Volume 4

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE ACCESS TO THE
PACIFIC OCEAN
(BOLIVIA v. CHILE)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
Volume 4 of 6
(Annexes 215 – 278)
13 JULY 2016

i
Index to Volume 4 of 6
Annexes 215 – 278
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 215
Memorandum by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile on the audience granted by the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile, 7 January 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1255
Annex 216
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile on the conversation held with the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile and his Minister Counsellor,
27 January 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1265
Annex 217
Letter from the President of Chile to the President of Bolivia, 8 February 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1277
Annex 218
Letter from the President of Bolivia to the President of Chile, 8 February 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1285
Annex 219
Letter from the Chilean Ambassador to Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 187/40, 14 April 1977 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1295
Annex 220
Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Chilean Ambassador to Bolivia, No 22,
15 April 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1303
ii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 221
Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Chilean Ambassador to Bolivia, No 24,
21 April 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1321
Annex 222
Joint Declaration of the Foreign Ministers of Chile and Bolivia, signed at Santiago on 10 June 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 165 to its Memorial
1329
Annex 223
Letter from the Chilean Embassy in Bolivia to the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs, No 480/114, 19 August 1977 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1345
Annex 224
Joint Declaration of the Presidents of Bolivia, Chile and Peru, reproduced in “Meeting held among Pinochet, Morales and Banzer”, El Mercurio (Chile), 9 September 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 129 to its Memorial
1353
Annex 225
Telex from the Chilean Embassy in Bolivia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 301,
14 September 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1359
Annex 226
“Foreign Minister Patricio Carvajal, ‘Our territory won’t be sold or given away’”, La Segunda (Chile),
17 September 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
La Segunda (Chile)
1363
iii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 227
Verbatim Record of the Seventh Plenary Meeting of the Thirty-Second Session of the United Nations General Assembly, UN Doc A/32/PV.7, 26 September 1977 (extract)
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL7/803/05/pdf/NL780305.p…;,
pp 73, 88 and 91
1367
Annex 228
Letter from the Chilean Ambassador to Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 571/148, 28 September 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1373
Annex 229
Joint Press Release of the Foreign Ministers of Bolivia, Chile and Peru, 29 September 1977, recorded in an Aide Mémoire of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Memoria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 1977,
pp 88-89
1387
Annex 230
Verbatim Record of the Thirteenth Plenary Meeting of the Thirty-Second Session of the United Nations General Assembly, UN Doc A/32/PV.13, 29 September 1977 (extract)
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL7/803/09/PDF/NL780309.p…;,
pp 199, 212-214
1393
Annex 231
Letter from the Second Secretary of the British Embassy in Bolivia to a Desk Officer at the FCO South America Department, No 021/5, 30 September 1977
(Original in English)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1399
iv
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 232
Verbatim Record of the Twenty-First Plenary Meeting of the Thirty-Second Session of the United Nations General Assembly, UN Doc A/32/PV.21, 5 October 1977
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL7/803/17/PDF/NL780317.p…;
1403
Annex 233
Confidential Memorandum by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the General Directorate for Foreign Policy, No 424, 20 October 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1435
Annex 234
Letter from the President of Chile to the President of Bolivia, 23 November 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 76 to its Memorial
1443
Annex 235
Letter from the President of Bolivia to the President of Chile,
21 December 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 77 to its Memorial
1447
Annex 236
Letter from the President of Chile to the President of Bolivia, 18 January 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 78 to its Memorial
1455
Annex 237
Confidential Report to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia by Bolivia’s Extraordinary Ambassador,
13 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 177 to its Memorial
1461
Annex 238
Confidential Memorandum from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile to Chile’s Directorate General for Foreign Policy, No 116, 15 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1483
v
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 239
Letter from the President of Bolivia to the President of Chile, 17 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, History of the Chilean-Bolivian Negotiations, 1975-1978 (1978), pp 74-75
1515
Annex 240
Declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 17 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, History of the Chilean-Bolivian Negotiations, 1975-1978 (1978),
pp 78-79
1521
Annex 241
Official Declaration of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia breaking-off diplomatic relations with Chile,
17 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 147 to its Memorial
1527
Annex 242
Declaration of the Government of Chile of 23 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, History of the Chilean-Bolivian Negotiations, 1975-1978 (1978), p 80
1537
Annex 243
Verbatim Record of the Fifth Plenary Meeting of the Tenth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, UN Doc A/S-10/PV.5, 26 May 1978
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL8/105/71/PDF/NL810571.p…;
1541
Annex 244
Verbatim Record of the Sixth Plenary Meeting of the Tenth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, UN Doc A/S-10/PV.6, 26 May 1978
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL8/105/72/PDF/NL810572.p…;
1561
vi
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 245
Verbatim Record of the Ninth Plenary Meeting of the Tenth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, UN Doc A/S-10/PV.9, 30 May 1978
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL8/105/75/PDF/NL810575.p…;
1593
Annex 246
Letter dated 1 June 1978 from the Permanent Representative of Bolivia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, UN Doc A/S-10/18, 2 June 1978
(Original in English)
<https://disarmament-library.un.org/UNODA/Library.nsf/ff5669f6c76a379085 2577c00068acbd/eba5f1faab1df37285 2577c90051ea6b /$FILE/A-S10-18.pdf>
1619
Annex 247
Letter dated 5 June 1978 from the Permanent Representative of Chile to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, UN Doc A/S-10/19, 6 June 1978
(Original in English)
<https://disarmament-library.un.org/UNODA/Library.nsf/ff5669f6c76a379085… 77c00068acbd/fc8c8e6 68e168a80852577c900 51ea7d/$FILE/A-S10-19.pdf>
1623
Annex 248
Minutes of the Second Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 26 October 1979
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Ninth Regular Session, 1979, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/IX.O.2 (1980), pp 353,
356-372, 386-388 and 395-397
1627
vii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 249
Minutes of the Twelfth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 31 October 1979
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Ninth Regular Session, 1979, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/IX.O.2 (1980), pp 272,
277-283 and 286
1651
Annex 250
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution
AG/RES. 426 (IX–O/79), Access by Bolivia to the Pacific Ocean,
31 October 1979
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Ninth Regular Session, 1979, Proceedings, Vol. I, Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/IX.O.2 (1980), pp 55 and 57
1659
Annex 251
Chilean Ministry of National Defence, Undersecretary of the Navy, Supreme Decree No 923, 26 November 1979
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1663
Annex 252
Official Message from the Chilean Delegation to the Organization of American States to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 401,
24 November 1980
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1671
Annex 253
Minutes of the Sixth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 27 November 1980
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Tenth Regular Session, 1980, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/X.O.2 (1981), pp 138 and 197
1677
viii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 254
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 481 (X–O/80), The Bolivian Maritime Problem, 27 November 1980
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Tenth Regular Session, 1980, Proceedings, Vol. I,
OEA/Ser.P/X.O.2 (1981), p 28
1679
Annex 255
Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 7 December 1981
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Eleventh Regular Session, 1981, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XI.O.2
(1984), pp 425,
482-483 and 486-488
1683
Annex 256
Minutes of the Eighth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 10 December 1981
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Eleventh Regular Session, 1981, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/XI.O.2 (1984), pp 239 and
292-293
1689
Annex 257
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 560 (XI–O/81), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 10 December 1981
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Eleventh Regular Session, 1981, Proceedings, Vol. II Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/XI.O.2 (1982), pp 95 and 97
1693
ix
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 258
Minutes of the Eighth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 20 November 1982
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Twelfth Regular Session, 1982, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/XII.O.2 (1983), pp 212 and
222-223
1697
Annex 259
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 602 (XII–O/82), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 20 November 1982
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Twelfth Regular Session, 1982, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XII.O.2 (1982), pp 35-37
1701
Annex 260
Official Message from the Chilean Delegation to the Organization of American States to the Directorate for Multilateral Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 297/298, 14 September 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1707
Annex 261
Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Attitude of the Most Important Bolivian Officials (from Government and Parliament) During the Administration of President Siles, that Evidences an Anti-Chilean Climate, 15 September 1983 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1713
x
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 262
Report of Jorge Gumucio Granier, Permanent Representative of Bolivia to the United Nations, regarding the meeting between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and Chile,
1 October 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 178 to its Memorial
1743
Annex 263
Official Message from the Directorate for Multilateral Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Chilean Delegation to the Organization of American States, No 270/271, 27 October 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1753
Annex 264
Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 18 November 1983
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Thirteenth Regular Session, 1983, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/XIII.O.2 (1984), pp 348 and
364-376
1759
Annex 265
Minutes of the Seventh Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 18 November 1983
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Thirteenth Regular Session, 1983, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/XIII.O.2 (1984), pp 206 and 268
1773
xi
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 266
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution
AG/RES. 686 (XIII–O/83), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 18 November 1983
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Thirteenth Regular Session, 1983, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XII.O.2 (1983), pp 100 and 105
1777
Annex 267
Official Message from the General Directorate for Foreign Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Consulate General of Chile in Bolivia, No 531/532, 21 November 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1781
Annex 268
Cable from General Augusto Pinochet to President Belisario Betancur of Colombia, 30 November 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
U. Figueroa, The Bolivian maritime demand in international fora (2007), p 501
1789
Annex 269
Official Message from the Embassy of Chile in Colombia to the General Directorate for Foreign Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 267/268, 22 December 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1793
Annex 270
Statement by the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs of Chile,
22 December 1983 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1799
xii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 271
Minutes of the Eighth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 17 November 1984
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Fourteenth Regular Session, 1984, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/XIV.O.2 (1985), pp 240 and
246-248
1803
Annex 272
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution
AG/RES. 701 (XIV–O/84), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia,
17 November 1984
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Fourteenth Regular Session, 1984, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XIV.O.2 (1985), p 20
1809
Annex 273
Official Message from the Directorate of Bilateral Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Embassy of Chile in Colombia, No 9,
11 January 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1813
Annex 274
Communiqué of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 14 January 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1819
Annex 275
Official Message from the Consulate General of Chile in Bolivia to the Directorate of Bilateral Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 37, 16 January 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1825
xiii
Annex
No
Title
S
ource
Page No
Annex 276
Communiqué from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 18 January 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1829
Annex 277
Official Press Release from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile,
7 February 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1833
Annex 278
Official Message from the Consulate General of Chile in Bolivia to the Directorate of Bilateral Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile,
No 78, 13 February 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1837

Annex 215
Memorandum by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile on the audience granted by the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile, 7 January 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1255
1256
Annex 215
Annex 215
1257
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
South America Department
REF: Audience granted by the
Minister to the Bolivian Ambassador.
MEMORANDUM
1. Yesterday at 9:30 a.m., the Minister received the Bolivian Ambassador, Mr. Adalberto Violand Alcazar. The audience lasted approximately 45 minutes.
2. The Foreign Minister informed the Ambassador that he was interested in discussing with him the manner in which to continue the negotiations.
3. Ambassador Violand answered that he had no specific instructions on this matter, but only to continue negotiating without delay.
4. The Minister said that he could continue talking, as he has done to date and as he did with former Ambassador Gutiérrez. He said that it is necessary to talk until a point of agreement that constitutes part of the negotiation is reached. He then mentioned President Banzer’s Christmas Message, and stated that he did not think that the right way to negotiate was with Messages that appear in the press. He believed that it was necessary for discussions to be held in private, to avoid the pressure of public opinion in both countries and around the world.
5. The Bolivian diplomat then discussed the Message alluded to (pointing that he was doing so "off the record"), explaining that the primary reason for the message was Bolivian internal politics and that President Banzer himself was concerned how this might been taken in Chile. He then asked the Minister to let him know about Chile’s current proposal with respect to the negotiations.
1258
Annex 215
Annex 215
1259
6. The Foreign Minister said that our country fully maintains the offer it made in the document of 19 December 1975, and going back to the Bolivian President’s Message, he said that what makes these public statements so delicate is that they take positions that are very difficult to modify.
Then, he said that for Chile the exchange is indispensable, making reference to the exchange of territory between our country and Bolivia that took place in 1907 and that occurred without any problems. He highlighted that there was therefore a precedent that could be used as a reminder to prevent suspicion among the Bolivian people.
