Atacama Desert border dispute
[dubious – discuss] Due to the surrender of land by Bolivia, the Puna de Atacama dispute was generated between Chile and Argentina and was settled in 1899.
Other countries' interest was drawn due to the importance of nitrates in the production of fertilizer and high explosives; Britain, Spain and the United States had a strategic and economic stake in controlling the resource granting their support to the different parties.
Chile's influence grew in the disputed zone as miners, some of them backed by Chilean and foreign companies, started to advance northwards establishing mines and port facilities.
Most economic exploitation of the coastal region was being conducted by Chilean companies and British interests, under the aegis of Chile's more robust economy and more stable institutions.
On 27 November 1873 the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company signed a contract with the Bolivian government that would have authorized it to extract saltpeter duty-free for 25 years.
[5] When the Antofagasta Nitrate & Railway Company refused to pay, the Bolivian government under President Hilarión Daza threatened to confiscate its property.
In April 1879, shortly after becoming aware of the alliance treaty between Peru and Bolivia, Chile declared war on both countries.
In 1884, Bolivia signed a truce that gave control to Chile of the entire Bolivian coast, the province of Antofagasta, and its valuable nitrate, copper and other mineral deposits.
[7] Since Pinochet was likely aware that the Charaña proposals would fail in the end due to Peruvian opposition, legal and political analysts have suggested that he raised them just as a gesture towards Bolivia.
He thus broke an OAS resolution in 2012 wherein the majority of member states encouraged Bolivia to pursue the issue via bilateral dialogue with Chile.
The basis of the case stemmed from two bilateral negotiations in the 1970s and 1950s where a sovereign route to the Pacific was allegedly promised by Chile but never eventuated.
[15] In October 2018, the International Court of Justice issued a final and binding decision that Chile was not obliged to negotiate granting Bolivia sea access.
[19] During the 2021 Chilean presidential campaign, communist candidate Daniel Jadue argued in favor of a "mutually beneficial" agreement with Bolivia, in which territory would be ceded in exchange for Chile acquiring some gas and water rights.
