since Bolivia lost its maritime quality as a result of the war initiated by Chile in 1879, their governments have tried to take it back to on numerous occasions and in various ways, using different strategies that characteristics can be classified into two groups: cutting "claim" and the character "Practise." Positions, despite being completely contradictory, are now being combined in the new strategy that tests the government of Evo Morales to recover Bolivia sovereign access to the sea. The "thesis claim" is a trend based on nationalist precepts that only supports the Bolivian maritime reintegration takes place through the recovery of territory lost to Chile in 1879, for which it is necessary to review the 1904 treaty that Bolivia legally cloistered left. This position, acquired a major boost when the end of the First World War, the United States President Woodrow Wilson established the basis of a new world order based on 14 points, which proposed, inter alia, the return of certain territories that were occupied during the war and the need to provide access sea \u200b\u200bto countries such as Poland and Serbia, who had lost in that conflagration.
Wilson's proposals were interpreted by the Bolivian reivindicasionistas, grouped in the Republican Party as an excellent opportunity to sue before the League of Nations, the revised Treaty of 1904, which finally came when they came to power in 1920. At that time, the demand for Bolivia was declared inadmissible by the Commission j Urist responsible for handling the case because, as you know, the treaties can only be modified by the signatory parties and not by an international tribunal.
The "thesis Practise" by contrast, is a stream based on pragmatic and realistic concepts to support the ability to resolve this issue by obtaining territories were not part of Bolivia in the past because this avoids having to modify the Treaty of 1904, primarily because it is not necessary to interrupt the continuity of the Chilean territory, which, as expected, has always been rejected by Chile. Throughout history, the vast majority of Bolivian approaches - to solve the problem Chilean capital of Bolivia, have been based in this view, the most relevant were the talks that produced the Treaty of 1895, protocolized Act 1920, the Kellogg proposal, 1927, 1950 Notes and Charaña Act of 1975. However, as is evident, none of these attempts was successful. Today, after more than a century of failed attempts in which different strategies are applied on the basis of these two streams, the government of Evo Morales attempts a management diplomatic unprecedented, because for the first time in history, Chile is negotiated directly with a solution to the problem maritime Practise following premises, and at the same time, maintains a cutting speech claim. Policy that increases it is unusual when one considers that also been signed with Peru, a statement in which the latter undertakes not to hinder a possible agreement Bolivian - Chilean "on access to the sea for Bolivia, in accordance with the Treaty of 1929 and its Additional Protocol "(Declaration of Ilo: 19/10/2010).
According reported The Third Dec. 5 , with the government of Michelle Bachelet came to discuss the possibility of transfer to Bolivia to Chile an enclave in the region of Tarapaca, which was part of Peru until 1883, and with the administration of Sebastián Piñera is considering the possibility that assignment to Chile without sovereignty Bolivia a corridor north of Arica, Peru also until 1929, ie that would have advanced possible solutions court Practise. Moreover, both Evo Morales as his Chancellor, David Choquehuanca, have made statements which vindication. While the President expressed his desire to regain Atacama, referring to the desert of that name that was part of Bolivia until 1904 and now forms the Chilean region of Antofagasta, Minister said "do not rule opportunity to bring this matter to international courts, as happened in the failed attempt to the League of Nations.
While these statements could be considered as contradictory or even counterproductive , more seem to be aimed at obtaining a in the short term result towards the opportunity that is open when the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued its ruling on the case between Peru and Chile, which could be as early as 2012 . In this regard, Evo Morales's comment about "that Bolivians can not wait another hundred years to return to the sea", is another clear sign of the urgency to reach an agreement allowing the recognition of interest Bolivians in the new boundary treaty most likely the contestants have to sign to define their maritime boundary and the point where it begins its land boundary. In other words, Bolivia is a great opportunity to get them to open the lock of his confinement imposed by Chile, whose key saves Peru since 1929.
commented statements also show that this time there is a real concern of the Chilean government to reach a solution to this problem as far enough in the past unless a court statement of claim for which Chile to walk away from continue the negotiations that had begun with Bolivia to solve the problem of reference. Interest, as the author of these lines is related to the Chilean goal to lead the regional integration process which should address previously, problems with neighbors.
For all these reasons, not only hope that the Bolivian novel strategy to achieve that interest combine Peruvian Chile with the approval to allow Bolivia to be reinstated the vicinity of the sea world through .
Note: the comments made are the opinion of the author and do not reflect the position of the government of Bolivia.
