VZCZCXRO2655
PP RUEHAO RUEHCD RUEHGA RUEHGD RUEHHA RUEHHO RUEHMC RUEHNG RUEHNL
RUEHQU RUEHRD RUEHRG RUEHRS RUEHTM RUEHVC
DE RUEHC #5671/01 0721252
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 121245Z MAR 08
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO WESTERN HEMISPHERIC AFFAIRS DIPL POSTS PRIORITY
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 5546
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID PRIORITY 8099
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 7560
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 5253
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM PRIORITY 4658
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY

id: 145435
date: 3/12/2008 12:45
refid: 08STATE25671
origin: Secretary of State
classification: CONFIDENTIAL
destination: 
header:
VZCZCXRO2655
PP RUEHAO RUEHCD RUEHGA RUEHGD RUEHHA RUEHHO RUEHMC RUEHNG RUEHNL
RUEHQU RUEHRD RUEHRG RUEHRS RUEHTM RUEHVC
DE RUEHC #5671/01 0721252
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 121245Z MAR 08
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO WESTERN HEMISPHERIC AFFAIRS DIPL POSTS PRIORITY
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 5546
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID PRIORITY 8099
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 7560
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 5253
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM PRIORITY 4658
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY

----------------- header ends ----------------

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 STATE 025671 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/04/2018 
TAGS: PREL PTER CO EC
SUBJECT: COLOMBIA-ECUADOR DISPUTE: OAS RESOLUTION 930 
 
Classified By: Acting PermRep Bob Manzanares; Reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary.  The OAS Permanent Council approved 
Resolution 930 on March 5 regarding the Colombia-Ecuador 
dispute stemming from the Colombian attack on a FARC camp on 
the Ecuadorian border on March 1.  Resolution 930 reaffirmed 
the inviolability of national sovereignty, established a 
commission headed by OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel 
Insulza to travel to Colombia and Ecuador and propose 
resolutions to the dispute, and convoked a meeting of OAS 
foreign ministers on March 17 to receive SYG Insulza's report 
and "to examine the facts and make pertinent 
recommendations."  Colombia met its key objective of avoiding 
condemnation (aided by USG refusal to join consensus on any 
document condemning Colombian actions); but Colombia accepted 
language indicating that its actions on March 1 violated 
international law.  The preambular language of the resolution 
asserted that Colombian forces carried out an incursion into 
Ecuador's territory and that this constituted a "violation of 
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ecuador and of 
principles of international law."  USOAS disputed the 
assertion that Colombia had violated international law 
through its actions, sought unsuccessfully to obtain modified 
language, and submitted a statement for the record noting the 
USG's disagreement with that component of the resolution. 
 
¶2. (C) The OAS tradition of consensus (as opposed voting) 
complicated Ecuadorian and Venezuelan efforts to secure a 
condemnation of Colombia.  Ecuador, prodded by Venezuela, 
adopted an agressive stance at the outset of the Special 
Permanent Council session, derailing a tentative agreement 
among South American delegations to quickly adopt language 
acceptable to Colombia.  Colombian Permanent Representative 
Ospina shot back, distributing information from the captured 
FARC laptops to all delegations and accusing Venezuela and 
Ecuador of aiding the FARC.  Brazil sought to play a role as 
honest broker, though Brazil joined most other major Latin 
delegations in pressing hard to condemn Colombia's alleged 
violation of Ecuador's national sovereignty.  Venezuela, 
joined by Argentina and Nicaragua, sought to keep the focus 
solely on Colombia's incursion into Ecuador and dismissed 
Colombia's arguments as an effort to distract from that 
attack.  Argentina adopted a lower profile on the second day, 
evidently as a result of Embassy Buenos Aires requests to the 
GOA to rein in its delegation.  Venezuela's bullying tactics 
and open encouragement of a hard line by Ecuador triggered 
sharp reactions among other delegations and undermined their 
attempts to obtain a condemnation of Colombia.  The easing of 
tensions stemming from the Rio Group Summit in Santo Domingo 
came as a surprise to OAS delegations and generated 
uncertainty as to the OAS role in managing this crisis. End 
Summary. 
 
