Ecuadorian Peruvian War 1995

Posted: January 4th, 2023

Student’s Name

Tutor’s Name

Course

Date

Ecuadorian Peruvian War 1995

Introduction

Territorial dispute is the primary deterrent to establishing security and peace in Latin America with the Ecuadorian Peruvian war of 1995 justifying the validity of this statement. This event has a significant impact on the possibilities of peace within this region. It occurred in the Cenepa River basin between Peruvian and Ecuadorian troops with 40 man patrols engaging in combat. At the climatic end, 3000 and 2000 Ecuadorian and Peruvian troops were involved within this location with each leveraging on the available opportunities such as shorter communication interior lines and higher grounds, which would contribute to reinforced positions (BBC). Both countries extensively invested in that warfare based on the deployment of sophisticated aircrafts, application of modern technology like satellites for positioning varied hot spots for military operations. Running for a period of 34 days, the war had devastating implications that began evident in recent times (BBC). This paper seeks to elaborate on the political, social and economic impacts of the war on Ecuador in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors that led to the subsequent ramifications.

Political Impact on Ecuador

Politically speaking, the Cenepa war between Ecuador and Peru shattered possibilities of establishing peace between these two states. That military event broke the peace by challenging the statutes such as the modern inter-American affairs and US foreign policy (Fouskas 75). In terms of challenging standing principles, the first outcome of Cenepa war was the demolishment of the understanding that democracies prioritized the importance of conflict resolution without a necessity to wage a war (Jaskoski 44). With Ecuador initiating the war with Peru, it was a clear demonstration of the country’s incompliance to that political principle regardless of whether the feud existed historically (Fouskas 78). By challenging that paradigm, Ecuador as well as Peru had a clear goal of removing Latin America from its high pedestal as the epitome of peaceful international and domestic relations (Luft). Finally, the war between those states showed the existence of internal disputes over territorial boundaries, thus threatening any opportunity for peace within this region. 

First, territorial loss affected both societies significantly. Ecuador was reeling from national humiliation following the Peruvian military triumph leading to the inculcation of national mythology to legitimize and shape its international and domestic politics before the commencement of the Cenepa war (Fouskas 78). Judging from the consequences, Ecuador’s politics have since remained hostile towards Peru as the war revealed many existing issues between two countries as opposed to being solely a territorial dispute. Some of the highlighted problems were associated with the mistrust between Lima and Quito and their contradictory claims over Amazon’s discovery as well as centuries characterized by discord and undefined colonial boundaries established by the Spanish Imperial authority (Fouskas 80). Therefore, with these enumerated intricacies serving as deterrent factors in the establishment of peace between the two states, Ecuador’s politics remain one sided by disregarding the idea of Latin America’s unification.

Second, the war significantly impacted Ecuador’s military when considering the extensive and intense assault led by the Peruvian forces against Ecuadorian soldiers who were poorly equipped during the war. History records cite the relevance of this assault as tor resolve the existing border disputes between the two nations (Jaskoski 50). However, on the one hand, Peru was strategically prepared as the government had taken the necessary measures to equip the national army with the necessary weapon. On the other hand, Ecuador was unprepared leading to the adoption of fear expression politically reiterated basing on the devastating impact of General Ureta military leadership against the Ecuadorian troops (Fouskas 83). As an outcome of the territorial loss and military drafts experienced by this state, the military’s perception of self is greatly strengthened based on the sentiment of decisiveness aimed at ensuring the nation’s dignity.

The political environment in Ecuador changed after the Cenepa war with the military becoming influential in the national politics. Firstly, the state had to engage in varied economic sectors such as textile, shrimp and flowers as well as hotel industries in order to collect money for military projects. With the country remaining without leadership, the formulation of Industrial Directorate governed by the army was easily implemented in the 1970’s (Fouskas 84). That institution gained prominence after becoming an owner of varied companies and a partner in various private corporations (Fouskas 86). Additionally, the military power was intensified with the investment acquisition in construction, ceramics, ammunition, automobile and steel industries. As a result, the army became more empowered as a consequence of the Cenepa war and resisted against President Sixto Duran Ballen’s mandate for privatization reforms.

