The war of the Pacific was ended by two different international agreements which changed the limits among the three countries involved (Map 1.) In October, 1883, Peruvian and Chilean representatives signed the Treaty of Ancon, by which Chile incorporated the Tarapaca province. On the other hand, the final treaty of peace and boundaries with Bolivia was signed in 1904, two decades later. By this treaty Bolivia ratified the Chilean sovereignty over the Atacama desert territory” (Antofagasta province) accepting its condition as a landlocked country.
Nevertheless, territorial problems between Peru and Chile were far from over and the seed for a new controversy was right in the Ancon Treaty. The United States -in spite of its problematic relation with Chile- would become an active participant in the search for a solution of the territorial problem between the South American countries.
a. The Treaty of Ancon and the New Difficulties between US and Chile
According to Sater, by the final days of the War of the Pacific, Chile was “weary of the bloody war” and accepted to control Tacna and Arica provinces for only ten years if Peru ceded Tarapaca. Peruvians agreed and the treaty was signed. In its article 3º the agreement established that after a decade, “the two nations would conduct a plebiscite to determine the status of the disputed lands.” However, by 1894 the plebiscite had not been held yet.
Skuban states that, in their claims for that situation, Peruvians argued that the phrase expirado este plazo should be understood as at the expiration of that term, so “the plebiscite should have been held precisely on March 28, 1894, the exact day on which the Peruvian Congress ratified the treaty in 1884.” Nevertheless, Chileans insisted ...
... middle of paper ...
...th America.
During the Washington Conference (started on May 15, 1922) Peru and Chile presented their arguments and evidences to consideration of the President of the United States. Finally, through an Arbitration Protocol and a Supplementary Act -signed on July 20- both countries submitted to the US President “the question whether […] a plebiscite [had or had not] be held” in Tacna and Arica. Although The New York Times, as quoted in Joe F. Wilson, states that “Hughes and Harding were very reluctant to accept the role,” William Skuban suggests that the American President was “eager […] to demonstrate the postwar, international leadership role of the United States.” The Tacna-Arica problem seemed to offer a good opportunity to do it, but -how L. Ethan Ellis says- that matter will become in a Pandora’s Box, for the US government and its international prestige.
The Great Tuna Boat Chase and Massacre Case has Ecuador claiming that the United States is in violation of its 200-mile territorial sea. From it’s inception, Ecuador had accepted the customary three mile limit as the demarcation of its territorial waters. However, after 130 years, Juan Valdez achieved power in 1952. Under his regime, he proclaimed that the three mile boundary was never meant to be considered a fixed and unalterable boundary, and that historical practices as well as the natural features of the area justified a 200-mile territorial sea. Each Ecuadorian president since Valdez claimed this as well.
With the expansion the United States into the Pacific Northwest and the rapid encroachment of white settlers into their territory, the Yakama signed the "Treaty with the Yakima" with the United States government in 1855. The Yakama people were able to negotiate for many tribal rights due to their strategic and powerful po...
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
United States of America. U.S. Department of State. Office of the Historian. The Philippine-American War, 1899-1902. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2014
Over the course of the history of the United States, specific foreign policies have affected the methods in which the U.S. involves itself around the globe. Specifically, certain policies have affected U.S. involvement in Latin America. It is the intention of this essay to explain the United States foreign policy behind specific doctrines. In order to realize current objectives, this paper will proceed as follows: Part 1 will define the Monroe Doctrine, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will concurrently explicitly explain the Roosevelt Corollary, Good Neighbor Policy, and the Nixon Doctrine, discuss how each policy resulted in U.S. involvement in Latin American countries, describe how it was justified by the U.S. government, respectively, and finally, will bring this paper to a conclusion.
War.” The actions that sparked their new revolution occurred on the eve of Peru’s first
The Alliance for Progress program was initially met with open arms by most Latin Americans leaders and immediately boosted U.S. relations throughout the hemisphere.1 The alliance’s charter was signed by all members of the organization except for Cuba at a special meeting at Punta del Este, Uruguay, on August 17, 1961.2 The drafters of the charter emphasized that the twin goals of economic development and social injustice should be pursued simultaneously and that both should be paralleled by efforts to expand political freedom in the hemisphere. One of the most important factors of the program was the promotion of self-help. Under the alliance’s charter, the participating Latin American countries would provide eighty percent of the funding and the remaining twenty would be pledged by external sources, which would be furnished by the United states, other wealthy countries, and a variety of public and private groups. Though created to ensure the improvement of Latin America, there were many dilemmas within the Alliance for Progress. The program was not really an alliance and it did not progress satisfactorily.