The Minister added that in order to facilitate the idea of the exchange, he thought that Chile could point out the area to which it aspired, emphasizing that this would dissipate much suspicion.
7. Ambassador Violand then said that he understood that the maintenance of the Chilean proposal included the agreements subsequently adopted with respect to the so-called “differences” in the negotiations.
8. After an exchange of ideas about each of these “differences”, the Minister insisted on maintaining all parts of the document of December 1975 and on simply interpreting the “differences”. He said that these interpretations could now be put on paper, as agreed with Foreign Minister Adriázola in New York. At that time, both Ministers agreed on the need to exchange documents establishing each country’s interpretation of these “differences”, so that a final agreement could then be reached.
9. The Ambassador indicated that they could start now with that interchange. Then he mentioned the idea of the enclave sketched by Foreign Minister Adriázola, stating that in principle it would be overcome.
1260
Annex 215
Annex 215
1261
10. The Minister said that it was difficult for the idea of a 30 km2 enclave to be accepted in Bolivia. Then, responding to the question that the Ambassador asked him about the status of the situation with Peru, he said that the formula presented by Peru had been rejected, adding that an attempt could be made to obtain Peruvian acceptance, by the formula of exchanging the mineral zone of Tacora for another zone. This proposal, he added, would give Peru an “escape” when faced with internal public opinion, because it would appear to be gaining a rich zone and would also benefit its international image, because it would appear to be contributing to the solution of the Bolivian situation. He added that in any event, this proposal should be made by Bolivia to Peru.
11. Ambassador Violand said that his impression, nevertheless, is that Peru does not want to lose its border with Chile.
12. The Minister said that according to our information, the Peruvian proposal was made without considering the Advisory Commission or the Peruvian representatives in the bilateral discussions, who would have agreed to seek a solution. Therefore, he said, in Peru there must be an opposing current to the current proposal formulated by that country and those who took that view could recommend the formula of exchange alluded to earlier. He added that this could be proposed by Bolivia to Peru, and that the Chilean answer to the consultation that would proceed from the Peruvians would be affirmative.
13. The Ambassador stated his satisfaction with the fact that negotiations were continuing, and that they could start from what had been agreed in New York by Foreign Ministers Carvajal and Adriázola, and initiate separate negotiations between Peru and Bolivia, proposing the formula of exchanging the zone of Tacora for another one.
1262
Annex 215
Annex 215
1263
14. The Minister said that each country could bring a draft interpretation of the “differences”, exchange them and then incorporate a joint draft as an additional document to the bases for the negotiations. He added that if Bolivia did not have the information about the bilateral exchange in 1907, our Foreign Ministry could provide it to the Ambassador, which was agreed.
15. The Ambassador said that he could urgently inform his Government of what the Minister had said. Thus ended the audience, attended by the Third Secretary Roberto Ibarra, a DIRELAS official, who took the foregoing notes.
Santiago, 7 January 1977
[Signed]
PABLO VALDES
Director DIREL
1264
Annex 216
Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile on the conversation held with the Bolivian Ambassador to Chile and his Minister Counsellor, 27 January 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1265
1266
Annex 216
Annex 216
1267
Conversation held with the Ambassador of Bolivia and
his Minister Counselor on 27 January 1977, from
11:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.
The Ambassador asked to visit me.
After exchanging the customary courtesies, we began our discussion, with the Ambassador asking me how I viewed the situation.
I said that certainly did not have all the available information because I have been absent from Santiago, but I could give him my personal opinion that Peru had wanted to block the Chilean-Bolivian solution. Both the Ambassador and the Minister Counselor said that they had often recalled the explanation that I had given them awhile back as to the fact that article 1 of the Protocol confers a real veto right and that the facts have demonstrated that this is true.
There was then a discussion of the scope of the term “prior agreement”. I explained the meaning of “consent”. The Minister Counselor said that Peru appeared to interpret it such that prior agreement had to be given to a possible solution to Bolivia’s landlocked situation, but I rejected this interpretation as erroneous. The Ambassador mentioned the possibility that these discrepancies had been clarified by an International Tribunal. I pointed out that the Treaty appointed the President of the United States as arbitrator. The Ambassador noted that he had been informed that the President of the United States had not accepted that position. I said that surely he had not been asked to do so at the time of the Treaty, as that is frequent in such cases and people are only asked to accept the position once a dispute arises.
1268
Annex 216
Annex 216
1269
I said that it was unlikely that the arbitrator would recuse himself, if the case should arise, because the Treaty of 1929 was the result of the good offices of the U.S. Government.
During the conversation on the scope of the first article of the Protocol of 1929 the Council of the Embassy asked whether Peru could not enforce the “rebus sic stantibus” clause. The question was confused; I did not manage to make it clear, and answered that a clause of that nature is absolutely inadmissible in Treaties that establish boundaries, a principle of International Law that was confirmed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
I asked the Ambassador what were the conditions that Peru had indicated to Bolivia when it sent an Ambassador to La Paz on the same day as when Marchand was making the proposal to the Chilean Government. There was clear hesitation on the part of both visitors, who ended up stating that they had no information and understood that the Peruvian Ambassador had done nothing more than point out the matters that still needed to be resolved between the two countries.
I pointed out that Minister de la Puente, in an interview with the press published in “El Mercurio”, had said that something related to Lake Titicaca and to the irrigation of Tacna had been proposed to Bolivia. I expressed my thinking about the interest that Peru necessarily has in matters related to its waters and channels for that irrigation; I briefly explained what I know about the delicate issue of the irrigation channels in the River Mauri and how we had been interested in the problem because of certain comments heard during the course of the discussions with the Peruvian diplomats.
Despite my insistence, I was not able to get more information, except for the recognition by the Ambassador that the problem of irrigation in Tacna was very important to Peru and that there was an issue between La Paz and Lima regarding the
1270
Annex 216
Annex 216
1271
waters of the River Mauri.
The conversation then turned to the surprise caused by the Peruvian proposal. We agreed that the way Lima was acting was completely anomalous. The Ambassador said that they were not expecting a proposal like that, because although they assumed that the Commission advising the Peruvian Government would indicate certain conditions, they never imagined that they would be the ones in the proposal that they ultimately made.
I said that we had had the same surprise because from the information received and what Ambassador Marchand said at the end of the second round of discussions, we were ultimately expecting a favourable answer, but subject to “conditions” enumerated by Marchand himself on that occasion. I indicated in general what they were. With regard to the Peruvian idea of tripartite economic development in the zone, Ambassador Violand believed that he saw the seeds of the idea of a government shared by the three countries in the Port of Arica. I pointed out that such idea had not been formulated, because in view of the initial private opinion polls by Marchand, he was told categorically that Chile would never agree to limit its sovereignty in Arica.
I returned to the matters pending between Peru and Bolivia and noted that it would have been logical to expect a basically favourable response from Peru, subject to conditions, because there were objectively attractive possibilities for that country to later have Bolivia exchange the area of Tacora for a strip on the coast to the north of the Concordia Line, in addition to regulating the issues concerning the rights to the water in the irrigation channels in Tacna.
1272
Annex 216
Annex 216
1273
The Ambassador said that they too had expected a favourable response, under negotiable conditions, but not the blocking that ultimately resulted. They had also had the impression that the report by the Peruvian Advisory Commission would be favourable. I asked whether they had any information about whether that report existed, and if so, what its contents were. The answer was negative, but the Ambassador added that perhaps the Commission had informed the Peruvian Government of its points of view.
At a certain point in the conversation, the Ambassador described the Peruvian response as “very elaborate”. When I reacted skeptically, he corrected himself and added |or very improvised”. I agreed with the latter evaluation, indicating that the proposal could be explained as a veto by the military elements applied to an essentially positive formula drawn up by lawyers and diplomats. That would explain why Peru would agree to the cession of almost all the territory, but would bolt Bolivia in on the far western end, and at the same time make proposals to Chile that would necessarily have to be rejected.
The Ambassador did not object to this hypothesis.
Toward the end of the conversation, the Ambassador said that he was very pessimistic about the situation and asked me what I thought should be done. I said that personally, I thought that we needed to try to get Peru to modify its veto, a task in which Bolivia would have to play the principal role, since they had problems whose solution was in Peru’s interest (such as the line of the Tacora, the water problems, etc.) and on the other hand, Chile did not have the slightest problem outstanding with Peru that could in any way enter in to the negotiation.
1274
Annex 216
Annex 216
1275
The Ambassador asked what I thought about President Banzer’s Christmas Message. I answered that I comprehended his point of view but did not understand him, because there is no advantage whatsoever for Bolivia to have Chile renounce the territories in exchange if that does not alter Peru’s veto. I added that moreover, it seemed impossible to me that Chile would renounce the exchange of territory, since such exchange is the basis for the entire negotiation. I asked whether, in the hypothetical case that this point was negotiated, Bolivia had any information from Lima that Lima would modify its veto if the territorial exchange was put aside. The Ambassador answered that Bolivia had no such information and the Minister Counselor added that the cession of territory by Bolivia was an issue exclusive to his country and thus had nothing to do with Peru’s position.
Thus, the conclusion was obvious that it would be worthless in front of Peru to modify the basic line of the negotiations between Chile and Bolivia .
In response to a comment by the Ambassador—made with a certain expression of annoyance—that the matter was “stuck”, I said that we should not get discouraged, because things often change with the passage of time, and we should strive to finding the way to change Peru's position.
The entire conversation took place in a very cordial and candid atmosphere.
[Signed]
J.
Philippi
1276
Annex 217
Letter from the President of Chile to the President of Bolivia, 8 February 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1277
1278
Annex 217
Annex 217
1279
Santiago, 8 February 1977.
President:
In celebrating today, 8 February, the second anniversary of our meeting in Charaña, I have wanted to send a sincere greeting to the Bolivian sister nation and especially to Your Excellency.
The memory of an event as important to the history of our relations must be a motive for reflection, so that in the light of what has happened, we can analyse the results obtained and seek to secure the achievements reached for the sake of sacred duty of serving our people.
Without a doubt, the frank dialogue, characteristic of soldiers, that prevailed during our meeting has been translated into concrete facts that permit us to see the future with confidence.
A long period without diplomatic relations had kept us at a distance, in circumstances in which the intensification of our ties of friendship and cooperation were made necessary for all kinds of reasons. God willed that the circumstances permitted us to make a significant step, having laid on our persons such a transcendental responsibility as is to search for a real understanding between both Nations through the course of dialogue.
Consistent with the terms of the Joint Declaration issued in the Charaña meeting, we have maintained permanent political, economic, cultural, social, scientific and technologic contact, from which we can aspire to reach higher goals, through the works of the Chilean-Bolivian Mixed Commission. The conditions are given, the way has been opened and the results, in the short term, will be appreciated.
TO HIS EXCELLENCY
GENERAL HUGO BANZER SUAREZ
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
LA PAZ.
1280
Annex 217
Annex 217
1281
I trust that this Commission will be an excellent means to make our relations increasingly fruitful, and for that reason I have issued precise instructions aimed at accelerating the studies, so we can, for the benefit of our integration, make up for lost time that very special circumstances made us lose.
Inspired in the most profound americanist spirit, we initiated negotiations aimed at satisfying the aspiration of Bolivia to have a sovereign coast without interruption in continuity with the current Bolivian territory.
My Government, interpreting the feeling of the majority of the Chilean population, who love peace and friendly cooperation, has maintained and maintains a fraternal spirit from the beginning of this negotiation. The multiple demonstrations of goodwill and sincerity that the largest Chilean citizen sectors have publicly demonstrated, are an irrefutable testimony, that commits and moves me as a Ruler, since it signifies that I was not mistaken in assuming the responsibility to take this step, but to the contrary, I have faithfully interpreted their feeling.
Such a delicate and sensitive problem as the one we have addressed needed resolution and endurance since, as we discussed at Charaña, we knew that the road we would have to follow would not be easy.
Your Excellency knows the dedication I have devoted to this important matter and the effort I have employed to advance it as quickly as possible to a solution of the problems that have been arising, after having reached an agreement on the general terms of the negotiation.
Many people interested in the failure of this negotiation have made efforts to try to demonstrate that it has no aim and that it was brought on for petty purposes.