The administration of civilian state agencies by military steadily increased as a ramification of the Cenepa war, thus reinforcing the army’s control over civic actions. That occurrence was attributed to the mandate by the Abdala Bucaram government whose orders stipulated that the army should be responsible for national customs agency and address the expansive corruption devastating the country’s economy after the war (Fouskas 109). The success of the army in withdrawing its support from Bucaram following the wide criticism and high-level corruption, favored the military position in the political structure, thus gaining more influence when removing the elected presidential officials (Fouskas 111). With the willingness by the military in fulfilling this obligation, its unchallenged control has remained steadfast from 1997. In addition, with the mandate by President Lucio Gutierrez for the army to run El Comercio, the national army gained superiority over the executive government with the oversight of Petro Ecuador.

Social Impacts on Ecuador

From a social perspective, the first impact, which is still evident in the modern day setting, is the failure of inculcating national integration that will facilitate the full transition of Ecuador into a democratic state. This feature was obvious in Peru. The primary driving force and the deterrent factor hindering that transition is the un-demarcated boundary between the two states, which further contributes to the intensification of internal insecurities (Marcella 12). The social problems affect other dynamics such as electoral politics and internal difficulties, which further heighten national paranoia concerning territorial loss. Additionally, these outcomes have significantly contributed to the linkage observed by scholars between domestic and international environment pertaining to democracy as both state suffered from diminished internal sovereignty following the end of the Cenepa war (Palmer 120). Therefore, both became extremely zealous in defending their external sovereignty represented by geographical boundaries, which is an over-compensation act to mask their internal flaws.

Extensive civic cooperation between the Ecuadorians in establishing related programs is considered an outcome of the Cenepa war 1995, which has led to the popularization of the military. Before the war, this institution was influential nationally. The civic action occurring before the conflict demanded a reduced military profile, particularly in dealing with domestic affairs. For instance, during the war, the armed forces were expected to experience a 2.5% loss in tax paid by foreign oil companies moving from 15% to 12.5%. This eventuality is considered a standard practice also observed in states such as Chile, whereby its defense budget is derived partially from the copper export revenues (Marcella 19). In case of Ecuador, the public sought to seek the privatization of the military. However, after the war ended, the military became a more impactful institution, thus allowing the congress to secure its oil revenue share in profits, halt the privatization, as well as postpone the agreement for the next 15 years.

The public perception in Ecuador has changed significantly after the war, with Ecuadorians developing a one-sided outlook on the factors leading to the conflict with Peru. The study conducted by the educational ASA program demonstrated that the subjective point of view was evident in the teaching curriculum, with the historical narrative being more inclined towards the Ecuadorian side as opposed to adopting an objective approach (Marcella 20). This change in interpreting the truth explains the state’s sensitivity to issues about its borders. Unlike Peru, Ecuador has placed significant importance on that military conflict, and it has also excluded some vital information in its national history, thus promoting nationalistic and emotional ideas (Marcella 22). One-sided outlook on the factors caused the war has further worsened the social perceptions of the new generations, which is likely to facilitate the occurrence of another military conflict in the future between these two nations as Ecuadorians dread any possibility of more territorial loss. 

In terms of national honor, the end and resolution of the Cenepa war without citing a clear winner was monumental in ensuring that Ecuador would be able to restore its reputation. Despite being perceived as expansionist and belligerent by Peru, the honorable end of the boundary conflict ensured that both nations were able to progress forward without experiencing the feeling of humiliation and defeat, which would have been the case if a winner had been announced (Marcella 34). Ecuador benefitted socially from that resolution as its citizens were able to retain their national honor. The scenario further stimulated the efforts directed in ensuring the boundaries were demarcated and delimited to avoid any potential disagreement between Ecuador and Peru (Marcella 42). Additionally, improvement in terms of social interaction between the states has, over time, attributed to the bilateral work conducted by the foreign affairs department in both countries to ensure there would be an effective consolidation of social and economic integration. 

Economic Impact on Ecuador 

One of the significant downsides of the Cenepa War on Ecuador was the consequential banking crisis that occurred in 1999. The country was extensively reliant on its oil refineries as they were attributed to at least half of its exports (Armendáriz and Bernadez 12). However, in spite of the market reforms that was considered economically friendly as of the 1990s, the banking crisis hit Ecuador, triggering adverse shocks such as political and domestic unrest in the country (Long). That impact was intensified by Ecuador’s incapacity to deal with the Mexican Tequila crisis (Armendáriz and Bernadez 23). Another devastating outcome was the loss of credibility by the Central Bank of Ecuador due to its refusal to reinforce fiscal discipline made mandatory by the reforms (Long). With the reduced output in banking institutions, the state experienced sharp inflation increments, which resulted in a significant adverse impact on Ecuador’s economy. 

