MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Bolivia takes Chile to the International Court of Justice to reclaim sea outlet
Landlocked Bolivia sued neighboring Chile on Wednesday in the Hague before the International Court of Justice as it pressed a longstanding claim to recover land lost in a 19th century war and thus regain access to the sea.<br />
Chile quickly responded that the issue was not negotiable. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWell at least Bolivia has the balls to take it to the ICJ.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 02:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why doesn't Argentina do the same for its mythical “Malvinas”?
Oh PS: Bolivia how embarrassing - you are going to lose big time!
To all my Shilean hermanitos......
Apr 25th, 2013 - 04:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0You will have to excuse me, but I'm with Bolivia on this one.....
Let the court decide on this one, once for all....
Best regards.
El Think.
(2)
Apr 25th, 2013 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 00-1 :-)))))))))))
Bolvia will lose, as they should. Just like argyland would lose if they took the Falklands to the ICJ.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 05:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Seems to me that this is what sensible people do when there is a sovereignty dispute. I think the myth that Argentina propagates that all of South America would be a happy and peaceful region but for the Falklands dispute, is precisely that, a myth.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0When Bolivia lose their case at the Hague, it will indirectly lessen Argentinas already weak claim on the FI.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Bolivia says the 1904 agreement is not valid because it was signed under pressure from Chile.”
Apr 25th, 2013 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is a lie size of the Burj Dubai, and I can easily tell you why:
1. It was signed 25 years after ceasefire in fully peaceful times... there was no military pressure at all anymore.
2. The treaty was driven by the Bolivian President back then, Jose Manuel Pando, not his chilean counterpart.
3. it was fully approved by the Bolivian President, approved by the Bolivian Legislation and finally fully ratified by Bolivia the 10th of 1905.
@ 1 Anglotino: “Bolivia has the balls? Same as Peru... they don't have, because they have nothing to lose, but hope only to win. Chile is the ones that has THE balls to face them in the Hague, because Chile has nothing to gain, except maintaining the status quo.
@ 2 Think: Didn't expect anything else than you and your 2-face ”hermanitos” discourse. We all know that you would party to see Chile fail on international stage. I fully understand your frustration ;)
@ 1,4,5,6: Of course this case will even weaken the “Malvinas” cause even more, because Evo has done Argentina a big “favour” in “equalizing” their both aspirations. Nevertheless I am not even sure this trial could happen, as Chile could insist on that Hague doesn't have the jurisdiction to undo boundary treaties fully in force (watch out, that Bolivia rigurously does NOT ask for the invalidation of the 1904 treaty at all, they know that it is undisputable)
The treaty of 1904 is valid and still in full effect. The link explains it fully (Castellano).
Apr 25th, 2013 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iQKMYen1dA&feature=share&list=UUXOKXEXcVXTnfyl4NDBRfmw
Think: I admit that Chile basiclly stole the north from Peru and Bolivia, but that happened in the nineteenth century. Perhaps the fair thing to do is for the entire world to revert back to 1879 borders... Panamá would no longer exist, Ecuador would share a frontier with Brazil, Mexico would extend further north into the USA, why even Chile would recover Patagonia (as all of all our children are taught it was ours.) ... Europe... África ... Asia...
Apr 25th, 2013 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0AS I ASKED YOU ALL A FEW WEEKS AGO.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0I heard about this news a few weeks ago, and i posted a comment asking you all, why can't we do the same?.
It s often said by many people in this forum that if argentina were so sure of it's rights over the malvinas islands, it would take the question to the i. c. j.
However many of you ignore that in 1884 and in 1888 argentina suggested taking the case to an arbitration, which was rejected by the u. k., and in 1947 that country manifested argentina that it would be disposed to discuss about the cases of the dependencies from the islands before the i. c. j., however it hadn't included the malvinas in the proposal. After 1947 there was not any other proposal of arbitration by none of the two nations.
Everybody have right to think whatever, but there is something which is much more important than our opinions, i mean objetive facts.
In my opinion, if after 1947 none of the two countries proposed to take the question to the court, is because perhaps both aren't sure of getting a positive result for their countries.
