Conflict in the Cordillera Del Cóndor: the Ecuador-Peru Dispute

78 Articles Section Conflict in the Cordillera del Cóndor: The Ecuador-Peru Dispute Ronald Bruce St John Introduction and Peru together and persuaded them to sign the agreement. The same four friendly powers then In January 1995, armed conflict once again broke signed the protocol themselves as guarantors and out between Ecuador and Peru in the Cordillera del agreed to collaborate, as required, to resolve Cóndor sector of their Amazonian boundary. The disagreements during demarcation of the boundary. clash in this remote and unmarked zone of the This multilateral commitment to a bilateral frontier was the most intense, in terms of armaments settlement separated the Rio Protocol from other and troops deployed, in the entire history of the boundary agreements in or out of Latin America.1 dispute. It was a sad reminder of the volatility of a boundary dispute which originated in the early The protocol also differed from other boundary nineteenth century. As the search for a definitive treaties in that it provided both a means of settling solution to the issue continued, both sides reiterated the controversy and a new boundary line. In the area familiar legal and political arguments as they of the Cordillera del Cóndor, for example, the struggled to develop new and more effective agreement provided for a boundary line from the strategies. Quebrada de San Francisco, the divortium aquarum between the Zamora and Santiago Rivers, to the confluence of the Santiago with the Yaupi River. 1942 Rio Protocol Finally, in recognition of the fact that the frontier between Ecuador and Peru was unknown or poorly The Ecuador-Peru dispute was thought to have been known in many areas, the protocol included a resolved over fifty years ago with the conclusion in provision for reciprocal concessions where Rio de Janeiro in early 1942 of a Protocol of Peace, convenient to adjust to geographic conditions. Such Friendship, and Boundaries, known subsequently as rectifications were to be enacted with the the Rio Protocol (Figure 1). In the extended history collaboration of the four guarantor states.2 of Latin American boundary settlements, this agreement was unique in several crucial aspects. In The governments of Ecuador and Peru soon resorted the role of mediators, four so-called “friendly to the intervention of the guarantors to resolve powers,” Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the United differences of interpretation which invariably arose States, first brought the governments of Ecuador as the Ecuador-Peru Mixed Border Commission worked to delimit the boundary. The Figure 1 guarantors, acting under the leadership 0 km 200 1942 Rio of Brazilian Foreign Minister Oswaldo 0° Protocol line ● QUITO Aranha, responded by appointing a COLOMBIA Brazilian Naval Captain, Braz Días de R i o P Aguiar, as a technical expert ECUADOR u r u m empowered to study and resolve a y o R disputes. With only minor exceptions, 2° i o N ● Guayaquil a the subsequent decisions of Captain p o Días de Aguiar met the full approval of R i the governments of both Ecuador and o R R i P o i 3 o T u i g r Peru. S ● Zarumilla s e a t ● n a ● Iquitos t Tumbes z i ° a a 4 g o The connecting link between the C ● h Nauta i i eastern and western sectors of the new n R r a c i o v R h a i Y i l i boundary was the Cordillera del p o e PERU a o y i H a c R Cóndor, and within it, the divortium u U a ● Jaén o n i c Mayobamba R a aquarum. The provision in the Rio 6°S b ● 80°W78a m ° 76° 74° b a Protocol that the boundary should follow the watershed between the IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin Spring 1996 © Articles Section 79 Zamora and Santiago Rivers from the Quebrada de Nullity Thesis San Francisco to the confluence of the Santiago and Yaupi Rivers seemed plain; but when applied on the The United States Army Air Force, in the fall of ground, it raised several related issues. 1946, completed an aerial survey of the Cordillera del Cóndor sector. In February 1947, a map based The low ridge known as the Cordillera del Cóndor, on the aerial survey were completed and delivered thought to run in a northeasterly direction, was to the governments of Ecuador and Peru. To the found to run in a due northerly direction, ending surprise of all concerned, the Cenepa River, near where the Zamora River joins the Paute to form previously assumed to be short and of little the Santiago River. In consequence, the Santiago consequence, was revealed to be a 190km lacked some 40km of reaching as far south as the independent fluvial system, lying between the head of the San Francisco Quebrada, and the divide Zamora and the Santiago Rivers. In consequence, that extended from the head of the San Francisco there was not one but two divortium aquarum Quebrada was properly the watershed between the between the Zamora and