Bolivia takes Chile to The Hague over sea access

[Velasco]

I read this news in El País online and I think Lumine or someone mentioned this old dispute between Chile and Bolivia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/04/24/inenglish/1366823596_128656.html

The brief article ends with some considerations on how important is to Evo Morales this historical demand, what he considers "our right to have access to the sea".

[Velasco]

Don't give ideas. Time ago we were the Empire where the Sun never sets. Give us all the Americas back, from Oregon to Cabo de Hornos

[Velasco]

Does Bolivia think they have a genuine chance here, or is this just a case of the government/Morales trying to increase their support domestically?

On the paper the Bolivian demand looks unrealistic. Fulfilling it would suppose giving Bolivia 120,000 square km at the expense of Chile, in the Atacama desert, with big mining resources. While Chile wrested to Bolivia the lands around Antofagasta, the region around Iquique, northwards, was a territorial gain at the cost of Peru. Of course Morales has domestic issues and sometimes his government actions have been unpopular, though he retains a huge support in general and his political opponents are weak (Bolivia is not Venezuela).

 

However, the news points that Bolivia has put a great effort in this case and won't spare no expense, including a team of national and foreign lawyers. So the Bolivian bet is strong. At this point, I'd like to know in some detail if the treaties between Bolivia and Chile, regarding the access to the sea of the first country, could be revised and if there's something in this direction behind these moves.  

[Velasco]

Chile and Peru have another and unrelated case opened since 2008, a dispute on their maritime limits, according to the same news. You might create a new tripartite war for that meter large strip.

[Velasco]

Why can't Evo Morales just march overland through Argentina and invade the Falklands? It would make just as much sense, and would be much more dramatic.

Well, no, the comparison really makes no sense and Morales did lost nothing on those rocks full of sheep.

My opinion? This is outright ridiculous. It would be like Germany suing Poland to regain East Prussia, or Mexico suing the USA to regain California. We took that territory in a fair war (if such a thing exists), we expelled their people, and now the zone is 100% Chilean. We lost a large amount of land to Argentina in 1881 (the size of our country now), and we are not complaining.

In agree on what the territorial claim makes no sense nowadays. Despite the region receives Bolivian immigrants, according to some documentaries that I've seen about the mining industry in the north of Chile, I'm sure that the population there is fine being in the country where now stands. However, I think that Bolivia has some rights on the question of the sea access, but this is something that both countries have to solve via bilateral treaties and it would be fair from Chile being generous on that matter.

I really don't think that any of those XIX century wars was fair, though I know what you mean. By the way, Paraguay suffered the worst part in the South American wars: the country was almost annihilated by the Triple Alliance (Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War