Comments on: Chile’s Aggressive Military Arm Purchases Are Ruffling the Region, Alarming in Particular Bolivia, Peru and Argentina

By: Federico L.

Federico L. — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:12:14 +0000

Are you really serious, that you are are trying to justify the Peruvian point, that this same treaty you signed is only comercial with Chile, and same time a limitation treaty with Ecuador? Not even a jurist is required to see sillyness of this attempt. And there are way more bilateral evidences and proofs that the parallel has been agreed between both countries as the limit, like the bilateral comission of cartopgraphs in 1968 and 69 which defined the exact geographical definition via coordinate system, build up of the 2 demarcatory lighthouses at the coast towards the parallel. You know what a coordinate system is? It does not let you have any room for interpretations at all. This was all agreed and signed by the highest Chilean and Peruvian authorities and can all be shown and seen at the UN Limitation Database publically available. Regarding your emotive descriptions of "losses" and "big, mean, agressive chileans" , talking about a war dated almost one and a half century in the past and lack of facts, just think about how this sounds for a third party not involved. Like the typical "indoctrination over reason" so known and widespread in this world.
Have a nice day.

By: Federico L.

Federico L. — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:07:22 +0000

Hi Jose, I don't think that my position is misleading at all and I see clearly that you did not understand anything at all. I don't want to sound arrogant in any way, but what I have stated previously regarding the border issue is simply the status quo according to international law and actions, and would be hard for you or anybody else to refute it with reasonable arguments or facts at all. Your "attempt" to justify Peru's violation of current treaties is not really worth to discuss but I will try: it sound very like an excuse why Peru does not respect international law, and this explaination is very insular, by no mean objective, it is contradictory and full of "weasel words". Let's start…. post continues

By: L. Federico

L. Federico — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:30:14 +0000

…not even to mention Chavez expansionist wishes to conquer his defenseless and impoverished neighbour Guyana.

By: L. Federico

L. Federico — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:25:18 +0000

Hi Tio Tom, I guess you meant COHA are not liberal, but leftwing!
Chavez is alot of things, but liberal!
And yes, of course this article is politically influenced, does anybody have ever doubted it? They do not write about Venezuelas "Aggressive Military Arm Purchases" which are way higher than Chile's and with no neighbouring threat at all. Totally opposite… I remember Chavez regular threatening towards Colombia, like the speach that he got his "Tanks prepared at the frontier to enter in action, just one comand" for his neighbour.

By: jose

jose — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:39:23 +0000

Dear Federico L., so do you think your way of explaining the problem is not misleading?, perhaps its yourself that didnt quite understand the problem. After the war among Peru Chile and Bolivia, that Chile prepared so well for, buying a lot of weapons as does todays, surpasing its neighbourghs; a treaty was signed with Peru in Ancon the terrestrial limit was to reach the pacific yet in another territorial hungry move your contry said that the frontier line started there and not from the pacific. then in 54 and 56 as there was no reference for the fisherman they would use le paralel al guide, there was no gps of course and that was an easy ways to avoid problemas with your everso agressive military. With ecuator its no the same thing, because the coastal line is diferent there, did you see a map of america professor? Chilean posture involves that Peru would lose its 200 miles of sea, departing from the coastin tacna it would have even 3 miles of sea. And those fishing treaties were part of the promotion of the idea of the 200 miles of sea, taht your country promoted, those treaties were intended as a piece of conjoint soveraninty of the sea, but you Chilean country used it once more to try to take advantage of its neihbourgs as usual. understood profesor? and if you claim that Peru and Bolivia are a military treat to Chile and that wasting more tal 2,500 millions in guns its not desproportionated, go back to elementary professor. we are not as stupids as you think to force us into your lies.

By: Tio Tom

Tio Tom — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:40:00 +0000

COHA is a liberal organanzation pushing a liberal agenda. To me this is the begining and end of any discussion with this stupid group. They are a clueless group of people trying to distort everything and anything that doesn't fall within their leftwing agenda. They have no morals and concious. They probably love Chavez and they want to see more people like him all over latin america.

