486. Telegram From the Ambassador in Brazil (Briggs) to the Department of State1
1067. Deptel 889.2 Regret find myself opposite end of seesaw from Department regarding possibility obtaining solution Peru-Ecuador boundary dispute along line recent Washington conversations, which unless I misread portents are predicated on “we can’t bear to hurt anybody’s feelings”. That might be profitable slogan in event [Page 981] Department willing let dispute drag indefinitely, for instance on theory that faced with more pressing world problems this one looks small and best we can do is engage disputants in conversation pieces, but it is my impression we are really desirous of promoting early settlement.
If we are, then I respectfully submit Guarantors should stop dancing around the mulberry bush. Specifically, Guarantors should go much further than expressions of hope or reiterated assurances of impartiality. They should say what they believe and be prepared adopt firm unequivocal position.
- 1.
- Fact is Ecuador considers swindled by 1942 Protocol and is out to wreck it. (As reflected by Chiriboga in Washington and Ecuadoran Ambassador here, Ecuadorans are more and more openly revealing their real purpose to be revision Protocol to obtain access Maranon River. This pretension should be batted down since under no conceivable stretch of “geographic realities” would boundary set forth in protocol any where approach Maranon.)
- 2.
- Guarantors should tell Ecuador politely but firmly that all boundary markers already in ground and accepted by both governments, stand. With respect segments thus far undemarcated Guarantors prepared examine arguments of disputants and will cooperate with whatever surveys of whatever nature may be necessary to draw fairest possible line to fill in gaps. (Guarantors could at this point urge Peru show generosity since Ecuador’s resentment over loss through protocol of much previously claimed territory is understandable. But generosity in context protocol certainly begins west of Santiago River and north of Maranon.)
- 3.
- Problem would thereupon be limited to measurable dimensions and Ecuador’s current effort demolish protocol would be identified. It seems to me that any other view of boundary already marked and accepted leads to nearest asylum and I do not understand what Department means by reference obtaining necessary evidence for legal opinion, etc. (Deptel 8643) unless our purpose is procrastination as mentioned opening paragraph.
- 4.
- Ecuador may at outset by unhappy, but so what? Guarantors cannot expect to have it both ways, and question here is whether early and fair solution more important than possible dissatisfaction one party. Ecuador accepted and ratified protocol and Guarantors responsible for making it stick.
- 5.
- Should Department agree to vigorous approach outlined, first job, perhaps difficult, will be to convince other three Guarantors. (It is my impression Argentina and Chile may favor declaring valid markers already fixed and accepted, possibly in context arbitration [Page 982] balance of boundary, but that Brazilian Foreign Minister would be happy continue don’t-bother-me course or even hand dispute to some other entity, Royal Geographic Society for example.) Next step would be vigorous diplomatic activity by all four countries in Lima and Quito.
Success of foregoing naturally cannot be guaranteed but it seems to me after wrestling with problem for past 2 years, during which no progress whatever made, that adoption foregoing offers better prospect than efforts expended since work of Boundary Commission broke down.
Would appreciate receiving Department’s views as well as comments other missions.