The Chilean–Peruvian territorial dispute was a territorial dispute between Chile and Peru that started in the aftermath of the War of the Pacific and ended significantly in 1929 with the signing of the Treaty of Lima and in 2014 with a ruling by the International Court of Justice. The dispute applies since 2014 to a 37,610 km2 territory in the Chile–Peru border, as a result of the settled maritime dispute between both states.
The Treaty of Ancón, which put an end to the War of the Pacific, was signed on October 20, 1883. The following year, Chile formally incorporated the former Peruvian provinces of Tacna, Arica and Tarata into a province on October 31, the latter of which would be constested due to differing interpretations of the course of the Sama River, the provisional border. Under the treaty, the territory would be administered by Chile for a ten-year period, after which a plebiscite would determine its fate. Originally meant to be held in 1894, was ultimately not carried out.
During the early years of the post-war era, the Chilean and Peruvian governments exercised extensive campaigns to solidify their control over the region. On one hand, Peru established a campaign of foreign support, which attracted the attention of the United States as a mediator in the conflict. On the other hand, Chile pursued an acculturation policy that saw the establishment of Chilean culture and a Chilean population in the region. Local Peruvian loyalists also established resistance movements, which saw armed combat on at least one occasion. To counter this and to incite an exodus of Peruvians that remained in the area, groups known as Patriotic Leagues were established.Núñez Atencio, Lautaro y Maldonado Prieto, Carlos (2005). «Reseña bibliográfica: El Dios Cautivo. Las Ligas Patrióticas en la chilenización compulsiva de Tarapacá (1910–1922), Sergio González Miranda, LOM Ediciones, Santiago, 2004». Chungará (Arica), Universidad de Tarapacá 37 (1). .
The dispute continued into 1929, ending through the signing of the Treaty of Lima, under which Tacna would be returned to Peru, while Arica would be formally incorporated into Chile. The handover of Tacna took place at midnight on August 28, 1929, marking the end of the Chilean administration. Following the main dispute's resolution, a minor continuation would evolve into an international law case concerning a disputed maritime zone between both states. The International Court of Justice judged in favour of Peru in 2014, after which a 37,610 km2 territory immediately east of the Pacific Ocean has become the only unresolved aspect of the dispute as a whole.
Background Unlike other South American border conflicts, after the Chilean and Peruvian wars of independence, both countries did not share a border until 1883 due to Bolivia's Litoral Department. With the War of the Pacific beginning in 1879, the Chilean land and naval campaigns saw quick success, with the war ending with Peru signing the Treaty of Ancón in 1883, and Bolivia signing the Treaty of Valparaiso the following year.
As a result of the treaty of Ancón, Peru ceded its department of Tarapacá and established the Sama River as the new provisional border with Chile, while the Chilean government administered the territories of Tacna and Arica under the newly established Tacna Province until a plebiscite could be held in 1894.Egaña, Rafael (1900) The Tacna and Arica question. Historical antecedents.--Diplomatic action. Present state of the affair (translated from the Spanish edition by Edwin C. Reed) Barcelona Printing Office, Santiago, Chile, From 1890 to 1929, Locumba served as the provisional capital of the area of the Department of Tacna not under Chilean administration, which came to be known as "Free Tacna" (), while Tacna and Arica would be referred to as the "captive provinces" ().
Tacna and Arica dispute
The Tacna–Arica dispute was the main dispute between both states and a focus of Peru's foreign policy during the early 20th century.
In the aftermath of the signing of the Treaty of Ancón, the Department of Tarapacá was unconditionally ceded to Chile, who administered the territory as a province of its own, while the provinces of Tacna and Arica were placed under the administration of the new Tacna Province. As per the treaty, a plebiscite was to be held in 1894, which would determine the fate of the province. The plebiscite, however, was never carried out. Chile's Tacna Province was administered by an intendant, who resided in the city of Tacna.Varas, Carlos (1922). Tacna y Arica bajo la soberanía chilena. Santiago: Imp. de La Nación. p. 243-250
Negotiations Negotiations before 1894 In early 1893, Peruvian Minister José Mariano Jiménez Wald requested that Chile hold a plebiscite in compliance with the treaty. In August 1893, Peru proposed, within the framework of the plebiscite, that if Peru won, it would offer Chile customs advantages. Chile also rejected the proposal. At the end of 1893, Peru proposed that the plebiscite should be held on March 28, 1894, and that if it did not take place, a friendly power should arbitrate who would be entitled to the material possession of the provinces. Chile did not respond to the Peruvian proposal. The Peruvian proposals made Chile aware of the precarious position it would be in should a plebiscite be held in Arica and Tacna. Chilean authorities began to devise strategies in anticipation of the increasingly imminent plebiscite.
In early 1894, discussions began regarding the form of the plebiscite. Peruvian and Chilean positions clashed on two key issues: who should receive the vote (elections) and compensation and occupations. There was no consensus on voting rights. Chile insisted that literacy was a requirement for voting, which excluded a large segment of Peru's indigenous population. Peru, for its part, did not want single people or those without stable residency to vote, which would disadvantage Chile.
