Chile Deputies Target US Envoy After 2 Sovereignty Rows
POLITICS · CHILE
Key Facts
- —The country Chile is a close US trade partner, a major copper and lithium producer and has a territorial claim in Antarctica that overlaps Argentina’s.
- —Why it matters The row lands while Chile negotiates a deal to cut a 12.5% US tariff surcharge and discusses critical minerals with Washington.
- —Why now US Ambassador Brandon Judd’s Antarctica remark surfaced days after his Strait of Magellan comments, and the opposition answered on Friday.
- —What happened On Friday 9 October, a Frente Amplio deputy announced a resolution seeking the end of Judd’s mission, and the Communist bench demanded his exit.
- —What it means for you Expulsion is unlikely: only the government can act, and it has not. Watch the tariff talks, which matter for US buyers of Chilean salmon, fruit and wine.
- —Still open Whether the Foreign Ministry sends a protest note, and whether the Chamber votes on the new resolution.
Chilean opposition lawmakers on Friday 9 October demanded that US envoy Judd leave the country, after he said that “there is no Antarctica that belongs to Chile.” It is the second sovereignty row in a week between Santiago and Ambassador Brandon Judd, a Trump appointee. For US readers it matters because Chile is negotiating to cut a 12.5% US tariff surcharge and is discussing critical minerals such as copper and lithium with Washington.
Deputy Jorge Brito of the left-wing Frente Amplio announced a draft resolution asking for the end of Judd’s diplomatic mission. That evening, the Communist Party and independents bench in the Chamber of Deputies issued a statement demanding his departure.
The government of President José Antonio Kast, a conservative whose government joined the US-led Shield of the Americas security initiative in September, has not announced any step against the ambassador. A Chamber resolution would not be binding.
What Judd Said About Antarctica
Judd spoke on Tuesday 6 October at an online event run by the Fundación Chilena del Pacífico, a Chilean foundation, according to La Tercera. He was asked about the future of the Antarctic system and the US role in it.
“Antarctica is outside my jurisdiction. The Antarctic treaty system says there is no territory that belongs to one country, so there is no Antarctica that belongs to Chile,” he said, according to La Tercera and BioBioChile.
He added that Chile and Argentina claim some of the same territory. “That is why the treaty system exists,” he said.
The comments drew little notice at first. On Wednesday 7 October, Judd caused a larger stir at a trade event in Santiago, where he linked US help over the Strait of Magellan to Chilean cooperation. He later said those words were taken out of context, as we reported in US Envoy to Chile Clarifies Magellan Strait Remark.
Foreign Minister Francisco Pérez Mackenna, Chile’s top diplomat, rejected the Antarctica comment. “We have our sovereignty perfectly defined. We know how to defend it, and we have treaties that establish it,” he said, according to La Tercera.
What the Antarctic Treaty Says
The Antarctic Treaty was signed in Washington on 1 December 1959 by twelve countries, among them Chile, Argentina and the United States, according to the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat.
Article IV freezes the question of ownership. No activity under the treaty can create or deny a claim, and no new claim may be made. But the same article says nothing in the treaty counts as a renunciation of claims made before it.
That is the point the Communist bench made. “Chile has not renounced its sovereign Antarctic rights, and no foreign ambassador can claim to disregard them,” its statement said, according to BioBioChile.
The article also lets each country keep its own view on whether it recognises other claims. Judd’s remark is closer to that position, though he did not say he was stating US policy.
How the Opposition Is Responding
Brito, a former chair of the Chamber’s defence committee, said Judd’s remarks broke the norms of diplomatic relations. “The behaviour of the US ambassador in Chile is unacceptable,” he said, according to BioBioChile.
He also said Chile needs a better relationship with Washington, and for that “a person who respects international law” and stays out of internal affairs.
The Communist Party, part of the left-wing opposition to Kast, went further. Its bench said Judd behaves “as if he were a viceroy in a colony” and accused the foreign minister of a “lack of firmness.”
Communist deputy Luis Cuello warned that the minister could face a constitutional accusation if he neither sends a protest note nor declares Judd persona non grata. Such an accusation is an impeachment-style charge that the Chamber can bring against ministers.
Deputy Zandra Parisi of the populist Partido de la Gente defended Pérez Mackenna. She said she trusts his experience to secure a good deal for Chile, according to BioBioChile.
What It Means for You
For investors and importers, the trade talks matter more than the war of words with US envoy Judd. The US has applied a 12.5% surcharge to part of Chile’s exports since Washington confirmed it in July, according to BioBioChile.
Chile is weighing an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, which could cover tariffs, investment and economic security. Subrei, the trade undersecretariat, says it would complement the free trade agreement in force since 2004, according to BioBioChile. Earlier this week Subrei said not every product would return to zero tariffs, as we covered in Chile Admits Not All Goods Regain Zero US Tariff.
Critical minerals are the second track. On Tuesday 6 October, the Chamber approved a resolution, 71 votes to 57 with 8 abstentions, asking the government to protect sovereignty in those talks, according to El Desconcierto and BioBioChile.
The text, pushed by the Frente Amplio, rejects preferential access, regulated prices or limits on sales to other countries, naming China. It also asks for local content rules. Like Brito’s proposal, it is a request, not a law.
The stabiliser is that business groups still describe the trade relationship as sound. Iván Marambio, head of Frutas de Chile, said the competitiveness of Chilean fruit in the US “is still very, very good,” even though the tariffs hurt.
What Is Not Known
It is not known whether the Foreign Ministry will send a protest note. Pérez Mackenna said on 7 October that he ruled nothing out until an assessment ended.
The US Embassy had not publicly answered the Antarctica criticism in the reports we reviewed. No date has been set for a Chamber vote on Brito’s resolution.
The content of any reciprocal trade deal, and what Chile would give in return, has not been published. If it needs legislative approval, it would go to Congress.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did US envoy Judd say about Antarctica?
At an online event on 6 October, Brandon Judd said the Antarctic treaty system means no territory belongs to one country, so there is no Antarctica that belongs to Chile.
Can Chile’s Congress expel the US ambassador?
No. Chamber resolutions are requests to the government. Only the executive can declare a diplomat persona non grata, and it has announced no such step.
Does the row affect US tariffs on Chile?
Not directly. Chile is still negotiating to reduce a 12.5% US surcharge on part of its exports, and no link between the talks and the dispute has been announced.
Sources: BioBioChile (Communist bench statement) · BioBioChile (Brito resolution) · BioBioChile (Antarctica remark) · La Tercera · BioBioChile (tariff talks) · El Desconcierto (minerals resolution) · Antarctic Treaty Secretariat (treaty text)
Editorial responsibility: Matthias Camenzind, Editor-in-Chief · Editorial standards · Report an error
Read More from The Rio Times