South American Historical Wars

By Guery Marañón

The South American region has been relatively peaceful in the recent past. The last known armed conflict was the Cenepa War in 1995, during which Peru and Ecuador confronted each other. The conflict arose due to a border dispute between the two countries in “Cordillera del Cóndor”, a mountain range in east Andes.

Despite not having any conflicts between the nations, it is still not possible to speak of complete peace. There are ongoing disputes and most of them are the results of past wars. The difference is that weapons are no longer an option. In contemporary times, the region seeks to eliminate the vestiges of war and find solutions through peaceful and diplomatic mechanisms. In this article, the following two conflicts will be reviewed: the Malvinas/Falklands war and the disputes between Bolivia and Chile. In these cases, war has been shown to be a useless option and has only deepened conflicts between nations.

The Malvinas/Falklands war

This year is the 40th anniversary of the Falklands War, a conflict which the British consider to be resolved, but that the Argentines do not forget. Historically, explaining the true domain of the Falkland Islands, or the Islas Malvinas, is confusing and complex. On the one hand, it is said that the British were the first to occupy them, others argue that it was the French. However, given that these islands are close to South America, it was the Spanish who claimed them as their own, expelling the French in 1764 (who accepted that the territory was Spanish) and in 1770 the British (who according to the Spanish version also accepted their rule, although there is no written record of that). In 1810, as a result of the revolutions against Spain in the region, Argentina began its independence by expelling the Spanish from its territory. During that time, the Malvinas/ Falkland Islands were practically deserted. In 1816, Argentina declared its independence and sought to declare its rule over the islands by planting a flag in 1820. The South American country even appointed a German merchant named Louis Elie Vernet as its first governor, who in 1831 arrested three American ships for breaking the region’s rules. This act was considered unacceptable by the United States, so a year later they sent a warship, expelled the Argentine settlers, and declared the territory free of any government. However, in 1833, the British sent their navy into the region and retook the islands. Argentina tried to solve the problem through diplomatic channels, arguing that the territory was Argentine as an inheritance from Spain, but those efforts did not yield results. As a consequence, and also as a political strategy of the dictatorship of Leopoldo Galtieri, Argentina decided to recover the islands by force and attacked Puerto Argentino (Port Stanley, according to the British denomination) on April 2, 1982. Far from staying calm, the British decided to recover their territory by sending their armed forces to the South Atlantic, with the support of the United States and Chile. The war lasted about two and a half months. Finally, the Europeans regained control of the islands, but at what cost? 649 Argentine soldiers and 255 British died. Irrespective of the result of the war, for the Argentine citizens, the Malvinas never ceased to be theirs and they even consider this issue as part of their national identity. The President of Argentina, Alberto Fernández, stated that the islands are part of the Argentine continental shelf, so they have always been part of their territory and that they are the ones who have the truth. ”Our claim does not come from the economic issue. Our claim comes because the memory of our dead does not allow us to live in peace”, he said during an interview with BBC this year. The British maintain that the issue is resolved considering the outcome of the war and the opinion of the islands’ inhabitants. In 2013, they held a referendum in which the vast majority (98.8%) voted to remain a British Overseas Territory. Then-Prime Minister David Cameron called for the people’s desire to be British to be respected. Argentina does not accept the arguments and so far continues with its claim over that territory, although it is clear that war will never again be an option.

Illustration by Sree Lekha

Conflicts between Bolivia and Chile

Just as the Argentines have their claim for the Malvinas marked in their identity, in Bolivia the dream of once again having a sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean remains. After the Bolivian government imposed a tax of 10 cents per quintal of saltpeter exported (an important material for the Chilean economy at that time), Chile invaded Bolivia in 1879, arguing that a commercial treaty, signed five years earlier, was violated. Peru joined the conflict, as it had a secret mutual defense pact with Bolivia in case Chile attacked either of them. After approximately four years, Chile won the armed conflict and appropriated Bolivian and Peruvian territories. However, it was not until 1904 that the countries signed a treaty establishing the territorial delimitation that is still in force today. Since then, Bolivia has not had an outlet to the Pacific Ocean and has repeatedly tried to negotiate access.

The strategy for returning to the Pacific coast changed in 2013 when Bolivia sued Chile at the International Court of Justice to force the country to negotiate ”in good faith” Bolivia’s ”sovereign” exit to the sea. From La Paz, it was argued that Chile repeatedly promised (1951, 1961, 1975, and 2000) to negotiate and failed to fulfill its promises, even though it had signed obligations. Santiago replied that Chile cannot be forced to negotiate and that everything was established in the 1904 treaty. They added that Bolivia has commercial privileges in Chilean ports, mainly in Arica. After the International Court of Justice accepted the case and after a series of court proceedings, on October 1, 2018, it was determined that the Chilean government has no obligation to negotiate a sovereign outlet to the sea with Bolivia. The maritime issue ended there (although Bolivia mentioned that they will never give up the dream of having access to the Pacific Ocean), but the legal conflicts with Chile did not. Alongside the complaint was already filed, Bolivia threatened to sue Chile again at the International Court of Justice for another historical conflict: the waters of the Silala. The Silala river or spring originates in Bolivia just four kilometers from the border with Chile. Bolivia affirms that in reality, the Silala is a spring whose waters were artificially channeled in 1908 to reach Chile. The rights to the waters of Silala is an ongoing dispute, and in 2016, then-president Evo Morales stated that the government of Santiago must pay for its unrestricted use for more than 100 years. Chile responded by arguing that the Silala is an international river and therefore belongs to both countries and that the artificial channeling was a project carried out by a private company and that it was accepted by Bolivia in the past. While it was Bolivia that threatened to sue Chile, it was the Chileans who formally filed the complaint with the International Court of Justice in 2016. Chile asked the court to declare the Silala an international river and shared water use. The arguments concluded on April 14, 2022, and the sentence is expected to be announced in at least one year. The Argentine and Bolivian cases are examples of the marks that war can leave, which instead of solving conflicts made them worse by dividing people even more. While the armed conflicts are over, the disputes over territories continue and will perhaps never be fully resolved. Although South America is a region in which violence and crime persist, the fact that countries are promoting the solution of problems through diplomatic channels should be highlighted. War, we hope, will never again be an option. ♦