1282
Annex 217
Annex 217
1283
In face of these difficulties, I deem convenient to redouble our efforts and our goodwill, to move forward from the current state of the negotiations and reach the goal we have set.
Your Excellency may have the most absolute confidence that my Government will keep its decision to obtain a good success.
A wide field of mutual interests lay ahead and I am assisted by the conviction that with renewed faith in the destiny of our peoples we will build the foundations of a safe future for our children, based on the respect and the profound and realistic americanist sentiment that guides our actions.
Your Excellency, receive the testimony of my sincere affection.
[Signed]
AUGUSTO PINOCHET UGARTE
Army General
President of the Republic of Chile
1284
Annex 218
Letter from the President of Bolivia to the President of Chile, 8 February 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1285
1286
Annex 218
Annex 218
1287
PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
La Paz, 8 February 1977
Mr. President:
As President of the Bolivians, to whose service all my efforts are directed, with profound satisfaction I have received the meaningful message that Your Excellency deigned to send me, upon the second anniversary of our meeting in Charaña.
In my name and the name of my people I express gratitude for your cordial greeting and return it with identical affection.
It is convenient to note, Mr. President, that the historical meeting that we recalled was convened because of the conviction that the common destiny of our peoples demanded a resolute attitude of their leaders, that
To His Excellency Mr.
General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte
President of the Republic of Chile
Santiago.-
1288
Annex 218
Annex 218
1289
would make it it possible to see the future with the confidence brought on by a frank and direct dialogue, in search of highly productive understandings called for by the harmonious coexistence of neighbouring nations willing for the most fraternal cooperation.
The Charaña meeting was the first step to seek formulas for the solution of vital matters confronting Bolivia and Chile, especially regarding the landlocked situation that affects my Homeland, and that is what we solemnly and categorically declared before international awareness.
The great responsibility we assumed at Charaña requires, as Your Excellency pointed out, a clear and sincere language that promotes great achievements.
As soldiers who have resolved to serve with total devotion the sacred interests of their nations, we remained faithful to that exalting practice.
Therefore, in this same language and without deviating from my country’s feeling, I have always set out before Your Excellency, the Bolivians’ aspirations and concerns, surrounding the negotiations, especially, after the last instances that introduced new factors in the general framework of said diplomatic efforts, which we are willing to conclude with success.
1290
Annex 218
Annex 218
1291
Your Excellency’s expressions ratifying the will to advance in said negotiations aimed at overcoming Bolivia’s geographical confinement, through a free and fully sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean, from the current state of this transcendental diplomatic process, constitute, without a doubt, a powerful encouragement to strengthen our effort intended to reach the most desired goal of all Bolivians.
I honour your word, Mr. President, which reflects your Government’s firm decision to promote the most just and constructive understandings in the most elevated americanist spirit.
I am also certain that in the road we still have to travel, Bolivia’s maritime cause will continue to count on the support and the understanding of sister nations, committed to the deed of making the solidarity of the great Latin American nation into a tangible reality.
The perspectives of cooperation between our countries have wide projections. We have created the appropriate instrument to realize them through the Bolivian-Chilean Mixed Commission, structure under which the studies will be carried out and
1292
Annex 218
Annex 218
1293
the most effective actions will be proposed in order to establish an exchange from which to derive equitably shared benefits.
Mr. President, I appreciate on their own measure your invaluable personal contribution in this rapprochement between our nations.
Two years ago, when referring to the transcendence of our meeting at Charaña, I maintained that it was a day called to last throughout history.
I said it interpreting the most deeply rooted feelings of my people, who aspire, as Your Excellency knows, to build their future in a climate of peace, justice and full cooperation with the sister nations of America.
Receive, Mr. President and friend, the expression of my personal affection.
[Signed]
DIVISION GENERAL HUGO BANZER SUAREZ
President of the Republic
1294
Annex 219
Letter from the Chilean Ambassador to Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 187/40, 14 April 1977 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1295
1296
Annex 219
Annex 219
1297
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EMBASSY OF CHILE
LA PAZ - BOLIVIA
LA PAZ, 14 April 1977
FROM: THE AMBASSADOR OF CHILE IN LA PAZ
TO: THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DIRELAS)
Enclosed
with this official letter is a briefing for March, which covers matters relating to bilateral negotiations, domestic and foreign policy of this country.
God bless you.
[Signed]
Rigoberto Díaz
Ambassador
[Seal: Embassy of Chile. La Paz - Bolivia]
[…]
CONFIDENTIAL
E. LA PAZ (DIRELAS) RES. No 187/40
SUBJECT: Sending news correspoding
to the month of March 1977
REF: MFA (DIREL) CIRC.
RES. No 44 of 9-9-75.-
1298
Annex 219
Annex 219
1299
I.
BILATERAL RELATIONS
With respect to the progress of the Chilean-Bolivian relations last March, we noted that the authorities and public opinion were increasingly skeptical about the outcome of the maritime negotiation and showed a tougher stance towards our country.
1. Day of the Sea. March 23 marked the end of the so-called Week of the Sea, where several civic and patriotic ceremonies were conducted to commemorate the battle in which Bolivian hero Eduardo Avaroa lost his life in 1879.
On that date, President Banzer gave a speech addressing the Bolivian aspirations to gain access to the Pacific Ocean. The President reasserted that the return to the sea was a “vital need” of Bolivia and not just an emotional quest. He also went over Bolivia’s international actions and the support obtained for its position, thus making reference to the proposal of 24 December 1976 so that both Bolivia and Peru modify their point of view for the sake of cooperation.
The message of the President was received With a certain indifference by public opinion, which was clearly skeptical and disappointed at the progress of the negotiations.
The “Week of the Sea” celebrations were distinguished by their sobriety–Wednesday 23 was not declared a holiday. The tone of the publications on the maritime issue may be described as moderate. It is also worth mentioning that President Banzer made it very clear during a press interview on the eve of the “Day of the Sea” that his political career would not depend on the outcome of the negotiations.
2. Adjournment of the Meeting of the Mixed Commission (Cable 114)
On 10 March, Minister of Foreign Affairs Adriázola stated it was preferable to adjourn the meeting of the Mixed Commission indefinitely and thus prevent any possible attack on the Government as well as the deterioration of the reputation of Chile. These fears originated in the lack of progress in the consideration of the maritime issue.
1300
Annex 219
Annex 219
1301
3. Situation of the Arica-La Paz railway line (RES. No 21)
On 8 March, the Bolivian Ministry of Foreign Affairs furnished a Memorandum related to the current situation of the Chilean Section of the Arica-La Paz Railway Line which analyzed its deficiencies and requested the implementation of measures to eliminate the hindrances affecting Bolivian foreign trade through the Port of Arica.
4. Press campaign
Apart from the publications made on occasion of the celebration of the “Day of the Sea,” the Bolivian press—with the exception of “Los Tiempos” of Cochabamba—has remained rather silent on the maritime issue, which is in stark contrast with the stridency of 1976 and the beginning of the present year. According to reliable sources, the Government and the press have seemingly reached an agreement to momentarily avoid a debate on the negotiation, while an indication on their possible success or failure is pending.
Worthy of note is the publication on 23 March of a new report drafted by the Bolivian Institute of Geopolitical Studies, which, among other matters, addresses the perspectives for the maritime negotiation, the possibility of a military conflict on the Pacific and the position that Bolivia should take in that regard, as well as other problems facing Bolivia in the international arena.
[…]
1302
Annex 219
Annex 220
Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Chilean Ambassador to Bolivia, No 22, 15 April 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1303
1304
Annex 220
Annex 220
1305
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
* * *
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS OFFICE
South America Department
CONFIDENTIAL [Signatures]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DIRELAS) RES. NO. 22
Subject: Memorandum of meeting granted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Ambassador of Bolivia.
Ref: - None
468
Santiago, 15 April 1977.
From: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
To: Ambassador of Chile in La Paz
For your information, I enclose herewith a copy of the Memorandum of the meeting granted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Ambassador of Bolivia in Chile on last 1 April.
Sincerely,
BY ORDER OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
[Signature]
LUIS EUGENIO CADIZ B.
Counsellor
Acting Director of International Affairs
Distribution:
1. Embassy of Chile in La Paz with annex.
2. Foreign Affairs (DIRELAS)
3. Foreign Affairs (OF. PARTES), Archive
1306
Annex 220
Annex 220
1307
LSC/ft
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM No. 82
From: DIREL
To: DIGEN, INFO SUBSEC, MINGAB, DIPLAN.
I.
At 5:00 pm today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs received the Ambassador of Bolivia, Mr. Adalberto Violand, for a meeting. The Bolivian Ambassador was accompanied by Embassy Counsellors Alfredo Valdés Loma and Agustín Saavedra. Also present at the meeting were the General Director Commander Jaime Levín and DIRELAS officer, Leonel Searle C., who took and wrote these notes.
II.
Ambassador Violand stated that upon his return from La Paz he requested this meeting in accordance with his Government’s instructions. He pointed out that the status of negotiations between our two countries had been analyzed on the basis of the correspondence exchanged in connection with the Charaña meeting anniversary, to analyze how negotiations will continue from now on. Furthermore, the Ambassador pointed out that, given the recent visit of General Arbulú, he believed it is convenient to learn what Chile’s current situation is, how our country sees the negotiation and how they plan to deal with the Peruvian situation, in order to continue with the matter.
III.
The Minister explained that the purpose of the Peruvian General’s visit was to
1308
Annex 220
Annex 220
1309
discuss professional issues only and the matter of the Bolivian situation was not addressed
IV.
Subsequently, the Ambassador of Bolivia insisted: “How do you visualize the future of negotiations and how will conversations with Peru continue?” Bolivia is concerned about the stagnation in the negotiation and, therefore, is interested in learning the next steps to be taken by the Chilean Government.
V.
The Minister indicated that President Banzer pointed out in his Christmas Message that there will be no territorial compensation and this is of concern to Chile. He added that Chile’s proposal has not been the result of improvisation – each stipulation is full of meaning, and that is why the exchange of territories is essential. This causes much more concern than what Peru may say. Irrespective of the solution reached with Peru, Chile would not agree to it if such solution implies a Bolivian proposal of no exchange. This Chilean condition derives from a national feeling that was and is expressed in all the spheres of public opinion, so it is a fundamental provision. Any other term of negotiation would be unacceptable, the Minister said. This was discussed and made clear with your predecessor, Ambassador Gutierrez. It is an exchange of territories that is consistent with the value they have for each country. That is the main obstacle, according to the Minister.
VI.
Ambassador Violand pointed out that President Banzer’s proposal is not a step backwards, and the Peruvian answer has created a new situation that makes it possible for Chile to resume conversations with said country. He added that in the domestic front Banzer finds it difficult to continue negotiating. When Peru answered, President Banzer tried to gather support for the exchange
1310
Annex 220
Annex 220
1311
during a tour around the country. It should be taken into account that this negotiation needs the support of a third party. Since such support has not been obtained, a new situation arises. They face the problem of having to offer the people a solution to the stagnation that makes many people feel quite pessimistic about the matter.
Any trial solution offered to Peru must be first agreed upon by Bolivia and Chile, the Ambassador claimed, and this would be the Peruvian response.
Bolivia and Chile are determined to move forward; it is a shared decision, the Ambassador said, “and a very honest decision by Chile, I believe”. Any other solution within the proposal needs Peru’s approval, and that is why the Ambassador claimed that another solution should be found in which Peru’s intervention is not required.
VII.
The Minister indicated the possibility of making a proposal in such a way that Peru will find our exchange appealing. We may offer Tacora to Peru in exchange for a larger piece of beach that would be given to Bolivia.
The Ambassador mentioned that Tacora and Laguna Blanca have been part of the discussions, but insisted that Peru would say “first, reach an agreement with Chile”. The Minister stated that there are some possibilities, in accordance with the surveys to be carried out by Bolivia. The Ambassador insisted that this would be a different negotiation subject to a prior understanding with Chile.
VIII.