Regarding reparations and occupations, it was agreed that each losing country would retain a portion of the disputed territory. Given this situation, the amount of reparations should be reduced, as the entire territory would not be lost. Peru's proposal was that if Chile lost, the border would be the northern bank of the Vítor ravine in Arica. If Peru lost, the border would be the southern bank of the Quero ravine in Arica. The losing country would pay 7,000,000 pesos, instead of the original 10,000,000. Chile's proposal was to hold the plebiscite only in the Camarones-Vítor region, and the reparations would be reduced to 4,000,000 pesos. Ultimately, no agreement was reached to hold the plebiscite.
Negotiations after 1894 Chile made a proposal to Peru outside the framework of the treaty, attempting to persuade Peru to hand over the regions without a plebiscite in exchange for an indemnity of 14,000,000 pesos plus the return of the monitor Huáscar. If Peru insisted on a plebiscite, Chile's plan was to demand an additional 5,000,000 pesos for claims made by Chileans harmed during the war. Chile threatened to cede its rights under the treaty to Bolivia, which, combined with the aforementioned proposal, created significant pressure to hand over the cities without a plebiscite.
Peru categorically refused this agreement, and in a new round of negotiations in August 1895, Chilean Ambassador Máximo Lira began demanding Peruvian guarantees for the payment of the indemnity in order to force the handover of the cities without a plebiscite. Peru offered several monetary guarantees, but none were accepted by Chile. Peruvian Foreign Minister proposed a solution: if Peru did not pay an indemnity within a given timeframe, the cities would be returned. Lira took a keen interest in the matter, but the proposal was rejected by the Peruvian cabinet.
In 1896, the two governments suspended negotiations, blaming each other for their failure. The threat of surrendering the rights to Bolivia was part of the so-called Bolivian policy, which aimed to bring Chile closer to Bolivia. Chile would cede a portion of the sea to Bolivia if it won the occupied provinces, and Chile would also gain an international ally and a large market for its businesses.
Peruvian President Nicolás de Piérola later tasked Guillermo Billinghurst with seeking an agreement with Chile, and they signed the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol, which stipulated that the plebiscite would be held according to terms arbitrated by the Queen of Spain. On September 26, 1898, news arrived in Tacna and Arica that the Chilean government would return both provinces, but that this was pending approval from the National Congress of Chile. However, the Congress endlessly delayed the protocol, which ended with its rejection in the chamber. By that time, Chilean authorities had begun to devise an acculturation plan that aimed to increase the number of Chilean residents in the area before a plebiscite. The back-and-forth maneuvering in Chilean diplomacy sought to buy time to "Chileanize" the province.
Acculturation policies
Alongside the negotiations, the Chilean government initiated a policy of acculturation. One example was the transfer of Iquique's Court of Appeals, created in 1884, to Tacna in 1887. Additionally, funds were allocated for public buildings, and all Peruvian schools located in the towns of Codpa, Belén, Estique, Socoroma, Para, San Miguel de Azapa, Calana, Pachía, Tarata, Putre, Tacna, Arica, and Livílcar were closed.
On November 14, 1900, the measure was condemned by Peru's Foreign Minister, Enrique de la Riva Agüero, and its consul in Santiago, Cesáreo Chacaltana. The Chilean response was that: "The Chamber agrees that the background information be sent to the Executive Branch so that new steps may be taken to comply with Clause 3 of the Treaty of Ancón." It could be said that Chile was stalling for Chileanization, which is why Chacaltana protested and submitted his letter of resignation. Consequently, diplomatic relations were severed in 1901.
Chilean Governor Manuel Montt prohibited the celebrations of Peru's Independence on July 28, 1900. The Peruvian newspaper Morro de Arica published: "Today we will not celebrate the anniversary of our political emancipation with the splendor of other years, contenting ourselves with raising an altar to the homeland in the deepest recesses of our hearts and in the silence that has been imposed upon us." In 1901, despite this restriction, Tacna's Sociedad de Auxilios Mutuos El Porvenir, a mutual aid society, requested permission from the mayor of Tacna, Salvador Vergara Álvarez, to hold a ceremony to bless the institution's new flag. With permission granted, the first Flag Procession took place on July 28, 1901.
Negotiations in 1905 Diplomatic relations were resumed as a result of the agreement between Chile and Bolivia, which stipulated the construction of the Arica–La Paz railway. Peru protested this, arguing that it implied an exercise of sovereignty, when all it possessed was legal possession, which should be validated by a plebiscite, as per the 1883 treaty. Chile responded that "they were as sovereign over Tacna and Arica as they were over Santiago," until a plebiscite was held. This restarted negotiations and Peru sent a new minister to Chile, Manuel Álvarez Calderón, who accepted the Chilean proposal to extend the plebiscite period by five years, but since this implied Chileanization, he requested that the plebiscite formalities be established beforehand through arbitration by a friendly power. The Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs, Antonio Huneeus, rejected this proposal. Álvarez Calderón later proposed a two-year recess followed by arbitration, which Chile also rejected. The year 1905 ended without any progress. Chilean President Germán Riesco appointed Máximo Lira as intendant of Tacna, who accelerated the Chileanization process, ending the conflicts among the Chileans themselves.