Ecuadorian–Peruvian territorial dispute

The border dispute between Ecuador and Peru had been until recently the most persistent and seemingly most resistant to resolution of any in the Western Hemisphere. The conflict arose virtually at the birth of these two nations from the Spanish Empire. It survived World War II, outlasted the Cold War, and most recently was the locus of military conflict between Peruvian and Ecuadoran forces in 1995. At present the dispute appears to be resolved after arbitration by guarantor countries made possible by the signing of a peace treaty between these two nations in 1999.

Colonial times

The Real Audiencia de Quito was established in 1563. It's territories included Pasto, Popayán, Cali, Buenaventura and Buga in what is currently Colombia to the north; and as far south as Piura in what is now Peru. The Real Audiencia de Quito was part of the the Viceroyalty of Peru (also known as Viceroyalty of Lima) until 1740, when it became part of the Viceroyalty of New Granada (previously Viceroyalty of Santa Fé de Bogotá) [1][2]. Limits at the time were imprecise, especially to the East, because of lack of geographical knowledge and the low importance given to unpopulated territories [3].

The first controversial event between the Viceroyalty of Lima and the Real Audiencia de Quito occurred in 1802, when the military and eclesiastic administration of both Jaén and Maynas (now in Peru) were given to the Viceroyalty of Lima. To this day there is some dispute as to whether this was a territorial concesion as well. This lack of clarity ended up forming the basis for an imprecise territorial situation between Ecuador and Peru once these two nations obtained their independence from Spain. [4]. A similar event ocurred in 1803, when it was decided that the military affairs of the Province of Guayaquil (whose capital was the strategically situated port-city of Guayaquil) would be run from Lima. Moreover, in 1810 all administrative and economic affairs of said Province were turned over to the Viceroyalty of Peru, a state of affairs that would endure until 1819.

Ecuador's claim to the Amazon

The first European descent of the Amazon river was made by Francisco de Orellana in 1541, who joined a Gonzalo Pizarro expedition near Quito which later went down the Napo [5][6][7].

This is essentially the basis of Ecuador's claim that its territory should reach the Amazon river in some manner, and a substantial part of the reason for the long-standing conflict between the two countries. Quiteños (inhabitants of Quito) are also known for claiming that the Amazon river belongs to Quito due to how its discovery by Orellana was conducted.

Ecuador's unnoficial motto continues to be:

El Ecuador es, ha sido y será un país amazónico ( Ecuador is, has been and will be an Amazon country. ).

This is disputed by Peruvian sources, who claimed that Gonzalo Pizarro started his journey in Cuzco, and that he recluted Orellana (in Quito) on his way to the Jungle [8].

Independence from Spain

The Republic of Gran Colombia was founded in 1819 and Simón Bolivar is named president. In August 7 of that year, the independence of what is now Colombia is won in the Battle of Boyacá. The independence of Venezuela is won on June 24, 1821 in the Battle of Carabobo. One of Bolivar's generals, Venezuelan-born General Antonio José de Sucre wins the Battle of Pichincha in May 24, 1822 and frees the territory that is now Ecuador. Bolivar and Sucre then help liberate what is now Peru in the Battle of Junín, fought onAugust 6, 1824.

The Gran Colombia comprised what is now Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Panama. It was Simón Bolivar's dream to unite all of South America, which of course he never achieved.

Bolivar established the uti possidetis juris principle as the basis for territorial demarcation of the new national states that were born from Spanish colonies. That is, the borders of the new countries should correspond to Spanish administrative borders as established in 1809. This presented some difficulties due to lack of knowledge of geography and also because much of the territory was unpopulated and unexplored. The territory of the Viceroyalty of Lima would then become part of Peru and the territory of the Viceroyalty of New Granada part of the Gran Colombia.

Ecuador as part of Gran Colombia

Bolivar had aspirations to be life-time president of the Gran Colombia, which led to political inestability. Also, the Gran Colombia was already his own project of Federation to unite most of the former Spanish Colonies under his rule. Furious about the news in Bolivia (where the Colombian Army was expeled), he resolved to declare war against Peru on June 3, 1828. Sucre was appointed Commander of the Colombian Army.

