MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Bolivia gets involved in Chile/Peru ongoing maritime dispute
International relations between Chile and Bolivia are tense and could worsen, considering the impact of a Monday press release from Bolivia’s Ministry of Foreign Relations. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules93 miles underground? Hell of a project, it would have to be a rail link, and would cost billions.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0A raised road would be a cheaper option.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are all South American states stuck in a 19th century diplomacy mindset?
A raised road would be a cheaper option.
Are all South American states stuck in a 19th century diplomacy mindset?
no the british are stuck in 19 th century colonialism
Jul 14th, 2011 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0not all countries in southamerica are stuck in 19th century. Chileans apply the “live and let live” motto, but even you yourself try to live like that, it does not guarantee you, that your neighbours will try to challange you all time.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All boundaries in northern Chile have been settled, Bolivia has no right to claim anything after the peace and friendship treaty with Chile, signed 1904, already long 25 years after the war had ceased already. Peru's borders are also delimited, 1929 on soil, and 1952/54 by treaty and 1968/69 by final cartography agreed by both countries.
All these claims made by Bolivia and Peru have been started, due to very low image of their respective leaders at the moment of initial campaign. Peru demanded Chile in 2006, when Alan Garcia (their president) had an aprobation of 8% (!!!). Shortly after the campaign started, his popularity recovered...
Same thing to Evo Morales of Bolivia. He had excellent relations with Chile until early 2011 (we all remember his visit in 2010 with Piñera to the trapped miners), then... start of 2011, Morales suffered a huge breakdown with the “Gasolinazo”, in where he wanted to eliminate subsidy to fuel, resulting in 80% increase of prices. This awakened big resistance in Bolivia, and his aprobation fell from 60% to 30%. Even after he had taken back the law, people would not forgive him, so few days later he started with the hostile speach against Chile.
In Peru and Bolivia, antichilean sentiment is VERY strong, and in politics it pays out for sure. This is no secret.
I see Bolivia has no problem with the ICJ. Why does Argentina shy away from the ICJ considering they are getting nowhere when it comes to the FI.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is it because they know they would have no viable legal case to present?
Beef, I wouldnt see it like that. Bolivia knows, that it doesn't have ANY chance to win a sovereign path to the sea via ICJ, and anyway they try it, based on the “nothing to lose” attitude and additional short-term profits in demagogic fields. You need to understand the mindset of many countries in the region:
Jul 14th, 2011 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Countries, which have NO chance to win someting they do not own themselves, GO to the ICJ, because they have nothing to lose. According to the attitude: “I do not own it, but maybe there is a chance of 0,0001% i could win, so lets try!”
Countries, which have or at least, think they have a kind of right, would not dare to go to the ICJ, because they fear to lose supposed rights, if the result is adverse to their needs.
I love how Bolivia and Comrade Morales think they have a “right” to sea access. Had Bolivia beaten Chile in that war and if they had taken control of a large part of Chile, including large copper deposits in northern Chile, and if Chile were now trying to claim its right to those copper deposits.....Comrade Morales would tell them to go f*ck themselves. The borders have been established for a long time now. Bolivia lost their access to the sea. It's that simple. So, should Paraguay now start telling Brazil and/or Argentina that they have a “right” to “own” part of the Atlantic coast? Yeah right... Morales is a moron. There are similarities between Bolivia's “right to the coast” and Argentina's constant bitching about the Falklands though. It gives politicians something to get the people riled up about....a lightning rod. Just like Chavez uses the U.S. as “the enemy” that's constantly trying to assassinate him.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why cant peru and chile, in this day and age,
Jul 14th, 2011 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0just give up 5 lousy miles between them and let bolivia have the middle bit,
problem solved,, or is this just to simple,
Why should they? We won't give up 5 miles of the Falkland Islands! Too simple!!
Jul 14th, 2011 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The real issue of course, is that some south cone countries do not believe that Treaties last for ever!!
