The International Court of Justice in
The Hague’s decision this week (01/27/14) regarding the maritime line of
demarcation between Peruvian and Chilean waters generated high spirits in Lima
and clenched teeth in Santiago. The Court’s findings actually balanced tradition
– in the form of historical practices and signed treaties – with a perceived
need to adjust to modern realities.
For the last few hundred years, the
territorial waters recognized for the two countries have been in dispute,
especially since the War of the Pacific (1879-84). Chile’s advances in that war
also left Bolivia a landlocked nation. According to the Menas Border blog (www.menasborders.com), Chile considered
the matter of the maritime border with Peru definitively settled after two
treaties in 1952 and 1954 that addressed fishing rights in the Pacific Ocean.
Chile claimed territorial waters along a latitudinal parallel originating at
the established international land boundary. Peru claimed maritime territory
along a south-westerly line extending from the international border essentially
perpendicular and equidistant from their coastline.
The progressive nature of the decision
attempts to address knowledge regarding the value of natural resources that did
not exist at the time of the treaties, and conform to more recent traditions of
equidistant maritime demarcation. Conversely, Chilean critics see the findings
as undermining the necessary stability inherent in international accords, and
lament the impending loss in revenue from fishing rights.
Importantly, Chile’s president, Sebastián
Piñera, expressed his strong disagreement with the court’s finding but assured
that Chile would abide by the ruling. This is no small development given the
long history of the dispute. Writing for Reuters, Thomas Escritt and Rosalba O'Brien
projected that the decision would ultimately strengthen relations between Chile
and Peru, whose growing bilateral trade reached US$ 3 billion last year.1
Robert Kozak and Ryan Dube reported in The
Wall Street Journal that tensions have been higher lately, especially among
Peruvians living in Chile. They cite Michael Shifter, president of U.S.-based
think tank Inter-American Dialogue, who said, "The loss of quite a bit of
ocean territory will not go down easily with many Chileans."2 However,
the article indicates that Shifter as well as analysts from the Eurasia Group
do not believe that there will be lasting negative effects from the finding but
tend to agree with the assessment that the settlement will lead to better
economic stability.
The new demarcation line runs along the
parallel recognized by Chile for 80 miles, and then veers southwest to the
200-mile boundary of international waters. This confusing arrangement transfers
some 8,000 square miles from Chilean to Peruvian territory, nevertheless
preserving much of the most strategic fishing regions for Chile. Ultimately,
the court opted for a compromise between the two claims, reaching a settlement
that the court clearly hopes will finally bring to a close the dispute. A
century ago in Latin America a conflict like would have been resolved by armies
and navies. The present outcome is indicative of the region’s political and
economic development.
No comments:
Post a Comment