Brazil & Southern Cone - February 2014 (ISSN 1741-4431)

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague has finally issued its long awaited ruling on Chile’s maritime dispute with Peru. The 27 January ruling granted Peru, which brought the case against Chile in 2008, some 50,000km2 of additional territorial waters previously considered Chilean but allowed Chile to retain rich fishing grounds in the disputed area. Both President Sebastián Piñera and his Peruvian counterpart, Ollanta Humala, vowed to implement the ruling, expressing their interest in closing the chapter and strengthening trade and investment ties. However there are still difficulties over a small triangle of land, and following on comments by President Piñera there are also concerns in Peru about Chile’s commitment to the 1948 Pact of Bogotá, which recognises ICJ jurisdiction.

In its case to the ICJ, Peru claimed that a maritime boundary between the two countries had never been agreed. Chile contended that fishing agreements and treaties signed in 1947, 1952 and 1954 established the boundary as being along the parallel passing through the starting-point of the Peru-Chile land boundary and extending to a minimum of 200 nautical miles. Peru countered that these treaties only defined national fishing rights areas, but not sovereignty, and “that the delimitation line advocated by Chile is totally inequitable as it awards Chile a full 200-nautical-mile maritime extension, whereas Peru, in contrast, suffers a severe cut-off effect”

In its 27 January ruling, the ICJ sought to provide a compromise. It found that while the treaties had not explicitly established the maritime boundary, the 1954 special maritime frontier zone agreement had “cemented” a “tacit agreement” that the maritime border ran 80 nautical miles from the point of the first land border marker separating the Chilean and Peruvian coasts (the location of which Peru questions). It added that “certain elements of the 1947 Proclamations and the 1952 Santiago Declaration suggested an evolving understanding between the Parties concerning their maritime boundary”. As a result, the court ruled that the "maritime boundary between the Parties extends to a distance of 80 nautical miles along the parallel". However, it drew a new, equidistant boundary running southwest, as Peru wanted. The ICJ also established that the precise geographical co-ordinates should be determined by the parties, in accordance with the judgment.

Both sides initially showed every intention of heeding the ruling. While describing it as “lamentable” and expressing “deep discrepancies” with it, both President Piñera and his elected successor, Michelle Bachelet (due to take office in March), pledged to honour it. Following his first meeting with Humala after the ICJ ruling, on the sidelines of a Community of Latin American & Caribbean States (Celac) summit in Havana on 29 January, President Piñera issued a statement “reaffirm[ing] Chile’s commitment to comply with the ruling…and focus the efforts of both countries on the agenda for the future”. On 6 February, the first so-called “2+2” meeting took place in Santiago, between the respective defence and foreign ministers. The meeting yielded a 9-point agreement and set a timetable to establish the exact coordinates of the new boundary. The final declaration did not specify exact dates, but Chilean and Peruvian officials subsequently told reporters that technical delegations from both countries would meet on 17 and 18 February to work out the details, with the aim of concluding the process in the next 2+2 meeting, scheduled for 24-25 March.

Subsequently, things took a turn backwards. On 12 February, Chile’s foreign minister Alfredo Moreno announced that his government would send an official protest note following Peru’s publication of an official map showing a small 3.7 hectare triangle of land, upon which a border marker sits, as Peruvian territory. The Chilean government maintained that the ICJ ruling effectively recognized the border marker as affirming Chilean ownership of the parcel. The Humala government denied this was the case and justified Peru’s claim to the parcel on the basis of a 1929 treaty with Chile. Further exacerbating these tensions, one of Peru’s representatives before the ICJ, former foreign minister José Antonio García Belaúnde (2006-2011), then accused Piñera of throwing a tantrum over the triangle in order to leave La Moneda “pretending he is a great defender of the nationalist cause”.

Meanwhile on 10 February, President Piñera told Chile’s national TV station, TVN, that Chile might reconsider its membership of the 1948 Pact of Bogotá altogether, adding that he had already discussed the issue with Bachelet. This suggests that Chile could follow in the footsteps of Colombia, which withdrew from the Pact of Bogotá following an unfavourable ruling by the ICJ in November 2012 in a bilateral maritime dispute with Nicaragua.

This announcement has aroused particular concern in the Bolivian government led by President Evo Morales, which in April 2013 filed a case against Chile as part of its efforts to reclaim access to the Pacific Ocean, lost in the 1879-1884 War of the Pacific. Piñera continues to maintain that the Bolivian case ‘”lacks any grounds”.

Dialogue with Bolivia

Bolivia’s decision to take the case against Chile before the ICJ in April 2013 came despite signs of rapprochement between the Morales government and the Chilean administration led by Michelle Bachelet (2006-2010). This saw the two governments ink a 13-point accord in 2006 aimed at restoring bilateral relations, which were severed in 1978.

Bachelet’s return to La Moneda has revived hopes of better cooperation, given that both leaders had a good personal rapport. Morales has been invited to Bachelet’s 11 March inauguration.

• Campaign spending

According to Chile’s electoral authority (Servel), Bachelet spent C$1.53bn (US$2.79m) on her campaign for the 15 December 2013 second round run-off against Evelyn Matthei (Coalición por el Cambio), who spent C$1.14bn (US$2.09m). According to Servel, in the first round, Bachelet spent C$5.38bn (US$9.83m), while Matthei spent C$3.48bn (US$6.35m). The official spending limit set by Servel for both campaigns was C$9.23bn (US$16.8m).

• Trade

According to the latest full year figures from the central bank, Chilean exports to Peru reached US$1.8bn in 2012, some 2.4% of Chile’s total exports (of US$76bn). Meanwhile Chile imported US$2.0bn from Peru in 2012, some 2.6% of its total imports (of US$79.5bn).