South America's Endless Border Dispute

This photo of the Atacama Desert is courtesy of National Geographic.

The border dispute between Bolivia and Chile originates to the earliest days of their independence from the Spanish Empire. War broke out between the two countries in the late 19^th century, but resentment continues. The International Court of Justice declared in October 2018 that Chile is not required to negotiate Bolivia’s access to the Pacific Ocean, as it is sovereign Chilean territory. This will undoubtedly cast a shadow on Bolivian President Evo Morales’ re-election campaign in 2019, who has used Chile as a scapegoat for much of the country’s domestic problems. Chile, on the other hand, has mimicked the accusatory rhetoric – and pointed to the 1904 peace treaty – to get the world on their side. While the War of the Pacific ended over 100 years ago, the border dispute is still a source of contention between both nations, and can be attributed to other geopolitical concerns today. The relationship between Bolivia and Chile will continue to be contentious until the internationally-recognized border is unequivocally accepted domestically in Bolivia. By appreciating the decision of the International Court of Justice, Bolivia and Chile could build a strong relationship by focusing on mutually-beneficial trade agreements through natural gas, river, and ocean access.

During Spanish colonization, specific boundaries were never established between their colonies in the region (Pero-Bolivia-Chile), thus laying the groundwork for a serious territorial dispute after their succession (Chasteen, 190). The War of the Pacific, otherwise known as the Guerra del Pacifico, lasted only four years (1879-1883), but the terms of the 1904 peace agreement solidified Chile’s position as the victor, granting it control of the mineral-rich Atacama Desert along the Pacific coast. While thousands were killed on both sides, the defeat was exceptionally devastating for Bolivia’s economy, as it marked the end of their sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. Naturally, Bolivia has been fighting to reclaim control of their lost territory ever since, even celebrating a Dia del Mar (“Day of the Sea”) every March 23^rd.

One Boston University student recently penned an opinion column explaining how it is actually Bolivia that is better served by the status quo. I disagree with his notion that by somehow ceding territory to the victor, Bolivia gained better access to the ocean. Who really came out on top, country A, who annexed mineral-rich coastal land the size of Greece, or country B, who gained a single railroad that passes through the country that just defeated them? Given that trucks are used more to transport goods, and passenger service on the track ended in 1996, is Bolivia’s access really “enhanced” by this rusting line of track? 

This undated map from BBC details the expansion of the Arica-La Paz railroad,

which was completed in 1913, but has been defunct since 2005.

  

Bolivian President Evo Morales and Chilean President Sebastián Piñera have both openly criticized their neighbors, and are unlikely to share ambassadors again, as has been the case since the 1970s. Days before the 1 October 2018 ruling, President Piñera gave his thoughts – in English – on the case at a Council of Foreign Relations press conference: “We have a treaty with Bolivia that was signed in 1904, twenty years after all the hostilities had ceased… That treaty was fully agreed and fully in place. We would hope that country would honor the treaty they signed.” He continued, “…If you start opening things that happened a hundred years ago, what would happen in Europe? In the United States?” He expressed his openness to dialogue, but without promises to “sacrifice our sovereignty.” His comment starts at 54 minutes.

President Morales is in the midst of his 2019 re-election campaign, which would be his fourth consecutive term as President of Bolivia, having held power since 2006. His attempt to remove term limits in a 2016 have concerned geopolitical analysts at StratFor. “For a growing number of voters in Bolivia,” one headline reads, “their president is overstaying his welcome.” They note that while he has been wildly popular in the past, the failure of the 2016 referendum resulted in anti-Morales protests across the country. He is facing the possibility of losing his popular support in 2019, which he was not supposed to be eligible for anyway, since their constitution only allows a maximum of two, five-year terms. Nonetheless, President Morales was able to convince their Constitutional Court to allow him to run for a fourth term.  The popular leader is facing growing resentment at home, and his failure to convince the International Court of Justice will only hamper his chance to hold on to power.