The Minister told the Ambassador that he feels Bolivia has taken this negotiation as an “all or nothing” question. For example, in the first discussions, it was said that, without prejudice to addressing the solution to this problem, the access to the Pacific, we should simultaneously move forward in other issues such as increasing
1312
Annex 220
Annex 220
1313
the assistance for the transit of Bolivia towards the Pacific and promote the possibilities of commerce and other activities of interest. According to the Minister, this helps to create the impression that we are making progress and brings optimism to the public opinion. This improves the human relationships among those who need such relationships; for example, improving roads gives a very positive feeling and facilitates negotiations between Governments.
The Ambassador explained that trade has indeed intensified and there are projects under way, but the fundamental purpose of the negotiation is to solve Bolivia’s landlocked situation. Bolivia needs to develop its potential and to that end it has to be free of the confinement in which it finds itself.
The Ambassador stated that he understands Chile’s position about the exchange but he noted that Bolivia risks its internal future for a hypothetical situation because, although it believes in Chile’s strong willingness, this stumbles on the 1929 Treaty.
IX.
Today, the Minister added, if any differences come to light, combined with the fact that Bolivia is opposed to the exchange, we are in a difficult situation to continue presenting Peru with a common front. The Minister also asked: “Why wait for the main solution and not move forward on other issues simultaneously?” The Ambassador interrupted to explain that the postponement of the meeting of the Mixed Commission is momentary. The Minister continued and explained that the attacks by the Bolivian press to Chile are the result of inaccurate information. For example, when they attack Chile for the accumulation of goods in the port of Arica (especially wheat) due to the poor conditions of the railways, they forget that Bolivian Railways owe more than three million dollars to our railway company. Given that our company is, as many other state-owned corporations,
1314
Annex 220
Annex 220
1315
obliged to be self-financed, this debt causes the railway service to function badly. Thus, he added, there are other issues of this kind which can be solved to make the public opinion aware that there is an intention to eliminate any friction. This does not imply disregarding the core issue, but making simultaneous progress in other aspects.
The Ambassador stated that this debt of Bolivian Railways has not fallen on deaf ears and there is an agreement to reconcile accounts. An offer has been made to the Minister of Transport, General Vargas, to purchase locomotives, and Bolivia has lines of credit with Japan. Therefore, the Minister is requested to consider the possibility of selling train cars together with the Minister General Vargas.
X.
The Minister offered him the possibility to start tentatively analyzing a similar agreement to the one we entered into with Bolivia on 5 December 1975, to redraft an agreement on the same bases, clarifying our differences and smoothing them over in a way that is mutually convenient and acceptable, and including in this solution project proposals which may be appealing to Peru. To give said country the Tacora area and Bolivia a larger beach area. Peru’s Advisory Committee was in favour of accepting the proposal, and after the Peruvian answer, the abovementioned committee was dissolved. We can submit the agreement again. Peru can show cooperation. We should attempt to achieve a rapprochement. We need to reconcile our differences using the December 1975 agreement as a basis. Peru wants us to agree before they announce their decision.
This means giving shape to the agreement, said the Ambassador, and converting the matter into a three-party issue. Chile should approach Peru, it would be a simultaneous presentation by Chile.
1316
Annex 220
Annex 220
1317
XI.
The Minister asked Bolivia to analyze the proposal so that the process can continue to progress. He insisted vehemently on the exchange and perhaps, he added, it would be convenient to determine the territory, indicate the place and locate it, in order to avoid the distrust of anyone who may think Chile may be trying to go something unsuspected. The Ambassador said he finds this question accessory to the presentation to Peru.
Subsequently, Counsellor Saavedra suggested President Pinochet could take a step forward if he makes a proposal through a public message, something he calls “public diplomacy”.
The Minister brought attention to the fact that every progress made so far in the negotiations has been on the basis of confidential discussions and this should not change. The Ambassador is worried because, in Bolivia, Banzer expressed their position through a message and they expect a similar act from us. The Minister reminded that President Pinochet had already talked about the exchange before Banzer did.
Summarizing a bit what he had already stated, the Ambassador referred to the possibility of crystallizing the progress made so far in order to submit again a specific proposal to Peru which can act as an incentive for said country. The Minister added that the proposal should be formal and public so that Peru finds it difficult to reject it, it being acceptable for the public opinion and Peru’s image before the world. Chile could conduct a poll, presenting the proposal as something clearly positive for Peru, for which purpose it would be crucial to be sure that the previous general agreement between Chile and Bolivia will be maintained, emphasizing again that the exchange is a condition sine qua non. The Bolivian Ambassador pointed out that the approach to Peru should be prior to the agreement
1318
Annex 220
Annex 220
1319
since, otherwise, negotiations would break down.
The Minister said he understands Peru has problems with the public opinion of its own country because the former President declared that he would not allow Bolivia to step into territories which belonged to Peru in the past.
XII.
Finally, the Minister suggested continuing to hold these kinds of dialogue meetings and invited the parties to think on what has been discussed today and to continue discussing in the future.
The Ambassador said he understands that a solution cannot be found in a one-hour meeting and, therefore, expects to continue discussing the matter. He thanked the Minister for this meeting and expressed his concern for being in what he believes is a race against time. Peru has recently claimed they will open the doors to political currents; this way, new factors come into play which may spoil the possibility of reaching an understanding.
XIII.
After more than one hour, and on the agreement that a new meeting will be requested at the end of the Holy Week, the Ambassador and the Embassy officers who accompany him bade farewell to the Minister and thanked him once again for receiving them.
Santiago, 1 April 1977.
[Illegible seals]
[Signature]
Approved by
PABLO VALDES PHILLIPS
Director of International Affairs
1320
Annex 221
Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Chilean Ambassador to Bolivia, No 24, 21 April 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1321
1322
Annex 221
Annex 221
1323
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
CONFIDENTIAL
RR.EE.(DIRELAS) RES 24
Subject: Sending memorandum of audience
of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
with the Ambassador of Bolivia
SANTIAGO, 21 April 1977
FROM: MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
TO: AMBASSADOR OF CHILE IN LA PAZ
Attached to this letter it pleases me to send to you for your information a copy of the Memorandum on the audience granted by the Minister to the Ambassador of this country in Santiago, Mr. Adalberto Violand, on 20 April of this year.
Sincerely yours,
BY ORDER OF THE UNDERSECRETARY
[Signed]
PABLO VALDES PHILLIPS
Minister Counselor
Director of International Relations
Distribution:
1. Embassy of Chile in La Pas whith annex
2. Foreign Affairs (Of. Partes)
3. Foreign Affairs (DIRELAS), Archives
1324
Annex 221
Annex 221
1325
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Department of South America
MEMORANDUM RES. NO. 116
FROM: DIREL
TO: DIGEN, INFO DIPLAN, SUBSEC, MINGAB
RE: Audience granted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Ambassador of Bolivia in Santiago
The Minister received the Bolivian Ambassador Mr. Adalberto Violand in a special audience today at 10:30 a.m. Mr. Violand was accompanied by officials from Bolivia’s Diplomatic Mission. The audience was attended by the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs and by Mr. Julio Phillipi.
First, Ambassador Violand thanked the Minister for being willing to move the audience up to today’s date, as it had originally been scheduled for 28 April. He also said that on 30 April he would travel to La Paz to participate in a meeting of Ambassadors that had been called by his Foreign Ministry.
Therefore, he would like to continue the dialogue they had started, so that he would have a global view of the matter and could thus inform his Government of the progress made in these negotiations.
After summarizing what had been discussed previously with the Ambassador, the Minister stated that the starting point was still the Note of 19 December 1975, to which an Addendum containing a clarification or interpretation of those matters deemed “differences” (demilitarization, maritime compensation and use of the waters of the River Lauca) could be added.
A preliminary poll of Peru would be carried out to determine how receptive it would be to a formula of exchange (e.g., Tacora for a greater extension of beach) that would be attractive to it and would allow us to bring the negotiation to an end. This poll
1326
Annex 221
Annex 221
1327
would be carried out by Chile, because there would have to first be an agreement between our country and Bolivia on the formula mentioned above, to be carried out by Bolivia after it received the corridor.
The Minister said that another formula that could be studied would be for Bolivia to reach an agreement with Peru on the use of the waters of the River Mauri, which would allow it to expand the irrigation works in Tacna. This is a problem that has been hanging over Peru and Bolivia since 1923 and, as Julio Philippi mentioned, Peru considers it to be especially important because in the round of talks and in the discussion of the easement, they stated their interest to see this problem resolved.
The Minister later reiterated that the negotiations with Bolivia are based on the agreement of 1975, which established territorial compensation as a condition for the cession of the corridor.
Returning to the poll of Peru that would be taken, the Minister said that Peru must show the Peruvian people—and particularly the people in the border area—that they have obtained something from this negotiation.
The Ambassador asked Julio Philippi whether he though it viable for these formulas to be accepted by Peru. Mr. Philippi answered that objectively Peru had an interest in these matters, but that political reasons could influence the course of the events.
Later Ambassador Violand stated that there was something positive in Peru’s response, which was that they had withdrawn the veto on part of the highway, a position on which they could capitalize. The Minister agreed that this had been a positive step, but said that Chile had declined Peru’s Note in its entirety.
Finally, Ambassador Violand reiterated his thanks to the Minister, thus ending this audience. The audience was attended by the Counselor Miss Liliana Núñez B., who took and drafted these notes.
Santiago, 20 April 1977
PABLO VALDES PHILLIPS
Minister Counselor
Director of International Relations
1328
Annex 222
Joint Declaration of the Foreign Ministers of Chile and Bolivia, signed at Santiago on 10 June 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 165 to its Memorial
1329
1330
Annex 222
Annex 222
1331
On 8, 9 and 10 June 1997, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Republic of Bolivia, General Oscar Adriázola Valda, made an official visit to the Republic of Chile, in response to an invitation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Chile, Patricio Carvajal Prado.
In the course of his visit, the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs was received in a special audience by His Excellency the President of the Republic, Army General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, with whom he had a cordial discussion of points of view on matters of mutual interest.
The Bolivian Foreign Minister also visited the Minister of National Defense, Division General Herman Brady Roche, with whom he had a candid and friendly dialogue.
In the course of the discussions between the Foreign Ministers on bilateral and multilateral issues, they had the opportunity to
1332
Annex 222
Annex 222
1333
analyze the progress of the relations between Chile and Bolivia and expressed their firm intent to speed up the process of strengthening the ties of all types between the two nations, with a view toward establishing the common good, strengthening the friendship of their peoples and cooperating to make Latin American peace and solidarity even more effective.
With this spirit in mind, and as a result of their discussions, the two Ministers agreed to the following:
JOINT DECLARATION
The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Chile and Bolivia:
Reiterate the unwavering adhesion of Chile and Bolivia to the principles of the United Nations and the Organization of American States and reaffirm their intention to coordinate their action in both organizations. They therefore renew their adherence to the principles of non-intervention, self-determination, renouncement of the threat or use of force, and respect for the sovereignty of States.
1334
Annex 222
Annex 222
1335
They therefore agree to apply the principle of peaceful resolution to all international disputes and sincerely hope that the existing problems or any problems that may exist on the Continent will always be able to be settled through this means. Accordingly, they state that it would be highly preferable for the mechanisms and resources for peaceful dispute resolution to progressively improve, both at the international and the regional level, so that the atmosphere of mutual respect, thorough understanding and mutual trust between nations can be strengthened.
They state their decision to support the reforms to the OAS whose goal is to revitalize it and make it even more effective as an instrument for security and cooperation on the Continent.
In view of the violent situation in which the world finds itself, particularly in recent times on the Continent, and the contempt for liberty, integrity and the life of human beings, outside of any legal framework, they express their most vigorous condemnation and rejection of terrorism as the most censurable form of violating human rights.
1336
Annex 222
Annex 222
1337
They ratify the position formulated by developing countries in international agencies and forums, aimed at obtaining a re-ordering of the economic relations with industrialized nations on a basis of constructive dialogue. In this regard, they highlight the importance of improving access to the global markets by products from developing countries. In accordance with those goals, they emphasize how appropriate it is to seek solutions that will ensure remunerative prices for raw materials, to which end they underscore that it is fundamental to eliminate actions that could distort the global market for the proper commercialization thereof. They also condemn any attempted discrimination by international financial institutions.
