MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
International Court to listen arguments from Bolivia and Chile on the disputed access to the Pacific
Delegates from Bolivia and Chile will head to the International Court of Justice in The Hague on Monday morning, where they will present their arguments over a disputed 380 kilometer coastline on the Pacific Ocean. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesChile took this area from Bolivia in the post boldly brutal fashion any military situation would have, without a single ounce of previously established presence or historical tie to it. ... Let's just see now how much Britain DOES NOT influence the decisions taken by United Nations offices.
Mar 19th, 2018 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Edgar acting the idiot as usual.
Mar 19th, 2018 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Edgarito, infórmate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Pacific
”In February 1878, Bolivia imposed a new tax on a Chilean mining company (“Compañía de Salitres y Ferrocarril de Antofagasta”, CSFA) despite Bolivian express warranty in the 1874 Boundary Treaty that it would not increase taxes on Chilean persons or industries for twenty-five years. Chile protested and solicited to submit it to mediation, but Bolivia refused and considered it a subject of Bolivia’s courts. Chile insisted and informed the Bolivian government that Chile would no longer consider itself bound to the 1874 Boundary Treaty if Bolivia did not suspend enforcing the law. On February 14, 1879 when Bolivian authorities attempted to auction the confiscated property of CSFA, Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta..........In 1884, Bolivia signed a truce that gave control to Chile of the entire Bolivian coast, the province of Antofagasta, and its valuable nitrate, copper and other mineral deposits. A treaty in 1904 made this arrangement permanent. Chile built a railroad connecting the Bolivian capital of La Paz with the port of Arica and guaranteed freedom of transit for Bolivian commerce through Chilean ports and territory.”
“Bolivia, the only landlocked country in the world to maintain a navy”
Mar 20th, 2018 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse +1Except it isn't.
There are Azerbaijani and Kazakhstani navies and Turkmenistani naval forces, operated by the Border Guard Service, in the Caspian Sea; Switzerland has a Lakes flotilla, technically part of the army, which patrols Lakes Geneva, Lucerne, Lugano, Maggiore and Constance and the Lao People's Navy operates inland on the Mekong River.
It is Chile's interest that Bolivia have access to the Pacific.
Mar 20th, 2018 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Morales can just go and pound sand!
Mar 20th, 2018 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Lol. I'm rooting for you, Chicureo.
Mar 20th, 2018 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Marti ...
Mar 20th, 2018 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -1So %^#*&^ what!??
Since when is our Sovereignty subject to an industrial deal gone bad? Only a British person would be so deluded in their arrogant presumption to the world, to think that financial or industrial matters should rightfully lead to a country taking over or invading another sovereign country's territory !! Just pick up your bags and leave if you don't like it. The resources where Bolivia's not Chile's !!
I am well informed on the history of that conflict and every little bit that BRITAIN had to do with it as well 'son'. I think the issue here is you being educated in the sense of Justice among nations rights to our world.
In fact, there are several more land-locked countries with navies or naval detachments to their armed forces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navies_of_landlocked_countries
Mar 20th, 2018 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@PE
Mar 21st, 2018 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse +1The war was not over an 'industrial deal gone bad'. Bolivia broke a treaty they had signed with Chile, which was supposed to establish the border. No treaty = no settled border. Plus the secret treaty Bolivia signed with Peru suggested they intended to go to war all along, Peru seems to have been pushing them to trigger one out of fear of Chile's increasing naval power.
Well that's just a blatant lie, there was no treaty compromising the already existing Bolivian sovereignty on the Pacific ocean. Show everybody where it sais that and quote the words. Chile itself admits having taken Bolivian territory, and the only reason Chile is willing to go to Court now is probably because Britain is pressuring it, so that it looks good in diplomatic protocal, and it can later use that to make “the good example” out of Chile to use it against Argentina or to continue using the bogus international UN strings of international legslities it designed in its favor, and which is the reason it produced the bogus island referendum of 2013, and continue faking appearences.
Mar 21st, 2018 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse -3That wasn't what I meant, Patrick. Chile signed a treaty placing the border on the 24th parallel, which *confirmed* Bolivian sovereignty over part of the Pacific coastline, at least until Bolivia broke the treaty. But my real point was that the war started because Bolivia broke a treaty, not directly over taxes.
Mar 21st, 2018 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1And I don't know why you're bringing up Britain, it was Bolivia who took the case to court wasn't it?
Edgardito, we have to explain so many things to you. But stay engaged - your ludicrous comments confirm your argentinicity.
Mar 21st, 2018 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Probably have to explain the meaning of casus belli as well.
If it might be easier for you in the Spanish summary, hay 'ta:
”El Tratado de Límites entre la República de Chile y la República de Bolivia de 1874 es un tratado internacional suscrito el 6 de agosto de 1874 en la ciudad de Sucre, Bolivia, por Mariano Baptista y Carlos Walker Martínez, en representación de Bolivia y Chile, respectivamente, que sustituyó el anterior de 1866. Este tratado fijó la línea fronteriza entre ambos países en el paralelo 24°S, eliminando la medianería o mancomunidad de derechos establecida en el tratado de 1866, sobre los productos provenientes de la explotación y los derechos de exportación percibidos sobre minerales extraídos en el territorio comprendido entre los paralelos 23ºS a 25ºS, con excepción del guano. Además, Bolivia se obligó a no aumentar durante 25 años los derechos de exportación sobre minerales explotados, en el territorio situado entre los paralelos 23ºS y 24ºS, a las personas, capitales y negocios chilenos, quienes no quedarían sujetos a más tributos que los entonces existentes, durante el antedicho periodo. El incumplimiento de esta última cláusula en 1879 fue el detonante o casus belli de la Guerra del Pacífico.”
Or in christian (not exactly the same as the spanish version)
“The Boundary Treaty of 1874 between Chile and Bolivia, also called the Treaty of Sucre, was signed in Sucre on August 6, 1874 by the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mariano Baptista and the Chilean plenipotentiary minister Carlos Walker Martínez. It superseded the Boundary Treaty of 1866 between Chile and Bolivia and it kept the border between both countries at the 24° South parallel from the Pacific Ocean to the eastern border of Chile. ....”
Chile is already fed up with Morales and it's barely to believe Bolivia can win its case. Morales is using the access to the sea for political gains very successfully, but I doubt he'll accept ICJ judgement if it goes against him.
Mar 23rd, 2018 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(Edgar, you need to get back on your meds and chill out...Britain has nothing to do with this issue.)
Maybe they can use the ridiculous argument of self determination there too. Just bribe the population or send many chileans to live there and then you “own” any space you occupied militarily.
Mar 24th, 2018 - 02:31 am - Link - Report abuse -2Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!