Peruvian President Jose de La Mar (who was born in the city of Cuenca) occupied Loja and tried to capture Guayas, and intended to annex those territories to Peru. In 1829, La Mar and general Agustin Gamarra occupied Cuenca, but were defeated in what is known as the Battle of Portete de Tarqui (also known as Battle of Tarqui) by Sucre on February 27, 1829.

A coup supported by Gral. Gamarra in the Peruvian Army against President La Mar paved the way for a Peace Treaty. Subsequently, the Convenio de Girón between Peru and Gran Colombia recognizes as borders the "same ones of the corresponding Viceroyalties before independence."

On July 10, the Piura Armistice recognises the annexation of Guayaquil to the Gran Colombia, and on September 22 the war between Peru and Gran Colombia ends [9].

The Gran Colombia federation dissolved during 1830 because of political struggle between regions which strenghtened after Bolivar's resignation.

Ecuador was born as a country on May 13, 1830 and began its separate existence with the adoption of a Constitution on September 23, 1830. According to this constitution, the Republic of Ecuador was comprised of the provinces of Azuay, Guayas and Quito. These provinces later divided into the many provinces that exist today in Ecuador.

Confusion about Gran Colombia

The term Gran Colombia is used today to refer to the federation that was formed between the Republics of Ecuador, Colombia (with Panama) and Venezuela before 1830. However, at the time Gran Colombia was simply referred to as Colombia, which is clear, for example, by looking at original documentation of the many treaties signed between Colombia and Peru before 1830.

In Peru the dissolution of Gran Colombia is seen as a country ceasing to exist, giving way to the formation of new nation states that had nothing to do with the original federation. The significant implication of this view is that the treaties Peru had signed with Gran Colombia are void as the country in question no longer exists, and was replaced with another state, the Republic of New Granada (which changed its name to Republic of Colombia subsequently.)

An alternative view is that Ecuador and Venezuela separated from the Gran Colombia Federation (from Colombia in actuality) and inherited any treaties that Gran Colombia had signed with Peru as they apply to their corresponding territories. There are indications that Colombia itself maintained this position. On the surface it seems far fetched that the Republic of Colombia after 1830 is a different country from the Republic of Colombia before 1830 even though they shared a capital city, a subset of territory and much of their citizenry. Additionally, the argument that border treaties are voided when federations are dissolved doesn't appear to have substantial merit and is clearly conflict-prone.

The Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol

Ecuador maintains that the Pedemonte-Mosquea protocol was signed in Lima on August 11, 1830 by Peru and the Gran Colombia, as a result of the Battle of Portete de Tarqui. The protocol settled the borders and, eventualy, Ecuador's south-eastern border.

Ecuador has used this protocol as primary legal support of its core claims throughout the history of the conflict.

Peru has disputed the credibility and the existence of the Pedemonte-Mosquera protocol on several points:

The original document has not been produced either by Colombia or Ecuador.
Pedemonte and Mosquera were believed to be at different locations on the day in question.
The protocol was never ratified by either country's congress.
Even if the protocol took place, the Gran Colombia Federation had been effectively dissolved by August 11.

Even though it seems unlikely that Ecuador might have concocted a historical treaty of this nature, the fact that the existence of the original document cannot be desmonstrated conclussively is significant.

Ecuador has managed to produce a copy made in 1870 that the Colombian embassy in Lima sent to Bogotá. The copy in question was obtained from someone's personal collection. However, it was not certified and remains disputed.

The Mosquera-Pedemonte protocol is mentioned in a Colombian document titled Legislative Act No. 3 [10] published October 31, 1910.

The document explains how the borders between Colombia and its neighbors have been established; as to its border with Peru, it indicates they are those adopted by Mosquera-Pedemonte, in development of the treaty of September 22, 1829.

There are conflicting versions of what exactly took place. For an Ecuadorian view point, see [11]. For Peruvian points of view, see [12][13].

Incidents leading up to 1941

It should be noted that the region that was in dispute is mostly rain forest, more easily accessible from the south at the time than by crossing the Andes from western Ecuador. This is evident from the fact that a large Peruvian city like Iquitos could flourish on the south-eastern shore of the Amazon river, just outside the disputed region.

