Talk:Chilean nationalization of copper

Chile High‑importance

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mining Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Intro

Intro is not well written. It begins with a conclusion. Please fix. —Cantus 03:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be improved by explicitly stating when this took place. Armenite (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chilenization

The "chilenization" (chilenización) of Copper is not the same that the Nationalization. The first term refers to the process in wich the state took the control of the 51% of the copper extraction in 1969, under Eduardo Frei government.

The article is about the history of the process of nationalization of the copper industry (1955-1971), not about one of its stages (Chilenizacion), which on the other hand is clearly mentioned and discussed within the text --Mel Romero 07:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late in the day but I quote Codelco's history section in the 2007 annual report. What you call the 'First stage of nationalisation' was known as the 'Chilenization' under law 16,425. You're second stage of nationalisation was in fact negociation for compensation, which was howled down by the left and some of the right. Actual nationalisation (not Chilenization) only happened when Allende changed the constitution to allow it. Also the Copper office created in 1985 was not Codelco. Codelco was created on 1 April 1976 by Decree Law 1,350 to take over the individual nationalised companies. I hate to contradict a Chilean about his own country but I have spent a bit of time with Codelco and visited many of the major copper mines in the country.Egoli (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you haven't done your research properly then... Most of the information comes from the official "history" of Codelco, published by Codelco in 1982, and the annual reports published ever since. I think you should read the content of the article before spouting your own version of events. Just a few examples to make my point: Copper office was created in 1955 NOT 1985 as you mention; Codelco DID grow out of the Copper Office (as explained in the article) and all of the legal documents creating it, they specifically mention that they are taking over the attributions and duties of the former Copper Office, of which they are the legal successors; Chilenizacion was the official term used by Allende to define his approach to nationalization (see his first presidential message to Congress, May 21, 1971), Allende did not change the constitution (he did not have the legal power to do so), Congress did (by unanimous vote, including the votes of the right), etc. --Mel Romero (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I got the dates of the copper office wrong but Codelco as we know it now was created "On April 1, 1976, with Decree Law Nº 1,350 the Corporación Nacional del Cobre de Chile, Codelco was created, which replaced the State companies, in terms of administrating the nationalized mining deposits". A direct quote from Codelco's 2007 report. I think Allende and his government were practically synonymous. OK. Who do I believe, you or Codelco? Egoli (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are pure sophistry. Go to the web-page of Codelco (you can find it in the links of this page) and re-read the history of the company. a) Codelco was "created" as a public corporation owned by the Chilean government (it's present form) in 1976 by the Pinochet government, but it existed from before as a governmental entity with the SAME name but a different kind of legal structure. The "name" (if you wanted to call it like that) was created by the Frei administration in 1966. That is very clearly mentioned in the article. Now if you want to argue wether it was founded when the name came to be (1966) or when the present legal structure did (1976), that's another matter, but you shouldn't just go about deleting information just to bring it in line with your opinions. Not even the citation you mention (Codelco report) says what you're implying. b) the Nationalization of the mines by the Allende administration was PROPOSED by Allende to a Congress where he did NOT have a legislative majority (he only had 36% of the vote, more or less). In order to achieve his goal he needed 75% of the vote (minimum quorum for a constitutional amendment). He got 100% of the vote (even the opposition voted in favor)... so, who did the change? Legally was congress... maybe it was just an idea whose time has come (as the saying goes)... I see that you've been a busy bee lately and have modified the Codelco page too... but in your haste you not only got all the information wrong but you didn't even take the trouble to proof-read your own text and the dates don't match... so please, I plead with you... stop meddling in something you have no knowledge about UNLESS you do some basic research first. Thanks. --Mel Romero (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me. I seem to have touched a very raw nerve. Over and out.Egoli (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about simply introducing a (foot)note next to the 1966 date that briefly explains why this date differs from the Codelco history page? I was confused by the discrepancy myself, and I'm sure others will be too. Thanks. Benf1977 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, if you will still talk to me, mel romero. I have a problem. I want to correct mistakes in the second paragraph of "The mines involved in the nationalisation" but they will conflict with your paragraph on "Third stage of nationalization". You state that Allende "sent Congress a project for a constitutional amendment that would allow him to nationalize outright all mines, and to transfer all present and future copper fields to the state.' It seems to me that he didn't get the "nationalize outright all mines" because several mines stayed independent such as Disputada (Los Bronces and El Soldado mines) which was bought by/for ENAMI in 1972, after the nationalisation, and sold on to Exxon Minerals six years later. Also Mantos Blancos, owned by the Peruvian Mauricio Hochschild group, Sagasca, Lo Aguirre, and all the other little mines like those around Tierra Amarilla, were not affected. What it seems that he did get was a provision in the constitution saying "The State has absolute, exclusive, inalienable and imprescriptibles (sic) domain over all mines, including guano deposits, metal bearing sands, salt mines, coal and hydrocarbon deposits and the other fossil substances,etc" which is a rather different thing because the constitution (and subsequent revised Mining Code) goes on to say that third parties may apply for concessions to explore for and exploit these state owned minerals with the appropriate permission and under approved conditions.

