MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Peru makes its case before the International Court; Chile: no surprises
Peru asked the International Court of Justice Monday to set a maritime border with Chile in a case that could greatly expand the amount of rich seas under Peruvian control off the two Pacific neighbours’ coasts. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesLol, one big united and happy family, or so we are led to believe.
Dec 03rd, 2012 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Chile's President Sebastian Piñera spoke out against “exacerbated nationalism, which poisons the soul of the people”.
Dec 03rd, 2012 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice turn of phrase. But a shame he didn't come out with it at Unasur.
The Falklands are not the only piece of land claimed by South Americans, who clasim to be buddies one minute-the next they're scrapping.
Dec 03rd, 2012 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still though I hope Chile will prevail, at least Peru had the guts to take this to international court whereas Argentina haven't got the bottle to.
This artificial dispute was slowly built by Peru in order to fight low popularity goverments through the years, so mostly is based in political and histrionic arguments. And complies with the wish of every peruvian to revenge on Chile, since they´re taught to hate Chile even before learn to read, also is a sample of their hipocrecy and abuse since Chile has helped many peruvian programs, invested 12000 us milions and letting near 100.000 peruvian inmigrants. (many of them crooks).
Dec 03rd, 2012 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Looking at that map the Peruvian claim would seem to have some merit.
Dec 03rd, 2012 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are, however, friends of the RGs so Fuck Em.
It would be interesting to see what the Bolivian govt has to say about thier lost coastline which they reclaim to this day. Dont they have rights too?
Dec 03rd, 2012 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 01 Brit
Dec 04th, 2012 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0When do we ever pretend to be a united happy family?
The continent is acting in greater political unison than ever before, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t major disputes. However, our relations with Peru are very good right now. We are demining the border and resolving this dispute at the ICJ. Chile has agreed to accept the results. There is no dispute over land, it is just the formula used to project the maritime border.
2 Hans
“But a shame he didn't come out with it at Unasur.”
Very true, but it would be unnecessary. We all know the Falklands are not going anywhere.
5 Frank
It has some merit, based on the formula currently used, but the border was agreed to earlier by Peru, so that should prevail. I hope we are not in for a surprise ruling like Colombia. A lot of my compatriots would react very badly.
6 redpoll
They would say what they have been saying for 130 years...its ours blab la bla. They signed a treaty in 1904 recognising the current border so they have no case at the ICJ.
They should create an area untouched by either. It would benefit fish stocks for centuries to come for both Peru and Chile!
Dec 04th, 2012 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2
Dec 04th, 2012 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, these Unasur meetings are platforms for Argentina to hijack. Clearly there are many other serious issues that need to be discussed but it seems they are all happy to pretend that the UK is their one joint nemesis and portray an image of unity, which evidently far from the truth.
9
Dec 04th, 2012 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Brit,
“to pretend that the UK is their one joint nemesis”
That is totally incorrect. The UK is no one’s nemesis, either real or imagined. Quite the contrary, most countries in South America have very good relations with the UK. I think your frustration at Argentina distorts your impression of the whole region. Try looking at it from our perspective, rather than through the prism of the FI and you would realize that.
@10 Tell us, then, why all your governments stand up and support argieland? WE all know that Britain's claim to the Falkland Islands is indisputable. And therefore the Falkland Islanders' claim to their land is indisputable. we can also understand, to some extent, nutjobs Kirchner and Chavez. They need “a cause”. I can sort of understand Mujica. He's a demented, frightened, senile old man. What about the rest?
Dec 04th, 2012 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have explained this point before, but here we go again. It is called putting national interests first. We do, it you do it, they do it.
Dec 04th, 2012 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The FIs are Argentina’s single most important foreign policy issue. We would be very foolish to antagonise one of our most important trading partners over what is essentially a non issue. We would lose a lot and gain nothing.
It is a non issue internally because the Chilean public has many other priorities (think, how important is the well fare of the villagers in Chungungo to the UK populace?). It is a non issue externally because the FI status quo is not going to change so our bluff is unlikely to be called.
If I may pre-empt your “it’s about what is morally right” reply, no it is not.
Countries seldom let what is morally right override self interest unless there is a very strong moral obligation to act, which there isn’t in this case and if there were, our position might change.
Nice post condorito
Dec 04th, 2012 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with redpoll, good post Condorito. National intrests alway over rule moral rights. Plus we all know Argentina will never get its hands on the falklands :p
Dec 04th, 2012 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Condorito To “meter el dedo en la llaga” when is Chile going to return the battleship Huascar to Peru??? I await your explosion!
Dec 05th, 2012 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0redpoll
Dec 05th, 2012 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the Argies have a better chance of getting their boat back.
I don't feel we have any obligation to return the Huascar. They lost it in a war that they were foolish enough to get involved in. Our fight was with Bolivia. If Peru had stayed out, the war would have lasted about a week and Peru would still have Iquique and Arica. Actions have consequences and if the Huascar reminds the Peruvians of that, then that is a good thing.
I agree condorito. Huascar is a ntional treasure being well looked after by the Chilean Navy and should be declared a site on the UN heritage site
Dec 05th, 2012 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Intersting the different ideas of how to conduct a war. The letters between Captain Grau and Arturo Prats widow, although written in very flowery Spanish reflect a different age when such matters were not just a political spin
Grau was the “Gentleman of the Seas” and the outstanding commander of the sea campaign. His conduct was from another age, but it was far from typical of other incidents in the war. For example, when the Chilean army took Arica, the men went berserk in the true sense of the word. Their officers couldn’t stop them from butchering the Peruvian defenders. In the heat of the battle, they ignored orders and stormed the Morro de Arica with such speed and ferocity that the Peruvians were unable to detonate the mines they had rigged up to both kill themselves and inflict as much damage on their victors as possible. All was totally avoidable as before the assault began, the Chileans offered terms to the Peruvians, who rejected them and chose to fight to the last man, which they just about did.
Dec 05th, 2012 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So much animosity that we have with Peru could have been avoided if they had thought things through better. For a start they should have stayed out of the war. Secondly after the fall of Arica, Chile sued for peace and Peru refused, forcing Chile to go on and take Lima. After losing Lima they still didn’t surrender and the Chilean army had to pursue the Peruvian army way up north to finally annihilate it. All the atrocities of the war were committed after the conclusion was inevitable and Chile was willing to accept a Peruvian surrender. And here we are today with the consequences.
Thanks condorito.
Dec 06th, 2012 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have only studied the naval warfare,not the land campaigns. War in any of its forms is atrocious and reduces normally sane men to beasts I agree. But sometimes there is no alternative as was such against the meglomaniac Hitler. Then you have to stand up and be counted or fall under the jackboot of a nasty dictatorship
An army is steamed up by its commanders words willing them on to victory and once the soldiers have seen so many of thier mates killed in assualt of a town they run wild on pent up adrenalin and the town is sacked. Even that strong disciplinarian Wellington,with his “bloody provost” couldnt stop the anarchy and atrocities after the storming of Badajoz. Unfortunately its the dark side of human nature which is always there just below the surface
Yes, very true. Sometimes there is just no alternative.
Dec 06th, 2012 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!