History of the conflict and its geopolitical contexts
The area disputed, called the Atacama desert, was originally divided under an 1866 treaty. Originally, Chile and Bolivia divided the area at the 24º south latitude and agreed that both countries would freely explore and exploit minerals located under de area. The tax revenue from those exploitations would be also divided equally and shared between the nations involved, between the 23rd and the 25th parallel. Nevertheless, the territory was mainly exploited by Chilean companies and British interests. This led to a territorial and commercial dispute.
During 1874, a second treaty was taken into force: it gave the responsibility to Bolivia to collect full tax revenue between the parallels. Nonetheless, taxes rates were fixed in Chilean companies. The concern was, from the Bolivian government, that Chilean interest, supported by the British, expanded and controlled the mining industry and invade Bolivian coastal state (Pike, 2000)
The Bolivian government increased taxes in the divided area to take advantage of the revenue generated in the region. In response, companies demanded the Chilean government to act; the Chilean government tried to negotiate with them by promising to relocate the border in return for that the Bolivian government did not increased taxes. However, the negotiation was ignored and in 1878 Bolivian government was implementing higher taxes over Chilean companies. Outraged, Chilean president Aníbal Pinto claimed that the border treaty did not stipulated or allowed that increased in taxes. When the Nitrate and Railway company refused to pay, Bolivian government threaten to “confiscate their property” ( Kaufmann, 2016). This quickly led to an arm race between Chile, Bolivia and Peru, its allied.
The Chilean military acted in response by sending troops to Antofagasta, “the principal city and port of Bolivia’s littoral” (Sater, 2007). Like a double-edge-knife, Bolivia in turn announced the confiscation and auction of the Nitrate and Railway company. A week later, in 1879, Bolivia declares war with the support of the Peruvian army.
Peru, from their point of view, needed to participate in the war for two main reasons: First, as for many years its government was unstable, filled with corruption and facing economic problems; its alliance with Bolivia was, in somehow, a guarantee that Bolivia would help them recover stability. Second, According to Bruce W. Farcau, (2000) the region of Atacama were mainly populated by Chileans and Chineses, also foreigners. Bolivian and Peruvians, in the other hand, tended to populate lower altitudes. Nevertheless, indigenous people felt a deeply connection with the territory, so in a certain way they were defending what they thought it was theirs. So, the actions of the Chileans was perceived as an “expansionist ambitions in the region” (Kaufmann, 2016).
Little did the Peruvian helped: they were a small army not prepared for a big war. Hence, they opted towards a pacific negotiation which was mediated by a Peruvian diplomat. Nonetheless, it did not have any impact on Chilean decisions, in fact, it made them declared an official war to both countries.
The sea was an important factor in this war, since with it naval and armaments would transport easily and defined the path of the war. At the beginning, both Bolivia and Peru had weak navy armaments and military support in the sea, which gave advantage to Chile. The only two warships in conditions to battle were the Huáscar and the Independencia, both from Peru. Chilean strategy was to corner its enemies naval ships until they surrender from the war. Nevertheless, military leaders had an strategy: first they would lift a blockade and then, they would use a different but threatening route against Chile without the need to involve in an armed scenario. When the sea battle ended in October 8, 1879, with the victory of Chile, the Peruvian lands in Tarapacá were the next target. As Bolivian army was still recovering from the sea battle, they were weak and unable to continue the battle, which lead Peru to withdraw from Tarapacá.
One of the most bloody yet remembered battle was the Battle of Arica, in which more than 400 Chileans and 900 Peruvians lost their life. Its deaths were mainly because of landmines and bullets . According to César Pérez, scholar, prisoners were tortured, executed and cutted in order to threaten each country (2018).
In 1881, after a failed attempt to peace from the United States, Chilean army headed to the capital of Peru: Lima. With few, almost none, militars from the Peruvian army, Peru was defeated in the battle of San Juan of Miraflores. After three more years of unsuccessful battles, Peru and Chile signed the Treaty of Ancón, which states that Tarapacá was owned by Chile. Subsequently, Bolivia was forced to give up Antofagasta (Kaufmann, 2016).
