Chile tells Morales “it will not yield sovereignty over any piece of territory”
The Chilean Executive secretary general Andres Chadwick gave full support on Monday to Foreign Affairs minister Alfredo Moreno decision of not attending the Sunday session at the OAS General Assembly in Cochabamba where Bolivian president Evo Morales called for a sovereign sea outlet for his land-locked country.
“The government and the Foreign minister did the right thing of not attending because it was more an act with political intention characteristics than one with the intention of addressing international issues as demands and corresponds to an international organization such as OAS”, said Chadwick in reference to the Organization of American States general assembly.
Chadwick added that the absence of the minister was not to an official OAS ceremony but rather to a preliminary act that had not the category of official, “therefore the decision and we believe it was a good decision by the Chilean Foreign Ministry in an act that did not have the necessary conditions or guarantees of an international assembly, but rather one with a political colour from the host and organizing country”.
As to the Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa stance in support of Bolivia’s maritime demand Chadwick said Chile is very clear: “we follow a State foreign policy regarding Bolivia’s demand. We have no urgency, we have no need to precipitate because all along Chile’s foreign policy has been one and permanent, and no matter the colour of the government it will remain and that is because Chile respects international treaties”.
“Between Bolivia and Chile, between Chile and Bolivia there is an international limit’ treaty, which determines borders and sovereignty and is absolutely valid from a legal and international perspective, therefore no urgency, no precipitation” insisted Chadwick.
Minister Moreno said on Monday that he trusts the OAS General Assembly will not yield to review the 1904 treaty between Chile and Bolivia following on President Morales’ call of a sovereign access to the sea during a ceremony in Cochabamba.
The minister added that Morales request for a review of the 1904 treaty, as happened in 1979, has no options of support since Chile’s stance is shared by most OAS country members.
Moreno who did not attend Sunday’s opening speech from President Morales because it was not an official OAS ceremony said he wasn’t interested in going through ‘an uncomfortable moment’ and insisted that Chile’s position in based on the 1904 treaty which generates the rights over the claimed territories.
“He (President Morales) said wars do not generate rights, what generates rights are treaties. Not only do they generate rights, they generate stability, they generate peace and this is something which our continent has clearly learnt”, underlined Moreno.
He added that Chile’s position is so solid that President Morales has been trying several strategies to keep the maritime claim alive but does not have the necessary elements to support it.
“In March 2011 Morales announced he would demand Chile before an international court. A year has gone by and he still can’t be precise on what basis he is going to demand us. I think the best way is abidance of international law above all, and then dialogue”.
However he made Chile’s position very clear as to dialogue terms: “I have pointed out in other occasions, since president Piñera has been in office, March 2010, in all meetings concepts have been very clear: we are willing to talk about the 1904 treaty but on the basis that Chile will not yield sovereignty over any piece of Chilean territory”.
Suggested Stories
-
May 25th 2013
Falkland Islands elected lawmaker will attend C24 regional seminar in Ecuador
-
May 25th 2013
Former Guatemalan president extradited to face money laundering charges in US
-
May 25th 2013
Brazil’s employment rate remains stable but job creation slowed in recent months
-
May 25th 2013
Paraguay becomes observer of the Alliance of the Pacific, despite Brazil and Mercosur
46 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Surely borders will now be heavily fortified Miliarizing the south Americas all caused by Argenweener and its childish meddling and interference.
I hope Argenweener gets all it deserves (and not demands!)
5% of Chile's GNP has been spent to arm ourselves against idiots such as Morales. We can (and will if necessary) destroy the armies of all three nations simultaneously should we be attacked.
Don't be too impressed as our friends in the Falklands can destroy the core of Argentina's military forces with just 4 fighters and one destroyer.
The sad part about this is that Argentina is being destroyed from within by its own people with Cristina in the lead.
Bolivia can and does use the port in Arica on a daily basis.
It's against Chilean dignity and pride to cry about spilled milk.
Morales, makes a big song and dance on the opening day but subsequently hasn’t submitted a motion. He has to do this, just as Chile has to rebuke him, in order to maintain credibility at home. It is all noise with no nuts, as we say here.
CFKC eventually visited Chile hoping to get the LAN flight to The Falklands cancelled and some big speech of support. She came away with nothing, remember?