@briton, come on dude, you should know better than to make a statement like that. It's never that easy. First of all, there's a lot of land between Bolivia and the coast. When you say, “give up 5 lousy miles” you're simply referring to the coast. Do they give up the land in between as well? Then what, do they force the Chileans and Peruvians that may be living in those areas to pick up and move, or do they become Bolivians? What if they don't have the same environmental concerns for their 5 miles of coast and dump a bunch of toxic crap in their 5 lousy miles? Also, there are already a LOT of Bolivians living and working in Chile illegally. How does Chile then tackle the increased flow of illegals? These are just a few basic questions. I'm sure there would be about a thousand more. That and the fact that a country would be giving up some of its land to another country. That never goes over well with the citizens of said country. See why it's not that easy?
Jul 14th, 2011 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 8 briton: “Why cant peru and chile, in this day and age,
Jul 14th, 2011 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0just give up 5 lousy miles between them and let bolivia have the middle bit,
problem solved,, or is this just to simple”
1st, because we have already tried this solution in 1975, but Peru opposed to this idea. Chile back than had a deal with Bolivia, to give them a strip at the border with Peru up to the sea, in compensation to some Bolivian territory more south. Peru opposed to this, mentioning the border treaty of 1929, in which there is a clause, that neither Chile, nor Peru are entitled to traspass border territory to a third party, without the go of the other signatory.
Peru was not willing to let Chile traspass territory to Bolivia, which was once Peruvian. Peruvians blame Bolivians to provoke the war with Chile, abusing the secret alliance pact and to “drag” them into the war of the pacific and retiring in early stage, leaving the scenario of a merely Peruvian-Chilean war. Partly, I understand that...on the other side, Peruvian were very eager to enter the war back then, to supposedly get it's part of the chilean bounty (they thought it would be an easy win).
2ndly: Why should we? Are we “mother Teresa” to solve all the internal issues of other countries, sacrificing ourself in an altruistic mission? Knowing mentality of our neighbours, if we would grant them a 5 mile strip to the sea, in the next step they would ask for a 10, mile strip and so on. There intention is not really to get access to the sea, because Chile does grant them free pass to the sea (without any tolls!).
The sea access is not the problem, its just a distraction from severe political and social issues, and they search an external punching back to feel better.
If you give an inch, they would take a mile. But as people have said already, it is really about distraction from domestic problems.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If SoAm countries are really going to be the strong trading partnership they would have the world believe, they should be able to negotiate transport across the land without any need to transfer ownership of land.
From the Chilean point of view, I would not want to do anything to increase the border with Bolivia. Northern Chile is the main route of drugs from Bolivia and it is almost impossible to police as it is. Besides, won't it just give the Bolivians even more access to stealing cars?
“it is really about distraction from domestic problems”
Jul 14th, 2011 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just like the Falkland Island Claim. Pan y circo...
Thank you for all your replies,
Jul 14th, 2011 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting,
But the wrong people answered the questions, so it backfired a bit,
9 Redhoyt (#)
Why should they? We won't give up 5 miles of the Falkland Islands
[to quick]
I was hoping that that more [other] bloggers would have given the same reply.
i.e, if they would not, then why should the Falkland’s,
But sorry my fault
I take the blame to clever by half , mmmmm
If Chile lost land in the North to Bolivia then they would surely be entitled to recover Patagonia from Argentina.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“they would surely be entitled to recover Patagonia from Argentina....”
Jul 14th, 2011 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's the day that I will wear my uniform again and gladly die for my country !!!!
15-16 Well I had understood that in the 1880,s Chile was facing war on both fronts and knew they could not fight both together so focussed on beating the attack from Peru and Bolivia and gave into Arg taking over a tract of what is now Arg Patagonia.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hence why Pinochet telphoned Mrs Thatcher early April 1082 offerring to put his forces through in 3-5 days onto the Atlantic coast and cut off most of the Arg southern airbases and get back the Patagonia they lost in the 1880,s - luckily for all, Mrs T, did not want to get into World War 3 so she declined the offer!
But there does seem to be a typical S American mentality at work - pick a fight - loose it - then moan afterwords that it was unfair!
