This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TEGUCIGALPA 002221 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CEN, WHA/PPC 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/18/2013 
TAGS: PBTS ES HO
SUBJECT: HONDURAS CONFIDENT ICJ WILL RULE IN ITS FAVOR; 
CONTENT WITH PROGRESS ON BORDER DEMARCATION WITH EL 
SALVADOR 
 
REF: A. TEGUCIGALPA 654 
 
     ¶B. EL SALVADOR 2226 (ALL NOTAL) 
 
Classified By: Political Chief Francisco Palmieri; Reasons 1.5 (b) and 
(d). 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY: Honduran officials are confident the 
International Court of Justice (ICJ) will uphold its original 
1992 decision demarcating the border between Honduras and El 
Salvador and are dismissive of El Salvadoran claims that new 
material unknown to the Court at the time would have been a 
decisive factor in the original proceedings.  Honduras is 
also very pleased with the progress thus far by the 
OAS-sponsored effort (lead by NIMA specialist John Gates) to 
assist the two countries in demarcating their borders, 
predicting that the whole process should come to a conclusion 
by the end of 2004.  END SUMMARY 
 
------------------------ 
El Salvador's ICJ Appeal 
------------------------ 
 
¶2. (C) On September 17 PolOff met with Miguel Tosta Appel, 
President of the Honduran Special El Salvador-Honduras Border 
Demarcation Commission, to discuss the pending El Salvador 
appeal of the 1992 ICJ decision demarcating the border 
between the two countries.  Appel optimistically predicated 
that the ICJ would uphold its original decision because El 
Salvador had not produced any new documentation unavailable 
during the 1992 decision that would have been a decisive 
factor in the original proceedings.  Appel prognosticated 
that El Salvador's appeal was more a face-saving effort to 
demonstrate to the Salvadoran people that all avenues had 
been exhausted before finally implementing the Court's 1992 
decision rather than a serious effort to convince the ICJ to 
reverse its earlier findings. 
 
¶3. (U) Public hearings were held from September 8-12 in The 
Hague on El Salvador's Application for Revision of the ICJ's 
original 11 September 1992 decision concerning the border 
dispute between El Salvador and Honduras.  At issue are 30 
square miles on the Gulf of Fonseca that El Salvador claims 
it was wrongfully denied in the 1992 decision.  To bolster 
its claim, El Salvador has produced a map and other documents 
from a Chicago library that it claims represents new material 
unknown to the Court when if first made its original decision. 
 
¶4. (C) Commissioner Appel, who was also a member of the 
original Honduran delegation to The Hague in 1992, opined to 
PolOff that Honduras and El Salvador were both fully aware of 
the Chicago material prior to 1992, but neither side choose 
to bring it to the Court's attention (He was unsure why El 
Salvador had not referenced the Chicago material in 1992). 
Appel dismissed any differences between the Chicago material 
and the documents that formed the backbone of the Court's 
original 1992 judgment to the lack of effective copying 
material, noting that "copy machines didn't exist in the 
1790's." 
 
------------------------------ 
OAS Border Demarcation Effort 
------------------------------ 
 
¶5. (SBU) On August 18 Honduras and El Salvador began 
implementing the OAS-directed border demarcation decision for 
the first of six disputed areas ordered by the 1992 ICJ 
decision (ref B).  Assisting in the effort is OAS envoy, NIMA 
specialist John Gates.  Commissioner Appel praised Gates' 
professionalism and predicted that the process of demarcation 
and placement of border markers should come to a conclusion 
by the end of 2004 if the Government of El Salvador (GOES) 
and the Government of Honduras (GOH) sufficiently fund the 
effort. 
 
¶6. (C) Commissioner Appel acknowledged that some of the 
border areas under review (particularly in the second area 
and the Gulf of Fonseca) are politically sensitive for El 
Salvador but he did not think Gates would deviate, even 
partially, from the original 1992 ICJ decision.  Appel added 
he believes both the GOH and GOES will fully abide by Gates' 
decisions regardless of the final outcome, referring to a May 
agreement between the GOH and GOES that Gates' decisions 
would be final. 
 
¶7. (C) Commissioner Appel did not belabor the slow progress 
on border demarcation, saying he understood the politics 
behind what he believes to be El Salvador's past 
"foot-dragging" on implementing the 1992 agreement.  Appel 
was confident, however, that progress would increase 
significantly, particularly after the expected ICJ decision 
not to revisit its original 1992 findings. 
 
¶8. (C) Comment:  The ICJ's initial ruling gave two-thirds of 
the 168 square miles in dispute to Honduras, including 
territory on the Gulf of Fonseca with access to vital Pacific 
Ocean coastal and fishing areas, which explains Honduran 
resentment that El Salvador has been slow to implement the 
initial 1992 decision.  The GOH is extremely confident that 
El Salvador's appeal to the ICJ to revisit the Gulf of 
Fonseca area seems to have little chance of success.  The 
completion of the appeals process will remove the final legal 
obstacle to completing the border demarcation process.  The 
rest depends upon the political will of the two governments 
and the resources available to implement the agreement. 
PIERCE