After the fall of the military dictatorship in 1990, Chile has established itself as a consolidated democracy, and is unlikely to see democratic breakdown as a result of the rhetoric and policies surrounding the border dispute.

The same cannot be said for Bolivia, whose president is seeking a highly-controversial 

fourth-term in office. He became the longest-serving President of Bolivia in 2015.

In an interview with CGTN, a Beijing-based television network, President Morales discussed his biggest concerns for his country’s future. As the first indigenous president of Bolivia, he noted his success with helping Bolivia’s extreme poverty, and stability of government. “With five new presidents in the five years before 2006… there was a new president annually. Never in my life had I thought about being President. I cannot believe I have been President all these years. It is not my desire, but the people’s. They use the terms ‘authoritarian’ or ‘dictator’, even though we are elected presidents with more than 50%-60% of our people’s votes.”

On the dispute with Chile, he noted that the Chileans needed to respect the treaty of 1866, before the War of the Pacific took place. “Bolivia was founded with access to the sea. I am very sorry about the events of 1879, through an invasion Chile took access from us. We stand alongside the truth and the force of justice. In different occasions Chile has offered sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, but they have never fulfilled it. Chile, sadly, has a policy of delaying. They offer something, then they suspend, then they withdraw. That is why we went to The Hague.”

The International Court of Justice, in The Hague, Netherlands, is responsible for settling international legal disputes between members of the United Nations. Two of those countries, however, haven’t had official diplomatic relations in decades. This didn’t stop one country from filing a case against the other back in 2013.

The Silala River, which originates in Bolivia and flows to Chile, is the lesser-known component of the long-standing tension between the two South American nations. Andrés Gaudin, a regular contributor to the pro-American, 501(c)3 non-profit organization, the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) is “an Uruguayan journalist who went into exile in Argentine in 1972,” which gives him a unique perspective on Latin American affairs. His latest contribution was published in 2016 by the Albuquerque-based journal NotiSur – South American Political and Economic Affairs.

Then-Chilean President Michelle Bachelet submitted a claim to the International Court of Justice in 2016. With business interests at stake, Chile wished to define the river as an international water source, thus requiring it to be shared evenly. Bolivia claims that Chilean businesses owe over $1 billion USD in tariffs for that water use. This case has yet to be decided at the ICJ.

Fascinatingly, Gaudin used evidence from public speeches and one-on-one interviews with high-ranking government officials to better understand the mindset behind Chile’s 2016 ICJ filing. “On March 23, [Bolivian] President Morales had made the mistake of going public with his plan, even revealing key details of how Bolivian lawyers would argue their case in The Hague.” Chile’s response was predictable: their foreign affairs minister decided to file first by submitting evidence they have been collecting since 2014. This aspect makes it easier to understand Chile’s decision-making. When the populist leader began making public promises to rally his supporters, it served Chile’s interests to escalate the dispute, legally.  

Another important aspect of the article was how the situation was being portrayed internally. “Each government…accuses its counterpart of doing the same thing: using the dispute to fire up nationalist sentiment among the general public and draw attention away from domestic problems,” he wrote. Each country similarly uses taunting (or otherwise accusatory) language to get their people on their side of the issue, to the point that even football matches become an extension of the disagreement. While not mentioned in the article, Bolivian President Evo Morales has made the confrontation with Chile a key component of his 2019 re-election campaign, which could see him serve a fourth term. While the International Court of Justice did not rule in his favor in 2018, the outstanding case with the Silala River could motivate his base of supporters.

Considering Michelle Bachelet is no longer the President of Chile, her successor, Sebastián Piñera, has opened the door to continue negotiations with Bolivia – under certain conditions. Nonetheless, it appears that the short-term will not see any change in rhetoric from either country, at least until The Hague reaches a decision. While this article is over two years old, Andrés Gaudin’s analysis sheds light on the background between the ever-present strife between Chile and Bolivia. “With no clear end to the conflict in sight,” he writes, “their dispute over fresh water resources adds even more fuel to the fire.” Gaudin’s description of the intricacies of each side’s position over the Silala River is vital to understand the whole picture of the Bolivia-Chile dispute.