So, if they aren't disposed to discuss about their rights before the i. c. j., what they should do, is to get into negotiations as it is asked by many u. n.'s resolutions, instead of wasting time, asking for the application of a right like self determination, which has never been applied for this cause, due to it has always been considered like a special colonial situation, in fact, the president of the decolonization committe explained twice in 9 months, the reasons why self determination is not applicable for the malvinas-fallkland case.
As i said before, everybody have right to think whatever, but objetive facts are much more important than anybody's opinions, and accept it or not, reality shows what i mention in this comment.
In the case of bolivia, and it's claim about sea outlet, wether it is negotiable or not, it will be decided by the court, not by a minister or a president.
Argentina,
Apr 25th, 2013 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lf Bolivia & you are suuuuuuch goooooood friends, then GIVE them some of your territory so they have an outlet to the Atlantic Ocean. Lol!
You've got plenty of land that you're not using.
However axel, every lawsuit is initiated by one party that believes they have been wrong, this case Argentina, against the party that believes they are correct, the UK and Falklands. The party never starts a lawsuit to prove they are correct, the actions of a lawsuit are always initiated by the perceived wronged part, again this is Argentina. So if they feel they have been wronged, they should be taking this to the ICJ or shut up because the UN is going to accomplish nothing.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why does Argentina not sue in the ICJ? Because they know they will lose.
it is all political interest....why to spend time on this, just hope that chilean party could defend well the case.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is good news.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Their case is utterly hopeless and they will lose. They know it, we know it.
It is a political stunt by Evo, but in the long run it could be good for Bolivia. After they lose at the Hague, their leaders will be able to put the issue behind them and move on, which is what the country needs.
2
Primito Ché Think:
You are excused.
When you say “I'm with Bolivia on this one”, do you mean:
a) You endorse the Hague action they are taking
b) You think we should cede territory to them
c) Both the above
7
ManRod
Agreed
9
Chicureo
You are making a logical argument. Such logic becomes unrecognisably distorted as it crosses the cordillera.
10
Axel
You can do the same if you want. The reason you don’t is because the ICJ would use actual historical evidence and not the fabricated argie history. Your leaders know that, hence no ICJ for you. The result at the ICJ for Argentina would be the same as in 1982, as the result for Bolivia will be the same as in 1879 – defeat followed by much gnashing of teeth and wailing.
...
From the article:
“Bolivia was once a maritime nation”
Really? Where were your boats in 1879?
“Thousands of people march through the streets of La Paz carrying model ships and pictures of the ocean.”
That is lovely tradition, don’t let Evo take it away from you.
Poor Bolivia, was raped by it's neighbors in history. Lost it's coast to Chile, Acre to Brazil...
Apr 25th, 2013 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 015 Brazilian
Apr 25th, 2013 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Many countries lose territory to their neighbours.
Only those with victim syndrome go on and on and on about it for ever.
Chicureo, Chile didn't “steal” Bolivia territory, where did you catch this up?
Apr 25th, 2013 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bolivia has had legally an access to the sea for about 13 years, not more, not less. It's one of the biggest fairy tales in South America, driven by the “progressive” governments all arround the region. But the more this is spread, it doesn't make it true.
All south american nations nowerdays base their independence on the rule of utis possidetis outgoing form their former colonies, defined by the spanish “Leyes de Indias” (Laws of the Indies), the spanish administration of the colonies, including the definition of inner-colonial borders. That law strictly defined the “Audiencia de Charcas” aka Alto Peru (High Peru), the colonial Bolivia, as a landlocked dependency of Bajo Peru (Lower Peru), with no own ports on the seaside, but a delegated peruvian port “Arica” as their main port. It also defines the borders of the Audiencia de Charcas, limiting their western frontiers with Chile and Peru (and not the ocean). Bolivia obtained oficial sea access only in 1866, when Chile was commited to grant access via it's own northern dessert, but with very specific conditions and rules.
This treaty, as we all know, has been openly violated by Bolivia only 12 years later in 1878, and Bolivia was asked a full year by Chile to undone the violation, which Bolivia only answered with malice and provocation , considering it had an “ace” with the secret war pact with Peru. They believed they were on the safe side, considering the military superiority of the (to Chile secret) alliance. This has been proven by the letters writen by the Bolivian Dictator back then, Hilarion Daza, where he mocks about the “stupid Chileans have stepped into the trap”. What a fail this was...
