A reader’s letter was printed in the current edition of The Economist. The ambassador of Peru to Great Britain responds to last week’s story An unwelcome visitor. That story also mentions the current crisis over the fishing zones:
This is especially so since it coincides with a crisis in relations with Peru, triggered by Peru's recent approval of a law to modify the countries' maritime boundary unilaterally, to claim some rich fishing grounds.
And this is what the Peruvian ambassador has to say about this:
SIR – You state that recent tensions between Peru and Chile have been “triggered by Peru's recent approval of a law to modify the countries' maritime boundary unilaterally, to claim some rich fishing grounds” (“An unwelcome visitor”, November 12th). The approval of a base-line law (a line drawn by countries along their coasts to measure the breadth of their sea) is a practice carried out by almost every state in the world and in no way signifies the unilateral establishment of maritime boundaries with Chile. Since the current fishing agreements between Peru and Chile cannot be upgraded to the category of maritime boundary treaties, Peru proposed negotiations to determine these boundaries, which were not accepted. The refusal of Chile to agree to the negotiations has exhausted the possibility of finding a bilateral solution, leaving Peru the option of peacefully settling the dispute by other means as set out in international law.
Luis Solari Tudela
Ambassador for Peru
London
Of course an ambassador will not exactly be very objective in these matters.