MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Chile asks World Court to throw out Bolivia's sea outlet claim: 'dispute has been settled'
Landlocked Bolivia went to the World Court on Monday, seeking to force Chile to negotiate the granting of a corridor of sovereign territory giving it access to the sea for its natural gas and mineral exports. Bolivia lost its coastal territory after being defeated by Chile in the 1880s War of the Pacific. Peru an ally of Bolivia also lost territory. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesTake note Argie Gov and trolls. Bolivia at least has the balls to bring a 200 year old disput to the ICJ. Even if as the articile does state Morales is just attempting to boost popularity at home.
May 05th, 2015 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0.....and even though “.... few expect the traditionally cautious court would go as far to order a border revision that went against the wishes of one of the states concerned.”
May 05th, 2015 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have no hope, give up and make peace.
Sounds like Cristina Kirchner of Argentina when she brings up the Falklands Malvinas sovereignty issue to gain flagging popularity.
May 05th, 2015 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Peru / Bolivia pact cause the war?
May 05th, 2015 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wasn't that why they lost their land originally?
Bolivia pays a small price to export its' goods over another country's land but now wants the land for itself, effectively cutting Chile into two parts?
Fuck and off seems to be the least violent response to The Cow Pat.
Peru was Bolivia's ally.
May 05th, 2015 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0l'm sure that they can give some land to their friends.
After all they've got plenty of coastline.
But l agree with Da_pict #1,
Bolivia has more guts than Argentina.
ICJ, Argentina, ICJ.
Put up or shut up.
I am not sure why Chile doesn't do a deal with them that grants them access. They could wrangle 5 years of free gas out of Bolivia in return.
May 05th, 2015 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0They already have free access - no tarifs or taxes - just the truck gaulage to the docks - which would be same if the docks were Bolivian!
May 05th, 2015 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lost it in 1880...
May 05th, 2015 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cue...Terry Hill with ...Bolivia is Barred from taking it to the ICJ through Extinctive Prescription....
Surely after such a long delay Bolivia is barred from presenting it's case...
...Yet it appears to be doing so...
...dangle...dangle....look at that piece of bait Terry...go on take it...you know you want to....;-))))
#5 If you had a frontier with USA, would you give it up to a country like Venezuela, Argentina, Iran in the middle? There is no way Peru would give their frontier with Chile, economically it would be devastating to Peru (same for Chile), just imagine Bolivia charging taxes to everything that goes from Peru to Chile and which today have free pass from one country to another.
May 05th, 2015 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is a simple resolution to this dispute that can please everyone, and to which we can all agree.
May 05th, 2015 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Namely to claim sovereignty of Argentina and invade it , then ship goods out of Buenos Aires instead.
Which side does Argentina support in this dispute? Historically it is no great friend of Chile which it considers to be its main rival in the region. What does UNASUR, MERCOSUR and all the other S. American organisations have to say on the subject? Surely it will have been discussed at every possible occasion.
May 05th, 2015 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Terence Hill....
May 05th, 2015 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...stop hiding on the other thread...
Surely Bolivia has had plenty of time to take their case before an International Tribunal...
It should be barred...shouldn't it...?
I'm in need of your “Expert” opinion....;-)
“I am not sure why Chile doesn't do a deal with them that grants them access. They could wrangle 5 years of free gas out of Bolivia in return.”
May 05th, 2015 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Klingon,
Bolivia has access, but not sovereign access. Bolivia wants sovereign territory connecting it to the sea, not just a coastal enclave. This means Chile would only consider ceding territory bordering Peru (in Arica), otherwise Chile would be split in two. Arica was formerly Peruvian and Chile can't cede it or part of it without Peru's consent as per Treaty of Lima 1929.
@13. I take your point. Bolivia already has three access routes to the Pacific. Via Peru, Chile and argieland. It's just trying to reverse the 1879-1883 War of the Pacific. Perhaps Bolivia could pay £500 billion a year for sovereign access. Didn't Chile build Bolivia a railway? Will Bolivia be paying the adjusted cost of that back?
May 05th, 2015 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#11 Argentina has stated that this is a bilateral issue, which is Chile's posture (no third parties need to be involved). UNASUR has stated “it is a bilateral issue”, yet countries such as Venezuela and Uruguay have publicly sympathize with the Bolivian cause. Ecuador stated more than sympathy for the Bolivian cause, but it was quickly changed to “its a bilateral issue” soon after a complain from Chile. Correa's president and Chile don't see each other Eye to Eye, but Ecuador has a long history of mutual support, including armament that is provided by Chile.