@16
Apr 25th, 2013 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So if they find oil fields the size of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined in Bolivia tomorrow, and in 20 years Bolivia buys a military full of goodies and invades Northern Chile, and they win, then Chile has nothing to do right? Because asking for help to the UN would be playing the “victim”.
John Troll, the analogy doesn't really fit to the Bolivian-Chilean case at all, but I strongly doubt, even with all oil on planet (and they indeed have plenty of energy reserves) that they would be able to organize themselves and obtain a military win against Chile. The idea is too comic and bizarre. It will simply not happen... at least for the next 100 years, so we will not witness it anymore.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By the way, I think there is a difference in the handling of conquest of territories back 100 years and more ago, which was a valid way of interacting and defined the world as it is VS now, where this is not political correct anymore and internationally condemned. There is a somewhat clean cut in history (arround second world war), where territorial conquest became not acceptable anymore. The only internationally recognized border changes after World War II have been led by delcaration of independence of autonomic regions + unification of nations (like Germany), as far as I know.
john snot the 3rd.....if your mother had balls she would be your father and if dad had mom's tits......you'd be suckling his, if kirchner had brains, argentina would not be a disaster.....if...if...if.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@19
Apr 25th, 2013 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“here territorial conquest became not acceptable anymore.”
Says who?
hahahahahaha.
Doesn't seem to have stopped you from trying to take over Iraq, and failing miserably. Nor do you Brits find it condemnable as you have not arrested a single government official for it.
I don't want this discussion again, you Brits are wicked and do not obey international law that's the end of the discussion. Yes Argentina does not obey the international law too... doesn't change the fact your country in the last decade has been the worst breacher of international peace and the UN charter.
18
Apr 25th, 2013 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Toby,
I understand why you want to defend nations with victim complex.
On your hypothetical point: ManRod has answered above on the poor analogy chosen. Post 1945 most countries are agreed to respect status quo re borders. It is a different world. How far would you turn the clock back?
Anyhow, for the sake of argument, if they did get all that oil and if they managed to avoid the fate of most poor corrupt countries “blessed” with oil, and if they did manage to equip a modern military...we would do what we have done on both previous occasions.
NB. Argentina is the only country with the ignominious honour of having been defeated on the battle field by Bolivia (1837 War of against the Boliva-Peru Confederation) .
#2 Think, “let the court decide on this one, once for all..”
Apr 25th, 2013 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you were the Argentine government, would you be willing to submit the FI/Malvinas case to the ICJ for a final “once for all” decision?
Or perhaps you'd prefer another traditional arbitrator, such as Queen Elizabeth or perhaps the Holy Father? Maybe Obama?
Ah, better yet, let the inhabitants of the currently occupied Chilean Atatacama have a plebiscite?
Perhaps let's also allow the inhabitants of Santa Cruz decide if they wish to remain being governed by La Paz/Sucre
#14 Condorito, many of our friends do not understand irony.
#15 Yes Brazilian, over it's history, the nation has been violated by Chileans, capitalists, communists, it's other neighbors and especially their leaders.
#17 ManRod, Good facts. I was taught the Chilean version of the history in elementary, high school and in the university the versions of the Bolivians, Peruvians as well as the British (Who have amazing accounts of the invasion of Lima.) They all greatly differ, and why the Chilean atacameño/corvo knives are so detested by the Peruvians. The war was really due to the nitrates that were being mined by Chilean companies and the Bolivian government's poor attempts to collect royalties. The Peruvian-Bolivian confederation started the war and Chile dis what the United States did to Mexico. (Eminent Domain which translates to some as theft.) In any case, I'm a patriotic Chilean that has a pragmatic view.
#18 Señor Troll, Chile does not expect help from the UN, instead we've invested in Leopard Tanks, F-16 fighters and Scorpene submarines. And a lot more...
Any comments about the controversial Pinochet govenment's proposal to give sovereign territory along the Peruvian border to Bolivia? Maybe I'm mistaken, didn't the Peruvians reject the idea?