Once again short-term thinking by the interns running the political strategy department of CFKC's government have failed to see how foolish it is to link their claim on the Falklands with Bolivia's claim on Chilean land. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
CFKC is soooooo desperate to get anyone to agree with her that she fails to see the Bolivian claim will piss-off the Peruvians and Chileans.
It is doing a fine job, in not only turning countries against each other with claims, but the possibility of violence erupting,
All to serve CFK;S vindictiveness , and obsession over the Falklands ,
At this rate, Bolivia may well put the Falklands on the back burner,
For argentine support over land from Chile,
Especially if CFK already suspects Chile will let her down, and thus siding with Bolivia,
Could well distract Chile from argentine intentions .
Just a thought,
But CFK is playing a very dangerous game,
And the outcome may well be, what one did not expect .
.
Yet again though south america shows itself up to be a divided continent.
While Chile may not be able to welcome Royal Navy ships right now, both Chile and UK participate in mega-regional Pacific Ocean military exercises. RIMPAC 2012 in a few weeks will see both Chile and Britain participating together on a huge multi-national team effort near Hawaii: www.public.navy.mil/surfor/Pages/RIMPACtobeginJune29.aspx#.T858wdV5GSo
Maybe now is the time for Morales to leave behind his Salida Al Mar claim on Chile and to push ahead with getting Andean coca-leaf chewing declared a Bolivian heritage asset.
I get the situation Chile is in. They have a thriving economy and are on track to become the first developed country in South America. (Sure they have social issues to address). They trade with 48 countries and are developing their economy beyond copper reliance. But they have sensible heads running their country and they know it is important to keep the peace with their noisy but useful (for trade) neighbours.
I hope you can see the contradiction in your post.
I the first sentence you scold Chile for showing unity with Argentina, then in the second you mock SAmerica for lack of unity.
Which is it to be?
Chile’s position is not hypocritical. These are two separate issues for Chile: in the first we defend our position on the north of Chile; and in the second we are supporting our largest neighbour in a dispute with a 3rd party. Is it hypocritical that the UK defends its position in N.Ireland and recognises French Guyana as part of France? – No, it is not, they are two separate issues, right?
Incidentally, I like most Chileans are on the side of the islanders.
“south america shows itself up to be a divided continent”
No one is claiming differently. South America is a continent that is divided into many different countries and we all have overlapping interests and points of conflict. In the last century Europe has gifted civilization two world wars, the likes of which have never been seen on other continents. One of the reasons the EU came in to existence was to bind Europe so tight that the slaughter of the two previous generations could not be repeated.
In the big picture the EU (not the eurozone) has been a huge success and I would be happy to see SA emulate it one day. However I think that for EU type root and branch trans-national integration to become a reality some kind of a catastrophe is required to galvanize the will of all nations involved...and we are not there yet.
@19 Moriety
I wish we could, but don't fool yourself, it is not an exclusively SAmerican problem, ask around in Ulster, Bilbao, Barcelona, Macedonia, etc.
@20 John
I don’t think we have refused any UK navy ships. I know Peru did.
Can you please explain what the obsession the Argentine government wants with the Falkland Islands? They certainly dont need the land as they have plenty, they also know the Falklanders dont like them either, so why is the government so obsessed with this tiny nation?
I doubt you'll reply and I'm reluctant to to give my email on this site, but I simply cannot understand the obsession they have. History is against them, agreements are against them but we simply get a series of governments that simply will not leave these Kelpers alone. Is it because they are the smallest kids on the South American block? I simply cannot get my head around it. A meal/gig awaits in London if you can actually explain it to me.
Toby
It is simple. They have a tenuous historic claim. They claimed the islands up to 1850, then signed a treaty and dropped the claim. Then to stir up nationalistic sentiment, the claim was revived in 1941 and has been an issue since then.
Argies are taught at school that the islands belong to them and that they were forcibly taken from them by the British, this is why many get so upset on the issue you believe the islands are theirs as much you think Cornwall is in England.
The size of a country has never stopped a country from wanting more territory. The Brits don’t say, “oh we are bigger than Holland so let’s give the Shetlands back to Norway”.
That is about it.
I couldn't reply as I was the last to reply: but you posted just ahead of me.
Out of the posters, You, Tobias, Elaine and British_kirtener (whatever, sorry mate, I cant see it!) and Greek_Yogurt (If dismissive, always intelligent) are interesting.
You just made some super comments about our European Union in your last post.
