Ciao!

This is a very very well written opinion. Really. Bravo!

I have to make some observations and remarks.

Paragraph 1.
You left Bolivia at an early age, so you know how some historical facts are tought to toddlers, at my school we didn´t have that much of nationalist education on this issues, neither hate towards Chileans was instigated. I agree that you can not incubate such feelings in kids, but I don't think that actually happens at schools.

Paragraph 2.
International borders could be sketchy at some extent but there was certainty about most of the terrytory that once belonged to Bolivia and Perú, and that is an historical fact demonstrated by ancient maps and even some Chilean historiadores.
There is no doubt (out of question) that Arica once belonged to Perú. At our present state of evolution, for practical reasons, you can state that possession is nine tenths the law, eventhough that is a very dangerous premise that entitles sovereignty based on force, possession is a fact that has no foundation nor causality in legitimacy, it can be achieved just by force. To accept that in modern civil society is going back to the jungle.

3rd.-5th. Paragraph.
I agree with you that gas exports were only a slogan to overthrow Goni. Though I find Chavez's and Annan's words sincere and supportive, I must say they're too direct, and probably out of protocol. I think there are legitimete demands, just think what would happen if a new war device would be developed say by country X that would be so powerful that it would enable to conquer or dispute whatever controversy based on force ¿would that legitimate it's possession over other countries, would that suffice to ignore all reasons and rights of the conquered?. Finally as of the remarks of La Razón I find them too simplistic, following that logic I imagine the thief telling the policeman "I'm not returning the victims U$ 200.-, you giv'em to him the U$ 200.- and we're all happy"; needless to say we will still be landlocked.

Paragraphs 6-8.
War with Chile had much more serious implications that the rest of wars waged by Bolivia. We did not just loose territory, we ended landlocked!. If you have 3 homes and loose one, probably it won't mean much to you, but if you loose your only home... Bolivians (I hope so) are certainly aware that a solution by force it's neither feasable nor desirable.

It is a fact that because we our landlocked transport prices are higher and we spend a % of money (no matter how low it could be) to import and export goods. We don't benefit of fishing industry ("very" important in the economy GDP of neigbouring Perú and Chile).

Bottomline I must say diplomatic policy and efforts towards getting back the sea do payoff. New generations of Chileans and Bolivians generally see each other in a more friendly manner, society evolves and overcomes some traummas. Polls in both countries show that the young wouldn't mind giving sovereign territory to Bolivia in order to gain access to the sea and in Bolivia the young don't hate Chileans and consider less an important issue a sovereign access to the sea.

Paragraph 9-11.
Things ought to work one step at a time, indeed some people would be severely affected in their interests, but some compensation and alternatives could be worked out (isn't it what the U.S. is doing in Irak?, I think it's a reasonable policy, I'm not arguing against it). Just take at look at Hong Kong (yeah full of problems, yeah the context is different but in essence it's something similar). This things take time.

There are ships with bolivian flags, but our commercial capacity is restrained, we do not have a fishing industry, we depend on "free" ports that set us on que and charge us sometimes high tariffs.

My dream is similar to yours but I would not expect that declaration to translate to: "we are OK, we decline our expectations to a sovereign corridor to the pacific ocean".

I think limits between countries cannot be traced only by force and I think that diplomatic efforts do pay off and I'm very confident that in 50 or 150 years we will have sea again, whicho does not means that our situation depends only on that expectation.

Miguel, since many people with political and historical curiostity read your blogg I felt the need to post this comment in order to explain a Bolivian point of view (not the only or most accurate one).

Daniel:

Thanks. Yeah, I mostly wrote that post in a bit of frustration at the never ending anti-Chilean position adopted among many populist politicians (and even the "systemic" parties!).

You're right, I did leave Bolivia at a young age. And although you returned from exile and finished your school here, you have to admit that there is a strong anti-Chilean feeling in this country. Any time a politician makes an unpopular statement he's branded as being "bought" by the Chileans. In the better private schools you don't get much anti-Chilean feeling, but you do in most of the public schools. And look at so much of the Litoral symbolism we're constantly bombarded w/.

I agree that the loss of Litoral was probably more significant than the loss of other territories (although not sure on the Chaco). But it was a long, long time ago. Sure, we can't make all international law based on force (although in the end it always is). But we can't go giving back territories back to countries lost over a century ago. Imagine if Germany demanded that Poland and Russia give back the old Prussian and Silesian territories lost only in 1945!

The Litoral issue is only used to draw attention away from our local problems. It's an old nationalist trick, scapegoating. Yes, the territory belonged to Bolivia in the 1870s. But historians are very split on who started the war (much of the blame often goes to the Bolivian "rosca" elite). And, regardless, I think we should realize that we're not going to get an ocean back any time soon. Our best hope is free trade agreements that'd integrate the entire region's economies.

This would resolve some of the transport cost issues, which would still exist even if we did have an ocean (the distance from La Paz to a port is constant). Plus, we have to remember that there are other countries that are landlocked that do well economically. Look at Switzerland, which is extremely landlocked. Bolivia could become a transport hub for land commerce in the region, since we're strategically located in the center. Why ship goods from Argentina to Peru by sea, if they can go through a modern Bolivian highway? Of course, this would mean our campesinos would have to stop blockading & destroying roads every few months.

I appreciate your comments. And I know the Litoral issues is highly charged/emotional and I'd probably draw some flack from Bolivian friends. But I have to walk by the UMSA every day and I spent weeks watching protesters on the Prado yell anti-Chilean rhetoric. It really got to me.

Ya know, the sea just isn't worth all this fuss. Sure you don't get to drive your navy boat around in it, but you also don't have to clean it every night.

