a diffusion in the Peruvian-Chilean conflict
It isn't Israel-Palestine, but there's certainly no love lost between Chile and its neighbor to the north. They've fought over everything from land to who has bragging rights on Pisco, and I have borne personal witness to Chileans swearing on the grave of Bernard O'Higgins that Peruvian children learn to hate Chile in school.
Continuing in the vein of this historical bad blood (and the fact that Chile stole part of southern Peru in the aforementioned War of the Pacific), the South American neighbors are now involved in a sea border dispute. Let's take a look at the border proposals made by both countries, LINEA SEGUN CHILE referring to the LINE ACCORDING TO CHILE, and likewise with Peru (courtesy of BBC News):
Again, forget about past Chilean imperialism, and the catfighting over distilled grapes - whose line approaches a more balanced and just solution? It sure ain't coming from Santiago; Chile's proposal leaves Peru only a dime-thin sliver of Pacific waters, while Lima's represents a more 50-50 split.
Well, at least they can work together on extradition. Point being, don't expect a war. The real question is when will Bolivia get its sea access back.
posted by Kevin @ 9:41 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
The problem with Peru's line is mostly the location of Iquique...now most of the water in front of Iquique is claimed by Peru and Iquique thrives on its fishing. But Chileans are ridiculously territorial--I think it's "skinny country symdrome". Funny how neither country has mentioned the possibility of sharing the ocean.
But really, we know the whole deal is Toledo's attempt to start friction with Chile to distract peruvians from the troubles within their own country.
Poor Bolivia, in order to get the sea Chile and Peru will have to AGREE--do we see that happening any time soon?
I still find Peru's proposed line to be much more equitable than the currently-existing one. You're right about Chile not wanting to give up on rich fishing waters - but I have little sympathy for a country that stole a swath of Peruvian land and doesn't want to give up territorial rights in resource-rich waters which it shouldn't own anyway. Additionally, my understanding of the Peruvian line is that it basically cuts the coastline right down the middle - certainly more fair than the current arrangement.
It would be interesting to see how Evo Morales would approach getting Bolivia some coastal access, should he be elected.
We must make the distinction between "stole" and "won in war."
Bolivia truely got ripped off in the whole deal since Peru signed over Bolivian lands to Chile in the peace treaty...although Bolivia started the war and then called up its alliance with Peru so maybe that merited a landloss in the treaty.
After months and months (perhaps years? I don't remember...) occupying Lima, the disoccupying treaty gave Chile the North. It might have been a very dumb war, but nevertheless, war and treaties are how borders get made.
The only distinction that exists between "stole" and "won in war" is that war is a particularly ugly way of stealing land, and one that is now indeed considered illegal under international law. It is simply accepted in principle that warring parties, regardless of questions of right and wrong, can not use war as a means to gain territory.
While Bolivia was the first party to declare war, this must be understood in the context of Chile having already sent a warship and 200 troops to occupy Antofagasta. The aggressor was clearly, then, not Bolivia. In a broader sense, however, it is likely that British capitalists were the real driving force behind the war, using Chileans as surrogates in the quest for natural resource domination.
Ok, I'm with you on the "stole" and "won in war" thing--but Bolivia did break its 1874 treaty with Chile that defined the border (there was no defined desert border before that) and unfortunately for Peru and Bolivia, the new treaty favored Chile.
I highly recommend Simon Collier's "A History of Chile, 1808-2002". The press played a major role. Also, Chile had just narrowly averted war with Argentina over Patagonia and the Straits of Magellan (and ended up looking rather weak) right before Bolivian dictator Hilarión Daza started messing with the treaty of 1874. Yes, the Chilean reaction was exagerated (asserting itself to make up for the poor showing over Patagonia), but they expected Bolivia to allow return to the "satus quo ante" instead of declaring war. The truth is that there was a lot of war mongering on all sides--Chile was not the sole aggressor. (all this and more in Collier's book--you can read it in English or Spanish!).
Last week we did some reading and discussion on the British Nitrate Kings, etc. in my Chile: Siglo XIX class. The current popular thesis on salitre is that British ownership of nitrate was actually a benefit to Chile--the Chilean government received between 30% and 50% of all profits through taxes without any operation expenses. The northern region allowed for creation of infrastructure and new markets for the Valle Central's agriculture. Had Chile taken on Peru's debt and run the salitreras as a national industry, it would have seen very little actual return by the time the nitrate industry went bust. If the German's hadn't invented synthetic nitrate Chile would have benefitted from nationalizing the industry--but this time it seems history has smiled on the choice to let the gringos do the dirty work.
