Territorial sovereignty and the end of inter-cultural diplomacy along the “Southern frontier”
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066118814890 |
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118814890
European Journal of
International Relations
2019, Vol. 25(3) 878 –903
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1354066118814890
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
Territorial sovereignty and the
end of inter-cultural diplomacy
along the “Southern frontier”
Carsten-Andreas Schulz
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and IMFD, Chile
Abstract
European politics at the turn of the 19th century saw a dramatic reduction in the number
and diversity of polities as the territorial nation-state emerged as the dominant form
of political organization. The transformation had a profound impact on the periphery.
The study examines how embracing the principle of territoriality transformed relations
between settler societies and indigenous peoples in South America. As this shift coincided
with independence from Spain, Creole elites rapidly dismantled the remnants of imperial
heteronomy, ending centuries of inter-cultural diplomacy. The study illustrates this
shift in the case of the “Southern frontier,” where Spain had maintained a practice of
treaty making with the Mapuche people since the mid-17th century. This long-standing
practice broke down shortly after Chile gained independence in 1818. What followed
was a policy of coercive assimilation through military conquest and forced displacement
— a policy that settler societies implemented elsewhere in the 19th century. In contrast
to explanations that emphasize the spread of capitalist agriculture and racist ideologies,
this study argues that territoriality spelled the end of inter-cultural diplomacy along the
“Southern frontier.”
Keywords
Chile, heteronomy, inter-cultural diplomacy, Mapuche, sovereignty, territoriality
Introduction
When the Spanish conquistadors first arrived in what is now Chile in the early 16th cen-
tury, they encountered fierce resistance from the Mapuche people.1 Unable to subdue the
Corresponding author:
Carsten-Andreas Schulz, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul,
Santiago de Chile 7820436, Chile.
Email: caschulz@uc.cl
814890EJT0010.1177/1354066118814890European Journal of International RelationsSchulz
research-article2018
Article
Schulz 879
local population by force, the Spanish colonizers negotiated a peace along the empire’s
“Southern frontier.” Frontier relations in Chile were brokered by large-scale gatherings
known as parlamentos. Mapuche leaders swore allegiance to the Crown in exchange for
the recognition of their territorial autonomy. Although these negotiations did not prevent
frontier violence, following the Parlamento of Quillín in 1641, a discernible practice of
managing inter-cultural relations through negotiations and treaty making emerged. As a
result, Spain accepted the Mapuche territory as the southern boundary of its empire and
garrisoned the frontier accordingly.
The case of the Mapuche is noteworthy for it represents the most enduring instance of
diplomacy and treaty making between Spain and an indigenous people.2 It provides an
intriguing example of “localization,” the negotiation of an “heteronomous arrangement”
that legitimized the presence of Europeans and stabilized relations with local polities
without being based on a shared cultural background (Phillips and Sharman, 2015: 15).
However, this long-standing arrangement broke down shortly after Chile gained inde-
pendence in 1818. What followed was a policy of coercive assimilation through military
conquest and forced displacement — a policy that settler societies implemented else-
where in the course of the 19th century.3 Although the Mapuche case was exceptional
within the Spanish Empire, it formed part of a wider pattern of diplomacy and treaty
making that rendered European empires composite polities with often-imprecise juris-
dictions and “unevenly exercised authority,” especially along their frontiers (Benton and
Ross, 2013: 7). The rapid dismantlement of heteronomy in present-day Chile forms part
of a larger, global phenomenon that took place at about the same time, most notably, in
the US, where Jackson’s Indian Removal Act 1830 marked a definite turning point away
from accommodation in favor of displacement. This study argues that the embrace of
territoriality as the basis for legitimate statehood explains the rapid end of inter-cultural
diplomacy and treaty making that had proven stable in the Southern Cone for centuries.
Conventional accounts attribute the “pacification” of indigenous communities in the
19th century to the commercialization of agriculture and racist ideologies emanating
from the core (e.g. Buzan and Lawson, 2015; Hobson, 2012; Keal, 2003). This is not to
dispute that both were important aspects. Yet, ideas about racial superiority also informed
earlier relations, and Mapuche communities were often key actors in trade. Similarly,
technological change, such as the repeating rifle and, most importantly, the arrival of the
railway, may explain why settler colonists were able to crush indigenous resistance to
usurpation. However, these new technologies do not necessarily explain why Creoles
regarded such steps as necessary in the first place.4 Rather, this study focuses on how
ideas about legitimate statehood changed relations between indigenous communities and
the newly emerging Chilean state. It argues that the principle of territoriality influenced
the actions of early independence elites, who adopted the view that legitimate states
extend their authority homogeneously throughout their territory.
Territoriality, thus defined, emerged gradually during the 18th century and gathered
force in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars. At the Congress of Vienna, the last leftovers
of “feudal heteronomy” were removed or delegitimized, effectively establishing exclu-
sive territorial rule as the norm (Ruggie, 1993; see also Branch, 2014: 94, 135–138;
Sheehan, 2006: 8). Building on recent legal and imperial history, the study contends that
Creole elites, keen to buttress the legitimacy of the new states, were susceptible to this
To continue reading
Request your trial