”NB. Argentina is the only country with the ignominious honour of having been defeated on the battle field by Bolivia (1837 War of against the Boliva-Peru Confederation) .”
Apr 25th, 2013 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0True fact.... THAT is really hilarious. Argentina withdraw from the alliance with Chile and the war of the confederation after being beaten the sh*t up by Bolivia. Chile standalone than had to fight the Peruvians and Bolivians back in order last ones not probably conquest Buenos Aires... ROFL...
24
Apr 25th, 2013 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ManRod
Yes, it is quite incredible. Argentina allied with us to fight the Boliva-Peru confederation. They spent 1 year fighting the Bolivians on their northwest border, before giving up having made no progress. Meanwhile the Chilean army fought the confederation alone (the confederation was supported by GB, France and USA). Chile was at a strategic, numeric and logistical disadvantage. Yet at the battle of Yungay, Chile turned what should have been the decisive victory for the confederation into a stunning victory and ended the war.
That was 40 years before the Pacific War.
It seems the coca chewing, cow-pat haired Morales has the same evangelical outlook over a route to the coast (despite a well founded agreement) as TMBOA has over the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas you twats).
Apr 25th, 2013 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear, another delusional idiot, is he a RC Church adherent as well?
LOLs and no chance for either of you at the ICJ.
Populists have long used territorial disputes to unify an unhappy populace. Morales and CFK are perfect examples. It does not matter how legitimate the claim, if you can unify enough to believe in your cause, or trade benefits to those to support your claim, it is an effective strategy for the short term. War normally is the next card to play, but neither Bolivia nor Argentina have the ability to do so.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(7) ManRod
Apr 25th, 2013 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say….:
” Think: Didn't expect anything else than you and your 2-face ”hermanitos” discourse. We all know that you would party to see Chile fail on international stage. I fully understand your frustration ;) ”
I say….:
You fully understand……................ nothing.
A) A branch of my Scandinavian Clan has resided in Tarapacá since the early 19’th century…..
B) I luuuv most everything Chilean and dislike seeing Chile (or Argentina) fail at any stage….
C) But, my little Shilean brothers, you will have to excuse me….., I'm with Bolivia on this one.....
(9) Chicureo
You say….:
“I admit that Chile basically stole the north from Peru and Bolivia, but that happened in the nineteenth century……….”
I say….:
Perhaps the fair thing to do is for Chile to be magnanimous and cede a little fraction of the gained Bolivian territory back…… Just enough to make the Bolivians half-happy….
Giving the Huascar back to Perú would be a nice gestus too ;-)
(11) lsolde
You say….:
“Argentina…….., lf Bolivia & you are suuuuuuch goooooood friends blah, blah, blah......”
I say…..:
Be a nice girl……………………. go back to your kitchen.……….……, Woman ;-)
14 Condorito
You say….:
”Primito Ché Think…..:When you say “I'm with Bolivia on this one”, do you mean:
A) You endorse the Hague action they are taking.
B) You think we should cede territory to them.
C) Both the above.”
I say….:
C) Both the above.
(23) Chicureo
You ask….:
”If you were the Argentine government, would you be willing to submit the FI/Malvinas case to the ICJ for a final “once for all” decision? ”
I say….:
Yes, eventually, after having exhausted all other peaceful possibilities…
Well The Falklands will never cede to Argentina so you should convince asslips to start her case with ICJ.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think: And what about your thoughts of the Acuerdo de Charaña? We did offer territory, but it was perhaps never sincere. As far as the the famed vessel is concerned, they'd start insisting on the bronze lions we stole from Lima... (Residing in Providencia)
Apr 25th, 2013 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Three things I feel are very clear: The best cuisine in the Americas is in Lima. The best Pisco sours as well. They dislike Chile as a nation, but are very friendly to Chilean visitors.
Comment removed by the editor.
Apr 25th, 2013 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just had a thought...
Apr 25th, 2013 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Could the Falkland Islanders take the FI case to the ICJ?
The Falkland Islands vs Argentina.
I don't think they could lose...