They express their trust that the Latin American Economic System (SELA) will fulfill its purpose of Latin American coordination, and will promote projects of interest to the region that will contribute to its wellbeing.
They emphasize that the dialogue established via the Declaration of Charaña reflects the endeavouring of the two governments to deepen and strengthen the bilateral
1338
Annex 222
Annex 222
1339
relations between Chile and Bolivia by seeking concrete solutions to their respective problems, especially with regard to Bolivia’s landlocked situation.
Along these lines, they indicate that, consistently with this spirit, they initiated negotiations aimed at finding an effective solution that allows Bolivia to count on a free and sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
Taking as a basis both Ministers’ constructive analysis of the course of negotiations regarding Bolivia's vital problem, they resolve to deepen and activate their dialogue, committing to do their part to bring this negotiation to a happy end as soon as possible.
Consequently, they reaffirmed the need to pursue the negotiations from their current status, seeking to reach their proposed objective, in order to consolidate peaceful coexistence and broad comprehension that promotes understanding, as well as coordinated development in the zone.
1340
Annex 222
Annex 222
1341
They recognize the need to activate and promote bilateral trade on the basis of active use of the existing instruments and application of new financial mechanisms that stimulate and facilitate that exchange, within a framework of equilibrium and mutual cooperation. To this end, the Chilean Government offered a $10 million line of credit to finance Chilean exports to Bolivia, of capital assets and durable consumer goods, an offer that the Bolivian Government will submit for study by the appropriate agencies.
They agreed that within 90 days they would hold the first meeting of the Chile-Bolivia Permanent Mixed Commission that was set up in November of last year in order to provide a permanent channel for discussing mutual interests and expeditious and timely treatment of the problems that arise in the fields of economic and technological cooperation, physical integration and commercial and cultural development.
Finally, the Ministers stated their intention to maintain a lasting dialogue to achieve or coordinate consistent positions, because they felt that this will promote even greater understanding
1342
Annex 222
Annex 222
1343
between Chile and Bolivia.
Done in the city of Santiago, Chile, on 10 June 1977.
[Signed]
Patricio Carvajal Prado
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile
[Signed]
Oscar Adriazola Valda
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Bolivia
1344
Annex 223
Letter from the Chilean Embassy in Bolivia to the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs, No 480/114, 19 August 1977 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1345
1346
Annex 223
Annex 223
1347
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EMBASSY OF CHILE
LA PAZ, BOLIVIA
S. LA PAZ (DIRELAS) OF.Res.No 480/114
OBJ: Sending informative note for the month of July 1977
REF: F.A.(DIREL)Circ.Res.No.44 of 9 September 1975
LA PAZ, 19 August 1977
FROM THE EMBASSY OF CHILE IN BOLIVIA
TO THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
As an attachment, I am sending you an informative summary of this past month of July, which discusses matters concerning bilateral relations and the domestic and foreign policy of this country.
Sincerely yours,
[Signed]
Ricardo Lira
Interim Char
gé d'Affaires
[…]
1348
Annex 223
Annex 223
1349
3. Comments on the maritime question (Official Resolution 375/91 and 427/103)1
On Monday 11 July, President Banzer held a meeting at the Government Palace with former Foreign Minister José Fellman Velarde, regarding which the press indicated that it was the beginning of a series of discussions by the President about the maritime issue. This information was corroborated by the visitor, who stated that he had gone to the Palace to state his opinions on the maritime policy of the Armed Forces. In the comments on this discussion, it was pointed out that Mr. Fellman Velarde was the Foreign Minister of the MNR Government when relations with Chile were broken off in April 1962.
Now that several weeks have passed, it seems rather obvious that President Banzer called upon Mr. José Fellman Velarde for reasons of a political character (Of. Res. 91): perhaps in order to attract certain sectors of the MNR, because no other discussions on the maritime issue have been recorded.
With regard to the negotiations on access to the sea, it is important to note that, along with the publicity about President Banzer’s trip to Panama and Venezuela and the emphasis on the support garnered in those countries for Bolivia’s aspirations, the press on the 29th included a cablegram from the “Latin” agency reporting on statements made by the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs to the effect that a new formula has been contemplated in the negotiations and that it was expected to be presented officially. The information from “Latin” resulted in several negative comments in the newspapers “Presencia” and “Los Tiempos”. For his part, President Banzer made the following statements in early August, according to the version printed in the pro-Government newspaper “Hoy”.
1 [Note that the original in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile is incomplete. Despite best efforts, we were not able to obtain a complete original.]
1350
Annex 223
Annex 223
1351
“I do not know whether the statement by the Chilean Foreign Minister that they are expecting a new proposal is obvious, because we are not looking for a new proposal, we have ratified what we have done and what we have proposed and we will maintain those terms.” The President said that he is staying in contact with the Government of Chile; that in this type of negotiations it is not possible to set deadlines and that these will continue because there is willingness to do so.
In late July, members of the Falange Socialista Boliviana [the FSB] launched attacks on the negotiations on the maritime problem. The young people in that organization adopted agreements calling for relations with our country to be broken off if a solution was not reached in the short term. The FSB’s stance was fully political in character, with a view towards a planned national convention.
[…]
1352
Annex 223
Annex 224
Joint Declaration of the Presidents of Bolivia, Chile and Peru, reproduced in “Meeting held among Pinochet, Morales and Banzer”, El Mercurio (Chile), 9 September 1977
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 129 to its Memorial
1353
1354
Annex 224
Annex 224
1355
EL MERCURIO
Santiago de Chile, Friday 9 September 1977
At the Embassy of Chile:
Meeting held among Pinochet, Morales and Banzer
•
A Joint Declaration has been issued: decision to promote negotiations on Bolivia's landlocked situation.
•
Versions of international agencies at the place of the meeting
WASHINGTON.- (by Mario Oyarzun, special envoy)
-In an unexpected meeting that lasted one hour at the Chilean Embassy in Washington, the Presidents of Chile, Peru and Bolivia decided to promote the solution to the landlocked situation affecting Bolivia.
Generals Augusto Pinochet, Francisco Morales and Hugo Banzer issued a joint declaration after holding discussions from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the residence of Ambassador Jorge Causas.
The Heads of State agreed that the meeting was extremely cordial and friendly and they expressed their satisfaction with the results of this encounter, which is the first one held at this level among the three countries.
It is also the first meeting
1356
Annex 224
Annex 224
1357
held between Generals Pinochet and Morales Bermudez in their capacities as Presidents of their respective States.
The Heads of State conversed privately at first and then, Vice-Admiral Patricio Carvajal (the Foreign Minister of Chile) and José de la Puente (the Foreign Minister of Peru) joined them. The Bolivian Foreign Minister did not travel to Washington because he has to stand in for the President while he is out of the country.
TEXT OF THE DECLARATION
The following is the text of the tripartite declaration submitted last night after the meeting among the Presidents of Chile, Peru and Bolivia.
“On the occasion of the presence in Washington of the Heads of State of the Americas to sign the treaties that have just been entered into between the Republic of Panama and the United States, and at the initiative of the President of Bolivia, the Heads of State of
Bolivia, Chile and Peru met in this capital city to consider the status of the relations among their countries and the progress of the negotiations aimed at solving the problem of Bolivia's landlocked situation.
“As a result of the friendly and constructive analysis that they carried out, and confirming the willingness to dialogue that motivated them, they agreed to instruct their respective Ministries of Foreign Affairs to continue their efforts aimed at reaching a solution to this problem, which takes into account the desire for cooperation, friendship and peace that inspires them.”
1358
Annex 225
Telex from the Chilean Embassy in Bolivia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 301, 14 September 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1359
1360
Annex 225
Annex 225
1361
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
NUMBER: 301 TIME: 141230 MONTH: SEPTEMBER YEAR: 1977
FROM: EMBACHILE LA PAZ
TO: DIRELAS INFO DIPLAN
1. WE HAVE LEARNED THAT ON SUNDAY 11 PRESIDENT BANZER CALLED TO HIS RESIDENCE [THE] MAIN NEWSPAPER DIRECTORS TO ASK THEM FOR UNDERSTANDING IN HANDLING INFORMATION RELATED TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH CHILE.
2. FOUR OF THE NEWSPAPER DIRECTORS [IN] LA PAZ FULLY ACCEPTED [THE] PRESIDENT'S PROPOSALS. DIRECTORS OF “PRESENCIA” AND “DIARIO” CONDITIONED THEIR ACCEPTANCE ON FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN WASHINGTON.
3. PRESIDENT BANZER APPARENTLY EXPLAINED IN DETAIL THE MEETING, PROMISING TO SEND A COMPLETE MEMORANDUM ON HIS ACTIVITIES LATER.
4. IN DISCUSSIONS THAT FOLLOWED THE EXPLANATION, DIRECTORS OF “PRESENCIA” AND “DIARIO” REMINDED PRESIDENT BANZER THAT PUBLIC OPINION WAS OPPOSED TO EXCHANGE. IN RESPONSE PRESIDENT BANZER NOTED THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT PRESIDENT PINOCHET LEFT IT UP TO BOLIVIA TO SELECT TERRITORIES TO BE EXCHANGED AND THAT IT DID NOT MATTER TO HIM WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE CONTIGUOUS.
5. BOTH DIRECTORS OF “PRESENCIA” AND OF “DIARIO” WERE APPARENTLY RELUCTANT TO PREPARE THE PUBLIC FOR A TERRITORIAL EXCHANGE BECAUSE IN THEIR OPINION IT HAD ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY THE GENERAL OPINION. PRESIDENT BANZER INSISTED ON ASKING THEM NOT TO CREATE PROBLEMS AND TO HELP HIM ENSURE THAT BOLIVIA OBTAINS AN OUTLET TO THE SEA.
6. THE OUTCOME OF THIS MEETING WAS COMMUNICATED BY [THE] PRESS SECRETARY OF [THE] PRESIDENT’S OFFICE, PUBLISHED IN THE PRESS TODAY, CHRONOLOGICALLY RELATING ALL THE DETAILS, ACTIVITIES AND PRINCIPAL PROPOSALS MEETING WITH PRESIDENTS PINOCHET AND MORALES.
7. BY POUCH TOMORROW I WILL SEND TEXT OF PRESS RELEASE, PRINCIPAL PARAGRAPHS OF WHICH RELATE TO MEETING PRESIDENT PINOCHET. I SEND CABLE 302.
DAZA
1362
Annex 226
“Foreign Minister Patricio Carvajal, ‘Our territory won’t be sold or given away’”, La Segunda (Chile), 17 September 1977 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
La Segunda (Chile)
1363
1364
Annex 226
Annex 226
1365
FOREIGN MINISTER PATRICIO CARVAJAL
“Our territory won’t be sold or given away”
“Our territory won't be sold or given away”, Foreign Minister Patricio Carvajal said emphatically when he was asked about the status of the discussions about Bolivia’s landlocked situation.
In an exclusive interview granted to “La Segunda”, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that “we have had a very frank, clear and well defined line with Bolivia”, as shown in the document of December 1975, which has been approved in principle by that country.
“Our offer remains valid. We think that this is the solution we have. We cannot consider a solution that cuts or reduces the extension of Chile. Our territory won’t be sold or given away. Way back in 1907, 300 square meters were exchanged with Bolivia without presenting any problems. And the matter now could be considered in the same way. We do not intend to modify our boundary treaties with neighbouring countries unless there is a bilateral agreement”, commented Minister Carvajal.
Foreign Minister Carvajal, who will travel to the United Nations next week to attend a new regular session of that organization, taking advantage of the opportunity to continue talking about the matter with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and Peru.
Always referring to the Bolivian situation, the Foreign Minister said that the 1975 agreement, by which a strip of territory in the northern part of the country was offered in exchange, was adopted with great labour and after numerous consultations, until the proper formula was found.
All of this was done on a confidential basis. And on this basis continued the talks that culminated when in Washington, recently, the Presidents of Chile, Peru and Bolivia met at the residence of Ambassador Jorge Cauas.
[...]