Border disputes are not uncommon, and are usually marked as dotted-lines on Google Maps. 

Of course, these visual representations of political boundaries depend on 

where in the world you search from.

The military and the media have played a vital role in the ongoing border dispute. They work hand-in-hand in many ways - large war games make for great photographs, after all, especially when they take place inside the disputed territory, near the port city of Antofagasta. The Santiago Times covered the effect that the military has with possibly exacerbating the situation. They noted President Morales’ disapproval on Twitter: “The military maneuvers [with the United States are] an imperialistic threat to regional peace.” Chile’s Foreign Minister Roberto Ampuero responded, “Evo Morales shouldn’t feel nervous about the exercises. What is should be worried about is the Bolivians’ reaction to his unfulfilled promise he made in The Hague: Antofagasta will be part of Bolivia and Bolivian flags will shine beautifully in our Pacific.” President Morales forecasted how the ICJ’s 12-3 ruling would impact his view: “Bolivia will never allow itself to be kept from the sea.” Reuters observed that “Chile currently allows Bolivia duty-free access to the port of Arica,” but “Bolivia aspires to have a corridor…under its own control.” How the ICJ decision will effect his domestic popularity remains to be seen, but it doesn’t look promising.

There is more to it than water, a fact not lost on the BBC. “The disputed land has proved extremely valuable to Chile. The nitrate plants have long closed but have been replaced by some of the world’s biggest copper mines… Bolivia is rich in natural gas but refuses to sell it to energy-poor Chile. If they Chileans could buy fuel from Bolivia, it would go a long way to easing their energy problems and would give Bolivia an important source of income.” The Spanish-language academic journal, Estudios Fronterizos (“Border Studies”), highlighted the impact that just initiating a case with the International Court of Justice had with bringing a “renewed visibility” to the region, as one would expect. Beyond this, Chile does have legitimate claims to militarize their northern border with Bolivia and Peru, a desolate region that not only has a border dispute, but also a drug problem. “Peru and Bolivia…contain 54% of the cocaine in the world.” While the prevalence of drugs in the region is not a secret, its presence provides an interesting security dynamic that can serve as a talking point for the current and future governments of Chile, as well as an opening for cooperation with Bolivia.

The mutual animosity over the border has bled over to the gas sector as well. One professor in India published an analysis on the role of gas in the region, ultimately resulting in the resignation of the Bolivian president in late 2003. It is worth noting that Bolivia has “the second-largest natural gas reserves [in Latin America] after Venezuela.” To better export their resource, a pipeline was proposed in 2002, but civil groups in the country disagreed on how the route should lead to the Pacific: through Chile’s Tocopilla port, or Peru’s port Ilo. “Violent suppression by the Bolivian armed forces left some 60 people dead,” Professor Gangopadhyay writes. Chile’s “historical status…has allowed it to hold on to a very rigid, non-negotiable stance towards this overlapping [gas/sea access] issue.” Chile needs natural gas. “100% of Chile’s gas imports…come from Argentine gas supplies,” which “came to a sudden halt in 2004, when Argentina decided to reduce gas exports to Chile in order to ease its own domestic gas shortages.” Considering the instability of its energy sources, Chile has a lot to gain – and lose – in Bolivia’s increasingly nationalistic attitude towards its gas reserves.

Borders are an incredibly fascinating, and while the majority today are pretty unexciting, all do tell a story. Defining their location on a map has led to brutal wars over the centuries, and the Bolivia-Chile border is no exception. While all-out war is unlikely today, the never-ending lawsuits and rhetoric probably won’t end any time soon, even with the International Court of Justice’s 2018 decision. The dispute is not an isolated topic, as it has manifested into gas policy, international trade, militarization, media coverage, aggressive rhetoric, and populist political campaigns. Progress will continue to be hindered until the current boundaries, as defined by the International Court of Justice, are accepted by Bolivia. There is simply too much at stake – Chile’s energy sources, Bolivia’s port access, and the drug trade – to continue focusing on the results of a 19^th century war.