//ECUADOR LAUNCHES BROADSIDE, COLOMBIA FIRES BACK// 
 
¶3. (SBU) The Special Meeting of the OAS Permanent Council was 
requested by the Ecuadorian delegation to discuss Colombia's 
March 1 attack on a FARC camp in Ecuadorian territory.  As 
the OAS meeting began on March 4, the Colombian delegation 
informed USOAS that the ALADI Group (South American Latin 
delegations plus Mexico) had negotiated draft language that 
would avoid condemnation of Colombia and would call for an 
OAS mission to Colombia and Ecuador to encourage a diplomatic 
solution to the crisis.  That tentative arrangement fell 
apart immediately as Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Salvador 
used her opening remarks to accuse Colombian President Uribe 
of lying to Ecuador, of killing the FARC members in their 
sleep, and of carrying out an unjustified violation of 
Ecuador's sovereignty.  She noted that the events had 
compelled Ecuador to break diplomatic relations with Colombia 
and said that an apology was insufficient.  Minister Salvador 
called upon the Permanent Council to condemn Colombia's 
violation of Ecuador's sovereignty, establish a fact-finding 
committee to investigate the events surrounding the alleged 
violation of Ecuador's sovereignty, and call for a 
consultative meeting of OAS Foreign Ministers.  At several 
points, she emphasized Ecuador's condemnation of the FARC's 
methods, and Ecuador's cooperation with Colombia to control 
the border. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Colombia's response was equally heated.  Permanent 
Representative Ospina reviewed the March 1 incident and 
reiterated Colombia's apology for entering Ecuador's 
 
STATE 00025671  002 OF 004 
 
 
territory, but then attacked Ecuador and Venezuela for their 
coordination/cooperation with the FARC, "in violation of 
international law."  Ospina discussed Colombia's plan to 
bring Venezuelan President Chavez to the International 
Criminal Court for alleged links to the financing of 
terrorists.  He cited Colombian efforts at the UN as well as 
the OAS to condemn terrorism and cited UNSCR 1373 (2001) 
provisions on the "duty of states to deny refuge to those who 
finance, plan, facilitate or commit acts of terrorism and to 
impede... the use of their territory for those purposes." 
For his closing sound bite, Ospina mockingly lauded the 
"Presidents of Ecuador and Venezuela for expelling our 
Ambassadors, dignified representatives of a legitimate 
democracy.  Hopefully, they will display similar valor by 
expelling terrorists from their territory." 
 
//OTHER OAS MEMBERS JOIN THE FRAY// 
 
¶5. (C) Nicaraguan PermRep Moncada spoke next, issuing a 
condemnation of Colombia for its "murder" of Raul Reyes who 
was "on a political and diplomatic mission to establish talks 
between the Colombian Government and the FARC."  Bolivia 
called for an unequivocal apology by Colombia and said the 
"aggrieved party should not be transformed into the 
aggressor."  Venezuelan PermRep (and Vice FM) Valero spoke 
later, claiming the support of "around 25 delegations" for a 
condemnation of Colombia's actions.  Valero urged the OAS to 
issue a condemnation, establish a fact-finding mission to 
report to a meeting of the OAS Consultation of Ministers no 
later than March 11.  He said the Colombian charges of 
Venezuelan and Ecuadoran complicity with the FARC were 
"lamentable... diplomatic pyrotechnics based on lies" and 
that Colombia's action in Ecuador demonstrated that Colombia 
was engaged in a "genocidal war."  Valero claimed that 
Venezuela advocated a peaceful resolution of the conflict in 
Colombia and said that Plan Colombia was a USG effort to 
involve Colombia in a continental war.  He closed by 
reiterating Venezuela's full support for Ecuador's efforts at 
the OAS, rejected terrorism "in all its forms," and 
encouraged efforts to establish a group of friends to aid the 
Colombian peace process. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Argentine PermRep Gil expressed Argentina's full 
support for Ecuador's draft resolution and said the focus of 
the OAS should be on the "flagrant violation of international 
law" carried out by Colombia in "unilaterally according 
itself the right to violate the territorial sovereignty of 
another state."  Gil warned against heeding the "dangerous 
arguments" made by Colombia to justify its actions. 
(COMMENT: Argentina adopted a much lower profile on the 
second day, clearly the result of Embassy Buenos Aires' 
efforts to rein in Ambassador Gil.  END COMMENT).  Brazilian 
PermRep Chohfi expressed the view that Colombia's action 
constituted "prima facie" evidence of a violation of national 
sovereignty, but that there were conflicting views of what 
had happened, requiring the formation of a committee to look 
into the matter.  At several points, Brazil reiterated the 
importance of a negotiated resolution and Brazil's readiness 
to facilitate such a process.  Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, 
Mexico, Panama, El Salvador, Peru, and Honduras each 
emphasized the principle of territorial sovereignty while 
urging a peaceful resolution.  Costa Rica, Canada, and 
Bahamas (speaking on behalf of CARICOM) focused more on the 
need for restraint and for a rapid, peaceful resolution, 
while also advocating respect for territorial integrity. 
 