Harry E. Canden. , & Gary Prevost, (2012). Politics Latin America. (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
...n. In article five of the treaty, the boundary between the nations was determined. This primarily the borders that we had today. Since Americans were in complete control of Mexico during this time, the signing of the treaties would kick america out and give Mexico control of their new shrunken territory. The agreement also talked about if another war does erupt between them again, the countries can not hurt the innocent including women, children, ecclesiastics, farmers,merchants, rich people, unarmed citizens and many more. Houses and other respected buildings like churches, hospitals, schools and colleges can not be destroyed. The Treaty was ratified by the president on march 16, 1848 and was made official on July fourth, 1848. The Americans gave the Mexicans only 15 million for all the land they got;stealing more than half of the Mexican empire.
In February 2, 1848, the final armistice treaty Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, through which the United States government got the access to entire area of California, Nevada, Utah plus some territory in Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming. As a compensation, the United States government paid 18.25 million dollars to Mexico.( Pecquet, Gary M., and C. F. Thies. 2010) However, apart from the death of people, Mexico lost half of its territory in this war, which initiate Mexican’s hostile towards American. In addition, after the Mexican-American war, there was an absence of national sense in Mexican, which had a negative effect on the unity and development of the country.
The war of 1898 and 1917 were pivotal events in American foreign relations. Both wars shaped the way America is seen from a global lens and also offers insight into the foundation for how we respond to future crisis. Though these wars were drastically different in reasons and outcome, they share close similarities and obvious differences that help us to better understand the decision making process in America’s war efforts abroad.
It is believed by many that 1898 was a year of liberation and domination because of the Spanish-American War (García 39). After the war had concluded Puerto Rico had finally, after centuries of Spanish rule, been free of the tyrannical policies of the Spanish government in the island; moreover, this led to the clear pavement of the path for domination of the island of Puerto Rico by the United States. For the years to come once the US takes control of Puerto Rico, US military leaders in order to create a stable political, economical, and social environment governed the people of Puerto Rico. After years of legislation and negotiations from Puerto Rico’s leadership, in 1952...
5. The United States and Latin America had a very turbulent history with each other. After
A very important event in Peruvian history is how Peru gained its independence from Spain. It all started with an uprising of Spanish-American landowners and their forces were led by Jose de San Martin of Argentina and Simon Bolivar of Venezuela. Because Peru was the stronghold of the Spanish government in South America, Argentine patriot, General San Martin’s strategy to liberate Peru was to use diplomacy. He sent representatives to Lima urging Viceroy Pazuela that Peru be granted independence, however all negotiations proved unsuccessful. They then launched Peru’s movement toward independence. San Martin led the military campaign of 4,200 soldiers. On July 28, 1821, he proclaimed the independence of Peru in Lima and said, “From this moment on, Peru is free and independent; by the general will of the people and the justice of its cause that God defends. Long live the homeland! Long live freedom! Long live our independence!” However, Spain did not identify Peru’s independence and the conflict continued. In 1824, Simon Bolivar and his assistants assembled the army at the Lake of Junín...
In the wake of WWII, the western world was in a state of perpetual fear. After seeing Marxist influence make a shocking impact wherever it landed, the rise of the Soviet Union, the 26rd of July movement in Cuba, and numerous other revolutions with the goal of radical social and political reforms, the world was divided by two mutually exclusive and hostile ideologies: capitalism and Marxism. The two major superpowers of the time, the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union were at opposite ends of the spectrum. The Marxist revolutions of Europe and Russia gave inspiration to many Latin American revolutionaries. The U.S. wanted to ensure that communism and leftist regimes did not spread, particularly in Latin America, where leftist regimes would especially threaten U.S. business interest. The U.S. for over a century had been imperializing Latin America under a series of façades and in the mid-20th century, McCarthyism became the new catch-all excuse to interfere with the affairs of a sovereign nation. Under the guise of containing the spread of communism, many Latin American governments that tried to deviate from the practice of serving U.S. interest were overthrown with the funding and instruction of the U.S. It was with the watchful and accusing eye of Uncle Sam looming over Latin America that in 1970, that Unidad Popular candidate, Salvador Allende, was democratically elected President of Chile. Even before Allende assumed the presidency, oppositional forces were conspiring to destroy him, everything he was to accomplish, and the pro-working class ideology that he represented. The events that occurred in the three years that his presidency endured and which lead to the coup d’état of Pinochet were the product of U.S. hostility towards any t...