Chile-Bolivia Relations: A Complex History And Future

Relations between Chile and Bolivia have been strained since the War of the Pacific (1879-1884) when Bolivia lost its coastal province of Atacama to Chile, becoming a landlocked country. The war was fought over Chilean claims on coastal Bolivian territory in the Atacama Desert, with Chile gaining a significant amount of resource-rich territory from Bolivia and Peru, who had formed an alliance. The war ended with a decisive Chilean victory, and Bolivia has since sought access to the sea, with relations between the two countries remaining tense.

The War of the Pacific (1879-1883/1884)

The War of the Pacific, also known as the Saltpeter War, was fought between Chile and an alliance of Bolivia and Peru from 1879 to 1884. The conflict was caused by a dispute over mineral rights in the Atacama Desert, a Bolivian province. Bolivia's decision to increase taxes on the Chilean mining company Compañía de Salitres y Ferrocarril de Antofagasta (CSFA) in 1878 violated the Boundary Treaty of 1874, which prohibited tax increases for mining. Chile responded by occupying the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta in February 1879, leading to Bolivia and Chile declaring war on each other in March 1879. Peru, bound by a secret defensive treaty with Bolivia, joined the war in April 1879.

The war was largely fought at sea, with Chile seeking to gain control of the coastal waters to support its invasion of the landlocked country of Bolivia. Chile's naval victories at Iquique in May 1879 and Angamos in October 1879 gave it command of the coastal waters. This enabled Chile to invade and occupy the Peruvian province of Tarapacá in November 1879 and attack Tacna and Arica in early 1880.

In December 1880, Chile renewed its offensive by launching a seaborne attack on Peru. Chilean forces defeated the Peruvians at the Battles of Chorrillos and Miraflores and occupied the capital, Lima, in January 1881. The Peruvian government was forced to retreat into the highland interior, where it waged a guerrilla war for two years.

The war ended in 1883 with the Treaty of Ancón, which ceded the province of Tarapacá to Chile and allowed it to occupy Tacna and Arica for ten years, after which a plebiscite would determine their sovereignty. Bolivia, having lost its only coastal region, became landlocked. The dispute over Tacna and Arica, known as the "Question of the Pacific", was finally settled in 1929 through US mediation, with Chile retaining Arica and Peru regaining Tacna.

Bolivia's loss of coastal province of Atacama

Bolivia and Chile have had a strained relationship since gaining independence from Spain in the 19th century. The dispute between the two countries centres on the Atacama border, with both countries claiming access to the sea.

When Simón Bolívar established Bolivia as a nation in 1825, he claimed access to the sea at the port of Cobija, disregarding Chile's overlapping claims. This dispute continued to escalate, with both countries signing treaties in 1866 and 1874 in an attempt to resolve the issue. The 1866 treaty established the 24th parallel south as the boundary between the two countries and entitled them to share tax revenue on mineral exports between the 23rd and 25th parallels. However, Bolivia became dissatisfied with this arrangement due to its negative financial impact, especially after earthquakes struck Cobija in 1868 and 1877.

In 1879, the Bolivian dictator General Hilarión Daza increased taxes on the exportation of saltpeter in violation of the 1866 treaty. When Chilean-owned saltpeter companies refused to pay, Daza expropriated the companies and sold them at a public auction. Daza then cut off all commerce with Chile and exiled Chilean residents in Bolivia. In response, Chile declared the border treaties null and reactivated its old claim to a land border with Peru. Chile sent troops to Antofagasta, and shortly after, declared war on Bolivia and Peru, who had a secret pact to fight together against any threatening nations.

The War of the Pacific (1879-1884) resulted in Chile defeating Bolivia and annexing its coastline. Bolivia lost 120,000 sq km of land and became landlocked. In 1884, Bolivia signed a truce, giving control of its entire coast, the Antofagasta province, and its valuable mineral deposits to Chile. This arrangement was made permanent with the Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1904.

Bolivia has never given up on regaining its access to the sea, and the loss of the Litoral province remains a traumatic event for the country. Bolivia still maintains a navy and celebrates the Day of the Sea annually. In 2013, Bolivia took its case to the International Court of Justice, suing Chile for the land it lost in the War of the Pacific. However, the court ruled against Bolivia, stating that Chile was not obliged to negotiate access. Despite this final ruling, Bolivia's president, Evo Morales, has stated that the country will never give up on its aspirations for sovereign access to the sea.

Bolivia's demand for access to the Pacific coast

Bolivia has been demanding access to the Pacific coast since it lost its coastline to Chile during the War of the Pacific in 1879. Bolivia became landlocked after the war, which was fought over control of natural resources in the Atacama Desert region. Chilean and British companies had previously refused to pay new taxes imposed by Bolivia on the exportation of natural resources, including guano, sodium nitrate, and copper. In response to this, Bolivia moved to nationalise their mines, prompting Chile to invade.

The War of the Pacific resulted in Bolivia losing 120,000 sq km of land and its entire coastline. The war ended with the Treaty of Ancón between Chile and Peru, and the Treaty of Valparaíso between Bolivia and Chile. In the latter, it was agreed that Chile would temporarily administer the territory taken from Bolivia and that Bolivia had the right to freely trade at Chilean ports. However, in the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Bolivia and Chile agreed that Antofagasta, the territory taken by Chile during the war, would be Chilean. In exchange, a railroad would be constructed between Arica and La Paz at Chile's expense, and Bolivia would be granted free trade rights at Chile's Pacific ports and allowed to establish customs facilities there.

