs, rhetoric 
from senior officials is contributing to a hostile 
environment for the U.S. Mission, contradicting Vienna 
Convention obligations to protect the Mission.  The Charge 
also questioned if government support for the march was 
financial as well as rhetorical, as many marchers were 
publicly paid for participation. 
 
Fernandez: We'll Talk to de la Cruz 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶9. (C) After rehashing how overly "sensitive" our concerns 
were, Fernandez said de la Cruz would be talked to so that he 
"understands the gravity of threatening the Embassy." 
Fernandez said any public denouncement or detention of de la 
Cruz would be "ill advised and counterproductive."  He added 
that if we had any proof linking government ministers to the 
march, we should provide it. 
 
Fernandez: "We Will Never Break Relations" 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶10. (C) Fernandez said he believed we were acting in good 
faith with the government, including the Sanchez Berzain 
case, and suggested we continue to be "neutral" and keep a 
low profile on domestic issues.  He said he gave the same 
advice to Venezuelan officials.  He called opposition leaders 
daring the government to break ties with the United States 
"imbeciles."  "We will never break relations with the United 
States."  Fernandez ended the meeting by emphasizing the 
government's support for mission security and suggesting 
subsequent meeting with Minister Rada and Defense Minister 
Walker San Miguel "so you can ask them your questions and we 
can come to a better understanding." 
 
Latest Rabid Rada Ramblings 
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶11. (C) Although Fernandez's attempts to minimize and take a 
light-hearted approach to our concerns seemed awkward and 
misapplied to our serious security concerns, he seemed at 
least willing to work towards a resolution of the issue. 
Other senior government officials, including President 
Morales (reftels), have instead mocked our legitimate 
concerns and used them as a base to launch spurious attacks. 
This latest volley from Interior Minister Rada June 19: 
"What's the Department of State's concern?  The security of 
its Embassy.  And to this concern the Bolivian government 
says they have the same guarantees of security that other 
embassies have, so therefore this is a fictitious concern. 
But okay, since they have that concern, we have the concern 
of guarding our sovereignty in the face of the political 
interference that Philip Goldberg has been up to in recent 
months.  We are concerned about the impunity that Sanchez 
Berzain and Sanchez de Lozada have in U.S. territory.  We 
give the Embassy full guarantees, but we ask for respect. 
Therefore, if there is going to be any dialogue, or whatever 
it is called, then there has to be (respect).  Both sides 
have concerns." 
 
Police Close Book on Police Chief's Undefined "Errors" 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶12. (U) Bolivian National Police Commander General Miguel 
Gemio said June 19 that the police committed errors in the 
confrontation with the Embassy protesters.  "We have 
evaluated it and it's now a closed book.  We identified that 
the police effectively committed certain errors that we will 
correct."  La Paz daily La Razon interviewed an anonymous 
"other high-level police chief" who said that "everything 
that was done at the Embassy was under police norms.  Any 
officer who sees, hears or reads what occurred that day will 
discover that what they did was correct.  I'm surprised that 
they haven't listed what those 'errors' were, if they were 
worth knowing." 
 
Comment 
- - - - 
 
¶13. (C)  Like most of our conversations with senior 
government officials we consistently get inconsistent 
answers: Fernandez accepted the government has international 
obligations to take security seriously, but he did not commit 
to take a serious approach to our general concerns or the 
specific case of de la Cruz.  Only after being pressed, 
Fernandez did accept that the government had to do something 
to temper de la Cruz's behavior, hence the offer to talk to 
him.  And, while offering to help, Fernandez remarked he is 
"only a cog in the machine, and not an important one." 
 
Diplomatic Note 195/08 
---------------------- 
 
¶14. (C)  Begin Text. 
 
June 19, 2008 
 
No. 195/08 
 
The Embassy of the United States of America presents its 
compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of 
the Republic of Bolivia. 
 
In accordance with the rights and privileges accorded to all 
diplomatic missions in the Republic of Bolivia, Embassy La 
Paz registers its profound concern regarding the security of 
the U.S. Mission in Bolivia following a large, violent 
demonstration at the Embassy June 9.  As we informed the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Ambassador Goldberg 
was asked to return to Washington to review the Embassy's 
security situation. 
 
The Mission understands the role of public marches and 
demonstrations in the expression of public opinion in 
democratic societies.  We further understand the intent of 
many of the June 9 marchers was to peacefully register their 
disagreement with perceived U.S. policies, irrespective of 
actual U.S. policy or their understanding of the same. 
However, both the intent and the actions of a sizable 
minority of the marchers were clearly violent, as evidenced 
by unambiguously hostile public statements aimed at violently 
targeting the Embassy.  Peaceful protesters do no throw 
dynamite or other explosives at the police protecting the 
Embassy or over the Embassy walls.  These actions resulted in 
injuries to police and civilians. 
 
Roberto de la Cruz, Vice President of the Municipal Council 
of El Alto, is responsible for the most egregious and overt 
calls to violently attack the Embassy.  De la Cruz repeatedly 
and consistently stated before, during, and after the June 9 
incident his intent to "burn down the Embassy."  He publicly 
reiterated this intent as "to take down the Embassy of the 
United States" as recently as June 16 (see attached DVD).  De 
la Cruz also has clarified his intent to "return to the 
Embassy to take it" in the future.  We take these terrorist 
threats seriously and in accordance with the Bolivian 
government's public assurances that it will abide by its 
international obligations to protect foreign missions under 
the 1961 Vienna Convention, we expect the government to take 
appropriate action against Mr. de la Cruz. 
 
Our highest priority is the safety of our U.S. and Bolivian 
employees.  We trust that the Bolivian government shares our 
security concerns and will ensure the protection of the 
Mission should there be violent demonstrations in the future. 
 
The Embassy of the United States of America avails itself of 
this opportunity to renew to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
and Worship of the Republic of Bolivia the assurances of its 
highest consideration. 
 
 
To the Honorable Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship Of 
the Republic of Bolivia, La Paz.  End text. 
URS