Santiago Rivers, and headwaters of the Zamora and Marañón Rivers Article VIII of the Rio Protocol, which spoke of a above where the Santiago enters the latter. When single divortium aquarum, thus appeared to contain these geographic realities were known, the Peruvian a geographic flaw.5 representative to the boundary commission proposed the boundary run north to the juncture of The Ecuadorian government was slow to respond the Zamora and the Paute Rivers and then down the officially to the map of the Cordillera del Cóndor Santiago to the confluence of the Yaupi River. resulting from the aerial survey. But on 22 Ecuador, objecting that this would be contrary to the September 1948, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister terms of the protocol, demanded a straight line Neftalí Ponce Miranda ordered the Ecuadorian between the two points. representatives on the Mixed Border Commission to stop work north of the Cunhuime Sur marker The issue in the Cordillera del Cóndor was (Figure 2) on the grounds the new map showed eventually referred to the guarantors – in effect the there was no single watershed between the Zamora Brazilian Foreign Office and Captain Días de and the Santiago Rivers. Since the Cordillera del Aguiar. In this sector, Días de Aguiar focused on Cóndor ran between the Zamora and the Cenepa the boundary between the northern end of the Rivers, it could not, Ecuadorians reasoned, be the Cordillera del Cóndor and the confluence of the watershed between the Zamora and the Santiago Santiago and the Yaupi Rivers because he assumed, Rivers. This meant that the terms of the Rio like everyone else at the time, that the Cordillera del Protocol could not be applied literally, a Cóndor was in fact the watershed between the circumstance which Ecuadorians began to suggest Zamora and the Santiago Rivers. Because of the threatened the permanency of the entire settlement.6 later importance of this point, it is worth emphasising that no one at this stage questioned that For the Ecuadorian government, the unforeseen the Cordillera del Cóndor was the watershed Cenepa question left the frontier open in a zone between the Zamora and the Santiago Rivers. Días reaching to the Marañón River and thus de Aguiar ruled that the boundary should follow the reinvigorated its perennial dream of a sovereign Cordillera del Cóndor to the point where, it outlet to the Amazon. At the 1942 Rio Conference, appeared on the map, a spur branched off in the in keeping with traditional Ecuadorian policy, direction of the mouth of the Yaupi River. This spur Foreign Minister Julio Tobar Donoso had should be followed as far as it went, and if the end desperately sought this particular region which of the drainage divide did not extend to the Ecuadorians had always considered beyond the confluence of the Yaupi and Santiago Rivers, the scope of Peruvian legal titles. The Peruvian divide should be a straight line between its end and government, in turn, was adamantly opposed to said confluence. Both Ecuador and Peru accepted giving Ecuador a sovereign outlet on the Marañón this decision in July 1945, and the boundary along because Ecuadorian control of the Upper Amazon the spur was subsequently demarcated by the mixed posed a strategic threat to Peruvian territory boundary commission.4 downstream. That here, of all places, the protocol line would be imperfect was at the very least an odd quirk of fate. When the magnitude of the Cenepa River was discovered, Ecuador concluded that execution of the protocol in this sector was impossible and resumed its former policy of protesting Peruvian activities in the area.7 IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin Spring 1996 © 80 Articles Section Figure 2 Marker Date ECUADOR ▲ 13 1 La Horquilla El Salto 13/12/43 ▲14 2 Jesús 24/12/44 ▲ 15 3 Tres Cumbres 17/12/44 ▲ 4 Las Cruz 15/12/44 a 16 r 5 Diviso 22/12/44 o ▲ 17 m 6 Trinidad 9/12/44 a 7 Liave de Z o ▲ Numbatkaiame i 18 Achuime 18/12/44 R 19 8 Achuime Numbat ▲ Kaiame 10/12/44 20 ▲ 9 Empalme 29/12/44 10 Liave Miaza 23/9/43 11 Neyumbe Telsha 10/11/47 12 Cunhuime Sur 17/11/47 13 Cusumaza Bumbuiza 18/8/48 14 Contrafuarte No. 1 17/11/48 15 Contrafuarte No. 2 4/12/48 16 Empalme 16/12/48 17 Mogote Sur 30/10/50 a 18 Inicial 8/10/50 z t t t 19 "5th November" 5/11/50 i i i r r r 20 "20th November" 20/11/50 a a a g g g n n n a a a R N N N i ▲ o o 12 i S a R ▲ 11 n t i a g ▲ 10 o PERU ▲ 8 ▲ 7 ▲9 ▲ 6 n n o a Colombia a r M ▲ 5 R i o ▲ 4 Ecuador Location of Main Map Brazil ▲ 3 Peru 1 ▲▲2 Bolivia In his annual message to congress on 10 August immediately to the change in Ecuadorian policy 1951, Ecuadorian President Galo Plaza Lasso stated with a statement that Ecuador must understand that that the non-existence of the frontier line in the Peru would never consent to an Ecuadorian outlet Santiago-Zamora zone made it necessary for on the Marañón River.

Load more