Printable Rabit Paw Prints

Chile Bolivia vs. Chile: The Demand for

Published in The Reason on 3 April 2011.
On October 20, 2004, on the centennial of the signing of the Treaty that left Bolivia legally cloistered brothers Victor Hugo Chávez and Wilfredo Serrano, submitted a proposed lawsuit against Chile to recover Bolivia sovereign access to sea, the then President Bolivian President Carlos Mesa, who, despite believing that the multilateral level is a good way to reach the sea, he ignored the said proposal or at least not included in its policy of gas by sea "it should be recalled, spiced wine chilenofóbico speech with salt. Fourteen months later, the day that Evo Morales took office, the Chavez brothers sent their proposal to the brand new president, who so far not used it and God save Bolivia if you choose.

Demand for Chavez, who in recent days there has been more topical, submit the case raises the controversy generated by the confinement the Bolivian Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague (TPA), based on allegations easily folding and raised in the most unusual understatement of professionalism and astuteness of Chilean diplomacy. Among which is the false argument that Bolivia never recognized the rule of Chile about the Atacama, located between latitudes 23 and 24 south latitude, which is a terrible mistake because such recognition was formalized by the Treaty notarized Minutes Peace and Friendship signed on 15 November 1904 and ratified by both countries. Which, in relevant part states:

"... having been controversial at times by the Bolivia government criteria with which Chile has consistently considered the situation in the territories lying between the parallels 23 and 24 south latitude, considered it appropriate to make clear that the government of Bolivia recognizes the absolute and perpetual Chile in recent territories from the sea to the current boundary with Argentina. "

But Chavez is not only unaware of the agreement, but also the note delivered to the Bolivian Foreign Ministry on February 12, 1879 from the Chargé d'Affaires of Chile, Pedro Nolasco Videla, after Bolivia did not answered in the time required by Chile, the proposal to take the dispute to arbitration in the United States. On that note, Chile unilaterally known limits of the Treaty of August 6, 1874, that 132 years later, Chavez intended to lead to TPA in The Hague for it to determine its validity. The note states:

"Broken treaty August 6, 1874, because Bolivia has not complied with the obligations set forth herein, are reborn to Chile, was legitimately assert rights by treaty 1866 on the territory to which the treaty is concerned. Accordingly, the Government of Chile shall exercise all acts it deems necessary to defend their rights, and His Excellency the Government of Bolivia should not see them but the logical result of the breakdown which has caused and its repeated refusal to seek a just and equally honorable to both countries. "

And that's not is all, Chavez does not know the documents invalidated the Treaty on the Transfer of Territories of May 18, 1895, by which Chile is committed to give Bolivia a sovereign access to the sea, ie, unaware of the Protocols of 9 December 1895 and April 30, 1896, which conditioned the entry into force of the CTBT to the approval of the reserves that the Bolivian Congress had opposed to its ratification, but, as expected, Chile never approved. However, the supposed validity of the instrument is another questionable arguments wielded by Chavez to sue Chile.

In conclusion, Chavez believed discover that Chile "forgot" to legalize its control over Bolivian territory now occupied and that "failed" override other agreements that force you to give Bolivia a sovereign outlet to the sea, and therefore submitted a proposal as never before in the history of Bolivian diplomacy had considered the possibility of bringing this matter to international courts, believing that enough knowledge of laws and very little history to design a foreign policy strategy, with the gall to not even review the basic literature of the subject, with a big and outrageous irresponsibility that comes to jeopardize the interests of Bolivia most expensive and worst of all, assuming that Chileans do not know some basic concepts of international law. In short, the demand for Chavez is a very accurate expression of what is meant by "native resiliency.

Note: the comments made are the opinion of the author and do not reflect the government's position Bolivia.