-Taylor Kirk Peru’s Congress unanimously passed a law November 3rd to redraw their sea border with Chile, claiming more than 14,000 sq m of territory now held by Chile. The timing of the claim is unfortunate, as issues like the extradition of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori from Chile and the prosecution of a wealthy Chilean businessman in Peru have strained ties between the nations. The sudden claim might also cause some to wonder whether the timing was in fact fortunate for Peruvian politicians. With a sagging economy and low consumer confidence, the Peruvian Congress may be looking for an easy scapegoat with which to redirect the populace’s attentions.
Peru’s claim to additional maritime territory seems baseless. In 2002 foreign ministers from Ecuador, Chile, and Peru met to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the “Santiago Declaration”, which outlines the claims that Peru now disputes. In the declaration, all parties “express their satisfaction and pride” with the agreement, that stipulated “the principle of the 200 nautical miles, practised worldwide by states, as an essential part of the law of the sea”. Though no mention is made of the horizontal line between the two countries’ maritime borders, the satisfaction expressed by all parties of the success of the agreement over the previous 50 years indicates that all parties accepted the line that runs due west from the coast of the Peru/Chile border that divides the maritime territory. This is the line that Peru now disputes.
The re-affirmation of the agreement just three years ago leads one to consider political factors for the resurgence of the claim. With elections coming up in April, congressional delegates may be jockeying for easy populist support by verbally attacking a nation Peruvians have long held distrust for. Fujimori’s unexpected return to the continent shook up Peru’s political scene, and President Alejandro Toledo, who signed the law claiming the new borders, is hugely unpopular. He may be seeking even the smallest legacy for his term, as he has little to no chance of winning re-election. This is all unfortunate, because Peru’s Congress has a mountain of other priorities it should tackle before revising claims it celebrated just three years ago. (UNCLOS, COVEMAR)
I agree with you, 100 percent, that the passage of this law has to do with timing, and distracting the public from problems that elected officials could much more easily ameliorate. There is likely no government in the world which does not behave in this way.
ReplyDeleteYet although Peru may have signaled agreement in the past with the "horizontal line" that divides sea access between the two countries, this is merely a question of power relations. Many Mapuche, for example, are surely resigned to the fact that they will never regain their ancestral lands, and have thus "express[ed] their satisfaction" with the current status quo. But, as is the case with Peru, this has nothing to do with a just outcome, and everything to do with who's holding the guns. In sum, I think that Peruvian acquiescence should be interpreted in this light.
On one further note, and disregarding past agreements, the Peruvian proposal immediately strikes me as more just than the existing line. Where Bolivia fits into all of this remains to be seen, though one may hazard a guess that Evo Morales, if elected, would become proactive in exploring options for Bolivia to have access to the Pacific.
Well… I agree with Kevin funk that it is a question of power relations.
ReplyDeleteIs the US involved in these power struggles? For some reason I wouldn’t be surprised. To what degree and to what objective, I’m not sure. This is the type of issue in general is one that I’m not so sure about. We all have information that points us to a particular position but it most likely is something that remains to be seen. The politics of each of the countries involved (Peru, Chile and Bolivia) seem to signal that it is above all a power struggle, but from the few things we know about the US involvement, it seems like an attempt to keep the region under control, to reward the loyal and punish the rebellious. US involvement in the region and in the Latin American community in general has increased in the last couple of years. From the FBI (Ojeda) to the White House (Chavez), Latin America has returned to an unfortunate position in US politics, a troubled region that needs to be ‘democratized’ (as it would be called during the Cold War) and rid of evildoers (as it would be said by W).
Is Peru really making a mistake? Their proposal seems indeed fair. But history has taught us that fair isn’t always what wins. Since Chile holds all the cards and is friends with the dealer in that region, few will argue that Peru will succeed in their request. As for Bolivia, another wait and see situation.
Hey! Great to see so many people talking about our tiny countries... I'm a Peruvian expatriate living overseas, and I'm accustomed to questions such as “Peru? Is that in Africa?”… It is really encouraging to find articulated people discussing about South American politics!
ReplyDeleteRegarding timing let me tell you that, in this particular case, it doesn’t have anything to do with our poor economic results, with the low acceptance of Toledo’s policies (his popularity is well below 10%) or with the fact that Fujimori decided to arrive in Chile, leaving his comfortable auto-exile in Japan. During the whole Toledo presidency, we have all had the feeling that economic results are favoring only wealthy people; Toledo’s popularity has been extremely low since his first semester in charge; And Fujimori arrived in Chile after the Peruvian sea border reclamations were stated.
Besides, Peruvian reclamations were following a diplomatic track when Chilean politicians decided to make lots of noise about it. I’m not saying that this reclamation is non-important but that the noise started there (and it was promptly replicated in Peru, I must admit). Please remember that Chile is closer to national elections than Peru. Sorry if “noise” sounds offensive, I don’t mean that but, please, take note that in Spanish “ruido politico” is a common term (and that my English is not that good).
Regarding the validity of our position, I must admit that while it sounds fair (please, check this graphic in Wikipedia, sorry it is in Spanish) I think that Chile has more chances to win the dispute than us. Not because our position is wrong, but because the status quo of the last decades favors them. Peru considers that there is no formal sea borders treaty with Chile (and by that, we mean a treaty proposed by the Foreign Affairs Ministry and ratified by the Congress), while Chile considers that the status quo (and the treaties signed by the Fishing Ministry and other Ministries) are valid sea borders treaties. It’s like the housing law in Peru: if you can prove that you have been living in the same house for more than 20 years without anybody complaining, the house is yours. And Chile has been effectively administrating the marine region in dispute for at least 30 years.
There’s a nice article in Wikipedia explaining both points of view (I’m sorry again for it’s in Spanish). Maybe the Google auto-translation feature can help you understand it.
And Taylor, thanks again for setting up this nice space. I may not agree with your opinions, but it’s nice to find people that care about our beloved continent.
I’ll keep reading you!