@ 17 Islander: I seriously disbelieve the story you just mentioned. Chile at no point in 1978 to 1982 was in position to invade argentinian Patagonia. The belic arsenal in Chile during the dictatorship was not even able to invade Bolivia back then. The only interest, was to get Argentina away from its “operacion soberania”, and when Pinochet contacted Thatcher then, it was in order to keep up status quo. So don't lets twist history.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MadRod, what can I say??? You have said all what I wished to say , word by word....letter by letter.
Jul 15th, 2011 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0ow, I just can agree totally with you.....Chile has fought and lost a lot of Chilean lives for that territory, so no one have the right to give it to any other......like the Brithis did for Falklands Islands.
The Bolivia's president Evito has a nut lost in his mind, it seems like the only “neurona” that he can has had was burnt out....difficulty he can walk and chewing gum at the same time....In his crazy mind he has thought that he can win some if they go to the ICJ (as well as the Peruvian president thought the same), at least more popularity...!!!
Anyone have any idea as to the basis of Bolivia's case should it go to the ICJ? In other words, what is their argument/s? What case can they make?
Jul 15th, 2011 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0If I'm not mistaken, Bolivia did have an exit to the sea back in the XIX century. They lost it in wars against Chile. This has apparently been a burden for Bolivian development (it is the poorest country in the continent). The reason Chile and Bolivia don't get to reach an agreement, is because Chile keeps offering Bolivia lands that are actually Peruvian-Chilean disputed territory.
Jul 15th, 2011 - 03:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt, the basis for the whole conflict is a bit more complex than mentioned by Forgetit87.
Jul 15th, 2011 - 07:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0It starts with the colonial division made by the spainards in the “Leyes the India” (“laws of the indian”), the royal administration laws for all spanish colonies on american soil, before our independency took place.
In those “Leyes de India”, the spanish settled the frontiers for the “real Audiencia de Charcas”, the region known today as Bolivia. The spanish definition for this dependency from the viceroyalty of Peru, did not have direct access to the sea, according to the will of the spanish king. You can read in the “Leyes de India”, that even before independency the Audiencia de Charcas was officially assigned the peruvian port of Arica for their seatrade, with NO traspass of authority.
In 1776, the dependancy of Charcas was traspassed by the spanish king to the newly created “Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata”, what we know today as Argentina. The “Leyes the India” did not forsee any border modification for Charcas though, which meant, they somehow lost privileges for peruvian port of Arica, and became “landlocked”.
Beginning of the 19th century, our southamerican colonies started to gain independency according to the rule of “utis possidetis”, which means... they inherited the territories with borders defined by the colonial administration. First was Argentina in 1810 (though not their whole territory), then Chile in 1817, Peru in 1820 and finally Bolivia in 1825. That's when the trouble starts, because once Bolivia was freed, their leader Sucre claimed Bolivia with access to the sea, something which was not “compatible” with the utis possidetis.
Chile also had claimed this territory (“despoblado de atacama hasta la frontera con Peru acorde las leyes de india” unhabited dessert of atacama up to the peruvian border according the leyes de india). TO BE CONTINUED... I have no space anymore to write. Please write something so I regain some right to continue :D
Please go on.....
Jul 15th, 2011 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you MR. Interesting.
Jul 15th, 2011 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0I do know something about Uti Possidetis Juris. For example, I know the concept did not exist prior to 1810, and was not proclaimed until the Conference of Lima in 1848. I also know that it doesn't seem to work!
I'm looking forward to the rest. I had thought the matter resolved by a Treaty, but then treaties do appear to be of limited value in the south cone.
l have read that Bolivia went to war in the 1930's against Paraguay to try to gain access to the Paraná river(among other things) & so eventually the sea.
Jul 15th, 2011 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0The plan backfired as the Paraguayans won the war.
Sergio, ManRod, is this correct?
thanks Elaine, you're a treasure! :)
Jul 15th, 2011 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now, Chile was not free of errors neither. Chile did not protest against Sucre's definition of Bolivia in 1825, which overlapped previously defined Chilean borders in 1817. The Chilean government ignored this, probably due to other more important issues in the newly founded republic, or because they thought Bolivia would not take effective possesion of this region. We must consider that we are talking about the region of the Atacama, a very arid and sparely inhabited desert place, which was barely tapped yet. Only few small villages at the coast with Chileans existed then.
