Resolving Bolivia's claim to the Pacific

By David Roberts



Bolivia's demand that Chile provide it with sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean – a case the International Court of Justice in The Hague is soon to consider – offers the opportunity for the two countries to resolve their over 130-year dispute once and for all.

Bolivia lost its access to the ocean, along with a large chunk of its territory, to Chile in the Pacific War in the 1880s. Chile's argument is that it's an open and shut case – the 1904 peace treaty decided on the definitive and current border between the two and that is internationally recognized as valid. In fact, Santiago has decided to argue that the UN court does not even have jurisdiction to hear the case at all, because recognition of the court by both countries dates back to the 1948 Bogotá Pact, and so the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear cases that concern matters prior to then.

Bolivia's case, however, does not depend on arguing for the need to change the 1904 treaty. Instead, it is expected to claim that Chile has on several occasions pledged to resolve Bolivia's demand, most notably during a 1975 meeting between Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and his Bolivian counterpart Hugo Banzer. On that occasion the two agreed in principle to swap two pieces of territory, granting Bolivia a strip of land in the far north of Chile from the coast and along the border with Peru, which also lost a lot of land to its southern neighbor following the Pacific War. The idea never prospered, not least because of objections from Lima.

Bolivia's case is interesting, but as it doesn't actually seem to involve disputing legal documents but amounts more to what appears to be a moral argument – that Chile has some sort of obligation (a legal one?) to negotiate a solution to the issue – it is difficult to see how The Hague court can side with La Paz.

The above, however, begs the question as to whether Chile does indeed have a moral obligation to provide Bolivia with access to the sea. It is certainly easy to be sympathetic to the Bolivians. Losing the ocean drastically changed Bolivia's history, with serious detrimental effects for its economy and development. Not only did it lose access to ports, but the land ceded to Chile turned out to contain some of the largest copper deposits in the world, which have had a major beneficial impact on Chile's economy. Landlocked Bolivia, meanwhile, remains one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere.

But whatever the outcome of the court case – and it may take years before we have a decision – it is in both countries' interest to resolve the issue. It may be politically unfeasible for Chile to offer a sovereign piece of land to Bolivia, but one possibility – which has also been suggested as a potential solution in parts of the Ukraine and even the Falklands/Malvinas – would be for Bolivia to have technical sovereignty of a small plot with a port, while Chile remains the de facto administrator of the area in terms of legal jurisdiction, political control etc. Another option, which Chile has refused to consider, is to get Peru involved, as that country has made a port area available to Bolivia in the past, although without sovereignty.

As for Chile, there would be obvious advantages for the country if Bolivia were wealthier, with all the trade and investment opportunities that would represent. Ending the dispute would also open the way for Bolivia to export some of its vast reserves of natural gas to Chile, thereby helping alleviate the country's energy shortage and avoiding the need to import liquefied natural gas from as far afield as Trinidad, Qatar and Yemen, among other places, which is patently absurd given the proximity of Bolivia's reserves.

November 03, 2014

BN Americas

Paralysed Venezuela vs Thriving Bolivia: Two Faces of Socialism

By Hernán Luis Torres Núñez – Aporrea.org:



Hernán Luis Torres Núñez, a frequent economics commentator on leftist Venezuelan community forum Aporrea, argues that Venezuela should learn from Bolivian president Evo Morales’ pragmatic style of governance for “21^st century socialism”. 


A few days ago a friend asked me if I’d written about the situation in the country again. I answered no, because the government hadn’t taken any action on the economy that served as an excuse for me to write something. The only thing that’s happened worth mentioning is the assassination of Robert Serra, which is in an area of events that isn’t my strength. Also I don’t like speculating about this type of issue, above all because the investigations haven’t finished solving the crime.

However it should be pointed out that not making decisions is a way of deciding. That is, maintaining the status quo is a way of signalling that although the situation is very difficult, making decisions can worsen the situation. This reminds me of the second government of [Rafael] Caldera [1994 - 1999]. When he was elected he put the economy in the freezer and let time pass. Caldera was clear that the economic adjustment measures of [former president] Carlos Andres Perez [1989 - 1993] had cost him his job. [Caldera] finally implemented these measures two years into his term, when the political atmosphere had calmed down.

These are very difficult times for the Venezuelan economy. We can’t exaggerate when we see indices of inflation and shortages of all kinds of products (because we no longer see the shortages indicator); when we see that dollars [for imports] are sporadically shared out to different economic sectors at a drip drop; when we see that oil is dropping to 80 dollars a barrel; when we have three official exchange rates to the dollar, each one overvaluing the bolivar and generating deep distortions in the economy; when we see that property prices reach 50 million bolivars (US $7.9 million at highest official rate); when the prices of used cars are crazy, etc. Therefore we can speculate that no economic decisions are being taken to stabilise the situation because these would have a very strong impact on Venezuelans’ quality of life. A strong devaluation toward one exchange rate, a generalised increase in prices (which has been happening surreptitiously), a petrol price increase, and a possible tax rise would make poverty rates violently shoot up. This situation would put the government against the wall, as its banner all these years has been the eradication of poverty. The goal of zero poverty would be smashed to smithereens.

