The recent presence of a US Army force at the Military Labor Corps’ (CMT) Vicuña-Yendegaia project in the Magallanes Region of Chile, has raised alarms about national sovereignty in Patagonia. The aim of the project is to connect Puerto Williams to the mainland via a bimodal land-sea route, with alleged support from military engineers of the Texas Army National Guard.While the US military presence is not officially intended for establishing a military base or conducting joint exercises, the question that arises is whether Chilean engineering teams lack sufficient expertise, and why there is a need to rely on US forces at all. Officially, this is described as a technical and professional exchange. However, in a territory as strategically important as Chile’s southernmost region, the presence of foreign military contingents cannot be viewed without scrutiny.Patagonia: a geostrategic regionPatagonia is not just a postcard of glaciers and mountains. It is a natural border that projects Chile toward Antarctica and a reserve of strategic resources: fresh water, hydrocarbons, biodiversity, and maritime corridors. Its geopolitical value has historically been recognized by foreign powers that have attempted, directly or indirectly, to control it.From the 19th century, when British explorers sought to secure routes through the Strait of Magallanes, to the 20th-century tensions with Argentina over the southern channels, Patagonia has been the scene of diplomatic and military disputes. Today, under the guise of “international cooperation,” old tensions are resurfacing as technical alliances.Testimonies from the southLieutenant Colonel Rodrigo Vergara Q., head of the CMT in Punta Arenas, praised the US military engineers’ visit as an opportunity to “exchange knowledge and strengthen professional ties of friendship.” Similarly, Captain Patrick Hussey of the US Army called the cooperation mechanism “very successful” in understanding the CMT’s mission and planning joint training exercises.However, critical voices from social organizations in the region, who prefer to remain anonymous, warn that such agreements open the door to foreign interference in strategic areas. They emphasize that infrastructure development in Magallanes should be a national project, funded and carried out by Chile, and not an arena where foreign forces gain a presence and knowledge of the territory.Chile Hosts Military Exercises of the US Southern CommandConnectivity projects in remote areas serve a dual role: they improve the quality of life for residents and reaffirm national sovereignty.But the fact that some of these works may involve US forces raises key questions:Is Chilean autonomy being strengthened or weakened?To what extent is international military cooperation legitimate in sensitive areas?What guarantees does Chile have that the knowledge acquired by foreign powers will not be used for their own benefit in future scenarios?Historical tensions in the regionConflicts with Argentina: The Beagle dispute in the 1970s demonstrated how fragile sovereignty in the south can be without an effective military and civilian presence.Interest of foreign powers: Historical reports show how the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany had an interest in Patagonia for its strategic value during the Cold War.Antarctica in the Crosshairs: The Antarctic Treaty limits territorial claims, but Chile’s position on the southernmost continent depends directly on its projection from Patagonia. Any weakness there could translate into a setback in Antarctica.The dilemma: cooperation or autonomyThe criticisms are not about rejecting all technical exchanges, but rather about questioning whether Chile should depend on foreign military assistance for strategic projects in Patagonia. For many, the answer is obvious. Sovereignty cannot be shared: it is either exercised or lost.Patagonia serves as both a natural laboratory for scientific development and a field of global competition. For Chileans, it represents a historic challenge: to consolidate territorial integration through their own national capabilities, or to create an opening that, under the guise of cooperation, undermines the independence achieved through historical struggles. (Diario Red)Translation: Orinoco TribuneOT/SC/DZ