For a long period, this region was of no interest for Chile neither Bolivia. Bolivia remained using the Peruvian port of Arica for their exports, while the Atacama remained unattractive for both countries.
This changed in the 1860 ies, when chilean and british mining companies discovered rich deposits of nitre, they started to extract. Chilean an Bolivian frontiers were still not defined correctly, but Chile had done more to settle it's people in the region. Example: Antofagasta, a city founded and mostly inhabitted by Chileans.
Nevertheless, in 1866 and 1874 Chile and Bolivia agreed a border treaty, in which Chile did resign to the territories north of the 24 parallel and later 23 parallel, with the condition that Chilean companies in the now bolivian territory would not have to pay taxes for the next 25 years. Though Bolivia inbetween in 1873, had signed a secret military pact with Peru against Chile, so afterwards it's obvious they had other intentions. And they came true: Bolivia breached the treaty in 1878, when they ignored the tax clause, and they claimed taxes of the Chilean companies in Antofagasta. Chile protested against this same year, but Bolivia did not step back from this. in 1879 Bolivia confiscated the companies (who denied taxes due to the treaty) and Chile saw this as the annulation of the limit treaties with Bolivia. War broke out...
This is very interesting. : )
Jul 15th, 2011 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sounds like the contract/treaty was broken right enough!
Jul 15th, 2011 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Keep going :-)
Redhoyt: ”...I do know that concept (of Uti Possidetis Juris) did not exist prior to 1810”
Jul 15th, 2011 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hi Red,
on what exactly do you base this? Uti Possidetis is an old roman law, it was also accepted by Britain regarding the spanish colonies way back before 1810, in the 16th century for the spanish colonies.
Regarding the convention of Lima in 1848, I think you slightly misunderstood: It is indeed correct, that it was the first time SA countries agreed on it all together, but in 1848 they accepted it retrospectively, that this rule HAD been applied since 1810.
Small detail, but big effect :)
It's true, that it didn't really work 100%, but it is accepted as the legal rule for the claims of our newly born nations. Of course there were later wars and segregation, which results did overthrow the uti possidetis status quo from 1810, but that's a plausible consequence, and does not contradict to the uti possidetis of 1810. We should not forget, that the romans initially used it also to justify territorial conquests after wars, and only later it's meaning shifted to a “border keeping” meaning.
Isolde... yes you are right. Bolivia started a war a gainst Paraguay, mainly due to suspected Oil deposits in the Chaco (I admit that I am not aware, if the Parana access might have been a secondary aim). Bolivia was military superior to Paraguay, but they lost the war anyway. Paraguay seems to be a very fierce little nation, how else would they have faced Brasil, Argentina, Uruguay in the war of the “triple alianza”.
Uti Possidetis De Facto is certainly at the very least Roman. essentially, to the victor the spoils.
Jul 15th, 2011 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Uti Possidetis Juris is less well established, and far more controversial. For openers try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis
Whether it is 'retrospective' and whether it can bind other States (particularly outside SA) is less than clear. Britain does not accept it as a principle defining Argentina's right to the Falkland Islands for example ...
I'm being nagged, as I'm late going out .... I'll try and come back to this !
Hi Red,
Jul 15th, 2011 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0to my understanding, Argentina cannot base on Uti Possidetis for the Islands, because in 1810 it's posession was not clear. It was not possible or clear to apply “ uti possidetis, ita possideatis”, due to the dispute between Spain and Britain about ownership of the Islands, and if the Islands were included or not in the nootka convention. But I do not want to dig to deep here, as I am not an expert in Falkland/Malvinas matters.
I only know, that the constitution of Argentina (1853) did not include the Islands, as it neither included Patagonia, because last one was still terra nullis then. (check article 46 of the constitution).
Sorry about that, the wife was ruining my concentration.
Jul 15th, 2011 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As far as I understand it, Argentina is still claiming that her boundary in 1810 was defined by Uti Possidetis Juris and therefore that included the Falkland Islands which the British had left in 1774. The British position is that removing the garrison is not the same as a renunciation of sovereignty. The issue is certainly a live one in this particular dispute, and on these pages!
