International aspect
Leguía, continuing his policy of defining international borders initiated in his first government (1908-1912), promoted the definitive border treaties with Colombia and Chile. In this regard, there is a nationalist current in Peru that has denigrated this policy, describing its border arrangements as supposedly "surrender." Although he may have made some mistakes, Leguía at least had the decision to definitively resolve old border conflicts that his predecessors had been prolonging in an irresponsible and dangerous manner.
Leguía began talks with Colombia to definitively resolve the border issue, which was tending to become a centenary, since it dated back to the time of independence. Colombia aspired to legitimize its border from the Caquetá River to the Putumayo River (territorial strip that Peru actually occupied, thanks to the actions of the Peruvian rubber tappers), as well as obtain access to the Amazon River.[83].
Previous Peruvian governments had refused to give in to Colombian claims, but Leguía, in his obsession to resolve the dispute once and for all, promoted the Salomón-Lozano Treaty, which was signed by the Peruvian chancellor Alberto Salomón and the Colombian minister Fabio Lozano Torrijos, in Lima, on March 24, 1922. This meant ceding to Colombia an extensive portion of territory between the Caquetá and Putumayo rivers (area in dispute) and the so-called Amazonian Trapeze, where the Peruvian population of Leticia "Leticia (Colombia)") was located, along the Amazon River. In this way, Colombia gained access to this river, which until then was only shared by Peru and Brazil. In compensation, Peru received the so-called San Miguel-Sucumbios Triangle,[84][85] which in practice it never occupied and which in 1942 it would cede to Ecuador.[86].
The treaty was approved by the Congress submissive to Leguía in 1927 and was put into execution on August 17, 1930, a few days before the fall of Leguía.[87] When the treaty was made public, it caused great resistance among the Peruvians who lived in the affected areas, thus arising a state of conflict between both nations that would worsen in 1932.[88].
It was said that Leguía signed this treaty with Colombia under pressure from the United States, which wanted to somehow compensate Colombia for Panama's independence. But geopolitical calculations must also have taken precedence in Leguía: with the treaty, Colombia was gained as an ally, which until then had been close to Ecuador in its claim to Peruvian Amazon territories. In fact, upon learning of the signing of the treaty, Ecuador broke relations with Colombia. And a Colombian-Ecuadorian alliance against Peru would have had disastrous consequences for the latter, without a doubt.[89].
Peruvian historians such as Jorge Basadre and Gustavo Pons Muzzo agree that the Salomón-Lozano Treaty was an error in Leguía's diplomacy, considering that Colombia came out with a greater advantage in the territorial cession and that Peru renounced a policy of defense of its territory that it had maintained until then unchanged.[90][88] This interpretation is the one that has been perpetuated in Peruvian teaching and the one that has given rise to the black legend of Leguía. On the other hand, in Colombia it is considered that it was a transactional agreement, that is, that both parties renounced their maximum claims, made mutual concessions and reached a balanced agreement.
Leguía also proposed to definitively resolve the problem with Chile regarding the question of Tacna and Arica. As the years passed, the plebiscite initially agreed upon in the Treaty of Ancón of 1883 to decide the fate of the Peruvian provinces of Tacna and Arica, held captive in Chile since the Pacific War of 1879-1883, became unattainable.[91].
When the dispute was submitted to the arbitration of the President of the United States Calvin Coolidge, he gave his ruling (award) on March 4, 1925, resolving to hold the plebiscite. This award was not well received by Peruvian public opinion, too aware of Chile's behavior towards these provinces, which it had subjected to a heartless policy of "Chileanization" for many years. Indeed, the American commissioners who came to supervise the plebiscite, Generals John J. Pershing and William Lassiter, verified that it was impracticable due to the lack of minimum conditions for a fair and objective popular consultation.[92][93].
The plebiscite did not take place and both parties returned to direct negotiations, which culminated in the treaty signed on June 3, 1929, in Lima, between the Peruvian chancellor Pedro José Rada y Gamio and the Chilean representative Emiliano Figueroa Larraín (which is why it is also known as the Rada y Gamio-Figueroa Larraín Treaty). Both parties definitively renounced the holding of the plebiscite with the following arrangement: Tacna would return to the heart of the Peruvian homeland, but Chile would remain with Arica. In addition, other concessions were granted to Peru in Arica, such as a dock and its customs infrastructure, possession of the House of Response, possession of the Tacna-Arica railway station and the route of its line, the water sources of the Uchusuma and Maure, among other easements.[94][95].
On August 28, 1929, Tacna was reincorporated into Peru.