Well let’s put it this way,
Apr 25th, 2013 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Bolivia loses, then nothing changes
But on the other hand, if Bolivia wins, it could, just could, open the doors to other South American countries to claim back stolen lands from each other,
And would not this be fun to watch.lol.
.
32 Steve-33-uk
Apr 25th, 2013 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, the FI could not go to the ICJ and even if they could, why should they?
It is the complainant who must make the application in order to “right the wrong” so to speak.
The FI are in the right, AR are in the wrong. But heh! When are they not in the wrong?
28
Apr 25th, 2013 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ché Think
The Huascar fought on both sides. Maybe we could park it on the maritime border as a nice gesture, although we have already been very magnanimous with Peru – remember they jumped into a dispute that had nothing to do with them.
When Chile annexed Antofagasta there wasn’t a shot fired. The population was Chilean and they welcomed the Chilean troops. That should have been the end of it. Peru turned it in to a war. If that wasn’t bad enough, after the campaign of Arica and Tacna the war was over, but Peru refused to accept conditions. Up to that point the war had lasted 2 years and the worst atrocities had not taken place. To force the Peruvian surrender, Chile had to invade Lima and then pursue the Peruvian army to the further reaches of Peru for 3 more years before they finally accepted the inevitable. Peru’s stupidity was very costly. They got almost their entire country back. The small piece of land we took as compensation was a very generous deal.
But to the present: the problem in ceding a small slither of land to Bolivia, is from where do you cut that slice. We can’t cut a corridor through the region of Antofagasta and completely isolate Chilean territory to the north of that. The other alternative, to give them a corridor along the border with Peru don’t work either, because the Peruvians object. We have already given them what is reasonable: a railway and a port to use. If they want to bleat on about it for the next 100 years rather than focus on real problems, that is their problem.
Do you have any preferences for the slice of Chilean land you would generously donate to your Bolivian friends?
A slice of Argentina perhaps?
Or would your generosity stretch to a slice of Argentina perhaps?
30
Chicureo
“The best cuisine in the Americas is in Lima. The best Pisco sours as well.”
I agree, don't get me started.
31
Chef Think
I would add a chilled Sauvignon Blanc from the Leyda valley to the order of battle.
@28 Think,
Apr 25th, 2013 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stop cluttering up the kitchen, Think.
Stop yakking with your blah blah blah.
Be a good boy & go outside & cut some wood for the stove.
Then bring some vegetables in that I have grown,
Then............................................................,
Vite, vite.............................(excuse for a)man. :-)))))))))))
But l still think that Argentina should give land to Bolivia, :-))))))))))
(35) Sacrilegious Condorito
Apr 25th, 2013 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing one possibly could add to my (31) without ruining the universe's harmonies would be some more Peruvian Pisco.......
37
Apr 25th, 2013 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pious Think
At least we disagree on something.
“However many of you ignore that in 1884 and in 1888 argentina suggested taking the case to an arbitration,”
Apr 25th, 2013 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, many of us ignore this because it is completely untrue. Please provide which “international arbitration” Argentina attempted to take us to because there was no such thing at that time in history. There is simply no evidence what so ever that this event took place apart from one single article in a paper that an Argentine minister said he might take it to a court.
(36) Isolde, dahling….
Apr 25th, 2013 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ever heard about...: ”Speech being Silver”….. but Silence Gold...., Woman?
;-)
(38) Sacrilegious Condorito
If you haven’t noticed yet, we disagree on mostly everything……
40
Apr 25th, 2013 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think
#14 Condorito, many of our friends do not understand irony.
25
Chicureo
I see what you mean.
(41)
Apr 25th, 2013 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And some of my hermanitos Allende (presente!) la cordillera do not understand sarcasm....
“”“”“”“”Axel, many of us ignore this because it is completely untrue. Please provide which “international arbitration” Argentina attempted to take us to because there was no such thing at that time in history.“”“”“”“”“””
Apr 25th, 2013 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You forget that Axel is using Argentine history as taught by himself and others in Argentine schools - therefore it is not only possible, but quite likely, that the ICJ DID exist in 1884 and 1888 (so long as its existence conveys some sort of benefit to Argentinas claim on the Falklands.)
For the rest of the world - yup - it didnt exist back then.