A positive outcome of the war on Ecuador following the high inflation was the dollarization of the national currency. It was a counteractive reform aimed at addressing the conflict ramifications and oil problems (Armendáriz and Bernadez 32). Ecuador eradicated its coinage at the time known as the Sucre and adopted the US dollar as its primary currency. The outcome of that change included the lowered inflation rates, thus promoting economic growth between 2002 and 2006 (Armendáriz and Bernadez 45). That decision was fundamental for the state since it signified price stabilization and high growth of the national economy. 

The Cenepa war influenced the foreign investment opportunities significantly, which was a significant concern for both Peru and Ecuador. In any given setting, foreign investors are consistently cognizant of political stability in a prospective state for investment (Armendáriz and Bernadez 33). However, with the Cenepa war being the third time both countries confronted each other in a bid to establish the dominance over the unclear national boundaries, any outcome of that military conflict would diminish an investment from foreign enterprises and multinationals (Mares and Kacowicz 51). According to a US envoy engaged in the resolution processes aimed at reconciling the two states, Thomas McLarty, no nation can establish long-term economic upward mobility founded on foreign investment without attaining political and social stability. Therefore, the resulting destabilization created by the war was detrimental as it limited Ecuador from securing foreign investors. However, with the successful enactment of resolution strategies, Ecuador benefited considerably with a fivefold increment in its annual trade as of 1998, which happened three years after the war ended (Palmer 145). Lastly, with the establishment of a bi-national fund to aid in the development and peace process in both nations, Ecuador has achieved several goals such as integration of national plans and social and productive development in the international arena. 

Conclusion

Ecuador experienced varied ramifications as outcomes of the Cenepa War. Politically speaking, that military conflict led to the minimization of civilian control by empowering the military to make the important decisions as opposed to the executive government. That occurrence led to the militarization of the state, facilitating its infiltration in varied economic ventures and industries. From a social point of view, the country experienced a paradigm shift in public perception about the actual events that occurred in the war with the educational curriculum supporting a one-sided presentation of the conflict. However, the nation was able to retain its national honor owing to the resolution process, which avoided assigning the winner title to either of the states. Nevertheless, with a higher sense of nationalism, Ecuadorians were more receptive to peace development measures proposed by the foreign affairs department. 

Economically, the banking crisis was the single adverse impact affecting Ecuador as a result of the war, which led to increased oil prices and inflation rate prompting dollarization. The second impact included the limited investment opportunities due to fear of political instability in the country. Therefore, immediately after the war ended, Ecuador missed out on investment opportunities. That period ended with the resolution protocols, which streamlined the international relations between Ecuador and Peru, thus further encouraging investors to reconsider their investment ventures in both states. Overall, all those events boosted the annual trade output, brought economic mobility in Ecuador, and improved its financial status. 

Works Cited

Armendáriz, Beatriz, and Felipe L. B. The Economics of Contemporary Latin America. MIT P, 2017.

BBC. “1995 Peru-Ecuador Border War.” BBC, 2020. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04qx762. Accessed on 15 January, 2020.

Fouskas, Vassilis K. Politics of Conflict: A Survey. Taylor & Francis, 2010.

Jaskoski, Maiah. Military Politics and Democracy in the Andes. Johns Hopkins UP, 2013.

Long, William. “Peru, Ecuador Battle on Small but Deadly Scale: Latin America: As Peace Talks hit Snag, Platoon-Size Units Continue War in Amazon Rain Forest.” Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1995. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-02-08-mn-29584-story.html. Accessed on 15 January, 2020.

Luft, Kerry. “Peru-Ecuador War Solves Little.” Chicago Tribune, April 27, 1995. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1995-04-27-9504270311-story.html. Accessed on 15 January, 2020.

Marcella, Gabriel. War and Peace in the Amazon: Strategic Implications for the United States and Latin America of the 1995 Ecuador-Peru War. DIANE Publishing, 1995.

Mares, David R., and Arie M. Kacowicz. Routledge Handbook of Latin American Security. Routledge, 2015.

Palmer, David S. “Peru-Ecuador Border Conflict: Missed Opportunities, Misplaced Nationalism, and Multilateral Peacekeeping.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, vol. 39, no. 3, 1997, pp. 109-148.