You also commentented about NI: well, the island of Ireland has never yet been a nation: it is the last nation in Europe that has never become one, I wish it could, it's quite disgraceful, but it's not my choice. 1 in 4 Britions within the UK have Irish blood, 70% in the US apparently do, one is a joke, the other is real, And I'll stick to my British side with real family and history for the stats. We live next to each other, no one else does.
Some of my relatives took part in the Easter uprising, so what. Most people claim Irish Ancestary even though us English, Welsh, Cornish and Scottish outnumbered them more than 10 to 1, so immigrants to other nations would be....
The EU:
”In the big picture the EU (not the eurozone) has been a huge success and I would be happy to see SA emulate it one day.“ Just make sure you are a single nation before you attempt it.
The Northern Industrial nations of the Netherlands, Denmark, Northern France and of course Germany are now bailing out the collapse of this bizarre economic wonderland the WORLD has, caused by bankers in the UK and the US. I can speak for the UK if only to say that we are, as Napolean once said when we were not: ”a nation of shop keepers”. 25% of the wealth of the UK now comes from from the Financiers in London, but we have an overall economy that is 70% service-based. That is neither healthy or good.
To get a real EU you'd need a real united nation, and nobody wants that as we are all tied to our own nations and all are proud of their own history, as nations.
For South America, you would all have to agree on Spanish for the language (Brazil), and teach a common history..
Wind back to the 40's when a chap called Juan Peron visited Italy and became enamoured with Mussolini's brand of fascism. He realised it would work on the disparate, bickering, hot-headed Argentines in a very divided country. He needed something to unite the country to create nationalistic pride and he chose the mythical Malvinas, weaving a story of it being stolen by English pirates to unite the people. It all played into the myths and legends of Draco (Sir Francis Drake) used to scare the bejeezus out of Spanish children. At this time Peron was backing the Germans to win WWII, another reason to be anti-English (rarely did they speak of the British) and many British people were wealthy in Argentina. They made great villians to whip up hatered amongst the very poor; and there were many Argentines living in extreme poverty. The golden-age of a wealthy country possibly a rival to the USA as an economic superpower were well and truly in the past by this time.
Since that time, successive Peronist governments have perpetuated the myth to play into the victim psyche and create a common enemy. Seriously, the Argentines have no legal or moral right to the Falklands.
You have to speak to Argentines to really understand how brainwashed they are from nursery school level to believe this wonderful Disneyesque place called Malvinas was stolen by bad pirates and if only they could regain them then all would be well in Argentina. They would suddenly all be wealthy and their governments actually working for the people and they would be the best country in the whole world!
When you question them closely about the lies and offer them the reality of the situation, you can see the struggle on their faces. Because people believe what they want to believe.
I think what you say is they are indoctrinated via school books, as children.
The one comment you made, which I'll agree on, as I have no realistic basis to argue or compare against is the blindigly obvious:
“this wonderful Disneyesque place called Malvinas was stolen by bad pirates and if only they could regain them then all would be well in Argentina. They would suddenly all be wealthy and their governments actually working for the people and they would be the best country in the whole world!”
Perhaps not how I'd put it, but I just couldn't understand why they (the government) will simply not leave this tiny weeny nation alone.
Have they no respect?
Sorry if I got a tad cynical. I think the Peronism (Fascism to me, nationialism to others, but both are bad). “Divide and rule” and all that crap was as destructive to the Germans as it's...... I've seen two women in power now that have both been destructive once in power (and got noticed). I wait for a new age where women are as common in power as us men, thus far, the prognocious (? spelling) attitude isn't good. How about actually serving the people, from a female point of view, in a mans world? (Yep, I'm a man).
It seems that if the world wants change: women in power are not going to deliver it.
Do I think the Argentine Malvanistas have respect for the Falkland Islanders? No, not at all. I do not think it even occurs to them to consider the Islander's position. Argentina is a 'me firster' society, something it took a while for me to adjust to, especially amongst friends there. Added to that, their public education system is really bad. If they are taught at all it is to learn facts (some misinformation) rather than HOW to learn and question. However, they are TOLD that their education system is wonderful and the envy of other countries so they believe that. So, I doubt it ever occurs to them to question the lies being fed to them by their government. As I said before, people believe what they want to believe.
(Obviously, not all Argentines are the same).