“Real World History” has never stopped Argentines claiming otherwise though, as we have so recently seen with the UK having “Instigated” the Falklands War by “tricking” the Argentine Junta into invading a peaceful island of 1500 people & 80 marines with 60-odd thousand troops.
OR - in the Argentine version - a passing Argentine ship with a few dozen brave Argentine sovereignty-specialist lawyers, coincidentally also trained soldiers, answered a call for Liberation from British oppression whilst on vacation Penguin Spotting just off Stanley harbour.
At which point a lady with a heavy handbag forced resident UK soldiers to open fire on said Argentine human-rights-lawyers whilst waiving a white flag and using nuclear weaponry.
Now in THAT world, the ICJ definitely existed at each and every point in time convenient to Argentina.
Think
Apr 25th, 2013 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What an outstanding suggestion...
Music to the soul of a gourmand.
Condorito
Our friend Think is a single malt enthusiast. He's admitted that he's not a wine fanatic.
Overall we three seem to share and understand some of the finer things in life. ¡Salud!
In 1810 and as late as 1836, Bolivia did not have access to the Pacific Ocean.
Apr 26th, 2013 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0In 1836 Bolivia invaded Peru to reinstall the deposed president, General Luis José de Orbegoso. The Peruvians won and Peru and Bolivia formed the Peru-Bolivian Confederation. This is how Bolivia for the first time gained access to the Pacific.
The Confederation was dissolved after the Battle of Yungay 20 january 1839 between Chile and Peru-Bolivia, and Peru became independent.
In 1841 Peru invaded Bolivia. The Peruvian army was defeated at the Battle of Ingavi on 20 November 1841 where the Peruvian president, General Agustín Gamarra, was killed. The Bolivian army under General José Ballivián then captured the **Peruvian** port of Arica.
Then in the War of the Pacific (1879–83) against Chile, Bolivia lost its short-lived access to the sea.
Should Bolivia win at the ICJ (slim chance), Peru can sue Bolivia at the ICJ to get its lost coast back :-) and Bolivia will still be landlocked.
Maps.
1810: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AjGGre1ON64/Ty6STCex-kI/AAAAAAAAALU/FAynW8x4gu4/s1600/chileansovereignty.png
1826: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AjGGre1ON64/Ty6STCex-kI/AAAAAAAAALU/FAynW8x4gu4/s1600/chileansovereignty.png
Same, if the above does not load:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AjGGre1ON64/Ty6STCex-kI/AAAAAAAAALU/FAynW8x4gu4/s1600/chileansovereignty.png
@40 Think,
Apr 26th, 2013 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0You should take your own advice Think-baby, but l still think that Argentina should give some of its land to Bolivia so that country has access to the sea!
Well you stole some of that land from Paraguay anyway.
The rest you stole from the native Amerindians.
Not really yours to give, but you'd make your good friends happy.
C'mon Think, you've got plenty of land, you wouldn't even miss it!
lol ;-))))))))))))))))))))))))
(46) Ma chère lsolde…….
Apr 26th, 2013 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say….:
”You should take your own advice Think-baby…..”
I say….:
It wasn’t “advice”, honeybunch…...... It was a mild yet earnest reproof of your conspicuous geographical ignorance….
Try and keep up, dahling…….. You are casting a negative light over the more intelligent sisters…..
Chile should lease a large swath of land to Bolivia in exchange for free or greatly reduced Nat Gas.
Apr 26th, 2013 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0And if Bolivia loses this case they should cede Santa Cruz province to Chile for damages.
@47 Think,
Apr 26th, 2013 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No geographical ignorance, Cher Think, l know Bolivia is a long way from the Atlantic.
lt just means that you will have to hand over more land to your good chums.
But then, you stole it anyway. So its not yours.
Either that or build them a railway to a port & give it to them as a gift.
Well, why not?
You malvinistas are free & easy with other people's land, like OUR Falklands for example.
Let us see some of this LatAm solidarity that you love to go on about.
Why, you're all united brothers, Think!
Think of those poooooor Bolivians with no access to the sea.
Now you can actually do something instead of just talking about it.