Whatever technical merit each country's position might have had, it is clear that Peru had the upper hand in terms of colonization of the region. The disputed territories became de facto Peruvian, with citizens in this relatively unpopulated region who did not see themselves as Ecuadorian. (There are no known instances of Ecuadorian citizens being forced to adopt Peruvian citizenship against their will, for example.) This increasingly complicated Ecuador's maximalist aspirations, which became unrealistic over time, and was compounded by the fact that territorial integrity generally needs to be backed up by some amount of military power, an area in which Ecuador was at a disadvantage.

The dispute, although often simplified by each side to a couple incidents and treaties, is actually very complex in its history. Some of the more prominent ocurrences that finally led to the war of 1941 are the following:

July 6, 1822: Monteagudo-Mosquera Treaty

Mosquera's mission to Lima had two objectives: (1) To come up with a treaty of allianz between Gran Colombia and Peru against Spain, and (2) To have Peru recognize that Guayaquil was to be part of Gran Colombia. Monteagudo initially refused to give up Guayaquil without first having the people of that city express their will volutarily. The treaty was signed, nonetheless, but precise territorial demarcation was left for a later treaty [14].

February 28, 1829: La Mar-Sucre Convention

This convention was signed the day after the Battle of Tarqui was won by Gran Colombia.

September 22, 1829: Larrea-Gual Treaty

Ecuador considers this a transitional treaty that resulted from the Battle of Tarqui and later developed into the disputed Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol the next year. The uti possidetis principle was ratified, allowing for small concesions with the end of coming up with a more natural and precise border so as to avoid further conflict. The parties agreed to form a binational comission to establish a permanent border [15].

August 11, 1830: Pedemonte-Mosquera Protocol (Existence disputed)

See discussion above.

1841-1842: Jaén and Maynas dispute

In 1841 Ecuador demands return of the jurisdictions of Jaén and Maynas. After violent discussions, Ecuador gives an ultimatum to the effect that if there's no answer from Peru by a certain date, Ecuador would be forced to occupy territories considered Ecuadorian according to article 5 of the Larrea-Gual treaty of 1829 [16]. Peru considered it absurd to return provinces that were de facto, if not in fact, Peruvian. Recall that Peru considered those territories annexed to the Viceroyalty of Peru in 1802. Additionally, inhabitants of those provinces had freely indicated their desire to belong to Peru [17]. Territorial negotiations failed in 1842 as the Ecuadorian envoy insisted on the return of Jaén and Maynas.

War of 1859-1860

This was an expensive war fought over disputed territory bordering the Amazon. On September 21, 1857 Ecuador decided to adjudicate to Britain territories in the Canelos region as payment for international debt it had incurred during the war of independence. Peru immediately protested the Ecuadorian action citing the uti possidetis juris principle by which the Canelos region would belong to Peru, based on the territorial concesion of 1802 to the Viceroyalty of Peru. Despite Peruvian complaints, Ecuador proceeded its negotiations with the British. This led to a 1859 occupation and blockade of Guayaquil by president Castilla. (Ecuador at the time was undergoing a civil struggle.) On February 25, 1860, Peruvian minister Manuel Morales and his Ecuadorian counterpart, Nicolás Estrada, signed the Treaty of Mapasingue in order to end the dispute. (Mapasingue is a location near Guayaquil where Peruvian troops had stationed.) Ecuador voided the concesion of territories claimed by Peru to the British, and Peru withdrew its forces. However, the territorial situation remained unclear and was left to be resolved at a later time.

August 1st, 1887: Espinoza-Bonifaz Convention

In the Espinoza-Bonifaz convention Ecuador and Peru submitted their dispute to arbitration by the King of Spain. Ecuador announced its withdrawal from the process months before a decision was issued, which was expected to be in 1910. Ecuador alleged that the King was not impartial because the officially undisclosed descision was not favorable. Additionally, there were popular protests in Ecuador against Peru. The King subsequently abstained from issuing a decision. Arbitration documents confirmed Peru's right to Maynas and other lands in dispute [18]. Ecuador's position was that arbitration did not arrive at a satisfactory conclusion because even Peru's representative had expressed that the King did not have the capacity to consolidate peace, as both countries were parting from absolutely opposing principles [19].