Local and Global implications through time
The territorial conflict between Chile and Peru had and has some implications in both spectrums the local and the global, with big relevance in the South America history after the decolonization. When talking of territorial disputes between Chile and Peru it is mandatory to bring Bolivia too, it implication in the War of the Pacific and the constant claims to Chile for a new territory delimitation are important to understand the relation of Chile and Peru.
The starting point we choose is the War of the Pacific, considered the most bloody war between South American countries and the consequence of some of the greatest changes in the map. Resulting with several implications in the control of saltpetre in the region of the Atacama, also the control of Huano.
After the War the most relevant territorial change was for Bolivia who lose it coastal areas, something that still been discussed nowadays. The result of the War had implications in future territorial wars of south america like the Acre war were Brazil defeat Bolivia and conquest the Acre that belongs to Peru and Bolivia. And many other wars involving Peru, Chile and most of the South American Countries. We have to mentioned that all these wars for territorial boundaries were part of the establishment of the new states and a process to created strong frontiers after an epoch of Spanish control, without territorial conflict it would be more difficult to determine limits and the results were more question than there are today.
In the Global implications we find an strong role of the United States that worked as a mediator years after the War of the Pacific and did also the same with other territorial wars. It is important to remember the Monroe Doctrine in 1826 that established the logo: Americas for the Americans, and gave a role to the U.S. as the protector of Latin American countries against European intervention.After the doctrine the U.S. started to get involved in every conflict relating a Latin American country and in cases like the War of the Pacific it took a role of mediator. It helped to create a good image of the United States in the South cone of America and have future implications on the states, in economic and political terms. By the other side, we have the implications of the British who were beneficiaries of the war because after the victory of Chile, the same country granted the rights for saltpetre extraction in the Atacama area to companies from The United Kingdom. It started an alliance between Chile and the europeans that lead to the Chilean support in the Malvinas War.
Those are some of the implications of the Territorial dispute between Chile and Peru, and the War of the Pacific that mark the path for other territorial war and for the implication of the U.S. in South America. We are missing many other implications of this conflict, disputes that still going nowadays and other that shape the boundaries of the South part of the American continent.
Position of International Organizations on the Conflict
During the War of the Pacific (1879-83) the American Pacific Squadron, America’s naval power, tried to bring the conflict to an end due to its financial interest in Peru; unfortunately the United States was unable to match the Chilean British-build warships and therefore had to withdraw from the war. This was the sole international intervention the War ever experienced. When the war came to an end Peru lost its southernmost provinces, Bolivia lost its access to the Pacific Ocean and therefore became a landlocked country, and Chile gained control of the Atacama Desert. Both territorial losses were still affecting the countries socially and politically in the 21st century hence the recent involvement of the UN in their silent strife. In 2013, Bolivia requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruling is final and binding, to order Chile to negotiate over a 240-mile strip of the Pacific Coast. Negotiations are still taking place; the latest was a public sitting held on Wednesday 28 March 2018. Additionally, on Monday 27 January 2014 the ICJ ordered Chile to yield 21.000 square km of the Pacific Ocean to Peru. Although there was not a notorious international intervention at the time of the conflict, the former ongoing territorial disputes have been resolved in recent times by the contribution of the UN and its International Court of Justice.
Brief Summary introducing the concepts of Region, Border, Sovereignty and Diplomacy applied to the Pacific Alliance Region
In the context of the War of the Pacific, between Chile, Bolivia and Peru, the concepts of borders, sovereignty and diplomacy are of importance to understand what led these three countries to engage in a five year lasting war. To begin with, Border between the area disputed was divided between the parties under an 1866 treaty; Chile and Bolivia divided the Atacama desert at the 24º parallel. Why was this border important to be delimited? In first instance, one must connect this concept with the concept of Region and the importance of it.
At first glance, the desert of Atacama is one of the territories least hospitable on earth. As Bruce W. Farcau describes, is a “hardly impress one as being worth fighting over” (2000). Nonetheless this dry and lonely territory has accumulated and preserve a vast quantity of nitrate deposit which was perceived through the eyes of Bolivia, Chile and Peru as a possibility for economic and military expansion.