1366
Annex 227
Verbatim Record of the Seventh Plenary Meeting of the Thirty-Second Session of the United Nations General Assembly, UN Doc A/32/PV.7, 26 September 1977 (extract)
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL7/803/05/pdf/NL780305.p…;, pp 73 and 88-91
1367
1368
Annex 227
Annex 227
1369
1370
Annex 227
Annex 227
1371
1372
Annex 227
Annex 228
Letter from the Chilean Ambassador to Bolivia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 571/148, 28 September 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1373
1374
Annex 228
Annex 228
1375
E. LA PAZ (DIPLAN) RES. No. 571/148
RE: Statements by representatives of Bolivian Government about exchange of territory.
REF: Of.Res.No. 568/146 of 27 SEP 77
LA PAZ, 28 September 1977.
FROM: AMBASSADOR OF CHILE IN BOLIVIA
TO: MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DIPLAN)
1. In view of the Bolivian public’s reaction over the past few days, I think it would be useful for the management of your Department, and as a supplement to what I reported in my confidential official letter No. 568/146, to provide you with the primary statements made by representatives of the Government or entities of Bolivia that are favourable to the exchange of territories, made during 1975 and 1976.
2. In his message to the nation on 21 December 1975, President Banzer said:
“It is my duty to inform the people of Bolivia that Chile’s reply, as expected, involves the exchange of equivalent territories that do not alter the territorial extension of both countries, nor their wealth or safety.
In this regard, the National Government is responsibly considering this proposal, and procuring that whichever the outcome, it does not limit the development of our country, its prospects for improving the standard of living of the people and, last but not least, the preservation of the national wealth provided by its natural resources. In other words, we cannot intend to shift from being a confined country to a mortgaged one.
In light of this background that I am now sharing with our people, the Government considers that the reply of the Chilean Government to the Bolivian proposal constitutes an acceptable global basis for negotiations.”
These ideas were repeated by the President in a television program broadcast on 28 December.
3. On 6 January 1976, the texts of the Bolivian proposal
1376
Annex 228
Annex 228
1377
and Chile’s response were made public. Along with this, the terms of the instructions given by the Bolivian Foreign Ministry to the Bolivian Ambassador in Santiago,
Mr. Guillermo Gutiérrez Vea Murguía, were also disclosed. These instructions state:
"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic has sent specific instructions to the Bolivian Ambassador in Santiago with respect to the Chilean proposal. In said instructions, the formula set forth in the response is globally accepted, in the parts that agree with the Bolivian proposal, and other aspects are left pending for a future stage of negotiation. In the same way, the principle of territorial exchange is accepted as a contribution by both countries that will make possible a cordial understanding.
The instructions set forth the National Government’s opinion of the points contained in the Chilean response, which are as follows:
1. The Bolivian government agrees that for a pragmatic negotiation that allows our country to obtain its own and sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean, the current reality must be considered.
2. The National Government agrees to the cession to Bolivia of a sovereign maritime coast, linked to Bolivian territory by a sovereign strip of land, whose northern boundary is the border between Chile and Peru. As for the southern boundary, in principle, the points of reference proposed by the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs Office are considered admissible, but the proper adjustments must be studied afterwards.
3. The acceptance of a simultaneous exchange of territories is subject to a clarification of the maritime area, in view of the fact that the extension of internal waters, territorial sea and patrimonial sea has not yet been defined by the International Community.
Indeed, the Law of the Sea is in the process of being codified, and this codification has not made substantive progress.
Therefore, this point should be the object of careful negotiation that takes into account principles of equity and the national interests.
4. The National Government has stated that the territories that are likely to be exchanged should be determined through an evaluation by the proper organizations in Bolivia and Chile. Therefore, Bolivia reserves the right to negotiate the areas that might potentially be exchanged.”
4. On 14 February 1976, the Bolivian Ambassador in Santiago Guillermo Gutiérrez Vea Murguía provided the press with a written statement, the final paragraphs of which read as follows:
1378
Annex 228
Annex 228
1379
“I feel proud to have participated in the political and diplomatic success that is clearly demonstrated by the fact that we have sat down at a negotiating table in Chile; that this country has accepted the existence of the problem of our landlocked situation and offers us a solution through a sovereign maritime coastline, connected to Bolivian territory by an equally sovereign strip of territory.
I think that once the differences are ironed out and the collateral issues raised in the Chilean response are resolved, it will be up to the Bolivian people to faithfully acknowledge this irrefutable triumph and also to decide whether they really want access to the Pacific and whether they want to take advantage of the present climate, incurring a cost that can and should be minimized in order to obtain the maximum advantages for our country. In this respect, we must remember that the negotiations are pending with respect to several problems that are a cause of great concern to all Bolivians.”
5. On 10 March 1976, Foreign Minister Guzmán Soriano published an official statement, the following sentences from which are set forth below:
“We have categorically stated that we accept the global bases for negotiation, which take into account the reciprocal interests of both countries, especially with regard to issues on which there are points of agreement, leaving for a future stage of negotiation all other points contained in the documents on which such negotiations are based, i.e., Bolivia's proposal and the response given by the Government of Chile.
Consequently, it must be clearly established that our Government has not agreed to the demilitarization of the area to be ceded to Bolivia, because that would be a limitation of sovereignty, nor to the use of all the waters in the River Lauca, nor to a territorial exchange that includes maritime areas.”
6. On 18 April the Bolivian Government presented an official document on the maritime matter, point 3 of which reads as follows:
“3. The process of a prompt sovereign return to the Pacific Ocean is currently at a stage where both the Bolivian proposal and the Chilean response are in effect and constitute the global basis for future negotiations. All aspects related to the proposed solution are on the negotiating table. Therefore, no definitive or irreversible agreements have been reached yet.”
1380
Annex 228
Annex 228
1381
7. On 15 September 1976, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Force of Bolivia told reporters in Cochabamba:
“The global basis for the negotiations is the idea that an exchange appears to be the only form of solution, because it is very difficult to a country to agree to give away or sell a territory; we have to be very realistic and I do not think that the Chilean people or any other people in the world would accept the gift of territories.
The Armed Forces are studying the possible areas to be exchanged if the opportunity presents itself in the negotiations.”
8. On the 19th of the same month, “El Diario” published the following statements by Foreign Minister Adriázola, in an interview granted exclusively to that newspaper:
“On this point and in response to a question about whether Bolivia or Chile would be the one to determine the Bolivian territories that would be handed over in exchange for the proposed corridor north of Arica, Adriázola said that “speaking of a handover has connotations in everyday language that it would be better to avoid.” He said that technically: “without a doubt, a handover is the act of transferring ownership, but I think it is more appropriate to call it an exchange or swap of equivalent extensions.”
Specifically he stated: “which means that Bolivia would be willing if the arrangement is satisfactory to transfer certain areas in order to receive other equivalent areas that would allow our country to return with sovereignty to the sea, thereby putting an end to the asphyxiation imposed on us by almost 100 years of confinement.”
He then added: “On the central point of your question, I would like to emphatically repeat that the Armed Forces Government of the Nation has determined that it is Bolivia’s exclusive right to indicate the possible areas for a potential exchange. With regard to the study of the alternatives that would be proposed to Chile to compensate Chile territorially for allowing us access to the Pacific Ocean, Foreign Minister Adriázola reported that the National Maritime Council (CONAMAR) has been working hard and has thoroughly studied the problem of the Return to the Sea, on the terms of reference contained in the global framework for the negotiation.”
9. In its 26 September 1976 edition, “El Diario” includes the version of an interview granted by the Bolivian Minister of Defence, General René Bernal Escalante, who said:
1382
Annex 228
Annex 228
1383
“At this point in the negotiations there is no alternative other than exchanging territories with sovereignty, which will finally give us our own coast on the Pacific.”
10. On 30 October, the National Maritime Council (CONAMAR) made public a document discussing the work performed by that entity and specifying its thoughts on the solutions to overcome Bolivia’s landlocked situation. It is important to note that this document was issued two weeks after the Second Meeting of Unit Commanders and Military Institutions of the three branches of the Armed Forces had been held in this country (13 to 16 October). It is worth pointing out what Points 7, 8 and 9 of that report said:
“7. There is no mutilation involved, but rather an exchange, for a cession of territory is not the same thing as a territorial exchange. Therefore we must insist on clarifying the situation. We will give a certain area of land, and will receive another area of the same size with access to the sea. In diplomatic negotiations in any part of the world, people do not always reach the desired solutions. World history is full of examples of this. The reason we are considering an exchange is that there are no other solutions for the moment. Another solution could be war, but we must ask ourselves calmly and dispassionately if we are in a position to precipitate a conflict when we lack both human and physical resources. Let’s look back at our most recent past, the Chaco War and the painful lessons learned there.
8. If we are not in a position to spend copious amounts of money, thereby mortgaging the country: if we cannot offer compensation in terms of minerals, energy, agriculture, cattle or industrial resources, what can we use to negotiate? Quite simply we can exchange, and we repeat, this is not a mutilation nor a dismemberment.
9. Our negotiators have managed to change some of Chile’s proposals: they are no longer discussing 200 miles, but 3 miles. Nor is there any insistence on demilitarization of the strip of territory because it will be subject to our sovereignty. Furthermore, the waters of the River Lauca will no longer be for exclusive Chilean use. Bolivia will study how to carry out a joint action that benefits everyone, without any prejudicial exclusivity. Through proper negotiations, all the points will be clarified once and for all, and always in an framework of mutual respect and consideration. Bolivia of 1976 is not the Bolivia of 1904.”
1384
Annex 228
Annex 228
1385
11. As can be seen from the statements quoted in this official letter, the Government of this country maintained its position in favour of a territorial exchange practically until the end of 1976. This attitude was the target of an intense campaign by certain sectors of the public, who were apparently being encouraged from abroad. It is important to note that the change in the government’s proposal revealed in the Message of President Banzer on Christmas Eve 1976, when he rejected the exchange, must be attributed to internal pressure and to a plan being sought to deal with the troublesome situation resulting from the unexpected proposal made by Peru in the month of November of the same year.
Sincerely yours,
[Signed]
Pedro Daza Valenzuela
Ambassador
RLG.bca.
DISTRIBUTION:
1. FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DIPLAN)
2. FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DIRELAS), info
3. FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Filing Desk)
4. E. LA PAZ, file
1386
Annex 229
Joint Press Release of the Foreign Ministers of Bolivia, Chile and Peru, 29 September 1977, recorded in an Aide Mémoire of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Memoria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 1977, pp 88-89
1387
1388
Annex 229
Annex 229
1389
NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING BOLIVIA’S ASPIRATIONS FOR
AN OUTLET TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN
As a result of the attendance of the American Heads of State at the Signing Ceremony for the Panama Canal Treaties in the city of Washington in September 1977, the Presidents of Chile, Bolivia, and Peru had the opportunity to analyze the status of the negotiations and they decided to give them a new impetus.
This objective was noted in the press release, which says:
“As a result of the friendly and constructive analysis, and confirming their willingness to dialogue with each other, they agreed to instruct their respective Ministries of Foreign Affairs to continue their efforts aimed at reaching a solution to this problem, inspired by ideas of cooperation, friendship and peace.”
In fulfillment of this presidential agreement, the Foreign Ministers of the three countries met in New York City on 29 September 1977.
The result of this meeting was described in a press release issued by the three Ministers, which says:
“In fulfillment of the mandate given to them by the Presidents of Bolivia, Chile and Peru at their meeting in Washington on 8 September, the Foreign Ministers of the three countries met at the Office of the Permanent Representation of Peru to the United Nations in New York City, in order to further analyze the negotiations regarding the solution to Bolivia’s landlocked situation.
1390
Annex 229
Annex 229
1391
“The Foreign Ministers, without prejudice to the meetings they will hold on the subject and to facilitate ongoing dialogue, plan to appoint Special Representatives. They also emphasized the importance of staying continuously informed of the development and status of the discussions.”
Since this mechanism to promote the negotiations had been defined at such a high level, it seemed obvious that the next step should be to hold the meeting of Special Representatives. The Government of Chile appointed Ambassador Enrique Bernstein to carry out the duties of Special Representative. Bolivia, on the other hand, did not appoint its own.