On the other hand, it’s important to point out that politicians pursue power, and once obtained, they try to keep it for the longest time possible. Good economic performance is something that can favour the politicians in government, and bad management sooner or later ends up taking its toll and hastening the fall of the governors, above all if we live in an effective democracy. By virtue of what’s happening in the economy and with parliamentary elections next year, the fear of losing political power is a close possibility. As such, in these moments political calculation can impose itself over economic reality.

Meanwhile, Evo Morales has just won his third term in Bolivia, and overwhelmingly. Bolivia is experiencing economic growth, and in 2015 is expected to be the country that grows most in the region. There is a construction boom in La Paz, with new shopping malls full of foreign brands. In Bolivia there are no currency controls, and yet, international reserves reach 48% of GDP. It appears that there hasn’t been capital flight, and rather Bolivia is today a very attractive site for foreign investment. An important reduction in poverty has also occurred.

The opposition to Morales’ government, that at one point backed the division of the country, has softened its posture. Apparently Evo Morales has been capable of gaining the support of the middle class and some business. The conflict of his first years in government has given way to social, political and economic stability.

All of this drives us to think about what the key to success in Bolivia is, a country with far less resources than Venezuela but that has been capable of establishing a successful popular government, very different from the Venezuelan case. It’s necessary in the field of Venezuelan socialism that the Bolivian case is studied and the necessary lessons taken.

I’ve often heard the argument that other countries don’t have anti-patriotic parasitic bourgeoisies, a reasoning that seems contradictory and a little naïve, because in some way it’s saying that the success of socialism depends on the kindness and patriotism of the bourgeoisie, which is nonsense. The industrial bourgeoisie in all countries behaves in the same way, it invests to profit, and if it can’t profit it moves its capital somewhere else. We can’t forget that there was a moment that the Bolivian bourgeoisie and its half moon movement wanted to remove Morales from power the underhand way. If today the Bolivian bourgeoisie is investing and not encouraging capital flight it’s because it trusts that its investment will be respected and will perform well. All of this has occurred due to negotiation between the Bolivian bourgeoisie and Evo’s government.

The above is notable because Evo Morales has declared himself a Marxist and admirer of Fidel [Castro], however, it would appear that he is also a pragmatic man who understands that socialism of the 21^st century has to be radically different than that of the 20^th, something that the person who was our economic flag bearer, [former minister Jorge] Giordani, could never understand and less so put into practice. Strong applause for Evo Morales.

October 14, 2014

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.com.

 

Source: Aporrea.org

Bolivia advancing in the battle against hunger

By Héctor Miranda, Correspondent/La Paz

THE 70 legislators from 20 countries in the region who took part in the 4th Parliamentary Front Forum against hunger in Latin America and the Caribbean returned home convinced that Bolivia is fighting valiantly to erase hunger, one of the ills suffered by its population.

The meeting, which met over two days in the eastern city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, was an opportunity to learn of the President Evo Morales government plans to improve the people’s nutrition, part of a long-term project which does not exclude current action.

In the opening session, attended by Vice President Álvaro García Linera, the importance of giving decision making powers to campesino organizations and small agricultural producers spread across the country was emphasized.

García Linera highlighted the importance of working for food sovereignty, but noted that this requires political decisions, a transformation of the productive system and empowering of the original campesino social organizations in the control of productive processes.

He also spoke of the need to diversify food cultivation after the colonization of Latin America annihilated the scientific knowledge, engineering, biotechnology and astronomy inherited from civilizations with advanced agricultural and water cultures, among them that of the Inca people.

He likewise recalled that capitalism imposed a regime of food economy subject to the free market and profit in Latin America.

When President Evo Morales assumed power in early 2006, four million of Bolivia’s 11 million inhabitants suffered hunger; a figure that has been reduced by half to date, but which does not satisfy those responsible for leading the country and facilitating better living conditions for its people.

The two million persons still experiencing hunger in Bolivia are part of a 30 million total in Latin America, or 1.2 billion in the world, a problem which would seem more and more difficult to solve.
 

 

BOLIVIA, WATER AND THE BICENTENNARY AGENDA

The first steps to turn around the situation took place in 2006 itself and became established over time, with an awareness of the need to obtain food sovereignty, based on the democratization of land and the strengthening of the neglected campesino economy.

The government distributed tractors and other farming implements, together with seeds and fertilizer and directed strong capital investment to foment food production, apart from support received by the large agro-industrial companies.

On the other hand, through the MI Agua (More Investment for Water) programs, now in their third stage, water was delivered to the most remote areas of the country and all communities, not just for drinking, but to increase production and make it possible for cultivators to be assured of harvests without being dependent on capricious rainfall.

President Evo Morales has reiterated on more than one occasion that he knows of campesinos who previously cultivated one product once a year. Now, with the possibilities provided by water, they can produce various harvests.

In 2012, Bolivia also implemented agricultural insurance to protect the finances of small farmers affected by natural disasters, with a compensation of 1,000 bolivianos ($145) per hectare.

All of this is included in the so-called pillars of the 2025 Patriotic Agenda, a strategy directed toward solving vital problems in the country to coincide with the bicentenary of Bolivian independence, the objectives of which were the central issue addressed at the Forum, convened to discuss, exchange experiences and learn about Bolivia’s advances in food security. (Orbe)

 

September 19, 2013

 

Granma.cu

 

Bahamas Blog International