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 004673 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/02/2015 
TAGS: PGOV PINR PREL CI EC PE
SUBJECT: CONTROVERSY CONTINUES REGARDING PERU'S DRAFT 
MARITIME LIMITS LAW 
 
REF: A. LIMA 4662 
     ¶B. SANTIAGO 2240 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Curt Struble for Reason 1.4 (B, D) 
 
¶1.  (C)  SUMMARY:  The controversy between Peru and Chile 
over the GOP's introduction of legislation defining its 
maritime limits continues, although Foreign Minister Oscar 
Maurtua informed the Ambassador that the two countries are 
talking and should eventually calm things down.  Meanwhile, 
the Foreign Ministry presented a diplomatic note to the 
Chilean Ambassador on 11/1, terming Chile's note of 10/28 
"unacceptable," and issued a press statement on 10/31, noting 
that there is no/no similar dispute with its other Pacific 
Ocean neighbor, Ecuador.   The Congressional Constitutional 
Affairs Commitee approved the maritime limits bill on 10/31, 
and the full Congress is expected to pass the legislation at 
its 11/3 plenary session.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (C) Foreign Minister Maurtua phoned the Ambassador on 
11/1 to thank him for for telling the Peruvian press that the 
maritime dispute between Peru and Chile is a bilateral matter 
for those countries.  The Ambassador replied that the press 
account Maurtua was relying upon had not accurately reported 
his comment.  (NOTE:  In an interview with the press 
following a ceremony where the Embassy donated two planes to 
the Peruvian Air Force for anti-narcotics missions, the 
Ambassador was asked whether the United States was going to 
intervene in the Peru-Chile maritime dispute following 
President Lagos' convocation of Ambassador Kelly.  The 
Ambassador replied that he had no instructions on the matter 
from the State Department, adding that maritime boundaries 
are highly technical issues that are usually worked out by 
the countries directly concerned.  END NOTE).  Maurtua 
breezed over that, saying that the dispute was indeed a 
bilateral issue between Peru and Chile.  The Chilean reaction 
had been overblown (sobredimensionado), he added, but the two 
countries were talking and would get things calmed down. 
 
¶3.  (U)  In the meantime,  the Peruvian Foreign Ministry 
issued two official press releases on this issue.  A Press 
Release by the Ministry dated 10/31 stated that regarding 
Ecuador, the Peruvian draft law established a point of 
reference which defined the western end of the Peru-Ecuador 
land border, consistent with the findings of the Demarcation 
Commission of 1944, and noted that the Ministry had expressed 
repeatedly that there was no maritime border dispute between 
Peru and Ecuador.  The local media, which has made this a 
page-one issue, provided extensive coverage on 11/2 to 
reported remarks by Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Francisco 
Carrion to the effect that his country, "Has no pending 
problem with Peru." 
 
¶4.  (U)  In a Press Release dated 11/1, the Ministry stated 
that Foreign Minister Maurtua had presented a Diplomatic Note 
to the Chilean Ambassador in Lima stating that Peru found 
Chile's Diplomatic Note of 10/28 to be "unacceptable."  The 
Note reportedly took issue with Chile's statement that Peru 
was acting in contravention of the international rule of law, 
went on to state that the draft law was a sovereign decision 
taken in accordance with the provisions of Article 54 of 
Peru's Constitution, which required the legal definition of a 
"Base of Maritime Control," and that Peru still considered 
the definition of its maritime border with Chile an open 
issue. 
 
¶5.  (C) On 10/31, British Ambassador Richard Ralph compared 
notes with Ambassador Struble about the Peru-Chile dispute. 
Ambassador Ralph shared our view that the GOP had been so 
focused on the domestic angle of the maritime baseline 
legislation (using it to build Congressional support for 
ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty) that it completely 
failed to anticipate Santiago's reaction.  Ambassador Ralph 
said that the FCO's reply to Lagos' demarche to his colleague 
in Chile would be sympathetic, but would urge the parties to 
work the matter out bilaterally. 
 
¶6.  (C) In a 10/28 conversation with DCM, her Chilean 
counterpart, Hernan Mena Taboada, said Peru's draft law had 
serious implications not only for Chile, but for Ecuador and 
Bolivia as well.  He added that  the matter would likely be a 
topic of conversation at the upcoming Summit of the Americas 
in Mar del Plata. 
 
¶7.  (C) D/Polcouns contacted Chilean Embassy Political 
Officer Fernando Velazco on 11/2 to seek his views regarding 
the dispute.  Noting that he was reluctant to speak frankly 
about the matter over a cell phone, Velazco nonetheless 
observed that there was a real affront to Chilean sovereignty 
in the Peruvian legislation, in that the point of referecnce 
it would establish for the maritime border was 300 meters 
south of the currently recognized marker post which 
represents the end point of the Peru-Chile land border. 
Velazco explained that this discrepancy with the 1929 treaty, 
for which the U.S. is guarantor, was the GOC's justification 
for bringing this matter to the attention of U.S. authorities. 
 
¶8.  (U)  The full Congress is expected to pass the bill on 
maritime limits during its 11/3 plenary session, after the 
Constitutional Affairs Committee approved it on 10/31. 
STRUBLE