US embassy cable - 05QUITO559

C O N F I D E N T I A L QUITO 000559 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/09/2015 
TAGS: PREL, PGOV, SNAR, PTER, EC, CO 
SUBJECT: LATEST FARC COMMUNIQUE SMACKS OF PAYBACK 
 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Kristie A. Kenney, Reasons 1.4 (b), (d) 
 
1.  (C) SUMMARY:  A FARC communique that essentially 
threatened President Lucio Gutierrez "to keep his end of the 
bargain or else" hit Ecuadorian presses March 10.  Early 
reactions were as expected:  the GoE dismissed the remarks 
out-of-hand, while a handful of consulted ex-Ecuadorian 
military retreads claimed the sky was falling.  Our take on 
the bulletin's release?  Narcoterrorist jefe Raul Reyes, 
angry over Ecuador's recent capture and deportation of seven 
FARC members, sought to embarrass Gutierrez and so weaken him 
politically.  END SUMMARY. 
 
2.  (U) Internet versions of leading Ecuadorian dailies El 
Comercio and El Universo "broke" the communique mid-morning 
March 10.  In 5/5 revolution-speak, the FARC "lament the 
servile, kowtowing government of Lucio Gutierrez and the 
fascist, interventionist Bush and Uribe regimes."  "We call 
on the GoE and Gutierrez to fulfill its agreements," it 
continues, without providing further details on their 
content.  The bulletin concludes by claiming the FARC had 
respected neighboring nations' sovereignty, limiting its 
operations to Colombian soil, and thus demanded reciprocal 
treatment. 
 
3.  (U) The GoE was quick to respond.  Press Secretary Ivan 
Ona scoffed at the FARC allegations and asserted the 
government would offer no comment.  Presidential brother 
Gilmar Gutierrez called the communique an Internet hoax, 
claiming that anyone with a Macintosh could post information 
to websites, assuming even Raul Reyes's identity. 
 
4.  (SBU) As is customary with pol/mil-related stories, 
Ecuadorian media sought retired (and even disgraced) military 
for comment.  Their remarks were pure Chicken Little.  Army 
Colonel Patricio Haro, denied general's stars and carrying a 
serious shoulder chip, argued the bulletin was proof the FARC 
were watching Ecuador.  The reason?  The GoE's efforts, in 
coordination with Washington and Bogota, to remove the 
narcoterrorist threat.  Former Social Welfare Minister (and 
retired Colonel) Patricio Acosta, a year ago removed from the 
Cabinet and now a strident Gutierrez critic, too got heavy 
airtime.  Acosta urged the president to come clean on his 
FARC connections just as he had, claiming there was nothing 
illegal in meeting with these groups. 
 
5.  (C) COMMENT:  We have long heard rumors that Gutierrez 
conversed with FARC leaders sometime between the 2000 coup 
and his 2002 election.  The president himself has confirmed 
meetings with numerous leftist groups during the period, 
although careful to avoid mention of any with clear terrorist 
connections.  We are yet to see convincing proof of FARC 
campaign contributions or invisible-ink agreements, however. 
In the meantime, the president's numerous political enemies, 
the aforementioned Acosta among them, rehash these 
allegations for political gain.  We therefore view Reyes's 
remarks with much suspicion, especially on timing. 
 
6.  (C) Two weeks back, Ecuadorian forces raided a home in 
south Quito that had functioned as a FARC clinic, 
apprehending seven insurgents and deporting them to Colombia. 
 Unlike the year-earlier removal of FARC financier Simon 
Trinidad, also apprehended in Quito, this operation caused 
little navel gazing, even among isolationist Ecuadorian 
elites.  Gutierrez, in a March 7 lunch with the Ambassador, 
beamed at mere mention of their arrest and handover, 
promising even greater cooperation in the narcoterrorist 
fight.  We surmise that Reyes released the bulletin intending 
to politically hamstring the Ecuadorian leader from ordering 
future anti-FARC operations.  END COMMENT. 
KENNEY