Chile denies being 'villain' in sea battle with Bolivia

[Judi Lynn]

22 March 2018 - 12H00
Chile denies being 'villain' in sea battle with Bolivia

THE HAGUE (AFP) -
Chile on Thursday hit back at Bolivian claims that it had stymied talks on vital sea access, and denied it was the "isolationist villain" of a century-old territorial dispute.

Landlocked Bolivia has appealed to the International Court of Justice urging UN judges to rule that Chile has a legal obligation to enter into negotiations to end the row.

But the Chilean representative told the court in The Hague that La Paz's "claim is unsustainable and it must be dismissed in its entirety."

"In 1904 Chile and Bolivia completed a treaty of peace and harmony which fully settled all outstanding territorial issues between our two states," insisted Claudio Grossman.

More:
http://www.france24.com/en/20180322-chile-denies-being-villain-sea-battle-with-bolivia

[GatoGordo]

1. Silliness

The people who live in the area that Bolivia wants "returned" don't want to be Bolivian citizens,

Chile won't cede land to Bolivia,

Bolivia won't take the land by force.

All of this is puffery by Evo Morales. He's trying to whip up non-existent nationalistic sentiment before he runs (illegally, unConstitutionally) for elections again.

Non news.

[EX500rider]

2. Bolivia probably shouldn't have declared war on Chile in 1879 and then lost said war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Pacific

[GatoGordo]

3. Bolivia seized a Chilean railway to precipitate the war, because they didn't want to pay to use it

Peru also lost a chunk of land to Chile during the War of the Pacific.

I guess that's why they call it "the spoils of war".

~~~~~~~~~~

Bolivia now threatens to cut off a river that feeds the parched Atacama high desert in Chile.

Look to Chile to close Bolivian access to its ports, turn of the electricity that comes through Chile, and close the border to Bolivian passports. Though I doubt Morales would think that far ahead.

[GatoGordo]

4. End of the line for Evo Morales and his quest to re-write history

On the last day of the hearings at the International Court of Justice, Chile says they're worried about their citizens in the disputed territory.

The legal teams of Bolivia and Chile presented their final arguments on the last day of hearings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague, regarding Bolivia's long-standing demand for sea access, showing that none of the parties is willing to give up on their original claims.

The Bolivian government maintained their claims for sovereign sea access, demanding negotiations with Chile, while their southern neighbour rejected Bolivia's claims saying that they wouldn't abandon the thousands of Chilean families living in the disputed territory...

...The Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1904 officially ended the war between both countries, but ceded 400 kilometres of sea coast and 120,000 square meters of territory to Chile. Bolivia argues that this treaty was imposed under pressure and threats...

...The hearings began March 19 and lasted until Wednesday, and the judges will now take some months until ruling out a decision.

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Chile-Wont-Negotiate-Sea-Access-With-Bolivia-20180328-0024.html

(TeleSur is the LA equivalent of RussiaToday and Sputnik. Their version of reporting is more propaganda, less news)

Losers in wars have always been punished. All throughout history. You lose, you lose land. Bolivia and Peru squared up against Chile in the 1800's and lost. Both lost land to Chile during the War of the Pacific. Bolivia has no more "right to coastline" than Paraguay, Switzerland, Austria, South Sudan and Chad does.

In the best/worst case scenario, the ICJ will recommend negotiations regarding access to Chilean ports. It has no authority to do anything else. Chile will never cede territory to Bolivia, and Bolivia won't try to take it by force. All of this is puffery as Evo Morales tries to whip up nationalistic fervor for his pending unConstitutional run at another term as president.

[GatoGordo]

5. Morales isn't a friend of democracy. (see above story from TeleSur)

"Morales talked about the constant strikes in Chilean ports..."

Morales has complained about the high cost of labor and shipping delays at the Chilean ports of Arica, Iquique and Antofagasta due to striking longshoreman in those ports. His solution? Nationalize the ports and force the unions to accept the working conditions that Morales would dictate unilaterally (which he has done in the past). Either that, or break the union by fiat and replace the workers with party sycophants (which he has also done, and was a favorite tactic of Hugo Chavez).

Isn't industrial action (strikes) something that we Democrats embrace? The ability of the working man to define the conditions that they, as a group, will work under, preferably in a mutually beneficial paradigm with management/ownership?