I agree. I've seen the Pacific (in Chile, no less) and the Atlantic. Oh, also the Carribbean. Neither impressed me much. Just a lot of water.

By the way, I liked this opinion b/c its universal. The issues you wrote about are so similar to some of the ongoings in the Eastern Europe. Well, I guess those who say people are the same all around the world are right.

Nenad:

Exactly my point! The problem w/ the Bolivian "Litoral" issue is that it's universal. What about all the recent border drawn up in Europe after 1945. If Bolivia has a claim to the Litoral because of 1879, then why doesn't Germany have an equal claim to Prussia & Silesia (the first always an integral part of Germany pre-1945). Or Italy to the Dalmatian Coast? Or Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, etc. to other territories? Where does it end?

I, too, do not understand current anti-Chilean sentiment. One thing that I had noticed living in Bolivia was the generalizations that many Bolivians have. For example, Chileans "son unos bandidos" and Peruanos "son maleantes". I laugh everytime I read about an assault or robbery in the news and someone mentions that they were probably Peruvian because of their accent. I was in Cuzco a year ago. I chatted with this Peruvian and he asked me why Bolivians hated Peruvians so much.

To me, I think it is related to the fact that Bolivians fail to take responsibility for their role in why the country is where it is now. We can't always blame the U.S., IMF, World Bank for our current problems. We must also look inward. Blaming Chile is easy, blaming ourselves is too humiliating.

On a related note: The Chilean National team has requested the game against Bolivia in La Paz scheduled for March 2004 be moved due to the anti-Chilean sentiment. They claim that they fear for their safety.

Don't open that can of worms in Silesia and Eastern Prussia. I just heard a report that there is an association of Germans that were born in thos areas who wish to get their property in Poland back that they needed to leave in 1945. Of course that does not go very well with the population in Poland, which in those areas are also victims of the second world war and had to leave the Ukraine and settle in Poland. Thanks god, this society is not supported by the German government.

Germany seems to be ok with its land-lockedness.

Also, in response to the first response above: It's hard to refute the Macchiavelian principles (tee hee...principals...very punny>.

Love,
Micah

P-Glad you are doing good these days, Miguel. I haven't had much time to read up on what you've had your nose into. Keep up the good work. Buy PC.

Fine, Chile does not have to give an inch of stolen land to anyone. But in the long run, Chile is asolating themselves from the rest of America and the world. Chile is now known as an usurper, warsome nation, bully and greedy. The world sees Chile with suspecium and not trustworthy. Chile made enemies with their neighbors on its own by their own doing. They may have a good military machine but they have to be aware that even Afganistan defeated the powerful rusia..as David defeated Goliath. One day, Chile will suffer a huge earthquake of biblical proportions and they will wish they never made enemies with its neighbors. If Chile was a friend he should come forthword to the plight of Bolivia. Chile will suffer natural disaster and you will see who will come in their need. In the end.."La Justicia tarda pero llega" Justice will prevail in the end.

Oh, please! Chile seen as untrustworthy in the world? Compared to what!? Chile is seen as one of the most stable & modern economies in the region. That's why the US, Japan, and Europe spend so much effort developing trade relations w/ Chile. Rather than, say, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Argentina, etc.

Now you mention that Chile stole some land and won't give it back? First of all, that claim's disputable. Now, while I agree that Bolivia had access to the sea — 120 years ago — history, my friend, isn't fair. Too many countries have lost territories since then. Should the US give Puerto Rico back to Spain? It took that territory much later than Chile took Litoral. A peace treaty was signed 100 years ago that finalized the Bolivia-Chile-Peru borders. That's it.

If you want to re-negotiate, go ahead and try. But is Chile going to give back all of Litoral? Of course not. And for good reason. There are hundreds of thousands of Chilean citizens who live there. What are we supposed to do w/ them? What about their rights? I don't think forced relocation of families w/ generations in their homes is a just solution. And I doubt they want to be Bolivian citizens.

Justice will prevail. But sometimes justice isn't what we think it is.

What did Chile did to Bolivia?
oh yeah, STOLE Bolivian territory.
That's what it's called right?
S T E A L

Response to Melly, dude Germany is a developed country dont be stupid...

Carlos Oliver, I would love to hear your definition of STEAL.

Micah, Germany is not landlocked.

Ezekiel, dude if you didn't know steal is when you take something that does not belong to you and keep it....
Like when Chile took BOLIVIAN territory. After that they signed an agreement, yes, but still that was land that did not belong to them. I'm not saying that Chile should give that land back to Bolivia just for free,(though it would be cool if they did it), but anyway man...you can't deny it.....they stole that land...it's called stealing...

The Sea is just another argument Bolivian politicians use to hide their favorite sports: corruption, stealing and misinformation.

Why is Switzerland (landlocked) richer than Philippines (full of beaches and islands)? Switzerland and Bolivia are landlocked countries surrounded by mountains, with nothing more than lakes: Sometimes, sea doesn't mean wealth.

Let's check some facts and figures before taking the easy way of blaming Chile of the Bolivia's poverty. For example, Chile's 96% of literacy (highest of the region) do a lot more for their development than their miles and miles of beaches.

After a brief check of the history, we can see that Chile suffered the shortest transition from the Spanish conquer's domination to the freedom and self government, putting their hands to work for a new country and economy, while their neighbors were still bleeding in long civil wars and riots, delaying their own political & economic development.
Chile just only won those coasts after a costly war imposed by its less developed neighbors 100 years ago. Today Chile isn't signing trade agreements just to sell sea water, they sell their political stability, business seriousness and, over all, their attitude of paying more attention to what they've got to offer, instead of what they've lost.