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 LIMA 004662 
 
SIPDIS 
 
WHA FOR JMONSERRATE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/01/2014 
TAGS: PGOV PINR PREL EC PE
SUBJECT: PERU SURPRISED BY CHILEAN REACTION ON DRAFT 
MARITIME LIMITS LAW 
 
REF: A. ACHRITTON E-MAIL 
     ¶B. 10/28/05 
 
Classified By: Ambassador J. Curtis Sruble.  Reason: 1.4(b/d). 
 
-------- 
Summary: 
-------- 
 
¶1.  (C) Embassy Santiago's reporting (Ref) has laid out the 
Chilean perception of what the GOP is doing with its draft 
"Law on the Bases of Maritime Control," which is now under 
review by the Peruvian Congress.  In our view the GOP impulse 
behind the law is far more anodyne; it was part of an effort 
by the Foreign Ministry to reassure Congress that 
ratification of the law of the sea will not undercut Peru,s 
maritime claims.  The GOP appears to be surprised by the 
strong Chilean reaction, which it failed to anticipate. 
Unfortunately, the high profile Chilean response to the law 
has likely guaranteed its swift passage.  End Summary 
 
------------------------------------ 
Why Did Peru Submit this Legislation 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶2.  (C) Embassy Santiago's reporting (Ref) has laid out the 
Chilean perception of the GOP's draft "Law on the Bases of 
Maritime Control," approved 10/24 by the Congressional 
Commission of the Congress.  (The draft law is now with the 
Constitutional Commission with no date yet set for 
presentation to the full Congress.)  The Chileans fear that 
the Peruvian draft law contravenes existing maritime 
agreements with Chile, and may make it more difficult for 
Bolivia to obtain an outlet to the sea.  The GOC suspects it 
may be intended to provoke a politically convenient 
confrontation to bolster President Toledo (Ref). 
 
¶3.  (C) In our view, the reason behind the GOP action is 
fairly pedestrian.  The law's timing is related to a pending 
proposal from the Foreign Ministry to have Peru join the Law 
of the Sea.  The Foreign Ministry would like to reassure 
Congress that ratifying the Treaty would not weaken Peru's 
long-standing claims to a bigger area of the Pacific than 
Chile recognizes.  While MFA believes that the odds are 
against Congress taking action on the Law of the Sea Treaty 
in an election year, the new Foreign Minister, who only 
expects to stay in office until the new administration is 
sworn in next July, is giving ratification a serious go 
nonetheless.  The draft law, which originated with the 
Executive (signed by President Toledo and PPK), simply 
re-states the GOP's long-standing interpretation of where 
maritime borders and the baselines for a 200 mile exclusive 
economic zone should be drawn.  In this, the GOP is not 
wavering from what it told the UN in 2001 when Peru expressed 
reservations about Chile's maritime claims when the latter 
deposited papers with the Secretary General on this issue. 
 
¶4.  (C)  We don,t believe the law is intended either to 
spike eventual Chilean-Bolivian negotiations on the latter,s 
access to the sea, although Santiago is right to be concerned 
about Peruvian complications.  In August 2004, then Foreign 
Minister Manuel Rodriguez initiated an hour-long conversation 
with the Ambassador and visiting A/S Noriega on Bolivian 
maritime access.  Rodriguez exhaustively laid out Peru,s 
claim to where the maritime boundary with Chile should be 
drawn and spoke of how he hoped to leverage talks between 
Chile and Bolivia to compel Santiago to discuss Peru,s 
aspirations.  At the same time, Rodriguez said that he had no 
problem with Chile granting a land corridor to Bolivia in 
what was Peruvian territory before the War of the Pacific and 
Peru would cooperate with Bolivia and Chile to grant the 
former a non-sovereign maritime corridor. 
 
¶5.  (C) The Chileans allege that the GOP draft law would 
abrogate the 1952 and 1954 Chile/Peru/Ecuador treaties on 
fisheries.  The GOP maintains that these accords are not the 
legal equivalent of a maritime treaty. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
No/No Indication of GOP Desire to Enforce the Claim 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶6.  (C) Peru has given no/no indication that it intends to 
enforce its maritime claim.  Should the GOP send a naval 
vessel into the zone in question, that action could provoke a 
genuine crisis.  We will keep a weather eye on this aspect 
and do all we can to discourage any such action, should such 
a proposal surface. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
Comment: GOC High Profile Response Put Law on Fast Track 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
 
¶7.  (C) We do not see complex ulterior motives in the GOP's 
proposal.  The vociferous Chilean reaction, however, has 
transformed what had been a low key piece of legislation into 
a matter of national sovereignty.  We suspect this will have 
the perverse effect of greasing the skids for swift passage 
of the law and has made it virtually impossible for any 
Peruvian politician to waiver on this issue: i.e. on Peru's 
right to state its maritime claim in its own legislation. 
 
--------------- 
Action Request: 
--------------- 
¶8.  (C) Since the Chileans made reference to the 1929 Peace 
Treaty, to which the US is guarantor, we recommend that the 
Department take another look at that agreement and see what 
US obligations are.  We think it unlikely at this juncture 
that Peru would join Chile in inviting our role as a 
guarantor. 
STRUBLE