May 2, 1890: Herrera-García Treaty

Because of disagreements during arbitration by the King of Spain, Ecuador and Peru decided to enter direct negotiations. The treaty signed by Pablo Herrera and Arturo García gave Ecuador access to the Amazon river, dominion over the Napo and Putumayo rivers, part of the provinces of Tumbes and Maynas, and the Canelos region [20]. The treaty was quickly ratified by Ecuador's congress. As the treaty was not favorable to Peru, its congress maintained discussions, introduced modifications, and approved it on October 1891. The modifications mainly removed access to the Amazon river. Ecuador's congress subsequently disapproved the Herrera-García treaty due to the modifications introduced by Peru. Ecuador also requested meetings to further discuss its validity thesis on the Guayaquil (Gual-Larrea) Treaty of 1829 [21].

1903-1904 incidents

In both 1903 and 1904 there were military confrontations in the Napo river basin. The first one is known as the Angostero Combat and the second one ocurred at a location known as Torres Causana. Less numerous but better equipped Peruvian forces were able to cause the retreat of Ecuadorian troops to locations around the Tena and Archidona rivers [22].

July 15, 1916: Muñoz-Suarez Treaty between Colombia and Ecuador

Ecuador maintains that the Muñoz-Suarez Treaty was an instrument which resulted from a "secret pact" between Colombia and Peru in order to take away Ecuadorian territory that reached Brazil [23].

June 21, 1924: Ponce-Castro Protocol

Peru alleges that between 1910 and 1936 Ecuador took advantage of Peru's conflict with Chile and repeatedly made clandestine incursions into Peruvian territory [24]. The 1924 agreement was intended to settle the dispute by arbitration.

July 6, 1936: Ulloa-Viteri Accord

This agreement established a status quo border line based on the effective possesion of territory that each country had in the Amazon region at the time. This border was very similar to that established by the Rio de Janeiro Protocol 5 years later. To Ecuador, the status quo line simply demonstrated how much territory Peru had taken from Ecuador in the preceeding century. Ecuador never considered this agreement a final treaty of borders, and continued its aspirations which were based on Gual-Larrea and Pedemonte-Mosquera.

Wars between Peru and Ecuador

The war of 1941

As with all other such incidents, there are conflicting accounts to this day as to which side fired the first shot. Peru's version of events (notably well documented [25][26]) is that Ecuador had been making incursions into its territory since 1937 and occupied several border locations by 1940.

Given these circumstances, the President of Peru, Manuel Prado Ugarteche, ordered the formation of the North Grouping, a military unit in charge of the Northern Operational Theater, on January 11, 1941.

It is claimed that on Saturday, July 5, 1941 the Huaquillas unit of the Ecuadorian army invaded Peruvian territory, an action which originated a combat that extended across the entire Zarumilla front, up to a region known as Quebrada Seca.

Ecuador's version of events is that Peru's invasion was an unprovoked act of aggression carried out with the explicit purpose of forcing Ecuador to sign an unfavorable treaty that would impose the status quo border line.

A comunique by Ecuador's Foreign Ministry indicated that Peruvian forces had been seen advancing north towards the border; all of the Peruvian troops stationed in Tumbes had left Zarumilla and those in Piura and other nearby sites were in turn advancing torwards Zarumilla.

According to the Ministry, the actions of the Ecuadorian army were limited to repelling the invasion which was occurring across much of the border [27]. As support for its arguments Ecuador has repeatedly cited the obvious difference in military might between the two countries, and the lack of preparedness of its forces. Peru was evidently prepared to carry out an all-out invasion and could have been simply waiting for the slightest provocation.

Ecuador has also cited Peru's history of conflict with its other neighbors as evidence of its beligerance. It has been pointed out, however, that these circumstances did not preclude Ecuador from attempting to lay claim to territories it still considered its own. Also, during the War of the Pacific, Ecuador military occupied a portion of the disputed territories.