One reason I despise CFKC is that she does considerable damage to women aspiring to positions of power in a male-dominated world. (Yeah, it really is despite us thinking we have a foothold). She is so obviously incompetent at the job she ruins the opportunity for more qualified candidates. She should be retired on the grounds on mental illness.
Now, Michelle Bachelet is the complete opposite; much respected and admired. There is always hope.
You do have a point;
“You have to speak to Argentines to really understand how brainwashed they are from nursery school level ...”
Have you seen this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Eh1B4a-RMA
At the least, scary
You have a point .
I dont speak Spanish, but even I understood the brainwashing. How sad.
@Elaine: Turn your attentions to promoting more positive females in Parliament: such as those who have children and want to collect them once school is over, and expect Parliament to respect it.
After all, did a man and woman made a child or was it just a woman, all by herself?
My son is grown up now and I've seen too little change in Parliment. They have their sessions untill 10pm, then continue after in the subsidised Bar: not too great if you are a mum of three. Speak out.
Firstly, since 1962 this has been the “official” position. So it's not the current govs fault.
Secondly, ours is a marriage of convenience. They sell us tons of good cheap stuff (mostly subsidized by the Arg. taxpayer) and we would be bonkers to buy from others and pay more. So it is in our interest to stay sweet with them.
Thirdly, if the Falklanders want to change this position, then hurry up and start pumping oil and gas out of your offshore wells. You would see an immediate u turn on Falklands policy from Chile, as we got a huge hard on for LNG.
Lastly, most Chileans DO NOT WANT the Argentines to take over the islands. Our experience with the Argentines, particularly in 1978 have left a very sour taste in our mouths, and we don't forget easily.
Curiously when we talk about the Falklands on the TV news we always use both names (....Today in the Malvinas o Falklands....etc.)
Cheers gringos.
In my experience I had to be twice as good as any man to get the same recognition but I didn't bleat about making 'huge personal sacrifices' (with false tears in my eyes), I just made sure I was good at what I did (still do, but freelance). I understand why some women play the 'victim' and 'poor little me' card but I would never lower myself or respect any woman that did. Just sayin'. : )
The closest I've ever got to Parliament was being with a New Zealand girl when younger, who somehow lived in an official property of the NZ government, but who worked for an MP. I'll never know who she really knew to get the job, but what I do know is women still haven't made their mark on society, and it's starting to piss me off. (As she wouldn't discuss it).
You I'm guessing, are Irish (by a single word): So come on girls. It's been a mans world (or women being men) for too long. If ever their was a case for positive discrimination it's this. F++k Argentina. Only 50% of the population have yet said anything, about anything, on the entire planet.
As I get older it really is starting to annoy me, as I watch the grey/blue/black/whatever suits.
I stayed up just to see if you replied: I hope you lot might do something about our crap political system a few of us have.... (Not Germany or DK obviously....), Nah, let's just stick to real women representing anyone.
I did actually check out the Chilean woman you mentioned and was very impressed.
More like her please, and sharpish.
Your turn Elaine.
A good few years ago, more than I really want to think about, I took part in an advanced fire fighter course in a North American National Park. During the practical part of the course we were divided into squads of 22 people. Interestingly the most experienced fire fighters all headed forthose squads managed by women.
I, as an Argentine and used to the machista society, asked a Californian Hot-Shot what this was all about. His answer was very simple, women as squad bosses tend to bring back ALL there squad, whereas men sometimes lose a few to the fire.
Since then I have always supported women bosses.
Don't judge all women leaders by Thatcher and CFK, after all you wouldn't judge male leaders by Hitler and Stalin.
Two of the largest economies in the world are lead by capable women, ie Germany and Brazil.
Your user name reflects exactly who you are, and how you think... Murky thinker...
Go study history and some laws of war.
The 1904 war was declared by bolivia and Peru. they both lost it, and hence signed the treaty and therefor have no legal or moral right over the territories they lost.
Same applies to the Occupied territories ofIsrael's west bank. What has been taken by a DECLARED war is the conquer's land. period.
Fair comment mate, I can't argue about that.
Except: :)
Thatcher was the first female leader on the world stage, CFK is also as bullying as her. People dont notice the quiet decent female leaders we've seen in other nations more recently.
As they say: “If it goes right, nobody notices, If it goes wrong everyone does”.
Attitudes within the male-dominated political world (and the media) will change only when having a female leader is as common as a male one, but first the women need to really get there, as a woman, rather than a fake man. Sad but true I think.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!