You don't have get insulting just because you don't like the idea, Think.
btw-where is that firewood you were supposed to cut?
44
Apr 26th, 2013 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chicureo
It would seem so.
45
St John
Agreed. Bolivia's claim is very tenuous.
Like I say @14: where were their boats? It is hard to claim you were a maritime nation and have no boats or ports to show for it.
48
Yanqui
I like your thinking.
In general:
Seeing as there is no downside for the claimant in these ICJ cases (i.e. Bolivia loses the status quo is maintained) why don’t we have a go too. We could make just as strong a case (read “hopeless case”) as Bolivia for all of Patagonia. ... and if we won, Ché Think would have more reliable access to single malts (and of course better water to cut them with).
#50
Apr 26th, 2013 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Agreed, especially helping our Andean brothers with better access of single malts.
However, Bolivia does have a “blue water navy” and is acquiring at least 2 more vessels to eventually station at their future Peruvian Pacific base.
With neighbours like that, Chile needs to keep strengthening its armed forces. Period.
Apr 26th, 2013 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Philippe
#52
Apr 26th, 2013 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Both the right and left parties of Chile support maintaining and improving our ability to defend. Currently, we have the best armed forces in Latin America.
The important thing is that South America, unlike most other continents, is unlikely to see a war between it's nations anytime soon. Almost all the countries in South America have increased their military spending. Brazil, for example, is to build a nuclear submarine to be operational next year, as well as four other Scorpene subs, and to puchase new fighters later on this year, between the Rafale, Gripen and F/A-18. Brazil is investing heavily in rebuilding it's once strong military arms industry, specially eyeing exports to other countries in South America. Embraer, for example, has sold the Super Tucano to Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and heck, even the US has bought them.
Apr 26th, 2013 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.industryweek.com/emerging-markets/focus-brazils-defense-industry-booms
It will take another 25 years to become effective in sub warfare.
Apr 26th, 2013 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#55
Apr 26th, 2013 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Captain, I can assure you that the Scorpene is a deadly weapon that Chile has already mastered. The weaponry is frightening and the performance of the vessel is outstanding.
Brazil is carefully rebuilding their navy as well and I think right on track to be able to well defend its maritime territory.
ANNBAR. ZETHE. CONDORITO. CAPTAIN POPPY.
Apr 26th, 2013 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As i said before, you have right to think whatever, the point is that your missinformation doesn't change the facts.
If i decided to investigate, is because i have never believed in our mendacious official history, which is written by the most reactionary and conservative sectors of our society.
On the other hand, if you think that just our politicians omit information before international forums, in relation to the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict, then it means that you have been perfectly indoctrinated by your so loved empire in decadence. Like it or not, both countries tell just what is convenient for them.
I read for my two investigations, the interchanges of notes between both nations, during most XIX century, which are found in the memories of our chancery, and i included some of them for my surveys. In fact some people in this forum have already my first investigation since a long time ago. Anyway since one year ago i have revised it again, because i realized that some of the sources are incomplete. I should have finished revising my work some months ago, but i have lot of work to do, and i have to study hard too, that's why i haven't had enough time to finish it. But i think i'll be able to finish revising it for next month, and after, i'll send it again to all the people who have already my work, and i'll be able to offer it again for everybody.
The intentions of submiting the case to an arbitration by argentina existed (1), which were rejected by the u. k. Here i date the sources that i included for my second survey.
As i said in other oportunities, the case has strong and weak aspects for both countries, and it's necesary to have enough intellectual honesty in order to discuss about them.
(1) Memorias del MRECIC. Tomo del año 1888. Páginas: 113-114. 116-120. 159.
# 55 - The Brazilian nuclear submarine will be operational in 2023, several billions are being invested in this project. Brazil already has the world's most efficient enrichment technology, which it has very carefully protected from being copied. As far as sub warfare goes, Brazil is only preparing to defend itself, and it is very unlikely that Brazil will be attacked by a foreign nations anytime soon. Unlike your jingoistic nation, Brazil is peaceful, having last participated in an armed conflict against the Nazis in Italy in WWII. No nation is being threatened by Brazil's military, and I am proud of that.
