Summary

The objective is to analyze the incidence of the relationship between Peru and the United States (U.S.) in National Security and Defense. Peruvian policies in these areas are discussed with the U.S. The methodology used comes from the social sciences, adopting a long-term perspective. It is argued that, in order to develop national interests and objectives, managers and members of the political community must consider the geopolitics of international relations, as well as make an adequate assessment of the presence of hegemonic states and the decision margins that countries with less strategic weight can develop. From an academic perspective, it is important to contribute to timely decision-making through research and exposure to public opinion.

Keywords: National security, national defense, Peru, United States, decision making, United States

Introduction

The security of a State, of the society that gives it birth and life, as well as of the people that make up a national community, is a topic of growing concern and interest. It has ceased to be a matter restricted to heads of government and their entourage, to occupy its rightful place: to be a priority issue on the public agenda (Jordán and Cueto 2013). However, despite its relevance, this topic is constantly relegated or subtracted from public interest. The discussion is distanced from the citizenry, either because of ignorance, lack of interest or because there are actors who keep it out of the public eye. Hence the importance of civilian and military academic institutions, both public and private, to engage in debate, analysis and research on National Security and Defense, contributing substantively to the knowledge and interest of our society, achieving a virtuous link with each citizen.

In this essay, the objective is to analyze the impact that the relationship between Peru and the United States has had on National Security and Defense. The evolution of these dimensions throughout the republican history will be presented, emphasizing the moments in which this connection has been closer or more distant. In this context, a position of dominance, influence or marginality of the northern country in Peruvian decision making and, therefore, in the actions implemented in certain situations becomes evident.

Theoretical Foundations

It is a priority to know the concepts that structure an analysis proposal, since they contribute significantly to knowledge. The methodology of scientific work requires clarity in the use of terms, which facilitates a common language that allows an enriching discussion. However, given the object and delimitation of this essay, it is left to each reader to study each concept in its complexity, variability and scope.

Security. It is understood as the degrees and levels that guarantee a nation state the capacity to subsist and develop. This concept also includes the perception that enables people and states to experience a sense of security. Questions immediately arise: What are these degrees? How can they be identified? What is their relationship with subsistence and development? At this point, it is appropriate to follow the reflections of Hugo Palma (2015), who points out that achieving security is only a dream. This is because existence is plagued by an endless number of possibilities, each of which encloses unpredictable situations, “…for the unforeseen and risk are consubstantial to human life”.

It is essential to bear in mind that, despite its breadth and inaccuracy, the concept of security includes several “contributors” to the feeling of security. Thus, for didactic purposes, it is essential to understand that various groups of activities carried out within societies contribute to the achievement of security (FIGURE 1). This, in turn, often generates confusion and can lead to the error of considering the different sectors and public activities as exclusively dedicated to the achievement of security. Likewise, many apply this same misunderstanding to the realm of private activities.

In this way, it is easy to make the mistake of moving from a concern for achieving security to turning every activity into an aspect of control, which can lead to the idea that everything must be controlled by the State. This approach leads to thinking and acting in the direction of implementing more authoritarian or dictatorial regimes that subsume the human being as a cog in the security machine (Figure 1). In other words, it is not only a matter of there being “contributors” to the achievement of security; rather, security acquires such a level of centrality that State agents tend to move towards the control of these “contributors”. It should be reaffirmed that this is incorrect.

Figure 1. Safety

Source: Prepared by the author

At the same time, the scope of the meaning of security is expanding. This implies that it is acquiring a polysemic richness with a diversity of objects and definitions, which makes it difficult to clarify what we are talking about and complicates the delimitation of responsibilities, among other aspects. This situation greatly complicates the implementation of actions in this area. However, the discussion on the richness of the concept of security, which is necessary to define and clarify what should be used in a specific context, as in the case of National Security, will be left for an analysis in a future issue. For the time being, it is important to bear in mind the above.^[1]

National defense. To achieve a clear conceptual picture, it is useful to temporarily set aside the concept of national power and point out that, according to theory, it is composed of three subsets: international relations, intelligence and military power (Figure 2). Each of these elements is interrelated and, at the day-to-day level, gives rise to institutions, organizations and processes, as well as the training of human resources. These are differentiated by their ascription to a specific subset and need to interact positively to achieve the proposed objective.