  

Some borders disputes are perpetual, and others end up as frozen conflicts and create their own

semi-autonomous countries. This is from a December 2017 visit to Tiraspol, Transnistria, a country

that doesn’t officially exist, and whose borders are not officially recognized by the United Nations.

  

Sources:

Associated Press. “Bolivia takes sea access dispute with Chile to world court.” 19 March 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4xdQ8A9GKk.

Chasteen, John Charles. “Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America.” Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2016. Fourth Edition.

China Global Television Network (CGTN). “An interview with Bolivian President Evo Morales.” 20 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av5GlDMnpqk.

Council on Foreign Relations. “A Conversation with Sebastian Pinera.” 27 September 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZK-5Y4KtQw.

Damiano, David. “Worldview: Bolivia’s fight with Chile for access to the sea.” The Daily Free Press. 22 October 2018. Retrieved from https://dailyfreepress.com/blog/2018/10/22/worldview-bolivias-fight-with-chile-for-access-to-the-sea/.

Dashti, Ali. “Bolivia reacts to joint Chile-US exercises in northern Antofagasta.” The Santiago Times. 26 August 2018. Retrieved from https://santiagotimes.cl/2018/08/26/bolivia-condemns-joint-chile-us-exercises-in-northern-antofagasta/.

Freedom House Index. “Freedom in the World 2018.” Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/bolivia.

Freedom House Index. “Freedom in the World 2018.” Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/chile.

Gangopadhyay, Aparajita. “From Land Wars to Gas Wars: Chile–Bolivia Relations and Globalisation.” India Quarterly, vol. 70, no. 2, June 2014, pp. 139–152. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/doi/abs/10.1177/0974928414524651.

García Pinzón, Viviana. "Estado y frontera en el norte de Chile." Estudios Fronterizos, vol. 16, no. 31, 2015, p. 74+. OneFile. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/apps/doc/A448905894/AONE?u=san96005&sid=AONE&xid=1e240822.

Gaudin, Andres. “Water dispute adds to Chile-Bolivia antagonisms.” NotiSur – South American Political and Economic Affairs. 5 August 2016. OneFile. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/apps/doc/A460762693/ITOF?u=san96005&sid=ITOF&xid=cb45c76a.

Human Interests. “Google Maps is Different in Other Countries.” 1 March 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ZMub2UrKU.

International Court of Justice. “The Court.” Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/en/court.

Long, Gideon. “Bolivia-Chile land dispute has deep roots.” British Broadcasting Corporation. 24 April 2013. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-22287222.

Long, Gideon. “Bolivia-Chile railway marks 100 years at time of strife.” British Broadcasting Corporation. 13 May 2013. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-22507777.

Orttung, Robert and Walker, Christopher. “Putin’s Frozen Conflicts.” Foreign Policy. 13 February 2015. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/13/putins-frozen-conflicts/.

StratFor. “For a Growing Number of Voters in Bolivia, Their President is Overstaying His Welcome.” 20 September 2018. Retrieved from https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/growing-number-voters-bolivia-their-president-overstaying-his-welcome.

Van den Berg, Stephanie, and Laing, Aislinn. “World Court: Chile not forced to negotiate over Bolivia sea access.” Reuters. 1 October 2018. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bolivia-chile-worldcourt/world-court-chile-not-forced-to-negotiate-over-bolivia-sea-access-idUSKCN1MB2YR.

Vox. “Borders.” 5 December 2018. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/a/borders.

Zissis, Carin. “Bolivia’s Nationalization of Oil and Gas.” Council on Foreign Relations. 12 May 2006. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/bolivias-nationalization-oil-and-gas.