Nootka is a different problem, although once again it comes down to interpretation. Personally I do not think that the Falkland Islands were 'adjacent' for the purposes of the Nootka agreement. They only look 'adjacent' if you have satelite imagery but as this was not available in 1790 I suspect that the term 'adjacent' would not include anything more than a day's sailing away. That would certainly put the Falklands outside of Nootka. It is in any event academic, as the secret clause in the Nootka agreement would have authorsied the British action in 1833!
Thanks for the tip regarding the 1853 Argentine Constitution, I'll take a look.
:-)
its all about oil
Jul 15th, 2011 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0no oil, no dispute
Manrod- 1982 Chile - Yes I agree it was abit of a surprise to me as well but it came from a person who was a member of Mrs Thatcher,s inner war-cabinet in 1982. All will be revealed/or not I guess when the documents of that time eventually are released as public,normally 30years I think but “sensitive ones” - like this - tend to be held for longer- a few more folks probably need to die of old age first!
Jul 15th, 2011 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0hahaha @ Islander, if this becomes true, I can imagine the big cry in the sky it will produce, maybe next year????
Jul 15th, 2011 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But do you think this can be taken for granted from your contact?
By the way, just detected a mistake in my previous text. The Argentine constitution does mention the “Malvinas”, though in article 46 they do not define a representative for the constitution (as for all resting provinces).
Thanks MR - I was a tad confused there :-)
Jul 15th, 2011 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Manrod, I think I do - that level of politician- a mininster - 29 years ago did not tend to lie- different from todays ones!- I would not trust the leaders of either main party in UK at times now. But all will be revealed one day! If true I guess Pinochet figured Arg would be looking east to the Islands and not realise what he was doing until to late to reposition forces etc. But luckily it did not happen - I think it would have resulted in a war all over S America!
Jul 16th, 2011 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islander, according to Argentinians, they already had kept their best troops @ the andes in 1982, the reason why they suposedly sent kids to fight for the Islands.
Jul 16th, 2011 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0I guess, Argentina always knew on the long term, that Chile was a bigger headache than a limited war against UK on islands in the Alantic.
Argentina knew exactly well, in what constellation it had put herself with Chile after threatening with invasion since end of the seventies, against what many people nowerdays claim over there.
After a so clever explanation from ManRod for the issue, I can just agree totally with his statement......
Jul 16th, 2011 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Related io the Bolivia - Paraguay conflict on these days I have no idea what the aim was, but tought it must be because the needs for seatrade way more than oil deposits. Bolivia has claimed from ever that their poverty comes from the fact they are a landlocked country (Didn´t they know how the poverty is on Switzerland, an ever landlocked country? or Austria?) but the true is that they have those poverty levels because their own idiosyncrasy.....
Islander1, In the event that it could be true whta tou have been told, we had the right to act this way in compensation as Argentina acted when Chile was coming back from a war on 19th century, so no way for others countries could be involved in a bipartite conflict (as it was in the previous 1978 conflict wcich reachead at a almost war level due a not acceptation of the Brithish HM the Queen pronunciation under currently valid borders controversy solutions treaty signed by both, Argentina and Chile).
Switzerland? Poverty? ..... really !!??
Jul 16th, 2011 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For the thinking Chileans....
Jul 16th, 2011 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”200 Think Jul 23rd, 2010
……a little personal anecdote about why I don’t believe all this “military” bullsh** about Chileans and Argentineans being mortal enemies:
“El destino quizo que, en noviembre del 78, visitase a un gran amigo (Nicasio Urquizo, q.e.p.d.) administrador de la estancia “Remolino” sobre el canal de Beagle.
Allí fui testigo presencial de una reunion entre los almirantes Massera y Toribio Merino que, con un montón de Güisky encima, se cagaban de risa de nosotros, los civiles huevones que nos tragabamos la historia de la Guerra.
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/07/20/argentina-blockading-the-falklands-with-no-respect-for-islanders-human-rights
For the conspiracy thinking thinkers....