Provision Three of the Transitory Provisions states "Third. The Large Copper Mining Industry and the enterprises considered as such, nationalised by virtue of transitory provision 17 of the 1925 Political Constitution, shall continue to be governed by constitutional norms in force on the date of promulgation of the present Constitution." This seems to me to indicate that the real target of the nationalisation was the Large Copper Mining Industry or Gran Mineria rather than the whole industry. I look forward to your comments.

My proposed alteration is - Three other mines came into State ownership. Cerro de Pasco's Andina operation was nationalised. A year after the nationalisation, Compania Minera Disputada de las Condes was bought by/for ENAMI from Peñarroya, which operated the Los Bronces and El Soldado mines though it subsequently (1978) sold it at a substantial profit to Exxon Minerals. Mantos Blancos, owned by the Peruvian Mauricio Hochschild group, and the small mines like Sagasca, Lo Aguire and the little mines like those around Tierra Amarilla were not affected..Egoli (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I have no problem with having a civilized discussion on the terms of the article with you or anybody, provided that we confine ourselves to the facts.

A point of fact about this matter at hand: what is normally called "Allende's nationalization" was simply a transference of all "mineral rights" (meaning, all the rights to all substances naturally found in a parcel of land and subject to mineral exploitation) from private hands to the Chilean state. In other words, they expropriated all the rights from whomever hands they were at that point in time. So, even if you owned and lived in your own parcel of land, you didn't own what was underground.

This transference not only affected the copper mines, but also the coal mines around Lota, in south-central Chile, and many others; and the affected parties were not only the big corporations but also many medium and small mine owners, whose rights reverted upon the state. The whole idea was that the rights were in fact a non-salable portion of the common patrimony of the nation and as such they should be directly managed by it. Of course this interpretation was ONLY applied selectively by abrogating the property rights of the "big mines". In other words, the government took over the present and future ores, but allowed the corporations to keep their capital investments. The prices to be paid for these capital investments were the subject of the negotiation with the US corporations (they were pretty valueless without any ore to process anyway) and eventually caused the boycott. The fact that Allende didn't take over all the mines doesn't mean that he didn't have the authority to do so... only that he chose not to apply it to the medium-to-small size operations (ENAMI in 1972 was a government-owned operation). Mauricio Hochschild was German-Bolivian by the way, not Peruvian. The mining code was written under the Pinochet administration by Jose Piñera, and in an article I read years ago, he recalled how he had lots of problems on how to attract mining investment back without falling afoul of the law as it then stood (the Allende amendment). His mining reform was one of the 7 fundamental reforms announced by Pinochet on 1977 (others were the pension reform, the health reform, etc), even before it was enshrined in the 1980 constitution. His solution was to grant fully transferable "concessions" that allow investors an investment and tax regime that cannot be modified unilaterally by the authorities (when the Lagos administration wanted to raise the mining tax rate, he had first to get an agreement from the mines to be taxed). These concessions grant operational "rights" over the ore, but the final property of all rights still remain in the hands of the state and as such, theoretically, they can be taken back. --Mel Romero (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mel. I go along with all you say above although I understood that Mauricio (Moritz) Hochschild was German (born in Biblis, Hessen in 1881) and operated out of Peru after being nationalised out of his tin mines in Bolivia though it appears that his company did also have offices in Chile as well as Peru, Argentina and Brazil. (I came close to working for him in Brazil in the Sixties). Maybe there was a Mauricio son born in Chile while he was working there as an ore buyer and speculator early last century? I take it then that you are happy with my edit even though it appears to conflict with your later comments?Egoli (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though your edit is much better than what's there at present, I am still not happy (no reflection on you though). I guess the whole text needs a full reworking in order to achieve a true balanced story, but I'm really too far away from primary sources at present to be of real help to you (or anybody else for that matter). Thanks for the interest and effort. As for Hochschild, there's a article on him here at wikipedia. He was a german jew who moved to Bolivia, became rich and lived there until he was arrested and almost executed for "usury"... after that he found it healthier to live in Peru and eventually Chile. I understand that his descendants do live in Chile (or is Peru?) at present, but I may be mistaken... In Bolivia (I lived there in the 90's) he's still the epitome of the "grasping jew" even after all these years. --Mel Romero (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I shall lay off (what is there is not too far from the truth anyway). It is not a simple story, there are too many characters and companies involved. The remnant Hochschild company is based in Lima. Anglo American bought Mauricio's South American operations in 1984 and then sold the Peruvian operations to Mauricio's son, Luis. The company has expanded in the Americas and is now the London quoted Hochschild Mining PLC, and is run by Eduardo, Luis's son. There, how's that for irrelevent information.Egoli (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, this could be fixed by a small modification. You wrote "Even so, the bigger concern was for the expected reaction of the US Government". why not add something like "because in the event, Allende nationalised only the mines of the Gran Mineria (+75,000 tonnes p.a. copper production) which were all American owned". Andina had not reached that level but was planned to do so and Disputada was rather a sorry, small, loss making operation at the time.Egoli (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine by me, though as I mentioned before, the whole section NEEDS to be rewritten at some point in the future. Thanks for the interest and effort. --Mel Romero (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article is grotesquely pro-neoliberal. It requires an extensive makeover to make it completely objective, AFAIC.

Pazouzou (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chilean nationalization of copper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]