Figure 2. National Defense

Source: Prepared by the author

For now, it is sufficient to point out that the Armed Forces (Armed Forces) make up the military power, which contributes to National Defense, and this, in turn, to National Security (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Relationship between the Armed Forces (Armed Forces), National Defense and National Security

Source: Prepared by the author

Hegemony. The term “hegemony” has undergone several changes and is, like many, polysemic. It should be clarified that it is understood as a situation of dominance of an “m” over an “n”. Undoubtedly, the role of “Hegemon” and the actions linked to the exercise of this role have varied throughout history. Here, the concept is defined as a form of leadership that seeks and achieves both legitimacy and imitation in values and practices, at the level of states (Chase-Dunn et al. 1994) or among members of a society. This definition contemplates interactions between hegemonic and peripheral societies (San Martín 1987).

Security and Defense Interactions between Peru and the U.S.

As noted, this analysis focuses on elucidating the moments of greater proximity or remoteness, discussing the position of dominance, influence or marginality that the northern country had with respect to decision-making in Peru. The narrative follows the periodification of the republican history of Peru elaborated by researchers with perspectives in political history. It is pertinent to review Jorge Basadre (1968), complementing his studies with those carried out by Contreras and Cueto (2010) or Chanamé (2024), remembering to observe the context of world history.

Peru is a country whose priorities as a State have been developed on two pillars: first, to be recognized as a sovereign State; and second, to define its territorial patrimony. It is important to highlight the transcendence of these two lines of action that constitute what today we would call “State policy”. Each of them set the objectives towards which contributions were to be made from all spheres. The first pillar was achieved during the nineteenth century, while the second was completed in the second decade of the twenty-first century, closing the pending issues in space and maritime border with Ecuador (2013) and Chile (2014).

Beginning of the Peruvian Republic (1820-1840)

The U.S. presence in Peru was marginal and it was noticeable through vessels dedicated to whaling. The official recognition of the existence and sovereignty of Peru by the U.S. came about through the appointment of James Cooley as the first U.S. Chargé d’Affaires in Peru, on May 2, 1826. Towards the end of this period, there was a moment of complex closeness from U.S. policy, when the sovereignty of the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation was recognized on March 16, 1837, with the appointment of James B. Thornton as Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. to Peru on May 2, 1826. Thornton as Chargé d’Affaires. Although it is true that, first, this action was in line with the interests of the Confederate State and not of the Peruvian State^[2] ; and, second, that it served to allow American citizens to continue with their commercial work, the US was far from being concerned with the security and defense of Peruvians (Wagner de Reyna 1997).

The Republic’s Apogee and Crisis (1840-1870)

At this stage, with respect to the above, there was a significant change in the interaction between the U.S. and Peru, in which the guano boom played a key role.

The development of the productive processes derived from the industrial revolutions required ever greater quantities of inputs to make the new production volumes possible. One of the main products were textiles, which, made from vegetable (cotton) or animal (wool) fiber, were restricted by the quantities of crops or the renewal of pastures by “natural” cycles. This limitation could be overcome by using guano to fertilize the soil, which allowed an increase in harvests in less time or the renewal of pastures. The impact was such that European countries and the U.S. looked with great attention to the South Pacific.

For Peru, the growing interest of the U.S. was evident, although this was minor in comparison with the presence and interventionist policy of the European powers in America. The reading from the geopolitical point of view allows us to understand that Peru, as far as its security was concerned, promoted in the field of international relations a firm path oriented to create links of cooperation and American fraternity.

He was a leading actor in the promotion and implementation of rapprochement among the American states. A clear example were the congresses that took place in the city of Lima in 1845, 1856 and 1865. In these conclaves, the objectives were Americanist cooperation, to reduce conflicts between states, and to make decisions and take joint actions in the face of the presence of European powers. These goals were linked to the aforementioned pillars of Peruvian state policy.^[3] In this context, the Peruvian government, almost two decades after the establishment of the American state, appointed Juan Ignacio de Osma as its first minister plenipotentiary in the United States (1846).

The U.S. presence and approach to Peru was due to the following:

a) Guano attraction. In 1856 the Guano Islands Act was issued, a questionable measure, since it authorized U.S. citizens to take possession of islands with guano deposits.

b) Growing competition between British and American trading houses. This competition was reflected in the long rivalry between the English firm Gibbs and the American firm Grace (Ortiz 2005; Sobrevilla 2003), which deepened in the following period of Peruvian history.

