The historian, sociologist and political analyst Nelson Manrique (Huancayo, 1947) is one of the most lucid voices in contemporary Peruvian columnism. His notes, which for decades have appeared in the most important written media in our country, always have a broad point of view, with multiple and enlightening criteria, in the search for pedagogy with material that can be useful both for readers in general and for educators. On this occasion, we want to share with you the interesting review that Manrique published this week in La República, about the background that shapes the current moment of the Peru-Chile relationship. , regarding the maritime dispute that, this weekend, will reach its climax with the long-awaited ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague (Holland). In the antipodes of triumphalist positions loaded with political interests (both Peruvians and Chileans), Manrique offers us the most relevant data to form an opinion and have full knowledge of the reason for this situation, which affects us as Peruvians.
WAITING FOR THE HAGUE
by Nelson Manrique
published in Diario La República, Tuesday, January 21, 2014
On January 27, the ruling of the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the border dispute between Peru and Chile on the delimitation of their border will finally be read maritime.
Despite some crude attempts to take advantage of it, the attitude with which this circumstance is being assumed is quite mature. Today we are far from the alarmist reactions provoked a little over a decade ago by the announcement that the delimitation of the border with Ecuador had been concluded by ceding a km² of territory in Tiwinza.
The demarcation of borders has been especially complicated for Peru. Until the beginning of the 18th century, the Viceroyalty of Peru extended from present-day Panama to Patagonia, but during that century the two great divisions that made it what it is today took place. Thus, the northern territories were split to form the Viceroyalty of New Granada (1739), over the territories of modern Panama, Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador. With the creation of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata (1777), which divided the territories of what are now Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia, Peru was reduced to a magnitude close to its definitive dimension.
A first problem lies in the way national borders were defined. Bolívar's attempt to establish a great South American nation failed, the heroes of independence chose to demarcate the territories based on the borders of the colonial intendancies, as they were established in 1810. This was given the name of uti possidetis iure (“as ye possessed by right”) of 1810 and was useful because it created a consensus-accepted mechanism for establishing borders peacefully.
The cost was to establish borders based on the colonial interests of Spain, which in many cases were alien to those of the inhabitants of the regions that were divided. This is evident in the case of the Collao plateau, where even today one can find a greater cultural affinity between the inhabitants of Puno and La Paz than between them and the inhabitants of Lima and Santa Cruz, respectively. This is also true for the inhabitants of northern Argentina and Chile, in relation to Santiago and Buenos Aires.
The new nations, moreover, were created on uninhabited territories. At the time of independence, Peru had approximately 1,250,000 inhabitants whose national territory was equivalent to something like 1.5 million square kilometers:less than one inhabitant per km2.
Because most of the population was also concentrated in a few cities, many border territories had little or no population.
They were remote, abandoned territories, in many cases very vaguely delimited:the perfect situation for each country to consider that its domains extended over territories that its neighbors considered theirs.
Hence, throughout the nineteenth century Peru, which borders five nations, had wars on all its borders except the one that separates us from Brazil, and this thanks to that the centers of Brazilian power were on the Atlantic coast and the Amazon prevented armed contacts.
The relationship with Chile, with which we had no border until the Pacific War, has been the most complex and the one that provokes the greatest emotional reactions. The war not only represented for Peru the loss of around 190,000 km² of territory, but also tipped the geopolitical balance in the South Pacific in favor of Chile. There are also the emotional wounds.
There are lessons from history that can be useful to us. In the two great world wars of the last century, the nations of Europe inflicted on each other atrocities that pale any comparison. Half a century after the end of the last war they formed the European Union. Peru and Chile have drowned in rhetoric for two centuries and are just beginning to establish a policy that, being cautious and firm in the defense of national interests, allows at the same time joint ventures that are beneficial to both.
The construction of a Nation-State requires the delimitation of the territory over which the State may exercise national sovereignty. This founding process has taken us virtually two centuries. Time to wrap it up.