¶7. (SBU) USOAS Acting PermRep Manzanares expressed U.S. 
friendship for both Colombia and Ecuador, strong USG support 
for Colombia's fight against terrorism and narcotics 
trafficking, and called for a prompt resolution of the crisis 
through the OAS in a manner acceptable to both Ecuador and 
Colombia.  The USOAS statement focused on the FARC's 
pernicious role in the region and on previous OAS consensus 
agreements condemning the FARC and calling on all member 
states to honor their obligations to deny safehaven to 
terrorists.  Manzanares said it was regrettable that 
Venezuela and Nicaragua sought to expand the scope of the 
matter before the Permanent Council and urged that Ecuador 
and Colombia be given an opportunity to resolve the matter 
expeditiously. 
 
//VENEZUELA THROWS ITS WEIGHT// 
 
¶8. (C) Given the lack of progress, the Chair of the Permanent 
Council then called for a smaller working group chaired by 
Panamania PermRep Royo and attended by OAS SYG Insulza to 
work on language for an OAS consensus resolution.  This 
 
STATE 00025671  003 OF 004 
 
 
"smaller" group was attended by most of the 34 permanent 
representatives and their staffs and foundered as each 
delegation insisted on presenting its view.  When the 
Paraguayan delegation suggested that the Colombian and 
Ecuadorian representatives engage in direct negotiations with 
only SYG Insulza and Panamanian PermRep Royo present, 
Venezuela briefly resisted this arrangement, but grudgingly 
acceded.  However, the Colombian delegation informed USOAS 
that Venezuelan PermRep Valero used a side door to enter the 
negotiation room and urge Ecuador's delegation to force a 
vote by the Permanent Council on Ecuador's draft resolution. 
(NOTE: Given the OAS tradition of consensus decisions, calls 
to vote on an issue are considered highly polemical.  END 
NOTE).  A senior OAS official denied that Valero had managed 
to get into the negotiating room, but Valero was observed 
hovering near the discussions throughout the evening. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Shortly after midnight, the Chair of the Permanent 
Council reconvened the session and announced that progress 
had been made by Ecuador and Colombia, but that there was no 
final agreement.  He suggested that the session be suspended 
until the next morning to give the two sides time to conclude 
a text; Grenada took up that suggestion and moved that the 
session be suspended.  However, just before the session was 
gaveled to a close, Venezuela interrupted and asked for a 
clarification of what specific points separated the two 
sides.  Valero warned that the failure of the OAS to act 
would lead Venezuela to question the value of the OAS, 
particularly when Cuba had done much less than Colombia and 
had been suspended by the OAS as a result. 
 
¶10. (C) Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Salvador seized the 
moment to propose an amended resolution and ask why Colombia 
refused to match Ecuador's concessions.  Honduran PermRep 
Sosa aimed barbed comments at the Venezuelan delegation and 
suggested that Ecuador and Colombia continue working towards 
compromise language.  After several other delegations joined 
Honduras, the Chair suspended the session until the next day. 
 (COMMENT: Rumors that Venezuela was urging a vote on 
Ecuador's draft resolution -- and Valero's machinations that 
kept the session open until 1:30 a.m. -- irritated other 
delegations and undermined support for Ecuador's positions. 
Several delegations reported that Valero had misinformed 
Ecuadorian FM Salvador that she had at least 20 votes on her 
side and did not have to compromise further on the text, 
which encouraged Ecuador to take a tougher line.  END 
COMMENT). 
 
//WORKING GROUP ACHIEVES DRAFT TEXT// 
 
¶11. (C) By late morning on March 5, the Colombian and 
Ecuadorian delegations had hammered out compromise language. 
In the preambular language of the resolution, Colombia 
accepted that its actions on March 1 had violated 
international law, though the document did not condemn 
Colombia for doing so.  More importantly for the Colombian 
delegation, the resolution termed the visit by SYG Insulza an 
effort to broker a resolution of the dispute rather than a 
strictly "fact finding mission to investigate Colombia's 
violation of Ecuador's sovereignty" (which was the language 
sought by Ecuador). 
 
