TACNA-ARICA
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sia,—In your issue of March 2nd, when discussing the question of the Tacna-Arica dispute, you have this sentence : " The decisive-factor in cutting the Gordian knot seems to have been the subtle proposal made by Mr. Kellogg, that the two pro- vinces should simply revert to Bolivia, from whom they were wrested in the triangular war of 1884." Allow me to correct two grave misstatements of historical fact :— '
(a) The province, Tacna-Arica did not before the " War of the Pacific belong to Bolivia. It belonged to Peru and formed part of the Peruvian department of Moquegua. The Peruvian province of Tarafaca, to the south, became Chilean property after the war ; but Tacna-Arica was, ten years after the Treaty of Ancon, to have its ownership decided by plebiscite. The dispute has been caused by the impossibility of finding a method for taking the plebiscite, acceptable to both countries.
(b) " The triangular war " which is commonly called the War of the Pacific, was brought about by Bolivia's declaration :n March, 1879, which was followed a month later by Peru. Actual hostilities ended in 1882 and the treaty of Ancon was signed in October, 1888. The treaty was ratified in 1884.
Not only was the province not " wrested from Bolivia," but also there was no " triangular war of 1884." An excellent account of the political aspect of this dispute is to be found, in Professor Ripley's new book, Latin America in World Politics, pp. 254.—I am, Sir, &c., JAMES CURRIE.
Orford.
[We are glad to publish this correction. The confusion has arisen, no doubt, from the fact that Chile seized the Bolivian littoral, not the disputed provinces.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