To round up, we observe a Peru that promotes the strengthening of its National Defense through tasks entrusted to two main sectors. Reference is made to the War and Navy sector, which follows a sustained acquisition policy with emphasis on naval purchases (ships with greater autonomy, firepower and state-of-the-art technology), modernization of its components and education of its members; and to the impulse of the Foreign Relations sector, whose members are in charge of promoting national interests (territorial demarcation, Americanist solidarity, rejection of European interventionism), acting as active agents that complement military officers. The diplomatic corps supports in obtaining and processing “intelligence” data for decision making, as well as making equipment for the Armed Forces feasible.

We can conclude this stage by pointing out that, despite the diversification of U.S. interests in the region, in Peru in particular, decisions regarding National Security and Defense are focused on Americanist solidarity in the face of European interventionism, as well as on the consolidation of borders (Wagner de Reyna 1976, 1997), without this implying that the U.S. is a substantive variable for the achievement of national objectives.

Crises, Wars and Reforms (1870-1896)

This stage was characterized by the confluence of several crises, such as:

a) The First World Crisis of Capitalism, which led to the contraction and increase in the cost of credit, as well as to the fall in the prices of primary exports in Latin America.

b) The Fiscal Crisis, which seriously affected all South American countries, being notorious in the case of Peru.

c) The rise of belligerent complexes (Molina 2019) in international relations.

Peru transitioned violently from governments headed by regional military caudillos to one led by the civilian politician Manuel Pardo y Lavalle, who was the founder of the first political party (Mc Evoy 1994). This led to the prompt uprising of a sector of the army, commanded by the Gutiérrez colonels, against the election of the new president. The climax of this uprising was the capture and execution by firing squad of President José Balta y Montero. At the same time, elements of the Navy provided protection to the elected president, and a popular revolt against the coup d’état was unleashed, culminating with the rebel leaders being hanged from the towers of the cathedral in Lima.

The International War (1879-1883),^[4] also known as the War of the Pacific, resulted in occupation by Chilean troops and bureaucracy. The Civil War (1881-1895) developed between different regions and caudillos (Morales 2012). These years culminated when the National Coalition defeated Andrés Avelino Cáceres^[5] . These were milestones that marked deep fractures in Peruvian society.

During this period, the American presence in Peru was growing, driven by investments and activities of its citizens in nitrate, commercial shipping, infrastructure and textiles. At this time, competition developed between the Americans and the British, the greatest example of which can be seen in the rivalry between the Grace and Gibbs families. This dispute was notorious throughout the years of the war between Chile, Bolivia and Peru, in which each of the aforementioned families used their socio-political networks and businesses in favor of Peru or Chile, which has produced an erroneous image of a sort of “alliance” between the countries in conflict and one of the Anglo-Saxon powers (Ortiz 2005).

At this stage, it is possible to identify the interaction between the political interests of Peru and U.S. interests to implement actions related to the achievement of objectives in what can be called “Security Policy”, which is relevant to the objective of this essay. By 1881, Peru was being defeated by Chile. It was in this scenario when the U.S. government was encouraged to act diplomatically for the benefit of Peru’s security. To this end, Peru’s best resource was used: diplomacy. From international relations, which involved intelligence work, the effort to contain the Chilean ambition that outlined a right of conquest over southern Peruvian territories was nurtured.

Peru sought that the U.S., during the administration of President James A. Garfield,^[6] adopt a position of rapprochement towards the Peruvian approach linked to the preservation of its territorial patrimony. This intention is reflected in the speeches and actions of relevant U.S. political figures of the time, such as Stephen A. Hurlbut,^[7] who, it should be noted, exceeded his powers and showed sympathy towards Peru,^[8] or James Gillespie Blaine, Secretary of State.^[9] Months after leaving office, Blaine repeatedly expressed to the press that a British war was brewing against Peru, using Chile as an instrument. ^[10]

U.S. foreign policy changed with the administration of Chester A. Arthur, also a Republican,^[11] who recognized that the military victory allowed Chile to make demands to Peru. Arthur appointed Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen as the new Secretary of State and sent new diplomatic agents: Cornelius A. Logan for Chile and William H. Tres. Logan for Chile and William H. Trescott for Peru. The latter was to relieve Hurlbut, protect the interests of U.S. companies, mediate for the release of Francisco García Calderón from captivity in Chile recognizing him as legitimate president and promote peace between the two countries. Trescott received instructions in the Chilean port of Valparaiso with the following tenor:

The President’s wish is that no compulsory declaration be imposed or made, for any reason whatsoever, either to Chile or to Peru; whether on the divergence that exists between the two republics, on war indemnity, on modification of limits, or on the personnel of the government of Peru (Barros 441).