The much larger and better equipped Peruvian force of 13,000 men quickly overwhelmed the 1,800 Ecuadorian troops guarding the provice of El Oro. The Peruvian army had at its disposal a battalion of armor made up of Czech tanks, with artillery and air support. (Peru has traditionally had one of the strongest military forces in South America, even as recently as 2005 ranked second after Brazil and stronger than Argentina [28].)

The Ecuadorian president, Carlos Arroyo del Río, kept Ecuador's best forces in Quito, for fear of his political opponents. (Arroyo would later resign on May 31, 1944 after much unrest in the country.) Peru carried out the first use of paratroops in combat in the Western Hemisphere, which was largely successful in allowing a relatively easy takeover of El Oro towns.

With Peru occupying El Oro and menacing Guayaquil, plus pressure from the United States and Latin America to stop the hostilities as a sign of hemispheric unity against the Axis powers (in World War II), Peru and Ecuador signed the Rio de Janeiro Protocol.

Rio de Janerio Protocol

The republics of the United States of America, Brazil, Argentina and Chile offered their help in coming up with a resolution to the conflict. These four countries are now known as the guarantors (peace brokers.) The protocol was signed January 29, 1942 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, by Julio Tobar Donoso, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, and Alfredo Solf y Muro, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, in the presence of representatives from the guarantor countries. (See full text.) The protocol of "peace, friendship and boundaries" was subsequently ratified by each country's congress on February 26.

By signing this protocol, about 120,000 square miles of disputed territory were awarded to Peru. Most of it was already in Peru's de facto posession, but a fraction of that was lost by Ecuador compared to the 1936 status quo border line.

Ecuador's thesis of nullity

File:Per-Ecu disputed.gif

Map of Ecuador after the 1960s. The Rio Protocol line is not drawn in the unmarked 78 kilometers. The shaded green area remained unilaterally disputed by Ecuador throughout the end of the 20th century.

Six times during the demarcation technical problems were found and referred to the guarantors, with Brazil acting as lead. One of them, which involved the then contested Cordillera del Cóndor, was submitted to arbitration by Captain Braz Dias de Aguiar. Both countries initially accepted the arbiter's award, issued July 1945, and demarcation began in the area according to that ruling.

During 1943 and 1946 the United States Air Force performed aerial recognizance of the Cordillera del Cóndor region (losing 2 aircraft and 14 men in accidents.) They found that the Cenepa river was much longer than previously thought and that it runs between the Zamora and the Santiago. This finding conflicted with article VIII, point B-1 of the Rio Protocol, which layed out delineation of the border for that area as follows:

From the Quebrada de San Francisco, the watershed between the Zamora and Santiago Rivers, to the confluence of the Santiago River with the Yaupi;

The difficulty was that there is no watershed between the Zamora and the Santiago, as interpreted by Ecuador. This resulted in Ecuadorian president Galo Plaza halting demarcation in 1949. About 78 kilometers of border were left unmarked.

On September 29, 1960 Ecuadorian president José María Velasco Ibarra declared the Rio Protocol null and void. (Some specualate he had internal political motivations for doing so.)

Reportedly, there was rejoice among Ecuadorians following this pronouncement, and expectedly, indignation among Peruvians. The international community was concerned.

The arguments for what is called Ecuador's thesis of nullity varied, but they were generally the following:

The Rio Protocol is "impossible to implement" in the unmarked 78 kilometers.
It was imposed by premeditated military force.
It was signed while Ecuadorian towns were under occupation; invasion and occupation of nation states are prohibited by international law.
International law does not accept the conquest of territory by force or violence.
There was lack of compliance by Peru in denying Ecuador free navigation in Amazonian rivers as stipulated.
It was a blow to the economic development of a South American country, which is contrary to existing pacts of cooperation.

Peru's counter-arguments included the following:

Ecuador cannot unilaterally invalidate a protocol.
The core argument on implementability is a demarcation issue, not a justification to invalidate the entire protocol.
Peru disputes the notion that the protocol was imposed by premeditated military force.
Several Peruvian governments restricted the navigation clause in response to Ecuador's position on the treaty.
On the issue of conquest of territory by force, Peru has pointed out that the disputed territories (Tumbes, Jaen and Maynas) were not under de jure Ecuadorian administration, and that the province of El Oro was not annexed to Peru. However, there was some territory awarded to Peru compared to the 1936 status quo border line.

