Chile discards its seacoast cede to Bolivia

In the War of the Pacific nineteenth century Chile was part of the disputed territories and left Bolivia landlocked and its output to Pafícico Ocean

Chilean Foreign Minister, Heraldo Munoz, said that no international court can compel a State to give "gracefully" part of its territory, referring to complaints received from Bolivia in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, requesting output the sea.

"Chile has ever awarded to Bolivia as a right which today aims (...) confuses his maritime claim rights that eventually would force Chile to give sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, the foreign minister said in an interview published in the newspaper Chilean "La Tercera".

This week Bolivia submitted to the ICJ in The Hague demand for it forcing Chile to negotiate in good faith a sovereign outlet to the sea, which lost in the War of the Pacific in the nineteenth century, where the Chileans defeated Peru and took part their territories and left Bolivians without costs.

According to Muñoz, Bolivia will employ a mediatic and policy to assert a claim that has no legal basis strategy, therefore the Chilean defense covering all areas.

Chilean Foreign Minister admitted that the Bolivian government presented a serious writing, even if it is an "artificial demand, which has no legal basis and that reverses a process of constructive dialogue and mutual trust generation that Chile has favored".

What Bolivia asks is not a border dispute, but a claim based on alleged "expectaticios rights", which "adds political and media components to give strength to a case that has no legal basis," he said. Muñoz said the ICJ must decide legal arguments, but the judges "face the arguments of the parties and, in this case, the policy is clearly in Bolivia."

"We have the necessary national unity, rigorous preparation and cool head to face the case in question," said Munoz without giving details of the strategy that Chile will in this case.

"If true Bolivian thesis, no country could enter into negotiations with another for fear that the formulas shuffle, if they fail, they then become obligations to the State," he added.

In relations between Chile and Bolivia are worth what the treaties of 1904 and set the borders between the two countries and the conditions of Bolivia access to the sea, "that is what you would observe, as the treaty limits is fulfill" Chancellor stated.

Chile has long prepared to protect their basic rights, however this can not be underestimated demand as outside counsel hired Bolivia upscale and has made every effort to support his case, he said.

Muñoz said that Chile want the best possible relations with the government and people of Bolivia, which is why the government of Santiago is willing to replace the 13-point agenda agreed with Bolivia during the first administration of Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, but no point 6 which is the subject of the sea.

This is the agenda that the president proposed in his first term (2006-2010), where there was progress in the maritime claim, and that during the subsequent administration of Sebastián Piñera was discarded, after which the bilateral relationship deteriorated.

Given the favorable reviews from some Chilean leftist politicians to grant Bolivia access to the sea, such as that proposed in 1975 miliary chief Augusto Pinochet regime, Muñoz said respect.

"I respect that and other reviews. But against a certain lawsuit filed against Chile is not for anything other than to enforce the treaties that bind us to Bolivia. As the president said, this is very clear and essential for us."

He explained that Chile is not going to let it press on this sensitive matter.

"Unfortunately, the path he has chosen Bolivia is one potentially lengthy, costly and unproductive," he added.

Since late last century and until 2010, Chile held talks with Bolivia to give an outlet to the sea to Bolivia.

In 1975 Chile negotiated delivery to Bolivia a corridor in northern Arica, in exchange for compensation.

This process failed because Bolivia agreed not to exchange some territory and by the refusal of the government of Peru, under Peruvian-Chilean treaty of 1929, which states that Chile can not deliver any Peruvian territory that has been without your permission.

About a possible concern of other nations for the effects it can have a possible malfunction of the Hague in favor of Bolivia, to encourage disputes in other countries, Muñoz said that in this case "a shadow of legal uncertainty hanging over the intangibility of boundary treaties. "

He said that, under the principle of stability of borders, the treaty limits will have greater protection under international law.

Source: Chilean newspaper La Tercera

traslation: Belén Zapata