For Peru, once the war was over, it was interesting to count on the North American variable to reach agreements that would finance the post-war reconstruction and address issues on the agenda of the Peruvian territorial patrimony. The result of this was the Grace Contract,^[12] as well as the problems derived from the implementation of the Treaty of Ancon^[13] regarding the Peruvian territories that remained under the Chilean flag for ten years. At the end of the term, the population was to be consulted through a plebiscite to decide whether these provinces should be attached to Peru or Chile. The period for the popular consultation of the populations of Tacna and Arica would be fulfilled in 1893. Peruvian President Remigio Morales-Bermúdez tried to get the plebiscite to take place by seeking approaches with the government of La Moneda, through the actions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thus, from the middle of 1892 until April 1893, coordination was carried out but was unsuccessful.

In synthesis, in a few years, the active participation of U.S. diplomacy was sought for the Grace Contract and the scope of the plebiscite; facts that show how Peruvian interests and the growing influence of the U.S. reached a level of greater interaction.

U.S. Consolidation and Hegemony in Peruvian Politics (1896-1945)

Politics is, among others, decision making and decision management, a central idea for the period to be reviewed. At the beginning of 1896, Peru saw the U.S. as a relevant partner, due to its commercial and economic presence, as well as the need to rely on U.S. policy to achieve objectives in Peruvian international policy. In the stage that lasted until the middle of the 20th century, the hegemonic role of the U.S. was evident, under the definition proposed at the beginning,^[14] in terms of security and defense policies for the Inca country.

For the study of this stage, recognizing groups of characteristic features, it is proposed to subdivide it in order to facilitate its analysis:

1896 to 1919: During this period, the Peruvian conservative order was established, characterized by a governance agreement between civilists, democrats and other groups. A series of political, economic and social reforms were implemented (Morales 2005). These years were distinguished by a substantial increase in the economic and commercial presence and political interaction between the U.S. and Peru, which led to a gradual displacement of British hegemony.

1919 to 1930: The crisis of the conservative order gave way to a segment of it, headed by Augusto B. Leguía and supported by popular networks. Leguía and supported by popular networks, took control of the political structure of the Peruvian State. During the Oncenio, the hegemonic presence of the U.S. was consolidated both in foreign policy objectives and actions as well as in domestic administration. This is exemplified in two cases: first, in the effort to consolidate the territorial patrimony through U.S.-backed diplomatic efforts to achieve the reincorporation of Peru’s territory. Second, in the strengthening of the Peruvian Navy (MGP), which culminated its reform process with the assistance of a mission of officers from the U.S. Navy, which facilitated the gradual insertion of naval uses, customs and procedures, as well as the adaptation of the command structure and the purchase of war material from the hegemonic power.^[15] A symbol of this was the change in the category of the U.S. legation, which became an embassy in 1920.^[16]

1930 to 1945: This period was marked by crises in the world and South American contexts. In spite of the admiration they aroused in large social and political sectors, the communist and fascist movements and Peruvian managers persisted in a growing alignment with North American interests. This was noticeable in National Defense issues, although without monopolizing all aspects of Peruvian military power.^[17] It was a process characterized by the rapprochement to the Allied strategic vision during World War II, the Peruvian military victory over Ecuador in 1941 and the achievement of the political objective through the signing of the Rio de Janeiro Protocol in 1942. These facts showed a successful path in the interaction with the U.S. hegemony for the achievement of several points in the addendum of the Peruvian territorial patrimony.^[18]

Effects of U.S.-Soviet Asymmetric Bipolarism in Peru (1945-1990)

The second half of the 20th century encompasses a stage that, at the global level, was marked by asymmetrical bipolarism between the alliances and systems led by the US and the Soviet Union (Alcalde 2015). Today, there is no doubt about the undoubted asymmetry, as the Americans led a space of powerful economic growth and social development, with increasingly institutionalized democracies. In contrast, the Soviets lagged behind in the competition beyond focused development in sectors such as the military or aerospace industry, due to the shortcomings inherent in the socialist ideology, characterized by a totalitarian dictatorship with no incentives for individual development, combined with huge expenditures to sustain, in other countries, similar dictatorships, producing deficits, stagnation and absence of supports for sustainable development.