Despite this agreement, Bolivia has continued to seek sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. In 1975 and 1976, Chile and Bolivia agreed to a territorial swap with the Charaña Accords, but this would have required the approval of Peru, which instead proposed a region of shared sovereignty between the three nations. This was rejected by both Chile and Bolivia, and Bolivia cut diplomatic ties with Chile in 1978. Since then, the two nations have maintained only consular relations.

Bolivia's lack of access to the sea is a significant issue for the country, both politically and economically. It is estimated that the lack of a coastline deprives Bolivia of 1.5% in annual economic growth, and the country is also dependent on Chile's political will and the functioning of its ports for its foreign trade. In 2013, Bolivia brought a case against Chile to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that Chile was obligated to negotiate with Bolivia towards granting it sovereign access to the sea. However, the ICJ ruled in Chile's favour in 2018, stating that Chile was not obliged to negotiate. Despite this ruling, Bolivia has vowed to never give up its pursuit of access to the Pacific Ocean.

The Atacama border dispute

The dispute arose due to the vague borders established in the Spanish Empire, which defined the Atacama Desert as the northern border of the General Captaincy of Chile. When Simón Bolívar established Bolivia as a nation in 1825, he claimed access to the sea, disregarding overlapping claims by Chile, which had gained independence seven years prior.

The border dispute between Bolivia and Chile grew slowly during most of the 19th century over the Atacama corridor, a part of the Atacama Desert which now forms northern Chile. The Atacama Desert is bordered by the Coast Range to the west and the Andes to the east. The geography of the area was a significant factor in how the dispute began. The mountains mean the area only receives rain two to four times a century, making it one of the driest places on Earth.

After the independence of Chile (1818) and Bolivia (1825), the governments of both countries did not define their borders. National boundaries in the Atacama region had still not been agreed upon when valuable resources, including nitrates, silver, and copper, were discovered in the area. Both Bolivia and Chile laid claim to the territory. Other countries, including Britain, Spain, and the United States, also had an interest in controlling the resources, and backed the different parties.

The Boundary Treaty of 1866 established the 24th parallel south as the boundary between the two countries and entitled them to share tax revenue on mineral exports between the 23rd and 25th parallels. A second treaty in 1874 superseded this, entitling Bolivia to collect full tax revenue between the 23rd and 24th parallels, but fixing tax rates on Chilean companies for 25 years.

In February 1878, the Bolivian government, under President Hilarión Daza, threatened to confiscate the property of the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company after the company refused to pay increased taxes. Chile responded by sending a warship to the area in December 1878. Bolivia announced the seizure and auction of the company on 14 February 1879. Chile, in turn, threatened that such action would nullify the border treaty.

In April 1879, Chile declared war on Bolivia and its ally, Peru, starting the War of the Pacific. By the end of the war, Chile had annexed the Bolivian coast, leaving Bolivia landlocked. Bolivia signed a truce in 1884, giving control of its entire coast, the province of Antofagasta, and its valuable natural resources to Chile. The Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1904 made this arrangement permanent.

In 1975, the Chilean government made a proposal to Bolivia for a swap of a narrow corridor of Chilean land from the sea to the border between the two countries, in exchange for the same amount of Bolivian territory. However, this proposal involved former Peruvian land, and Peru objected to these changes. Bolivia still wishes for an Atacama corridor, which Chile rejects, although it does grant unrestricted traffic to all kinds of Bolivian merchandise through that territory.

The Silala River dispute

The Origins of the Dispute

The dispute over the Silala River, which flows from Bolivia to Chile, began in 1908 when Bolivia granted a concession to the Chilean Antofagasta-Bolivian Railway Company to use the waters of the river. Water, a scarce resource in the Atacama Desert, was used to power steam engines travelling between the cities of Antofagasta in Chile and Oruro in Bolivia. In 1962, steam-powered engines were replaced by diesel engines, and water was no longer needed to power the latter. Since then, Chile has retained control of the watercourse, channelling its flow to supply mines and towns, even though the concession was initially given to power locomotives only.

The Dispute

Bolivia claims that Chile built canals that moved the river's natural flow artificially from Bolivia to Chile. On the other hand, Chile insists that the Silala is an international river and that it has a legal right to use the water. Bolivia revoked the concession in 1997 and sought to charge Chile retroactively for the diverted use of the Silala waters.

The Legal Battle

In 2016, the United Nation's highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), assessed a legal case concerning the Silala River. The lawsuit is still ongoing. Bolivia claims ownership of the river as it originates from springs on its territory, while Chile insists it has a sovereign right to the river as it is an international watercourse. The applicability of international water law to the Silala case depends on whether the river is considered a natural transboundary watercourse. Human-altered canalisation and flow deviations would not fall within the scope of international water law.

The Impact of the Dispute

The outcome of this legal case may be crucial to future Chile-Bolivian relations. The dispute highlights that water is an increasingly contentious resource due to climate change and increased demands from population and industry. The Silala River dispute is also concerned with allocating economic and political interests in a climate crisis scenario. Water scarcity in both countries is likely to intensify claims of absolute territorial sovereignty over the river instead of promoting adroit management and equal rights.

Frequently asked questions