Ecuador argued its thesis extensively for 30 years, but did not find support in the international community. Peru's position, on the other hand, was that a dispute did not exist at all after 1941, a position which lasted until 1995, when it was recognized as a problematic diplomatic issue.

Maps published in Ecuador since the 1960s up to the end of the 20th century officially had to exclude the unmarked 78 kilometers of border, that is, the Rio Protocol line was drawn as unresolved, and Ecuador's territory was shown as extending up to the Pedemonte-Mosquera protocol (1830) line, which is basically the Marañon (Amazon) river.

Such controversial maps of Ecuador were referred in Peru as "mapa recortado del Peru" (cut-off map of Peru.)

The Paquisha War

The Cenepa War

Arbitration by guarantor countries

Political, social and economic impact

The dispute is unique and important in the study of causes and resolution of international conflict. Ecuador and Peru are populated by people who share a language, a culture, a religious preference, have basically the same social and ethnic diversity, and comparable economic difficulties. They are also both democracies (for the most part in modern times) which puts in doubt the common contention that democracies never go to war with each other (a claim of the Bush Administration for example.)

Education and public perception

A 2000 study carried out as part of the educational ASA Program found teaching curriculum relating to the dispute to be extremely one-sided in both countries [29]:

Notably, in Ecuador the dispute is a central issue in the study of Ecuador's borders. (Traditionally there has been a course named "History of Borders.")

In Peru, the educational system does not give as much importance to the dispute with Ecuador, and is part of the course "Peruvian History". In contrast, the only topic related to the territorial dispute that is normally taught is the Rio Protocol, and its importance in the settlement of this dispute.

Many examples of bias are cited, which can typically be characterized as removal of critical information about the other side's position. Emotional and nationalistic coloring of the material also appears to be routine. Although expected under the circumstances, this has likely fed the cycle of conflict in the past.

Citizens of Ecuador and Peru feel both their countries have lost territory over time. This may seem paradoxical, especially to Ecuadorians who have found themselves on the losing end of each treaty and incident with Peru time and again, at least on paper. The issue is one of overlapping maximalist territorial claims and aspirations.

Many Peruvians, for example, believe that their country is related with the Inca Empire, and that compared to the Tahuantinsuyo, is relatively small. At one point, the Viceroyalty of Peru contained most of South America, and its division in favor of other viceroyalties is seen by some Peruvians as a disgrace. They also feel they have lost territory to Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia and Chile, with whom they have had other kinds of disputes.

Ecuadorians see their country as a continuation of what was the Real Audiencia de Quito, which was also important in colonial times, containing territories that are now parts of Peru and Colombia, reaching Brazil to the East. Being citizens of one of the smallest countries in South America, Ecuadorians understandably feel that something must have gone terribly wrong if the country used to be so big back then. (Geography, colonization patterns and conflicting claims are seldom considered.)

The fact that Peru invests so much on its military (perhaps because it has had border disputes with several other countries) doesn't help matters. This has been seen by Ecuador as evidence of beligerance and expansionism. Peru also considers Ecuador beligerant and perhaps even expansionist, a view most Ecuadorians would find astonishing under the circumstances.

At the end of the 20th century things appear to have improved considerably. Ecuador's partial military success in the Cenepa War of 1995 allowed an honorable resolution of the conflict with no clear winner or defeated nation. To many Ecuadorians this was viewed as restoring the honor of the country, which was at least as important as their claims to the disputed territory. Unfortunately, not everyone is completely satisfied.

One example of this is the fact that in Peru there are still some who believe Ecuador shouldn't have been given even the symbolic squared kilometer at Tiwinza. But more progressive views have found their way in the public discourse. Additionally, both nations had been exhausted by the endless dispute.

Today both Ecuador and Peru agree on the well-deliniated border line; and their political maps agree. This itself is a significant indication of the unlikelyhood of any further territorial conflict.

Foreign Investment

Thomas McLarty, US envoy at the resolution talks and former aid to President Bill Clinton, has said peace is essential to South America's economic recovery. He added: "You clearly cannot have long-term growth and prosperity involving foreign investment without stability" [30].