U.S. hegemony over the countries of the Americas, including Peru, was translated into policies aimed at building an order based on curbing the Soviet presence, preventing the spread of communist ideology, promoting economic and commercial development through Bretton Woods, and the importance of Mexico and Brazil.

Curiously enough, Peru maintained guidelines oriented towards securing its territorial patrimony, renewing leadership and fraternity in the Latin American sphere. This is notable in the period between 1945 and 1980, years in which Peru had more than one friction with the U.S. due to the following:

Fishing Fleets Action: This led to the adoption of the 200 nautical mile doctrine as a State policy, which facilitated the coordination of international policies with Colombia, Ecuador and Chile.

Participation in International Forums: Peru promoted actions aimed at what became the Andean Community, reaching one of its most critical moments when it prevented the sending of a peacekeeping force to Nicaragua. To this end, actions were agreed upon through the Andean Council of Foreign Ministers.

Promotion of the Latin American Economic System: This was done in support of international policies from Mexico and Venezuela.

Action in the Contadora Group^[19] and the Rio Group: The controversial Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) was also highlighted.

A very sensitive topic for social memory in Latin America was the actions of various subversive traditions and movements, which presented radically different objectives and characteristics. Reference is made, for example, to movements that confronted quasi-familiar dictatorships such as those in Cuba, Nicaragua or El Salvador; to Marxist-Leninist or even Maoist guerrillas in Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia or Chile, as well as to the emergence of Maoist terrorism which, like that carried out by Pol Pot against the people of Cambodia, put the existence of Peruvian society at risk. These phenomena led to greater collaboration between the governments of Latin America and the U.S., first to perceive the threatening communist presence and Maoist terrorist actions, and then to work for the construction of democratic systems.

U.S. hegemony in the security policies of each of the Latin American states, as well as in the fields of intelligence and military power, was based on cooperation and training of human resources. However, a dissonant point can be found in the acquisition of war material. In the Peruvian case, it was repeatedly decided to diversify the links with military industries of several countries, as was the case with the purchase of airplanes from the United Kingdom, later from France and the Soviet Union.^[20] In other words, Peru persevered in maintaining its autonomy to manage the use of force, aligning itself more with the objectives of its own policy than with the interests of the U.S. leadership.

Peru in the Unipolar Hegemony and Emerging Rivalries (1990-2020)

We start by stating that, at a global level, the fall of the group of communist countries led by the Soviet Union represented the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. This was a moment in which the timeline of the world and Peru coincided. In the Peruvian case, the capture of the leadership of the terrorist groups Shining Path, known as the Communist Party of Peru (PCP-SL) and the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA), together with the implementation of the structural reform of President Alberto Fujimori Inomoto, converged.^[21] This period marked significant changes in both society and the Peruvian State, constituting a transition process plagued with conflicts and tensions towards a liberal order that achieved indicators of economic growth, poverty reduction, trade expansion, and increased employment and middle class. This, in line with Peru’s traditional policy, gave renewed impetus to participation in the international sphere.

The main purpose of US foreign policy at the beginning of the 21st century was to maintain its hegemony in the Americas, avoid the emergence of a hegemonic rival in Europe or Asia, be alert to the advances of Russia and China (Mearsheimer, 2001, 386), promote a reordering that Anglo-Saxons call globalization and capture the growing leadership of Brazil in America or its projection in the South Atlantic.

Those years found Peru and the U.S. as countries that cemented their closeness in common interests around an agenda of shared democratic values. Both promoted agreements, forums and commercial spaces with a view to both the hemisphere and the world. This can be seen in the participation that the two nations have had in issues related to peace and international security.

With regard to the specific issue of security and defense, it can be seen that the U.S. government has maintained its policies and forms, regardless of whether the administrations are Democratic or Republican with respect to Peru.

