Analysis: An old conflict between Argentina and Chile resurfaces and does not bode well

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – The resurgence of an old border dispute between Argentina and Chile may be just the tip of the iceberg of a more complex geopolitical panorama in the region.

The countries of the Southern Cone jointly fell victim to the violence and dictatorial terror of the 1960s and 1970s. And these countries also made the journey from dictatorship to democracy together in the 1980s and 1990s, with different challenges, rhythms, and frameworks.

The defusing – if not resolution – of the border conflicts was one of the conditions that made it possible to move in this direction and lay the foundations for the integration process that has also been instrumental in making this part of the world a “zone of peace and cooperation.”

The peace treaty signed between Argentina and Chile that ended the century-long conflict over the Beagle Channel (1984) and the agreements between Argentina and Brazil that laid the foundations for Mercosur (1985-1991) were milestones on this path, showing the strength of the new democracies to suspend or eliminate the latent or explicit state of war that had kept the region in suspense ever since these countries imagined and constituted themselves as nation-states.

THE RESURGENCE OF A BORDER DISPUTE

Therefore, the resurgence of a border dispute between Argentina and Chile, in this case over overlapping maps of a portion of the continental shelf south of Tierra del Fuego that Argentina claims as its own.

At the same time, Chile has decided to make it its own claim, maybe just the tip of the iceberg of a more complex and troubling geopolitical panorama.

The background of the case is that on April 21, 2009, Argentina took the initiative to submit to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) the documents defining the external boundary of its shelf.

On March 17, 2017, the CLCS adopted the recommendations, excluding the areas subject to a sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom and the sector governed by the Antarctic Treaty. This decision allowed the extension of Argentine sovereignty rights over mineral resources by more than 1,782,000 km² in addition to the already existing 4,799,000 km².

The Argentine Congress unanimously approved the opinion of the Boundary Commission, which was converted into Law 27557 on August 4, 2020, which became effective on August 25, 2020.

In May, the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs had already expressed itself to the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reiterating the conditions it had expressed in 2009 before the United Nations technical body.

It reserved the right to determine the boundaries of its own continental shelf. Supreme Decree 95, issued on August 23, and the update of the Chilean nautical chart four days later, establishing the sovereign rights of the Chilean continental shelf, are the continuation of this diplomatic effort begun in 2009.

The overlap with Argentine sovereignty concerns the southern part of the Drake Sea, the so-called “crescent”, with an area of 5,000 km². As Argentine diplomat and economist Felipe Frydman points out, the two countries have not had the opportunity to dialogue, clarify differences, and determine how to deal with so much water for eleven years.

And now comes the public misunderstanding that could lead to new international calls if there is no joint bilateral treatment.

THE DISPUTE OVER THE DOMAIN OF THE SEABED

The dispute can be seen as part of the contest over seabed sovereignty that can also be observed in the Arctic, the Caspian, the Mediterranean, and the South China Sea. The expansion of this sovereignty is a phenomenon of global geopolitics involving great powers and countries involved in this race for resources.

This leads the observer to consider this binational Argentine-Chilean border conflict in line with the disagreements and divergences plaguing Mercosur. These conflicts are part of the erosion, if not the disintegration, of the regional base that allowed the community to move forward together within the respective national borders of each member country and beyond: Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay.

In this way, two seemingly contradictory but essentially equivalent reactive behaviors emerge to escape the current crossroads: Either breaking away from regional commitments to “make the leap” to global markets or retreating into the territorial nationalism and isolationism of a world that no longer exists.

These two mirages distract from domestic problems and do nothing but show that, in the absence of common projects for the future, the countries are haunted by ghosts that seemed to have been definitively overcome, in a regional scenario whose fragmentation weakens the national interests of each country.

It might seem that the last thing South America needs now is for Argentina and Chile to revive old rivalries in the Southern Cone, in a time warp that throws this region back forty years while the world powers redefine the great game of global geopolitics.

This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error