Apr 26th, 2013 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 056 Chicureo
Apr 26th, 2013 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But you will have no knowledge if it has ever come up against an Astute class sub though.
That is because you submarine will not hear it for all the noise the propulsion system makes. Good subs the Scorpene but not up to the Astute.
Who controls the “disputed” territory? That is who owns it. Anyone says otherwise needs to create a military and conquer the land back. Parts of Brazil and Argentina used to be owned and controlled by Paraguay, but they arent anymore. We dont bitch about it either. If we want it back we will have to go to war for it. And for all that believe that wars wont lead to border changes think again. Korean war, iraq invasion by kuwait, georgia with russia, many african nations, are all examples of wars causing border changes. Today the usa simply uses economic means to dominate others. There will be future big wars and then borders will be drastically changed. Rembember it has only been 60 years since the last great war.
Apr 26th, 2013 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 058 Brazilian
Apr 26th, 2013 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other blog,
You state brazil will not build/obtain nuclear weapons,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Brazil only wants to defend itself, [ from who]
By having nuclear weapons /ie subs, all Brazil will do is create an arms race in South America,
Is this not true,
You will in fact become your very own enemy .
bald vagina, no one believes Brazil is only trying to defend themselves. There is little you can do if a 1st world military decided to attack Brazil.
Apr 26th, 2013 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#59 Defense strategy has always to focus on three historical threats simultaneously: Argentina, Peru and Bolivia. We have generally maintained the Americans and British as allies. Obviously, their submarines are far superior to ours. No argument.
Apr 26th, 2013 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#60 How right you are, but I hope you're wrong in your predictions for South America.
These bolivians are always with the same old story that Chile stole our sea, that we are miserable because of that, that we are ignorants because of Chile and whatever you can imagine. But the truth is that they miserable because don´t asume that education and work hard is the only way to improve their miserables lives.
Apr 27th, 2013 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Obviously there some fools that buy the whole thing, but the Hague court w´ont be the one.
#64 there are always fools that buy that stories and others who take the same story for hypocrite and malicious purposes.
Apr 29th, 2013 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(just see Think, who really confuses his hypocrisy and believes it's “sarcasm”)
@ 4# St John, I see he has done his homework and is one of the few who does it's own researches instead of repeating pamphlets.
Here I got some other original maps, at arround the birth and shortly after the first independent nations in south america. You can all clearly see, that Audiencia de Charcas (later Bolivia) had no access to the Pacific Ocean, as it had been passed over from the viceroyalty of Peru (Spanish viceroyalty of the Pacific) to the Viceroyalty of La Plata (Spanish viceroyalty of the Atlantic)
Delamarche (France 1813)
http://www.miklianmaps.com/images/1813%20Vaugondy%2045%20south%20america.jpg
Drury School Book (USA 1822)
http://www.miklianmaps.com/images/1813%20Vaugondy%2045%20south%20america.jpg
Mitchell (USA 1852)
http://www.miklianmaps.com/images/1813%20Vaugondy%2045%20south%20america.jpg
Last but not least, the spanish “Leyes de Indias” , the laws of the indies, defines Audiencia de Charcas limits, with no access to the Pacific Ocean, but Peru and Chile (Law IX of Title XV of Book II) :
”(...)and which shall have for district the Province of the Charcas, all of El Collao, from the town of Ayabiri, along the road of Urqusuyu, from the town of Asillo by the road of Umasuyu, from Atuncana, by the road of Arequipa, towards the part of the Charcas, inclusive with the Provinces of Sangabana, Carabaya, Juríes y Diaguitas, Moyos [see also Moxos people] y Chunchos, and Santa Cruz de la Sierra, sharing borders: in the north with the Royal Audiencia of Lima and provinces not yet discovered; in the south with the Royal Audiencia of Chile; and in the east and west with the two Seas of the North and South and the line of demarcation between the Crowns of the Kingdoms of Castile and Portugal, along the Province of Santa Cruz of Brazil.”
Bolivia already has an outlet to Lake Titicaca- and that is more than enough!
Apr 29th, 2013 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Philippe
and they have a navy on Titicaca.
Apr 29th, 2013 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They have only caca, Titi is peruvian...
Apr 30th, 2013 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!