Chile and Argentina: A Look at 40 Years of the TPA

It is common for calendars to commemorate significant military events as anniversaries, and history books to honor the heroes of those events; it is less frequent for countries to celebrate peace or to study the benefits it brings at the general population level, considering that understanding history is fundamental for the preservation of an order and a concord that has been laboriously achieved.

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1984 between Chile and Argentina (TPA), which is being celebrated this week for its 40th anniversary, is not only a milestone in the history of our two countries but also the foundational stone of our relationship since then. The mediation that led to this solution, after both countries were just minutes away from a fratricidal war, is also a stellar moment in global diplomacy.

With clear and accessible wording (the text can be read HERE), this agreement, signed in the Vatican in 1984 and ratified in 1985 by both nations, determines “the complete and definitive solution to the issues it refers to”; that is, the establishment of the boundary between the two countries from the Beagle Channel to the Drake Passage south of the Cape Horn. In addition to the maritime delimitation, the text establishes navigation rights, specifies limits at the eastern mouth of the Strait of Magellan, and details a procedure for the peaceful resolution of disputes, reaffirming the rights of both countries in the Antarctic and urging both nations to continue on the path of peace and cooperation.

It is a detailed and modern text, designed to withstand the test of time as it was conceived with a long-term strategic view regarding the bilateral relationship. For example, the drafters prominently considered economic cooperation and physical integration, creating a binational commission for this purpose, which both countries have later enriched through complementary agreements. The drafters of the TPA understood that this integration, particularly in mining, had the potential to be our local version of the “community of steel and coal,” which brought peace, stability, and prosperity to European countries that built unity after experiencing numerous wars.

Overview of the Bilateral Relationship

Over these forty years, the ties between the two nations have been cultivated through numerous instances of bilateral coordination involving governments, armed forces, and civil society. The friendship at the civil society level is particularly noteworthy, with culture and the arts serving as an important axis in building trust.

At the state level, there are approximately 40 bilateral mechanisms covering political, economic, scientific, military, and cultural matters. At the subnational level—between Argentine provinces and Chilean regions—there are Integration Committees that permanently address border issues and connectivity, physical integration, trade, investments, culture, and scientific cooperation, among others.

It should also be emphasized that regarding the Malvinas/Falklands issue, all Chilean governments since the return to democracy have supported Argentina and advocated for the need to find a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute, in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions and other regional and multilateral forums. 

Pending Issues in the Bilateral Relationship

The best treaties of friendship are those that provide a solid foundation, both to enrich neighborly ties and to solve future problems, and this is the case with the TPA. However, contrary to what the drafters envisioned, in practice, the relationship at the government level is currently stagnant.

Governors, mayors of border areas, and experts in physical integration agree on the complaint regarding the immobility of the relationship between Chilean regions and Argentine provinces, highlighting the risky lack of connectivity and deficiencies in the management of shared water resources, the latter being crucial in light of climate change. While we have made progress in streamlining immigration procedures, the mountain passes mostly maintain precarious infrastructure, which would require significant investments to modernize. The construction of proper corridors has proven unattainable. Many large investors (including Chileans) have had to leave Argentina in the last 20 years due to hostile economic policies. In both countries, the administrative maze we now call permisología greatly affects binational projects.

Chile has encouraged the convergence process between the Pacific Alliance and Mercosur, under the concept of convergence in diversity, with the aim of enhancing integration, a position that Argentina shares. In commercial terms, however, despite having new legal instruments aimed at increasing bilateral trade, particularly in services and electronic commerce, many value chains have not been able to be built. In the last 20 years, we have not been able to significantly increase our exports to Argentina. Chile exports much more to Asia than to the neighbor with whom we share the third longest border in the world.

The other pending area concerns the resolution of disputes. The TPA established that henceforth the two countries would resolve their pending issues through peaceful means, and today there are two matters that need resolution: the Southern Ice Field and the Extended Continental Shelf. The first issue concerns a large expanse of glaciers located in the Patagonian Andes , which constitutes the largest non-polar continental ice field with land access. According to the 1998 agreement on this matter, the border in that sector must be defined. The second issue concerns the natural extension of the states under the sea, regarding which, in the Austral Sea, the claims of both countries overlap.These are sensitive issues, but they cannot be indefinitely postponed. Chile has made progress in resolving disputes with our two northern neighbors (Peru and Bolivia) and has gained valuable experience after 15 years of litigating three cases before the International Court of Justice. The public is more familiar with these processes, and we have technology that allows for better delimitation and demarcation of borders. It does not serve the national interest to keep these issues in a nebulous state, as both countries have the tools for their resolution. On the contrary, the

status quo is often a source of tension between the governments. Conclusion

Forty years after the signing of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Chile and Argentina have a positive and mature relationship, where processes and mechanisms have deepened neighborly ties, offering potential for projecting an even stronger friendship and a more prosperous future for both countries.

However, despite the density and richness of the current bond, taking peace and friendship between the two countries for granted would be a mistake. In particular, forgetting the historical process that generated its foundations is a recipe for creating new problems. The greatest duty to nurture the relationship with gestures of brotherhood and respect falls on the leadership of both states. The failure to fulfill that duty, due to an inability to overcome personal or ideological incompatibilities—as has been seen recently—justifies a shared concern on both sides of the Andes. The pending issues in the binational relationship require the joint and direct attention of both leaders. 

At the civil society level, education regarding the milestone that underpins our peace and friendship must be substantially expanded and should no longer be a topic accessible only to experts. Just as both peoples know the bond that united us at the time of independence, between Bernardo O’Higgins, José de San Martín, and many other patriots on both sides of the Andes, the mediation that kept us away from war nearly 200 years later should be an integral part of the curriculum in Chilean and Argentine schools. The necessary digitization of the archive of the process would then be the best tribute—and still pending—to binational unity.