MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, January 26th 2022 - 17:10 UTC



Bolivia considering international court to claim coastline lost to Chile

Thursday, March 24th 2011 - 20:14 UTC
Full article 6 comments

Bolivia is prepared to take Chile to the International court of The Hague over its claim to a section of Pacific coast that it lost in a war more than 130 years ago, Bolivian President Evo Morales said Wednesday. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Be serious

    Would have been interesting to see some maps to show disputed territory.

    Mar 25th, 2011 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    Details and map here:

    Mar 25th, 2011 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Be serious

    Thanks Idlehands.

    Mar 25th, 2011 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    It seems to be a South American trait to attack another nation, take a whipping and then whinge about it forever after.

    Mar 25th, 2011 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Sergio Vega

    Certainly, I couldn´t find more exact words to expalin this issue, more than hundred years after....

    Mar 27th, 2011 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ManRod

    Idlehands, you got it perfectly. Bolivia knowingly provoqued this war to simply get it all in its greed. They already had had a beneficial treaty, whereas Chile ceeded to it's, surely, older rights to the disputed territory (considering Chile had it's independence and definition of territory in 1810/18 and Bolivia artificially imposing it's definition of their country borders in 1825 overlapping once claimed and already populated territory by chileans ).
    Hilaron Daza, the Bolivian dictator back then, was so sure about his “backhand-ace”, the now so called “defense treaty” with Peru. There are letters found of Daza, where he mockingly addresses to the Peruvian president in an enthusiastic manner, when Chile seized back the city of Antofagasta, indicating that the trap had snapped.

    Strangely, this “defense treaty” had always a secret caracter, which obviously contradicts with the understanding of the detterent function of a open defense treaty. Where is the function of deterrence, when it's not known to public? This was definitely not a “defense pact”, they tried a trick and it failed. Now they “whine about poured milk” and hope for the compasion of international opinion. But there is no way back. The new treaty of 1904 between both countries do define the borders in a very detailed way. Also there is no argument, that this was signed under pressure, considering this treaty was agreed almost a quarter century after the war had finished between both nations.

    Apr 02nd, 2011 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!