U.S. policy toward South America, especially toward Peru, is oriented toward defense issues as part of the contribution to the great objective of strengthening regional security and stability. To this end, action must be taken within the framework of the Bilateral Defense and Security Cooperation Agreement. In this case, the mechanisms include cooperation in the military field, giving priority to coordination between the Joint Chiefs of Staff of both countries, as well as between the Defense and Foreign Affairs sectors.

However, the complicated part lies in the agenda. This requires, before signing and long before acting, definitions and decision making on the part of Peru. If we look at the specific issues, we would be faced with a conception of defense that, while interesting, affects the roles and functions that the theory, doctrine and regulatory framework in this area have. U.S. policy revolves around the countries of the region, such as Peru, being partners before:

• Illicit drug trafficking (IDT)
• Terrorism
• Transnational organized crime
• Trafficking in persons
• Natural disasters
• Illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons
• Nuclear proliferation

Assuming this agenda for structuring military power concurrently implies aligning organization, capabilities and equipment. But, above all, it entails asking the following questions:

• How to clarify national interests?
• What strategic weight should be aimed at?
• What is meant by security?
• What should defense policy be and how will it contribute to security?
• What hypotheses and scenarios should be considered to build the country’s capabilities, taking into account the differences, threats and risks in a world in crisis?

This explains that Peruvians have internalized that the leadership exercised by the U.S. entails the paradox of being a country admired for its evident strengths and virtues; however, it is observed with suspicion for its “intention” to directly or excessively influence Peru’s decisions and actions.

Today, additional concerns arise in addition to those described above. These concerns are motivated by the rise of powers that have developed rivalries with U.S. interests in the region, such as Brazil, the Russian Federation and the presence of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

In this scenario, it is noteworthy what Peru has been promoting: a ten-year plan for the development of the naval industry with Hyundai Heavy Industries of South Korea as a strategic partner; the growth of the Industrial Services of the Navy (SIMA); the construction of ocean patrol boats, maritime patrol boats and auxiliary logistic units; and the modernization of the Peruvian Air Force (FAP), through the Peruvian Maintenance Service (SEMAN), with the assembly of airplanes. Even better, the production of parts for Korean fighters is planned, thus joining an international production network. In addition, certified services are progressively being provided to companies such as Boeing. All this foresees a technological leap with virtuous linkages for Peru’s development, undoubtedly improving its strategic weight.

For Peru, it has become crucial to have answers to the questions posed, as well as to have an efficient State and a participatory society that deliberates in favor of implementing supports in line with its national interests. The lack of response, by postponing decision-making by taking refuge in the mantra that today all the problems studied throughout history have been overcome and by concentrating only on a few singular new threats, implies renouncing to being responsible actors.

Conclusions

Descriptive and analytical studies on security environments are required, as the contribution of national defense is fundamental to understanding Peru’s current context. Between 1820 and 1895, U.S. presence in Peruvian politics was of little relevance; in contrast, between 1896 and 1945, U.S. interests and hegemony in the region grew significantly. During this period, Peru observed with great interest U.S. involvement in security issues, national defense and the development of its respective military power.

The asymmetric bipolarism between the U.S. and the Soviet Union led the former to exercise hegemony in the American continent, understood as a sum of interventionism that included armed action, as well as cooperation and leadership aimed at privileging interaction with military institutions.

The hegemony of the U.S. in the 21st century has led Peru to assume preconceptions about security policy and to focus on the so-called “new threats”. However, the last decade has seen an admirable momentum in the development of security and defense, which requires substantial improvements in the political scenario.

It is up to Peruvian society to establish an adequate security policy, as well as to define the roles and functions of the components of National Defense, international relations and military power, in accordance with its interests. The only way to interact effectively with U.S. hegemony and other emerging powers is to act as protagonists of their own destiny.

