Posted on 01/23/2004 12:36:23 AM PST by sarcasm
ARICA, Chile - To get his wife and two kids a suntan on the beach in northern Chile, Jorge Castro had to swallow hard. He's from landlocked Bolivia, which once had a province on the Pacific Ocean, lost it more than 123 years ago in a war with Chile and now wants its ocean access back.
''We feel it was ours and we should enjoy it,'' said the pale-skinned Castro, who must pass through Chilean territory on his seven-hour drive from La Paz to take his small children to the ocean.
At a hilltop monument overlooking Arica that honors Chileans who were killed in the War of the Pacific against Bolivia and Peru, Alicia Urrutia Padilla said Chile had nothing to discuss.
''This cost us blood, sweat and tears, and we will not give it back. Never,'' said Urrutia, angry about global sympathy for Bolivia.
Bolivians are equally inflexible. They want back the ocean they enjoyed from 1825 until early in 1880.
''We have every right to complain. It was ours and it must be ours,'' said Ever López, a Bolivian truck driver who was picking up freight at the port of Arica.
ETERNAL HOPE
Asked her opinion while awaiting a bus back to La Paz, Maria Blanca, an Aymara Indian, broke into song. She sang La Cancion Litoral (The Coastal Song), a military anthem that Bolivians learn as children. It promises the recapture of coastal cities taken by Chile. For now, however, Bolivia's ragtag but wishful navy trains and patrols only on Bolivia's rivers and Lake Titicaca.
Bolivia's long-standing claim to beach rights exploded onto the international stage earlier this month during a meeting between President Bush and Latin American heads of state in Mexico. Bush sought aid for Bolivia's teetering economy, fearing that the key antidrug ally is on the verge of chaos. Bolivian caretaker President Carlos Mesa seized the summit to internationalize Bolivia's quest for oceanfront.
The U.S. stake is considerable. Mesa's predecessor, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, was driven from office in October amid violent demonstrations after proposing a $6 billion pipeline through Chilean territory.
The pipeline would deliver Bolivian natural gas to the coast, then on to U.S. markets, mainly California. Mesa says that unless Bolivia gets its own corridor to the ocean and a seaport, there will be no gas exports through Chile, the cheapest route to gas-hungry U.S. customers. U.S. energy officials say Bolivia's gas is worth billions and could meet a fifth of California's needs.
DOMESTIC SUPPORT
Historically, presidents in trouble in Bolivia sputter against Chile to rally domestic support. This time is different, however. Chile, which followed the U.S. economic model to become South America's only economic success story and most stable nation, now is viewed as a villain by other envious neighbors.
Venezuela's Hugo Chávez recently tweaked Chileans by saying he's pining to swim on a Bolivian beach. Bolivia's radical leftist Indian leader Evo Morales this week likened Chile's place in South America to Israel's in the Middle East. Bolivia has also been receiving signals of sympathy from the European Union and the Vatican.
In Mexico, Bush offered to help if asked but said the matter was between Chile and Bolivia. Everyone from former President Jimmy Carter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is offering to mediate talks between the countries.
Chilean port officials in Arica are quick to note that Bolivia's imports are granted up to a year of free warehousing in Arica and exports up to 60 days. The Chilean government picks up the tab. Waterfront space is reserved for the Bolivian Port Services Administration, where Bolivian customs officials inspect cargo within the port of Arica.
''Sure we use it, but it is not ours,'' said Reinaldo Llanos, the newly arrived administrator for the Bolivian port office in Arica. He likened the arrangement to living with in-laws.
Llanos conceded that even if Chile granted Bolivia its wish tomorrow, it would be years before cost-conscious Bolivian companies opted for anything but Arica because of its established port and highways that lead to La Paz 310 miles away.
CHILE'S OFFERS
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a close aide to Chilean President Ricardo Lagos shared details of what Chile has offered Bolivia in secret negotiations with four Bolivian presidents since 2000.
Chile has offered an autonomous land route to the sea and a port to be developed in Patillo, south of Iquique, he said. It also has offered land in an irreversible 99-year concession that would be registered in the name of the Bolivian government in Chile's property registry.
''The only sticking point was the flag,'' the aide said.
To Bolivians, nothing matters as much as the Bolivian flag on its own beach.
That leaves the choice between a continuing stalemate and a dangerous precedent. Almost every country in Latin America has a historical border dispute with a neighbor. If Chile gives land back to Bolivia, why wouldn't Mexico seek a return of land lost to the United States?
''This is a Pandora's box. We cannot rewrite history,'' said Carlos Portales, the director general of foreign policy for Chile's Ministry of Foreign Relations. ``We will have to be patient.''
The villains! How dare they?
I wonder who attacked whom in the war in which Bolivia lost their coastal land? Without looking it up, my suspicion is that it was Bolivia.
"In 1873 Peru agreed secretly with Bolivia to a mutual guarantee of their territories and independence. In 1874 Chilean-Bolivian relations were ameliorated by a revised treaty under which Chile relinquished its share of export taxes on minerals shipped from Bolivia, and Bolivia agreed not to raise taxes on Chilean enterprises in Bolivia for 25 years. Amity was broken in 1878 when Bolivia tried to increase the taxes of the Chilean Antofagasta Nitrate Company over the protests of the Chilean government. When Bolivia threatened to confiscate the company's property, Chilean armed forces occupied the port city of Antofagasta on Feb. 14, 1879. Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help. Chile declared war on both Peru and Bolivia (April 5, 1879)."
Chile was attacked by 2 countries, lost 10 times as many men as the other 2 counrties, won the war, and now the other side wants things back the way they were?
That would be funny if they weren't serious.
So what exactly is the difference???
Am I the only one to think of this comparison?
Let's not forget the US. How long do you think it will be before mexico starts demanding the SW back?
Chile and Israel: The main difference being, the UN charter and Geneva Conventions. No comparison possible at all.
Chile reclaimed in 1879 disputed territory given to Bolivia WITH CONDITIONS. Bolivia declared war on Chile. Chile had to declare war on Perú because they wouldn't declare themselves neutral. Chile annexed peruvian territory as compensation for the costs of war (fighting Perú was a serious thing those days). If Perú had stayed out, they would have this land today.
Bolivia is hopelessly and cronically unstable and tehir politicians resort to these despicable tactics (in direct violation of out peace treaty) to arouse popular feelings. They (the ignorant people) are educated from childhood to hate Chile. Without Chile, Bolivia would cease to exist, it has no real national identity.
Hope this info helps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.