Evening star., 1922-01-29
MOVE A PEACE STEP
FOR SOUTH AMERICA
Bringing of Tacna africa Dispute to
Washington Expected to End Forty
Year-Old Controversy.

! the treaty Oh AncOn IN Ioof bul IL
is interesting to note. briefly, some CT
the steps taken.
A little before the expiration of the
ten years after the treatys ratifica-
| ton Peru asked Chile to withdra "
| from the disputed area and enter into
treaty providing for commercial
! exchange between the two countries.
This was refused by Chile on -llc
grounds that she could not give mp
her rights to the provinces as pro-
| vided in the Ancon treaty.
Peru a year later proposed. suhstan-
| TALLY, that the provinces of Tacna
and africa be turned over 10 her for
the conduct of a plebscite. and Chile
Immediately turned down this propo-
sition. Peru then proposed that the
disputed area be turned over TO
third and neutral power. under whose
auspices the plebiscite would be held
to determine its final ownership. Chile
refused on the grounds that the pro-
posal did not conform to the estab-
lished principle of Chilean sovereign
| ty. Peru then asked that the ques-
tion of nationality of Tacna and
africa after the expiration of the ten
years $3.50, together with the eligi-
biiity to vote of persons living in the
! territory, be submitted to arbitration
by third power. Chile refused this
on the grounds that she could not
submit to arbitration a question al
| ready answered in the treaty of An
I con.
1t was about this time 1S93-94)
| that an agreement was finally reached
| on the terms of a plebiscite between
diplomatic officials of both countries.
| But change in the Chilean cabinet
| unfortunately occurred as the nego-
tiations We're about to be closed, and
| a delay followed which was marked
| by further exchanges and conferences
| and finally ended in 1901, when diplo-
! matte relations between the two
| countries were severed.
F; In 1905 negotiations were resumed
at the instance of Chile and another
basis for the conduct of a plebiscite
| to determine the nationality of the
contested territory was agreed upon
| in 1910 between the envoys of the two
| countries. A change in the Peruvian
government, however, nullified these
| proceedings and diplomatic relations
| were again broken off in 1910.
| < = x T.
Since that time feeling in Chile and
in Peru has been intense Chile's
| superior strength Land and sea
{ h.a 1v 81
| tive of an actual outbreak of war. a
renewal of which would have done
| much to arrest the development and
| progress of both nations.
! Last month Chile took the initia-
| tive and approached Peru with the
! offer of reopening negotiations and
settling the Tacna and africa dispute
! by plebiscite, to be held on the
| basis of the agreement of 1912. Peru
| answered with a suggestion that the
| United States be invited to arbitrate
the question. Notes passed back and
| forth. and Chile and Peru again
! reached an impasse. If the United
| States had failed to come forward at
| this time with its offer. the deadlock
might have continued indefinitely.
|
! There are two other questions SO in
| terwovcn with the Tacra-Arica dis
| pute that many believe the ill feeling
and bitterness resulting from the war
of the Pacific will never be erased un-
! til their solution has been found. The
| first is the ''Taraca question" The
second is Bolivia's claims for an out
| let to the sea.
! Briefly stated, the Taraca case is as
follows: Prior to the war of the Pa
cific the provinces of Tacna, africa and
| of Taraca, which lies to the northeast
in Tacna, constituted the Department
of Tacna. When the treaty of peace
was signed, the Chileans evacuated
all Peruvian territory with the ex-
ception of Taraca, which they claimed
lies within the boundaries of Tacna
and africa as stipulated in the treaty,
and which they insisted must be held
for strategic purposes. Peru claimed
otherwise. Chile still occupies the
territory.
/ The question of Bolivia and her
| claims to a seaport seems to have
been put aside for the time being. 1t
will not enter the discussion of the
Forthcoming conference, as Chile has
already fatty refused to consider her
a party to the Tacna-Arica dispute.
and Peru feels, it is understood, that
while the Bolivian question with
Chile must be settled, it had best wait
until her own dispute with Chile has
been concluded satisfactorily.
x X X X
Bolivia's part in the Tacna and africa
dispute is interesting, especially in the
light of present-day developments. While
not a signatory to the treaty of An
con, Bolivia, the only country in
South America which lacks a seacoast.
has been advancing her claims lately
for an outlet to the sea. By the
treaty of 1904, concluded between
Chile and Bolivia, the latter country
renounced her claims to seacoast ter
ritory and ceded the important prov
ince of Antofagasta, rich in its nj
trate deposits, to Chile. In return
Chile built a railroad from africa to
LIE Paz, Bolivia's capital, connecting
that country by the shortest route to
the sea, and permitted her to erect
and maintain her own customhouses
in africa and Antofagasta and to i'm
port and export through them FREQ of
duty.
The present government of Bolivia.
however, has been steadily advocating
her right to seaport, on the ground
that the treaty of 1904 was signed un-