I'm such a history nerd.
I'm unaware of how Bolivia broke its treaty with Peru? Additionally, I should state that I generally don't place too much value in treaties that are signed between powerful countries (Chile) and their much weaker neighbors (Bolivia), as these generally reflect nothing more than the will of the oppressor, which of course holds all the cards in negotiating treaties.
Can you explain more about Chile's expectation that Bolivia would return to the status quo?
The idea that British ownership of Chilean resources was beneficial to Chile can likely only have been true in a narrow sense. One could similarly say, for example, that it helps Saudi Arabia that US and British energy conglomerates own Saudi oil, since the kingdom profits immensely from such arrangements. However, this misses the larger point - why doesn't Saudi Arabia itself own its own oil? And in a similar sense, why couldn't Chile recieve ALL of the profits from its resources, instead of simply a cut passed along by the British?
The upper border of Chile with Bolivia was set in 1866 at 24 degrees South. In 1874 the treaty was updated to state that solely Bolivia could tax this area (previously Chile and Bolivia shared taxing rights), but taxes would not be raised on Chilean companies for 25 years--and many influential chilean politicians were invested in this region. The city of Antofogasta even had a majority chilean population when Chile moved to occupy it.
When Daza raised taxes on this Chilean enterprise he expected Chile to "strike its flag as it did with Argentina"--basically he thought he saw an opportunity to profit off perceived Chilean weakness and was relying on an alliance with Peru if his plans backfired.
This move on Bolivia's part got really bad press in Chile--there were rabid protests and of course, the politicians who were poised to lose money over Bolivia's tax raise encouraged the dissent. The minister of the Interior at the time told President Pinto "ahora tenemos que ocupar toda la antofogasta o nos matan a ti y a mi," after witnessing a angry mod in front of his house.
The "status quo ante" means that Pinto expected Daza to retract the tax raise and allow the Chilean company to continue as before. Instead, Bolivia declared war thinking that Peru's notably stronger navy would take out Chile easily.
I don't think that we can state that Chile was holding all the cards in the 1870's or that it was even capable of negotiating a more favorable treaty. After a semester of 19th century Chilean history I am convinced that in 1874 Chile was still in its gestation period...Both Bolivia and Chile were secondary players to Peru. Ironically, it was because of la Guerra del Pacifico and the salitre gained from it that Chile raised its profile in the world.
On why Chile didn't choose to own its own nitrate: Peru had nationalized its salitre before Chile aquired it and was in the process of paying off the companies that initially owned the salitre. So Chile was faced with the choice of paying off Peru's debt and owning the Salitre, or giving it back to the foreign owners and smacking them with enormous exportation tarriffs--Chile chose to tax. Refering to the example you gave, Saudi Arabia would probably experience greater benefits from nationalized oil--that is assuming that oil will continue to come out of Saudi Arabia for many decades to come. In Chile's case, salitre was very profitable for a whole 50 years before synthetics stole the market. Considering the heavy debt, those 50 years of 100% of the profit would not have been worth it for the Chilean government. If no one ever invented synthetic nitrate, the chilean choice to give the mines back to privates would have been a mistake. History is funny like that.
That said, I'm totally in favor of Chile's nationalization of copper. It was a smart choice. I'm sure there are pros and cons to nationalization or privatization in every case--it's a matter of weighing things right and luck.
I hope you don't mind the long-winded answers...I've been considering them part of my studies, and apparently it's paid off--I got a 6.5 in my oral exam for Chile: siglo XIX today. :P
I am not of the belief that "Chile was holding all the cards in the 1870s" before the war, but rather AFTERWARDS. Chile, coming off a victory in the War of the Pacific, was able to dictate terms of surrender with Peru and Bolivia, which, of course, reflects power relations, and has nothing to do with concepts of "just" and "unjust."
In the context of the Chile not nationalizing salitre, then, I would assume that they were simply proven correct out of sheer luck, as I do not imagine that they were aware that a synthetic form would soon be invented.
agreed. it was sheer luck--but sometimes it goes that way.
Post a Comment
<< Home