¶12. (C) After reviewing the draft text, USOAS expressed 
concern to the Colombian delegation about Colombia's apparent 
acceptance that it had violated international law and urged 
Colombia to consider alternative language and/or cite OAS 
articles and other international instruments permitting 
action taken in self defense.  USOAS noted that the USG did 
not agree that Colombia's actions constituted a violation of 
international law.  The Colombian delegation indicated that 
its hands were tied because President Uribe had already 
acknowledged and apologized for the incursion into Ecuador. 
Moreover, Colombia feared that if it cited self defense, this 
could open the door for the FARC to gain belligerent status. 
Also, the Colombian delegation was pleased that it had 
succeeded in eliminating much of the  Ecuadorian language 
that had proved unacceptable to Colombia; therefore Colombia 
was reluctant to reopen the text for further changes.  For 
its part, the Ecuadorian delegation refused to consider any 
modification to the text, considering it the least Ecuador 
could accept in view of the absence of a condemnation of 
Colombia.  USOAS therefore opted not to block consensus on 
the Ecuadorian/Colombian text and to instead make a statement 
for the record (see para 14). 
 
¶13. (SBU) The Chair reconvened the Permanent Council, at 
which point Ecuador and Colombia reiterated their respective 
 
STATE 00025671  004 OF 004 
 
 
positions, but expressed support for the compromise text. 
The operative paragraphs of Resolution 930: 
 
-- Reaffirmed "the principle that the territory of a state is 
inviolable and may not be the object, even temporarily, of 
military occupation or of other measures of force taken by 
another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds 
whatsoever."  (NOTE: This is the first sentence of Article 21 
of the OAS Charter.  END NOTE). 
 
-- Called for the formation of an OAS commission headed by 
SYG Insulza, accompanied by four ambassadors, to visit both 
Ecuador and Colombia, to submit a report to the Consultation 
of Ministers, and to "propose formulas for bringing the two 
nations closer together." 
 
-- Convoked a meeting of the Consultation of Ministers on 
March 17 to receive the report of the OAS commission headed 
by Insulza and to "examine the facts and make pertinent 
recommendations." 
 
¶14. (SBU) Other delegations announced their support for the 
resolution, with the exception of Nicaragua, whose PermRep 
announced that he had just been instructed by President 
Ortega to draw attention Colombian maritime actions that 
challenged Nicaragua's borders.  He said that these new facts 
made it impossible for Nicaragua to support the language in 
the text.  This objection was essentially ignored (though 
Colombia disputed the facts presented by Nicaragua) and the 
resolution was passed by consensus.  USOAS asked that the 
following statement be read into the record of the session: 
 
-- "The United notes that Colombia and Ecuador have reached 
conclusions reflected in 'Considerations, Paragraph 2.'  Such 
conclusions are highly fact specific and the United States 
has not reached an independent judgment on the issue." 
 
The Colombian delegation thanked the USG for its support 
during the negotiations, and for the U.S. Embassy's work in 
Buenos Aires to tone down Argentine Perm Rep Gil's support 
for Venezuelan positions. 
 
//OAS COMMISSION ESTABLISHED, BUT WITHOUT CONSULTATION// 
 
¶15. (C)  Shortly thereafter SYG Insulza informed USOAS that 
his Commission would include the PermReps of Panama, Brazil, 
Peru, and Argentina.  USOAS voiced objection regarding the 
selection of Argentina's PermRep (given his strong personal 
support for Venezuela's positions), the lack of consultation 
with all OAS regional coordinators in forming the Commission, 
and the absence of either a North American or Caribbean 
representative on the Commission.  The Mexican, Canadian, and 
Dominican Republic delegations expressed similar dismay 
regarding the narrow makeup of the Commission.  Insulza added 
the Chair of the Permanent Council (Bahamas), but did not 
otherwise change the makeup of the Commission. 
 
//RIO GROUP DECLARATION// 
 
¶16. (C) The March 7 announcement of a diplomatic breakthrough 
caught OAS delegations by surprise, but did not alter plans 
for either the visit of Insulza's commission or the March 17 
meeting of the Consultation of Ministers.  Insulza told 
reporters that the crisis required "tight closure" and to 
"have a collective opinion" regarding what took place on 
March 1.  The Rio Group Declaration is likely to impact the 
agenda for the OAS ministerial session as there will be 
strong pressure to endorse the Rio Group's document, 
particularly a reaffirmation of the principles of national 
sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of 
other states.  The Department is studying the Rio Group 
Declaration and planning for the March 17 OAS Consultation of 
Ministers. 
RICE 

=======================CABLE ENDS============================