"Peru chose to avoid that Ecuador was going to The Hague, and to achieve this was to weaken their legal position "
SEPULVEDA EDUARDO M.
is paradoxical (the superstitious think it's a good premonition) that Foreign Minister Alfredo Moreno learned of the latest developments regarding the situation bordering on Chile when he headed in the Vatican, a tribute to John Paul II, a key in resolving the border dispute between Chile and Argentina in the late 70's.
The news was that Peru had led the UN to accept the chart that Ecuador provided to that entity in March (although he had published in 2010), and which establishes a parallel as the maritime boundary between the two countries.
His instinct Moreno told the Chancellor that this was good news for Chile. Then confirmed after reviewing the documents exchanged between Ecuador and Peru and after talking with Ecuadorian authorities.
However, statements made by Peruvian ombudsmen have caused confusion in some sectors of the country, for the real scope of what has happened. In this interview, Brown discusses in detail the situation and gives background information on what is in the process.
-Ecuador considers that its maritime border agreement with Peru has been a "victory", and fully respecting the parallel line and nautical chart presented at the UN. But is it good news for Chile, in circumstances that were not mentioned tripartite treaty in 1952 and 1954, which is precisely the focus discussed by Peru in The Hague?
"There is no doubt that this is a major victory for Ecuador. Peru has recognized all the elements that Ecuador had identified and which is the recognition of your chart and what gives rise to it, which are treaties of 52 and 54. Also for Chile, because the positions of both countries are exactly the same: they believe they have these treaties, in the years 52 and 54 maritime boundaries have been established for the three countries and have been respected by everyone for over 60 years and are now recognized by Peru, in the case of its border with Ecuador. Peru will have to explain why, if he thought there were no limits or treated, now accepts a border with Ecuador which is exactly a reflection of the treaties of 1952 and 1954. "
Chile-Peru says misinterpreted the agreement and Ecuador agreed to a unique new border treaty, other treaties of 1952 and 1954, which insists qualify as mere fishing agreements. What is the correct interpretation?
"Facts speak louder than words. President Correa of \u200b\u200bEcuador called on Peru to indicate whether it was or not according to the chart and if not, they say, because in this case Ecuador would to The Hague and would be part of the dispute with Chile, and that Ecuador had the same view that held our country before that court. And what Peru has done is to accept the chart and what there is set limit. "
-Peru also claims that the new situation of northern maritime border has nothing to do with the equidistant line claiming to Chile on its southern border. While the Chilean allegation presumably seek to demonstrate that the express basis of the chart Ecuador were treated from 1952 to 1954, what is more important for the judges in The Hague?
"What who have to establish the judges in The Hague is whether or not they are treated and whether or not originating within the limits we are proposing. Here is a case in which Ecuador maintains that there are treaties that give rise to a clear limit, all in full agreement with Chile, as our country agreed with the chart from day one, and after 13 months have been described as tough negotiations, Peru has acknowledged the nautical chart. "
-Ecuador was silent for several days before the Peruvian claim that it had signed a new treaty other than those of 52 and 54. But he broke the silence on Friday to clarify some statements Peruvian authorities. How do you interpret this?
"Ecuador has always been very clear. There is no doubt that you raise in your nautical chart, as expressly indicated on the map, is based on the treaties of 52 and 54. What Peru says in his letter to the UN is to accept that letter and to do it for the fourth article of the Declaration of Santiago, which is precisely the treaty of 1952. So that the treaties are fully integrated into this and the notes exchanged between Peru and Ecuador are as identified by a note sent to the UN, an integral part of that acceptance. "
"But this week several personeros Peruvians, including President Alan Garcia, has said publicly that this agreement with Peru Ecuador favors. This has caused confusion in some quarters ...
"As time goes on this view, the arguments are confronting and the views are going to have to face the facts. And you can have different opinions, but no other facts. Here the facts are clear: Ecuador and Chile have not changed at all points of view, consider that there are treaties in force as a boundary parallel, giving a certain extent, which is 200 miles from the baselines and today we Peru to fully accept that. Peru theory on this issue has been very simple. First said he had not treated, well, if his trial had not been treated, then they said, should draw a line equidistant from the border and not use the parallel. If that's what I thought, why not ask a line equidistant from Ecuador as the call to Chile? As shown, the inconsistencies are becoming clear, the road narrows. Peru had to choose: either also facing Ecuador in The Hague or you find reason to what I was asking and, unfortunately for Peru, that is inconsistent with his previous statements. "
- Is it possible to imagine that Peru, whose service is highly respected abroad for his negotiating skills, has committed a gross error on this issue?
"No, I think this is a mistake. What happens is that there was no good start for Peru. They chose to avoid that Ecuador was going to The Hague and to do so had to take a situation that weakens their legal position. That's all. "
- Is not bad for Chile to Ecuador does not concur to The Hague?
"I think not, because the position of Ecuador will be known as The Hague, which will explain how the chart was constructed, which was based on the treaties of 52 and 54. Remember that Ecuador was notified by the Hague tribunal which stated that Chile and Peru have a dispute concerning the interpretation of treaties of 1952 and 1954: One understands it as a treaty of limits and the other as a fisheries treaty. And there has been no doubt that Ecuador understands it as a boundary treaty. The novelty is that Ecuador has raised this in Peru and that country, faced with the dilemma of Ecuador to attend the Hague, has recognized the nautical chart. "
- Why do you think this happened now?
"After 13 months of negotiations, President Correa was present to Peru that time was running out. Ecuador may become party to The Hague just before the start of the hearing, which could be interpreted that begins at the end of the written, which would be July 11 when the deadline to submit written arguments. It is also about to change the government in Peru, and perhaps Ecuador's interest that this topic will close the current government, with whom he has had good relations. So the political and procedural issues in The Hague was coming to an end. "
- What are the steps that are now on this issue?
"We are working on finishing the final written document, called the rejoinder that we deliver in early July. In late May we will have a meeting with our lawyers in Paris, which will review the first draft of the text, and the second version.
SEE, THINK, WRITE . Greetings
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diploma in Corporate Social Responsibility "UN
Diploma in Knowledge Management" UN
- IN can read us FACEBOOK
CEL: 93934521
Santiago-Chile
Apply our training courses and consulting in PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION MANAGEMENT-LEADERSHIP - KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT - CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY - LOBBY - BUSINESS-COACHING RENEWABLE ENERGY, consulting nationally and internationally and are available for OTEC Y OTIC in Chile
0 comments:
Post a Comment