International reaction to an Argentina-Chile war in 1978

[Thande]

You may or may not be aware that Argentina planned, and came very close to launching, an attack on Chile in 1978. In theory this was about disputed islands in the Beagle Strait, in practice it was also a way for the junta to try and cement their rule with a patriotic struggle (which they eventually tried again in OTL with the Falklands war). OTL it never came off due to a combination of inclement weather and the personal intervention of the Pope. However, let's say the invasion is launched. (Maverick did do a TL about it, but sadly of course that's vanished now).

My question is what international reaction to this might be like. Remember this comes only months after the 1978 World Cup was held in Argentina and the junta had launched an arguably successful PR offensive as part of it. Also remember that Chile was a nasty dictatorship under Pinochet which everyone had cut off arms supplies to, and while Argentina wasn't exactly a rose garden either, European countries were continuing to supply it with arms. I should imagine a war of aggression like this would result in egg on face for many European leaders.

I'm particularly interested in what the reaction might be in Spain, her transitional democracy still fragile. As some of the Spanish Falangists had ties with Chile, could such a conflict have repercussions in Spanish politics?

 

[Super_Cool]

I don't think anyone would really care. The conflict is so far away from any country of importance. It will be forgotten just like all those 19th century South American wars you can't name.

Both countries are anti-communist so the Soviets don't care and the U.S. would be like "stop fighting and focus on killing commies!"

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I imagine a reaction around the big world powers will be to condemn the conflict and seek to place sanctions against Argentina, but for a few at least this represents a good time to get rid of a few pains.

The UK's reaction will probably be publicly condemning it, but happy to leave it carry on. The UK wasn't unaware of plans for an attack to claim the falklands, the reason why it was such a surprise was because no one ever expected it to happen.

The UK and US may even get some sabre rattling but neither would be willing to lead to a direct intervention. Even when the UK was at war there was practically no chance of British troops setting foot on the mainland. The same will probably apply so neither nations will lead to any direct interference.

The USSR would probably look at it with interest but won't do anything about it. In all likelihood if this war had happened no one outside of South America will be too interested. Even the US would probably let the two duke it out.

 

[DValdron]

Tricky. On the one hand, the Soviets won't have a dog in the fight. Neither will the Chinese. The Soviets might see an opportunity in Chile, assuming Pinochet falls and a leftist movement takes power. But to the conflict itself, there's no real percentage to them to get involved. The winner doesn't need them, they can't help the loser.

American politics would be a debate. Both countries are repressive dictatorships, so according to the right wing, it's all good. On the other hand, Argentina being larger, more economically critical, with more American investment and the likely winner is more in the United States interests to support. On the other hand, American intelligence and covert ops are more heavily invested in Chile. Both regimes are vile, murderous and fairly incompetent, so as far as the American left and liberal center goes, I'd say its a matter of zombies versus child molestors (don't care who wins so long as at least one of them loses).

For American policy makers, the real challenge will be the aftermath, retaining both states as clients and keeping the soviets out. The other challenge would be avoiding collateral regional destabilization. Basically, after this war, you'd probably see Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil and England on various levels of alert over possible other Argentine adventures. Or possibly protective alliances, a possible Bolivian/Argentine Axis for instance, with Paraguay/Brazil, or England/Chile. Certainly there'd be potential butterflies affecting Operation Condor. Basically, a major challenge for American diplomacy.

I don't see significant effects anywhere else, not even Spain or Mexico. There's just not enough connection, and no real reason to sympathize with one side over the other. This reminds me most of the Indo/Pakistani war of a few years earlier. No one's really invested one way or the other.

 

[Thande]

The UK's reaction will probably be publicly condemning it, but happy to leave it carry on. The UK wasn't unaware of plans for an attack to claim the falklands, the reason why it was such a surprise was because no one ever expected it to happen.

The Foreign Ministry knew at this point, but not many other people, and there is debate about how seriously the plans were taken.

The British government might see some embarrassment over the sale of a Type 42 destroyer to the Argentine government (and another one then currently being built in Argentina under licence).