Originally, this was a dispute between Chile and Bolivia over the control and Sovereignty of a part of the Atacama desert. Indeed, it was clear that each party wanted full power and control over the region by implementing taxes over the companies and revenues generated from the exploitations of the territory without any involvement. Nonetheless, apart from the three main countries, many other countries had interest to involve in the territory. For instance, the United States passed a legislation in 1856 which gave its citizens the permission to take possession of the surrounding islands. And the British had important investments in companies on the dessert — mostly Chilean— that made the area developed. Several Diplomatic procedures were taken into force in order to settle the dispute. Two of the most important were the Peruvian peace negotiation and the U.S unsuccessful mediation at Arica Bay. In the first hand, Peru sended a diplomat to Chile in order to settle the dispute in a pacific matter. Chile, considering its proposal, asked Peru if they would join them.
Nonetheless, Peru was faithfully allied with Bolivian and publicly admitted its support, which obviously stressed more the problem. In the other hand, in October 1880 the U.S tried to mediate the conflict at the USS Lackawanna. Their purpose was to “end war with diplomacy” (Kauffman, 2016). Each representative had a meeting to discuss. However, neither of the parties surrender its territory.
In conclusion, it is important to recognize that this was a conflict regarding the division and recognition of borders and territory, which was not successfully negotiated. Sovereignty, in this case, was obsolete, since the region was property of both countries but at an indirect way, property of external parties.
Sources
Books:
Arana, D. B. (n.m.). Historia de la Guerra del Pacífico (1879-1880).
Arana, D. B. (n.m). Historia de la Guerra del Pacifico (1880-1881).
Farcau, B. (2000). The Ten Cents War (1st ed., pp. 7-20). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Grimson, A. (2002). Fronteras, naciones e Identidades: La periferia como centro. Ediciones CICCUS - la Crujía, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Kelly,P. (2010). Checkerboards and Shatterbelts: The Geopolitics of South America. University of Texas Press. Texas, United States.
Sater, W. (2007). Andean Tragedy: Fighting the War of the Pacific, 1879-1884 (1st ed.). London: Dirección de Bibliotecas, Archivos y Museos.
Newspaper Articles:
Francis, A. (2018, March 19). ¿Cómo perdió Bolivia su única salida al mar?: El histórico episodio que explica su centenario litigio con Chile. BBC. Retrieved May 23, 2018, from http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-43459908
Long, G. (2014, January 28). Chile-Peru: Moving on from the past. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-25924381
N.m. (2014, January 28). Peru-Chile border defined by UN court at The Hague. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25911867
Perez, C. (2018, May 18). Guerra del Pacífico: Las desigualdades de armamento entre Perú y Chile exhibidas en un museo. La Republica. Retrieved May 20, 2018, from https://larepublica.pe/sociedad/1244483-desigualdades-guerra-chile-expuestas-museo
The Associated Press. (2015, September 24). UN court rules that it can hear Bolivia-Chile case. The San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-un-court-rules-that-it-can-hear-bolivia-chile-case-2015sep24-story.html
Websites
Biblioteca Nacional de Chile. (n.m.). Las operaciones militares de la Guerra del Pacifico (1879-1884). Retrieved from http://www.memoriachilena.cl/602/w3-article-693.html#documentos
International Court of Justice. (2018, March 28). Obligations to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile): Latest Developments. Retrieved from http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/153
Kaufmann, F. (2016). War of the Pacific. In New World Encyclopedia (pp. 5-20). New York City.
Rex A. (1994) Hudson, ed. Chile: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress.
Montaño, F. (2018). Las operaciones militares de la Guerra del Pacífico (1879-1884) - Memoria Chilena. Retrieved from http://www.memoriachilena.cl/602/w3-article-693.html
Pike, J. (2000). War of the Pacific. Retrieved from https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-of-the-pacific.htm
War of the Pacific. (2016, October 18). New World Encyclopedia, . Retrieved 17:46, May 24, 2018 from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=War_of_the_Pacific&oldid=1000680.
Comments