 |
| El Tatio is a geyser field located within the Andes Mountains of Chile, just west of the Bolivian border. (Photo: Christian Espinosa) |
BOLIVIA
WRESTLES CHILE FOR OCEAN ACCESS
During the recent Summit
of the AMERICAS in PANAMA, an age-old debate was revived between one of SOUTH
AMERICA'S poorest and one of its most prosperous nations. As leaders touted LATIN
AMERICA as an increasingly war-free zone, BOLIVIA still battles with
neighboring CHILE over land lost in a past war.
"In the year 1879, [BOLIVIA]
was invaded, taking away its Pacific Ocean access," BOLIVIAN President EVO
MORALES stated during a press conference, "I hope that this injustice will
be resolved." Hours later, CHILEAN Foreign Minister HERALDO MUÑOZ replied,
"I regret having to begin my statement refuting. But the Summit of the AMERICAS
is not for bilateral issues but to discuss prosperity, equity and our common
future." BOLIVIANS appears to find it difficult to embrace this common
future when they believe they have been suppressed.
BOLIVIA is one of SOUTH
AMERICA'S two landlocked countries. It is also one of its most impoverished.
Ever since the War of the Pacific 136 years ago, it has partially blamed CHILE
for both.
Background
Information:
CHILE'S
NEVER-ENDING TERRITORIAL CLAIMS
PAST
GOVERNING THE PRESENT
After defeat by CHILE'S military
invasion, BOLIVIA lost 10 percent of its territory. This included 420 miles of PACIFIC
OCEAN coastline and 120,000 square kilometers of land. Then in 1904, a
controversial bilateral agreement legitimized amiable relations and new
borders. Yet, save for a brief spell in the 1970s, BOLIVIAN and CHILEAN affairs
have continued to be strained. While CHILE substantiates that what is done is
done, in 2013 President MORALES went so far as to take the ocean access dispute
to the International Court of Justice. CHILE has challenged this lawsuit, and
in July 2014 presented documents supporting the "incompetence" of the
foreign court's ability to handle the local issue. The two countries will again
present claims in due course.
The land in question is
coastal but generally a desert and mountainous region. It is worth noting that
this debate supersedes sea trade and port rights, which CHILE has offered BOLIVIA
to use freely but without sovereignty. The CHILEAN government has hence called
its neighbor's claim of being "landlocked" irrelevant. But is BOLIVIA'S
argument "irrelevant" when it is fighting for what is beneath the
land, too?
AN
AGE-OLD CONQUEST – NATURAL RESOURCES
For years, CHILE has been
rated SOUTH AMERICA'S most economically successful and stable country, having
recovered well from the dictatorship of AUGUSTO PINOCHET in the 70s and 80s.
But recognizing CHILE as a desirable country dates centuries before that,
riding much on the coattails of its vast natural resources.
"CHILE has exported BOLIVIAN
copper … worth $25 million in a single year. Imagine if that territory had
continued to be held by BOLIVIA," said BOLIVIAN Vice President ÁLVARO
GARCÍA LINERA. "Add that up over 100 years and look at how much money they
have stolen. If [the CHILEAN economy] is good, it is because of our copper, our
minerals." GARCÍA LINERA also claimed that if that amount added up to
natural gas exports, modern BOLIVIA would be a "continental power."
Today, precious metal
mining accounts for at minimum 40 percent of CHILE'S economy and, according to
the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, produces 10
percent of the world's copper. In fact, partially because of this mining
potency, it received U.S. and U.K. funding to win the War of the Pacific. Is it
pure coincidence that major mining corporations from these same Western nations
continue to hold interests in that area as Spanish conquistadors had done
centuries ago? BOLIVIA does not think so.
Fifty-three percent of
the mining from which CHILE has prospered originates in its far-north
territories, including the ANTOFAGASTA region—land taken from BOLIVIA.
Consequentially, the landlocked republic considers economic damages as
substantial, as this area hosts one of the ANDES' richest deposits of
copper—the mainstay of CHILE'S powerful market.
In addition, in diverting
the LAUCA River, which originates in CHILE and dies in BOLIVIA, CHILEAN companies
also privatize the waters of those springs. Whether it be precious metals or water,
neither international companies nor the CHILEAN government have paid anything
to BOLIVIA in more than a century.
CHILE
TALKS BACK
CHILE, however, argues
that there is nothing due. In brief, not only did it offer BOLIVIA ocean access
through CHILEAN ports—which BOLIVIA views as insufficient partially because the
permit denies mining rights—but also in the 1904 agreement, the two nations
legally established a mutual accord of territory rights. According to the CHILEAN
Foreign Ministry, BOLIVIA'S fight to regain the land lost long ago is an
outdated argument that modern nations should drop. Furthermore, four
ex-presidents and major businessmen—PATRICIO AYLWIN, RICARDO LAGOS, EDUARDO
FREI RUIZ-TAGLE and SEBASTIAN PIÑERA—have all met with incumbent MICHELLE
BACHELET. They advise her not to recognize MORALES' claims and to ignore THE
HAGUE, the UNITED NATIONS' principal judicial organ, as this organization was
established almost four decades after this dispute was technically settled.
Yet MORALES still emphasizes
the mining argument, proclaiming, "BOLIVIA wants coastal territory before
its natural resources are exhausted by transnational corporations." CHILE
has yet to directly respond. The most recent productive recognition of this
concern is the "13-point plan" between Presidents BACHELET and MORALES,
which has been under discussion since 2006. Fashioned to resolve mutual
differences, the agreement remains theoretical, being increasingly abandoned as
relations continue to strain.
The BOLIVIAN head of
state has added that "no state should be deprived of access to the
sea," and since his nation "knows what it is to not have access to
the sea," the president has ensured that a BOLIVIAN sea would be open to
all peoples, eliminating "reason to grow armies."
Whether this statement
comes in defense or offense, it brings us back to a rule that has shaped much
of LATIN AMERICAN history. Sovereignty is rarely just ideological or
humanitarian. Riches are at its roots.
By Ailana Navarez
No comments:
Post a Comment