Tricky. On the one hand, the Soviets won't have a dog in the fight. Neither will the Chinese. Both countries are repressive dictatorships, so according to the right wing, it's all good. On the other hand, Argentina being larger is more in the United States interests to support. On the other hand, American intelligence and covert ops are more heavily invested in Chile. It's tough to see which side America would fall on. Mostly figure on hand wringing and lots of peace talk offers/demands. Both regimes are vile, murderous and fairly incompetent. I'd say its a matter of zombies versus child molestors.

The Soviet position on the Falklands War was studious neutrality coupled with a slow move towards the Argentine position as "hurt the evil imperialists [citation needed]" won out over "hurt the fascists who spend every waking moment hunting down communists and disappearing anyone who happens to be wearing red today". I suspect under this scenario the USSR would be publicly neutral, condemn both sides, and secretly back communists in both countries (those that hadn't been shot or locked up yet) to try and seize power if the war dragged on too long and people became fed up and open to revolution.

 

[DValdron]

The Soviet position on the Falklands War was studious neutrality coupled with a slow move towards the Argentine position as "hurt the evil imperialists [citation needed]" won out over "hurt the fascists who spend every waking moment hunting down communists and disappearing anyone who happens to be wearing red today". I suspect under this scenario the USSR would be publicly neutral, condemn both sides, and secretly back communists in both countries (those that hadn't been shot or locked up yet) to try and seize power if the war dragged on too long and people became fed up and open to revolution.

I think that the Soviets might play a flexible game. Basically, whichever state ends up most frustrated with the Americans gives the most realistic opening.

The Soviets always sacrificed local communist parties to realpolitic. If for instance, Argentina saw its ambitions frustrated by a forced American peace, then the Soviets might see an opportunity to exploit.

 

[Thande]

I think that the Soviets might play a flexible game. Basically, whichever state ends up most frustrated with the Americans gives the most realistic opening.

The Soviets always sacrificed local communist parties to realpolitic. If for instance, Argentina saw its ambitions frustrated by a forced American peace, then the Soviets might see an opportunity to exploit.

That's true. IIRC Maverick's TL, which had a fairly quick Argentine victory*, had Argentina seek closer ties with the USSR and get them after being cut off by the Carter administration, despite their anticommunist position.

*Whether the war would be a quick Argentine victory or a long-drawn out bloodbath seems to be a major matter of debate.

 

[BlondieBC]

The USA will condemn Argentina and do little else. China, Russia, Western Europe will do little but talk.

Brazil is the wildcard. Best guess only, Brazil greatly increase military spending, and tries to form an anti-Argentina defense league. Both Argentina and Brazil are more likely to pursue a nuclear weapons programs.

 

[Thande]

The USA will condemn Argentina and do little else. China, Russia, Western Europe will do little but talk.

Brazil is the wildcard. Best guess only, Brazil greatly increase military spending, and tries to form an anti-Argentina defense league. Both Argentina and Brazil are more likely to pursue a nuclear weapons programs.

I don't know if Brazil had a major opinion OTL. Bolivia and Peru both hinted they might support Argentina in the event of a war though (partly out of realpolitick concerns and Bolivia's old Pacific coastline chip on shoulder thing).

 

[Thande]

Any other thoughts on this?

 

[Cymraeg]

Any other thoughts on this?

I think that with a major war going on, or having just ended, between Chile and Argentina any thoughts about withdrawing HMS Endurance are going to be null and void - even for a pratt like Nott.

 

[BlondieBC]

Any other thoughts on this?

Argentina will annex parts of Chile, but not the major population centers. Chile losses the copper mines to Argentina or perhaps Bolivia if they join. The USA will apply pressure not to annex all of Chile.

In the United States, this will be a forgotten war by the public. If you ask the average American about it, you will get a puzzled look, much as if you ask them about Cyprus, East Timor, or Goa.

Now if Chile is holding her own, and the war drags on for more than a year, the USA will be come increasingly interested as will the USSR.