The timely appointment of the Special Representatives of Bolivia and Chile would have had special significance for the progress of the negotiations. In this regard, it is appropriate to note the statement made by the Peruvian Foreign Minister, Mr. De la Puente, at the United Nations General Assembly on 29 September. He said:
“In this Assembly, the Bolivian Foreign Minister has referred to the need for Peru’s consent to make any solution possible. We understand that, logically, for Peru to consider the possibility of its consent, it needs to see a basis of agreement between Bolivia and Chile that as of this time has not been reached. When this is achieved, Peru will establish contact with Chile on the subject in order to reach the prior agreement required between those parties, as established in the Supplementary Protocol of 1929.”
Later, on 21 October, in statements to the press, he said:
“Once Bolivia and Chile reach an agreement, Peru will be consulted for the purpose of giving the required consent established by the Protocol of 1929.”
The Government of Chile, desiring to promote the negotiation, implemented unfruitful initiatives with the Government of Bolivia in order for the Special Representatives to begin their activity. It was met with the most incomprehensible Bolivian passivity in response.
1392
Annex 230
Verbatim Record of the Thirteenth Plenary Meeting of the Thirty-Second Session of the United Nations General Assembly, UN Doc A/32/PV.13, 29 September 1977 (extract)
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL7/803/09/PDF/NL780309.p…;, pp 119 and 212-214
1393
1394
Annex 230
Annex 230
1395
1396
Annex 230
Annex 230
1397
1398
Annex 231
Letter from the Second Secretary of the British Embassy in Bolivia to a Desk Officer at the FCO South America Department, No 021/5, 30 September 1977
(Original in English)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1399
1400
Annex 231
Annex 231
1401
1402
Annex 232
Verbatim Record of the Twenty-First Plenary Meeting of the Thirty-Second Session of the United Nations General Assembly, UN Doc A/32/PV.21, 5 October 1977
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL7/803/17/PDF/NL780317.p…;
1403
1404
Annex 232
Annex 232
1405
1406
Annex 232
Annex 232
1407
1408
Annex 232
Annex 232
1409
1410
Annex 232
Annex 232
1411
1412
Annex 232
Annex 232
1413
1414
Annex 232
Annex 232
1415
1416
Annex 232
Annex 232
1417
1418
Annex 232
Annex 232
1419
1420
Annex 232
Annex 232
1421
1422
Annex 232
Annex 232
1423
1424
Annex 232
Annex 232
1425
1426
Annex 232
Annex 232
1427
1428
Annex 232
Annex 232
1429
1430
Annex 232
Annex 232
1431
1432
Annex 232
Annex 232
1433
1434
Annex 232
Annex 233
Confidential Memorandum by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the General Directorate for Foreign Policy, No 424, 20 October 1977 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1435
1436
Annex 233
Annex 233
1437
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM No. 424
FROM DIREL (DIRELAS)
TO DIGEN
I. At noon today, 20 October, the Minister of Foreign Affairs granted an audience to the Ambassador of Bolivia, Adalberto Violand A., in the course of which
Mr. Violand officially informed him that he would be leaving his position in this country in the near future. He said that what brought him to the Ministry was the mission of giving notice of his departure, which was sad for him, and that he would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the special deference that he has always shown to him, as well as for all the courtesies and the cordial attitude that he has always encountered in this Foreign Ministry.
[…]
II. Broaching the issue of the maritime negotiation, Ambassador Violand asked the Minister whether our Government will be represented in the Commission, recently agreed to for this matter, by Mr. Julio Phillippi. Foreign Minister Carvajal informed him that it is likely that they will have to find someone else because for the moment Mr. Phillippi is completely dedicated to his participation in the working groups agreed to with Argentina and that in any case, he assured him
1438
Annex 233
Annex 233
1439
that the person appointed would be a person with great ability and experience.
With respect to this new stage in the negotiations, Ambassador Violand indicated that he hoped that it will be a more dynamic phase, with greater fluidity, and asked whether at the Meeting of Foreign Ministries the bases had been established for how it would work. In this regard, the Minister said that in principle, the way the Commission would operate has already been set, because it is merely a continuation of a system begun earlier, in which legal scholars Enrique Bernstein and Julio Phillippi participated on behalf of Chile. Their duties were suspended as the result of a unilateral act by Peru. The idea now, he explained, is for Bolivia and Chile to bilaterally progress towards an Agreement and then hold bilateral discussions with Peru. The idea is to be able to continue consulting the northern country periodically, when deemed appropriate, so that what happened in the past will not happen again, when both countries had reached a possible agreement and everything fell apart with the Peruvian refusal. They would insist on the bilateral path, because it is obvious that there are many parts of the negotiations that have nothing to do with Peru. This does not mean that at a certain point in time, a tripartite high-level meeting could not be held if, for example, the negotiations came to a standstill.
Ambassador Violand took note of what the Minister had told him and said that in his opinion, the mechanism seemed to him more effective.
By way of information and anecdotally, Foreign Minister Carvajal told him that when the three Ministers met at the Diplomatic Headquarters of Peru in New York, as they were drafting the press release that they would issue, Foreign Minister Adriázola was informed of the statements by his country’s President, that the territorial exchange proposed by Chile could only be decided by the Parliament, while at the very same time, the three were discussing how difficult it would be to reach agreements if instead of three Military Governments, three Governments with a functioning Parliament were negotiating, with all the pressure from political sectors that that would involve. The Minister finished relating the anecdote, but he added that he had heard another one, i.e., that President Banzer had stated that the process was becoming very dynamic and that a break should be taken, a statement which our Government found a little disconcerting.
1440
Annex 233
Annex 233
1441
With respect to the first part of the Minister’s comment, Ambassador Violand went back to the origins of the negotiations and recalled that President Banzer, at a meeting in Cochabamba in the presence of more than a hundred dignitaries, said that he was going to make a consultation about this issue of the exchange. The Ambassador believes that his President has not been clear whether this consultation would be made to a special Parliament established for this matter or to a democratically elected Parliament. The Minister answered that according to his information, on the most recent occasion, President Banzer had referred to a democratically elected Parliament. In this regard, the Ambassador stated that he will find out more about the real meaning of the President’s statement.
As for the break in the negotiations that President Banzer considers necessary, his Ambassador opined that what he meant by that was that they should be referred to the level of a Commission. Confidentially, he is aware that a slate of three candidates has been presented to elect his country’s Representative.
[…]
IV. The meeting was concluded, but not before the visiting Ambassador again thanked the Minister for all the courtesies received.
V. The official in charge of the Bolivia Desk, First Secretary Carmen Lynam, attended the meeting and took these notes.
Santiago, 20 October 1977
1442
Annex 234
Letter from the President of Chile to the President of Bolivia, 23 November 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 76 to its Memorial
1443
1444
Annex 234
Annex 234
1445
Santiago, 23 November 1977
His Excellency
Hugo Banzer Suárez
General of the Armed Forces
President of the Republic of Bolivia
La Paz
Dear Mr. President:
On the various occasions on which we have met, I have indicated to you the priority that I attach to our relations with your country and my decision to seek formulas for cooperation that will promote the mutual interests of our two Nations.
The current state of the relations between Chile and Bolivia makes it advisable to reiterate those purposes of cooperation, and to be faithful to our responsibility in the search for specific formulas that will make it effective.
My Government appreciates the special importance that the current negotiations to give Bolivia a sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean have in the context of our relations.
My Government maintains unchanged the political will that gave rise to these negotiations and is willing to move ahead with them in accordance with the desires and the with the intensity that Your Excellency deems advisable.
At the United Nations Assembly in New York, our Ministers of Foreign Affairs agreed to appoint Special Representatives to activate the negotiations. In this regard, my Government is also prepared to agree, if Your Excellency deems it proper and expedient, to accelerate the action of the Special Representatives of our two countries.
I consider that at the current stage of the negotiations it would be advisable to evaluate what has taken place, to specify the problems that must be overcome and to suggest future action. The Special Representatives could perform useful work in this regard.
Having acknowledged the importance of these negotiations, I believe that it is necessary to point out possibilities for cooperation that exist in other areas. At the present time the relations between our two countries could be enriched substantially if we aimed to seek formulas to intensify our economic relations, to promote cultural, scientific and technological cooperation, to overcome contingent problems, to increase and improve the communications systems and make the free transit system that our two Nations have agreed in favour of Bolivia more fluid and more effective.
1446
Annex 234
I am convinced that if our Governments apply themselves to seeking means and formulas that make this cooperation possible, a lasting work in our mutual interest can be advanced.
I take this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency the assurance of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
AUGUSTO PINOCHET UGARTE
Army General
President of the Republic of Chile
Annex 235
Letter from the President of Bolivia to the President of Chile, 21 December 1977
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 77 to its Memorial
1447
1448
Annex 235
Annex 235
1449
PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
La Paz , 21 December 1977
Excellency
Augusto Pinochet Ugarte,
General of the Army,
President of the Republic of Chile,
SANTIAGO DE CHILE
Mr. President:
I have thoroughly read Your Excellency’s kind note dated 23 November.
Since our meeting in Charaña, which I attended persuaded by the patriotic Bolivian duty that every Bolivian person has of doing whatever is on his behalf to seek the solution for the geographical confinement affecting my country, which has been my invariable conduct by expressing to your Excellency, with the most absolute sincerity, my Government’s concerns regarding the negotiating process in its different stages.
The status of the negotiations aimed at ending the Bolivian landlocked situation forces us to serious reflections. In order to place ourselves before the real prospects of what could be done in the future, I think is basic to make a short review of what happened from August 1975. Only after such analysis we would be able to determine the practical scope of the political will reaffirmed by Your Excellency to boost the significant diplomatic negotiations that Bolivia is committed to.
As part of a plan of harmonious coexistence, integration and shared development, my Government proposed, in August 1975, to start negotiations aimed to obtain a strip of sovereign territory, in the North of Arica, with geographic continuity.
As Your Excellency well knows, additional conditions were also required that could make such access through the strip, a minimally acceptable solution to Bolivia’s confinement by searching together for an additional instrument to ensure my country an appropriate rhythm of economic and social development. Obviously, in this vision the extension of the maritime front and the capability for full sovereignty that Bolivia would exercise over the territory the subject of the diplomatic negotiations represented a fundamental character.
Your Government formally responded to the Bolivian proposal on
19 December 1975, conditioning the eventual arrangement on factors that hindered “ab
1450
Annex 235
Annex 235
1451
initio” the negotiating process. Despite that, the Bolivian and Chilean documents constituted general terms, and it was understood that on that global basis it would be possible to move forward with seeking an agreement that would promote an arrangement based on reciprocal conveniences, but also with a high sense of international justice.
The next stage consisted in the consultation the Government of Chile made with the Government of Peru pursuant to Article 1 of the Supplementary Protocol to the 1929 Treaty of Lima, regarding the transfer to Bolivia of a sovereign territory at the North of Arica.
The Government of Peru took approximately eleven months to answer this consultation. During that period, what could be concretely advanced with Chile which is not subjected to what Peru would ultimately say? Don’t we know that any territory transfer in that area must have Peruvian consent?
Finally, in November 1976 the Government of Peru revealed its points of view to the Chilean consultation.
Your Government, Mr. President, limited itself to decline to consider the Peruvian proposal, arguing that it impacted on matters within the exclusive sovereignty of Chile. However, Bolivia was expecting Chile to make subsequent efforts to establish such situation; clarification which is critical, as demonstrated, for the Government of Chile to be able to give Bolivia a territory which is the specific and legal subject of the negotiation.
We can enter into an abstract and endless discussion on this issue, but we are facing political decisions directly related to the vital need of Bolivia to be reintegrated to the Pacific Ocean and the expectations on which I have to serve ineluctable requirements of my people.
Convinced that international justice should be the solid ground to build the future of a friendly and peaceful coexistence in the area of the South Pacific, on 24 December 1976, through the Bolivian Ambassador in Santiago, I proposed to Your Excellency, certain criteria and principles that I deem appropriate to reaffirm and recall, because they correspond to fundamental definitions adopted by my Government:.
“1. We ratify our original proposal for peace, development and integration, which will provide a solution to Bolivia’s geographic confinement, through a free and fully sovereign outlet from Bolivian territory to the Pacific Ocean.