Jul 16th, 2011 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nicasio Urquizo??? Massera and Merino drinking together @ an estancia?
nice fairy tale ! come on.... the link you have given just redirects me to another theme where you commented the same again. Nothing found in the internet. Hostility and invasion plans in 78 was a FACT, or are you gonna tell me, that “Operacion Soberania” has never been planned?
I really dislike the negation, because I believe that people who originally spread this (don't mean you, you probably had positive and friendly intentions, which are fine in nowerdays) , do this in the intention to minimize the “guilt” or responsability of the argentine Junta and shade another light in the Malvinas regional developpment.
I give you a much better and real link, check out this (just for history reasons)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Soberan%C3%ADa
40@ Can´t you understand an irony...????
Jul 16th, 2011 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 041@ About Operación Soberanía, IT WAS A FACT that I suffered personally...The meeting beteen the Admirals never was, so the guilty of you Junta is valid until now....
Sergio, regarding Red's comment 40... Can't you understand a counterirony...???
Jul 16th, 2011 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0;)
(42) ManRod
Jul 17th, 2011 - 04:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Manuel, regarding your comment 42... Are you so blinded by your preconceptions that you can’t read...???
I wrote:
”…a little personal anecdote about why…”
”……….....……..…personal……….....……...…”
Get it now?
Anyhow, Nicasio and his wife are dead now…..
So are those two admiral bastards….
Maybe, one day, some of the few others involved in this “odd rendez-vous” will document it…..
I just have my memories………..
Your little bit of stirring backfired eh, sr Think?
Jul 17th, 2011 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Chileans seem much more sociable and easier to talk to.
lt seems they don't trust the Argentine ambitions either.
Isolde, I like you and I respect you.
Jul 17th, 2011 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As far as Chile trusting us , is very irrelevant and I don't really care ...... :-))
Peace?
Actually, Artillero, l like you also.
Jul 17th, 2011 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are not insulting like the other Argentines on here & l have never read that you want to throw us off our land either.
l hope you would know that my“claims”to Patagonia are just a reaction to Argentina's claims to the Falklands.
l do not want us to take over any part of Argentina despite what Forgetit says.
l would hope that you don't want to take over our lslands either?
Yes indeed, Peace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vY-4zWKsJM
Jul 17th, 2011 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@49 Hahahahaha
Jul 18th, 2011 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Isolde “l have never read that you want to throw us off our land either”
Come on Artillero, no te hagas el galan and tell her the truth :-))
MercoPress missed this one:
“Chilean miners seek damages from government”
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-16/world/chile.miners.suit_1_chilean-miners-san-jose-mine-president-sebastian-pinera?_s=PM:WORLD
What do you think Sergio or Manuel about this lawsuit?
@49 Think,
Jul 18th, 2011 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Some people say they are Gentlemen(like you, Think)even when they are not.
Other people actually ARE Gentlemen.
@50
Jul 18th, 2011 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The truth is not about the Islands nor the Islanders .....is about the presence of British forces so close to us. Am I right ?
@52 Is not just the presence of British forces so close to us, they don't have any right to be there, Malvinas is part of Argentina and South America not colonial Britain.
Jul 18th, 2011 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is not just the presence of British forces so close to us
Jul 18th, 2011 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well there was only a detatchment of Royal Marines prior to your invasion of 1982,and The lad from Iceland reckon we were asking for it,by not having more
Malvinas is part of Argentina
,should Isla Martín García be part of Uruguay?
In 1973 both countries reached an agreement establishing Martín García as an Argentine territory and also as a nature reserve, Britain is in Europe, 8000 miles away from Malvinas Argentinas, nice comparison salamin.
Jul 18th, 2011 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Distance dont matter?
Jul 18th, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The enclave island is within the boundaries of Uruguayan waters
@52 Artillero,
Jul 19th, 2011 - 08:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British forces wouldn't be in the Falklands if Argentina wasn't a threat.
The British are not here to protect us from Chile or Brazil or Uruguay.
They are here to protect us from Argentina.
I,
Jul 20th, 2011 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0those countries don't have a claim on the Islands
@58GA3,
Jul 21st, 2011 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0And neither do you.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!