May 05th, 2015 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NOTE: Bolivia does not want this issue to be treated as bilateral, since they have closed formal relations with Chile for decades; it would mean that they would have to change their old posture and open talks with Chile.
@9 Lagow,
May 05th, 2015 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l was being sarcastic at #5.
However l support Chile in this “dispute”.
The Peruvians & Bolivians lost a war.
You lose, you accept what the winner decides, or……there is another war!
Simple.
@1
May 06th, 2015 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0It might be the time for the Unit Kingdom government to go to the ITJ to accuse Argentina for its later behavior. I mean for its continuing threatenings, for its economic blockade, for its intention to isolate the Islands from the continent, for suing oil companies, etc. What's more Argentina can even be asked for money compensations. Nicaragua did this with the USA and it won the trial.
Why don't you forced your government to do so? It might be the time....scared perhaps?
@16
“You lose, you accept what the winner decides, or……there is another war!”
What happened in the South Atlantic? The United Kingdom had to invest and lose plenty of resources, ships (“I did not lose my better ships...” do you remember?) and, sadly and regrettably, some your best young people to be at the 1982 year “starting point” after the war. Just to keep the “old status” but the United Kingdom were not able to impose any additional restrictions, conditions or waiver of sovereign claims to Argentina. Are you sure the United Kingdom win?
@17 pgerman,
May 06th, 2015 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, we won.
You lost.
We also learned some valuable lessons that will ensure that we win again if Argentina is stupid enough to try again, as l believe you will.
One thing was painfully learned was not to manufacture ship's superstructures from aluminum.
lt didn't have to be like this but Argentina just cannot help itself.
Finis
Pgerman due to his Argentinean education has been vainly attempting to create a meme that the UK didn't win anything in 1982.
May 06th, 2015 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1982, Argentina started a war as it set out to:
- invade and occupy the Falkland Islands
- incorporate the Falkland Islands into the Republic of Argentina
- impose Argentina's government, constitution, laws and societal norms on the Falkland Islanders
- gain sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
In 1982, the United Kingdom went to war to:
- remove and repudiate the foreign occupation by Argentina
- keep the Falkland Islands as a territory of the United Kingdom
- allow the Falkland Islanders to choose their own government, constitution, laws and societal norms
- continue sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
Now for some reason, Pgerman thinks that because the UK lost some soldiers in the criminal invasion by a autocratic and dysfunctional Argentinean state, that it lost?
The UK gained all its goals and Argentina gained none.
Indeed, Argentina lost its government because of the invasion and more soldiers than the UK. so by any metric Argentina was the loser.
The UK has unfettered access and sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and Argentina has none. The UK doesn't need the ICJ to do anything because the Argentinean claim has no economic of political bearing on the UK. It doesn't affect the UK.
Argentina's behaviour is laughable and the UK doesn't deign to lower itself to such a debased position that Argentina continues to place itself in.
@Voice
“Lost it in 1880...
Cue...Terry Hill with ...Bolivia is Barred from taking it to the ICJ through Extinctive Prescription....”
You obviously know nothing about this case.
Of course I don't Skip....
May 06th, 2015 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's why I was asking for Terry's Expert opinion...;-)
Well that much is obvious by all 3 of your comments.
May 06th, 2015 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Especially considering Bolivia recognises Chile's sovereignty, including its current boundaries and territory, and the case revolves around actions since the founding of the ICJ!
See you didn't need Terry after all. Sorry if you still feel lonely though, I can't do anything about that.
Lonely Skip...?...that would be right....
May 06th, 2015 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My house is like a hotel...
The nice quiet solitude of the Mercopress forum is a treat....
Bolivia won't win. Their lawyers couldn't even answer a simple question on what specific date Chile obligated themselves to give Bolivia access to the sea. The ICJ judge asked for specific date and the Bolivian lawyers refused to answer it. GAME SET and MATCH CHILE. The Bolivian president then criticized judge who asked the question..... that guy has no shame.
May 08th, 2015 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fair play-Cowpat has at least got the guts to go to the ICJ, (especially brave because he hasn't got a chance) but as he supports the Malvinas Myth, Argentina should grant Bolivia some of their land to access the sea in exchange for his support.
May 09th, 2015 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Problem solved.
Then in a gesture of gratitude, Cowpat could spearhead the invasion of the Falklands in a canoe.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!