Endnotes:

1. Terms such as “citizen security”, “food security”, “energy security”, among others, will not be addressed on this occasion. For the purpose of this essay, “security” is understood as the degrees and levels, including perception, that allow States and national society to have a sense of security, guaranteeing that a State can subsist and develop. ↑
2. The list of U.S. Chiefs of Mission in Peru shows a gap between 1837, with the presence of James B. Thornton (1801-1838), and 1840, when James Chamberlayne Pickett (1793-1872) took over. Thornton (1801-1838), and 1840, when James Chamberlayne Pickett (1793-1872) took over. Thornton was commissioned to the Peruvian government and, upon his arrival, was confronted with the establishment of the Peru-Bolivian Confederation, before which he represented the U.S. When he died in January 1838, his position was filled by Pickett, who presented his documents to the Peruvian government on January 30, 1840. This biennium corresponds to the Confederation wars and the anarchy that followed its dissolution (U.S. Department of State, “Chiefs of Mission for Peru,” last modified March 14, 2024, https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/chiefsofmission/peru. ↑
3. That is, recognition of the sovereignty of the Republic of Peru, as well as the definition of its territorial patrimony. ↑
4. The support of trading houses, such as the British Gibbs to Chile and the U.S. Grace to Peru, has led many authors to erroneously interpret this situation as a confrontation between two powers. ↑
5. Cacerismo, represented by the Constitutional Party and the Army, controlled the government since 1886. Faced with the possibility of a new Caceres government in 1894, rebellions took place. The National Coalition appeared, made up of political groups (civilists, liberals and democrats) and organizations of settlers, who triumphed in the civil war and established a conservative order in Peru (Basadre 1968; Botana 1998; Morales 2005). ↑
6. James Abraham Garfield (1831-1881), member of the Republican Party, U.S. Senator and President, died as a result of a gun attack. ↑
7. Stephen A. Hurlbut (1815-1882), a U.S. Army general and Republican politician, served as a diplomat in Colombia and Peru. ↑
8. Stephen Hurlbut’s pro-Peruvian position was countered by that of Hugh Judson Kilpatrick, former U.S. diplomatic representative in Chile. Like Hurlbut, Kilpatrick died in the city of Santiago in 1881 during the war. ↑
9. Blaine was appointed Secretary of State by Garfield, serving from March 7, 1881 until December 19, 1881. https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/secretaries ↑
10. Blaine expressed his opinion in the New York Herald on January 30 and April 27, 1882. ↑
11. Chester Alan Arthur (1829-1886), Republican politician, promoted the reform of the public service administration and the army. An interesting biographical sketch can be found at: https://americaspresidents.si.edu/es/research/object-groups/conociendo-a-los-presidentes-chester-a-arthur ↑
12. The Grace contract continues to be a controversial issue. Since this article focuses on security and defense, and on how the U.S. presence has become more important, we refer those interested to the report presented by the Foreign Relations Department to Congress (1893:43). ↑
13. Signed on October 20, 1883 in Ancon Spa, by representatives of Chile, Jovino Novoa, and Peru, Jose Antonio de Lavalle, to put an end to the war and the occupation of Peru by Chilean troops. ↑
14. Using various authors (San Martín 1987; Chase-Dunn et al. 1994), hegemony is understood as the combination of a form of leadership that seeks and achieves both legitimacy and imitation by others in terms of values and practices at the level of states. This adds up to the interplay of interactions in which hegemonic societies, which seek to impose their interests, and peripheral societies, which seek to assimilate and resist them, tend to become involved. ↑
15. The U.S. naval mission was composed of Navy Captains Frank Barrows Freyer, Lewis Causey, Commander Charles Gordon Davy and Lieutenant Commander Paul Fitzsimons. ↑
16. The U.S. Legation in Lima was elevated to the rank of Embassy. Thus, on April 24, 1920, Ambassador William E. Gonzales presented his credentials to the Peruvian government. ↑
17. Such was the case of military purchases from Italy and the sending of personnel for training. ↑
18. The results of the war between Colombia and Peru, which resulted in the confirmation of the possession of the so-called Amazonian Trapezoid for the former, can be contrasted (Montagne, 2020). ↑
19. Initially made up of Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and Panama, Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay joined the group, which is why the Lima Group has been referred to more than once. ↑
20. The purchase of Cambera fighter-bombers from the United Kingdom marked a trend based on the sovereign capacity to use force (Zlatar 2005). This was followed during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s with the acquisition of Mirage-5 and Mirage-2000 from France, Exocet missiles, and T-54 and T-55 tanks from the Soviet Union, Belarus and Russia, as well as Katiusha systems, MI helicopters, Antonov, SU-22 and Mig 29 aircraft. ↑
21. It is common for historians to label the Fujimori decade as “civil-military authoritarianism”. In this regard, we can review Contreras and Cueto (2010). ↑