By: Claudio

Claudio — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:08:02 +0000

Totally disagree with the notion that even at this date the military in Chile remains largely an autonomous entity. Although that was clearly the situation few years after Pinochet left office, way much water has passed under the bridge. Several generation of line of command have already permeated to the top military hierarchy and few, if any, of Pinochet hard line loyalties remain in the current arm forces. Not longer there is uneasiness between the top military command and the political at the helm of the nation. Probe of that is the recent introduction of new legislation aim to modify the current structure of the top command of the arm forces and to eliminate the copper law. All changes that the military have not opposed. Like me, a big majority of the people that years ago fought the military oppression to reclaim democracy and human right feel a new sense of pride for how our military have come around. I do not deny that there is still much to be done to heal the scars of Pinochet's era but that has nothing to do with the way the military go about business these days.
About the arms, I guess nobody in Chile wants to face the situation of 1979 when the Argentinean army thought that a military campaign on Chile would be the ideal move to restore their badly shaken image and because of the precarious state of Chile's army there was nothing that we could do to stop it. It would have been disastrous for Chile.

By: PAblo

PAblo — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:37:35 +0000

Why do people care so much about what happens in Chile???

Yes we spent a billion dollars getting new equipment. And we're selling old stock to other countries.

Now, what would you say to Brazil's 3 billion dollar military plan??
Will anyone care??
I think no, just because they're Brazilian.

The way I see it, anything that happens in Chile will be taken as a "provocative move" to any end.
Come on people move forward.

By: Federico.L

Federico.L — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:46:59 +0000

to reven98:

In some cases you drift away from the crucial ando considerate point of discussion, which I don’t really want to enter.
Let’s be very clear and do rectify, before going on:

Regarding the maritime border, you wrote Peru wants X and Chile wants Y and therefore it’s under investigation at the international court in La Hague. This is very misleading, as you are implying equal matches here, but the correct statement is:

Currently the status quo is, that the parallel is the maritime border between both countries (Chile’s position). This is respected by both countries from a military AND institutional point of view. No Peruvian military vessel ever surpasses this parallel border without Chilean permission, and Peruvian military maps indicate the parallel as limit too. Also on a regular basis, Peruvian fishing vessels, which illegally surpass this PARALLEL border are being intercepted by the Chilean coast guard and are being escorted to the Chilean harbour Arica, being fined, their load being confiscated and returned to Peru, just according to the Maritime Zone boundary treaties of 1952 and 54 signed by both countries. The point here is: Peruvian government has NEVER EVER complaint about this procedure… and you know why? Because Peru never disputed this is the correct treatment!

Now… regarding the current situation at the international court of justiceis the following:

Peru CLAIMS that the current limitation is “unfair”, and that suddenly the delimitation treaties of 52/54, which Peru respected for more then half a century, are not “national delimitation treaties” but only “fishing delimitation treaties”, implying there is a need for another treaty, defining limits to their benefit. Therefore Peru has filed a claim in the court in Den Haag, but this has not yet really started.

Furthermore, Peru has a very curious position, that this “fishing treaty”, which has been signed by 3 countries (Peru, Ecuador and Chile) is not a delimitation treaty with chile, but same treaty IS a delimitation treaty with Ecuador. Very ambiguous and I am very fond, of how they will try to explain this in the court!

By: PABLO HUNTER

PABLO HUNTER — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:18:29 +0000

Mr. Sanchez;

To imply that Chile has no threats or no enemies, it’s absolutely incorrect. To say that Chile purchases weapons of destruction, its playing with objectivity and the truth. Chile sees the purchasing of modern military equipment as an investment, as a “dissuassive factor”, or as a “preventive measure”. Let’s no forget that Chile has not been interested in warfare since 1879. During that same period of time countries such as Perú (4 wars), Argentina (3 wars) & Bolivia (3 wars)have been involved in more that 10 wars. Mr. Sanchez you didn’t want to mention that Perú was ready to attack Chile in 1975 for no good reason(read about Velasco Alvarado military regimer), or that Argentina had it’s troops ready to attack Chile in the southern region in 1978 because Argentina was unhappy about the Pope’s decisión on the Beagle Channel, favorable to Chile that is(read about Videla’s military regime). Chile in fact has neighbours that can act up in very strange ways. We never know who or what is going to be in power. I don’t know if you have read, but Perú, Bolivia and Argentina have a tremendous history of very unstable governments, huge corruption problems, constant military unrest. And presidents that are constantly being send to prison, please read about Fujimory, Videla, and dozens more. My friend, …Chile has more then enough reasons to want to protect its country. ¿Maybe you would prefer Chile to remain naive?. But Chile my friend, just like Israel knows very well that they rather feel safe then sorry. And yes my friend Sanchez, all of that modern military equipment is there to make chileans feel safer. And another thing Mr. Sanchez let’s tell the truth. Chileans can exercise the right to vote against that famous 10% coper revenue that keep Chile’s military so well respected in the region. But chileans prefer to keep the “status quo”, they want to keep their military forces very strong and respected. Chile will never attack a neighbour as demostrated in these past 130 years, but Chile demands respect.