2. With the goal of a solution that does honour to international justice, brotherly cooperation and the broadest solidarity, I propose that the Government of Chile modify its proposal to eliminate the condition regarding an exchange of territory. I further propose that the Peruvian Government modify its proposal regarding the establishment of a territorial area under shared sovereignty.
3. In exchange, the Bolivian Government offers such contributions as may be necessary, on equitable terms, to the
1452
Annex 235
Annex 235
1453
establishment of a great tripartite development hub in the coastal zone that would be transferred to Bolivian sovereignty, which would result in mutual benefits for Bolivia, Chile and Peru.”
I appreciate your intention to boost the negotiation from its current status, which could be achieved by appointing Special Representatives as agreed by our Ministers for Foreign Affairs in New York City.
However, I ask myself, under which framework of significant projections would be made this task? Wouldn’t an assessment of the actions to date lead us to recognize the same obstacles we face today? I repeat, it is necessary that new factors are included into our dialogue to overcome the current stage, factors that must necessarily embody a spirit of widening of the conditions required for the settlement under which the unanimous decision of my Country can be reached.
The establishment of new conditions to overcome the current stage and lead us to the aims we set at the meeting of Charaña is not in the hands of Bolivia.
Only under these new circumstances would the meeting of Special Representatives make sense, and such circumstances will determine the rhythm and intensification of the negotiations.
Otherwise, I fear that despite good intentions, we can enter into another phase of delay, to which I do not want to expose my people who are waiting for 99 years, for the solidarity of other of nations to seek fair and stable understandings, as an imperative of the neighbourliness.
I look forward for Your Excellency’s prompt response, and reiterate the expression of my most distinguished consideration.
HUGO BANZER SUAREZ
General of the Army
President of the Bolivian Republic
1454
Annex 236
Letter from the President of Chile to the President of Bolivia, 18 January 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 78 to its Memorial
1455
1456
Annex 236
Annex 236
1457
Santiago, Chile, 18 January 1978
Excellency
Hugo Banzer Suárez
General of the Army
President of the Bolivian Republic
La Paz.
Your Excellency Mr. President and dear friend:
By personal letter addressed to you on 23 November, along with exposing the priority that I assign in strengthening the friendly relations with Bolivia, I reiterate my Government’s intention of promoting the ongoing negotiation aimed at satisfying the longings of the brother country to obtain a sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
I then asked Your Excellency about the convenience of promoting, with such objective, the action of the Special Representatives of our countries agreed two months ago, in New York, by the respective Foreign Ministers. Their first objective would be to evaluate the activities to date, specify the problems to be overcome and suggest future actions.
Finally, I insisted in the convenience of strengthening the ties between our two countries in various fields of international cooperation.
Towards the end of last December, on 21 December, I received your kind response.
In order to locate the real prospects of the negotiations that we are committed to, Your Excellency considered it appropriate to make a brief review of what happened from August 1975 to date, when the Government of Bolivia submitted its guidelines to commence it.
As Your Excellency makes reference to “factors that hindered” ab initio “the negotiating process” while remembering the clear and precise proposal of Chile of 19 December 1975, I consider appropriate to recall that this proposal was accepted in general terms and without objections by Bolivia, as stated in an official note of its Ambassador in Santiago.
Your Excellency also points out that the Government of Peru “took approximately eleven months” to answer the consultation made by Chile pursuant to the provisions of the Supplementary Protocol to the 1929 Treaty of Lima, and wonders “what could be concretely advanced with Chile which is not subjected to what Peru would ultimately say?”.
In this regard, it should be noted that, during the indicated period, there were two rounds of talks, in Lima and Santiago, designed precisely
1458
Annex 236
Annex 236
1459
to clarify some important points that Peru wanted to know in further detail: and also that, meanwhile, our two Governments continued the negotiations over certain aspects on the basis proposed by Chile. And certainly, during the same period there was not a lack of contacts between the Governments of La Paz and Lima.
It seems to be a charge on Chile in a paragraph of Your Excellency’s letter, which I consider essential to dispel: Chile limited itself to decline to consider the Peruvian proposal made on November 1976, without performing any further action, as expected by Bolivia. It is true that my Government rejected the aforementioned proposal because it considered issues unrelated to the matter and part of its own sovereignty. If it did not make subsequent actions, it was not aware of any initiative by Bolivia in this sense, or received any suggestion of its Government to promote it either. By the way, negotiations were not stopped then. Proof of this was the successive trips made by the Bolivian Foreign Minister to Lima and Santiago in June 1977, the interviews we had with Your Excellency in the city of Washington in September, and those meetings subsequently held by the Foreign Ministers of Bolivia, Chile and Peru in New York, also during September of the same year. In all of those meetings an agreement to pursue negotiations was reached.
Your Excellency should also remember the position assumed in your message of 24 December 1976 to the Bolivian nation, which was informed to me only a couple of hours before by the Bolivian Ambassador in Santiago, to whom I clearly expressed the Chilean position on that respect.
Finally, Your Excellency appreciates my purpose to boost the negotiations aimed at granting Bolivia a sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean through the appointment of Special Representatives, as agreed on last September. Together with expressing doubts about the results that these Representatives could reach, you consider that it is not “in the hands of Bolivia” to establish new conditions to overcome the current stage and continue with the negotiations.
The view of my Government is that the bases of the Chilean proposal and accepted in general terms by Bolivia, are the only viable and realistic way to satisfy the longing of the brother country. I could not, therefore, propose a different alternative. But I am confident that on these bases it would be possible to achieve an agreement capable of being accepted by Peru. I rely on the statements of the Foreign Minister of such brother and friend country, who has declared twice that the November 1975 proposals “are not necessarily a final solution formula but an alternative, an element of dialogue”.
Therefore, I still consider that in order to avoid obstructing the negotiations, it would be useful to appoint the Special Representatives, as was agreed just four months ago. It is clear for me that if they come to an evaluation of the points of agreement and those that must be overcome, and make suggestions for future action to be taken by our Governments, the negotiations will progress. This is not a “delaying phase” as Your Excellency seems to think, but a way to avoid the stagnation of the dialogue.
The negotiation in which we are engaged is not easy. It will demand patience and reciprocal goodwill, as we knew when we started it. The importance of the final result
1460
Annex 236
will compensate the time we devote to clarify doubts and difficulties which are inherent to diplomatic efforts of this magnitude.
I take this opportunity to reiterate to you Mr. President and dear friend the certainty of my highest consideration.
AUGUSTO PINOCHET UGARTE
General of the
Army
President of the Republic of Chile
Annex 237
Confidential Report to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia by Bolivia’s Extraordinary Ambassador,
13 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 177 to its Memorial
1461
1462
Annex 237
Annex 237
1463
REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
TO: Air Force General Oscar Adriázola Valda
MINISTER
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP
FROM: Lic. Willy Vargas Vacaflor
EXTRAORDINARY AMBASSADOR ON A CONFIDENTIAL MISSION
RE: MARITIME NEGOTIATION, PROPOSAL OF THE CHILEAN GOVERNMENT
DATE: 13 March 1978
INTRODUCTION. The mission entrusted to me by Your Excellency, on behalf of the Supreme Government of the Armed Forces, was carried out in Santiago, Chile, on Friday the 10th of this month. Two meetings were held on the same day, at the Chilean Foreign Ministry. The first meeting, held during the morning, was attended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vice Admiral Patricio Carvajal, the Chilean Ambassador in Bolivia, who is the author of this report, the interim Chargé d’Affaires of Bolivia in Chile and an official from the Chilean Foreign Ministry, who served as secretary. The second meeting, which was held in the afternoon after the Minister of Foreign Affairs had talked with the President of the Republic, was attended by the officials mentioned above, plus Ambassador Bernstein.
The talks were held in an atmosphere of openness, and thus were able to identify the basic statements for a proper understanding and confirmation of definitions, with respect to the issues discussed. The natural diplomatic courtesy was not a
1464
Annex 237
Annex 237
1465
hindrance to fully suggesting with sincerity the aspects that were set out in the instructions, with sufficient emphasis on achieving essential clarifications, as well as the aspects that arose during the course of the talks.
The following is a succinct description of the specific topics that were discussed:
1. Condition of the Territorial Exchange. This represents for the Chilean Government the essential condition and the sine qua non for the proposal of 19 December 1975. The Government does not think it is possible or proper to revise it under any circumstances, having to understand that the exchange would be “metre for metre, kilometre for kilometer” and refers to continental territory, plus the result of point 2.a) (maritime areas).
2. The so-called Three differences. Although they are part of the proposal, they are not essential elements because any agreement on them would not mean to have agreed on a basis of global understanding, because the essential part is the “exchange”.
Chile agrees that an addendum could be added to the proposal to incorporate clarifications to facilitate the negotiation; the benefit of which must be taken into account in comparison with the result of the previous point.
1466
Annex 237
Annex 237
1467
a) Compensation on maritime areas.
This element would be negotiable between zero and three miles, subject to compensation.
b) Lauca River.
It would be possible to discuss this issue in a Special Commission, but in parallel and at the same time as the maritime negotiation, even though formally it would not be part of it. They announced their interpretation that it involves “all of the water generated in Chilean territory to form the international river”.
c) Demilitarization.
At the proper time Bolivia would make a declaration based on its own sovereignty regarding its desire for peace, stating that its armed forces in the corridor are only there for vigilance and police safety, health and to ensure commercial trade.
3. Other types of compensation for the corridor. Chile does not consider other forms of compensation, because in its opinion, the exchange must be a simultaneous exchange of equivalent territory, even if it is not continuous. Any economic development would not be in respect to compensation, but in respect of the complementarity that would arise as a result of the improved relations between the two countries.
1468
Annex 237
Annex 237
1469
4. Expansion of the maritime front. The Chilean initiative originally submitted to the Peruvian Foreign Minister, with regard to a potential arrangement between Bolivia and Peru in order to expand the maritime front to the north of the Concordia Line, giving the sulfur mines in the Tacora and the canals of the Uchusuma and the Mauri as compensation, we were told that it had been rejected by the Junta Government in Peru.
For various reasons, Chile does not think that it is viable or possible to revise its original proposal regarding the southern boundary of the corridor.
5. Chile’s dealings after the Peruvian pronouncement. Apart from the matters described in the previous point, the Chilean Government has not engaged in any dealings with Peru (nor does it think that it should do so) to obtain its consent in accordance with the Protocol of 1929, and therefore, Foreign Minister Carvajal said categorically that it was up to the interested country (Bolivia) to make efforts to make Peru’s position more flexible and to obtain its acceptance that would make the negotiations with Chile viable, and this proposal, they repeated, was based on a realistic and sincere position, to meet the demand for a sovereign outlet to the Pacific.
Naturally, since Chile refused (declined) to consider Peru’s pronouncement, they are waiting for the negotiations to move forward with the identification of formulas (Chilean and Bolivian) on which Peru would be consulted at the opportune time, and to this end they had apparently appointed a Special Representative in the person of Ambassador
1470
Annex 237
Annex 237
1471
Phillipi. However, they did not state any opinion as to how progress could be made, given the current circumstances.
6. Meeting of the Special Representatives. Chile has nominated Ambassador Phillipi for this meeting, and is waiting for the Bolivian Government to do the same thing. Its understanding is that this is not a “tripartite” situation and that a Peruvian delegate could be called for consultation purposes and to request his opinion on the viability of agreements proposed by Bolivia and Chile.
In this regard, it agreed with the statement by Foreign Minister de la Puente upon his return from the meeting of the three Foreign Ministers in New York (October/77.).
7. Rhythm and intensity of the negotiations. If the primary condition for transferring the offered territory, which the specific and legal object of the negotiation, is Peru’s consent, and the unalterable price is the exchange, then given the objective fact that Peru has imposed another limiting condition, which is the trapezoid under shared sovereignty, and since Chile has not engaged in any negotiations to obtain Peru’s consent (nor does Chile want to do so), it was specified that there was no way to ask Bolivia for a definition of the exchange (and we had been told on numerous occasions that it had been accepted). The primary reasons for our rejection of the exchange were:
1472
Annex 237
Annex 237
1473
That the background to the problem makes it an issue of historic reparation.
Nevertheless, even considering the exchange globally, it has lost any appeal for the Bolivian public opinion and institutions, not because of circumstantial effects of internal politics (the current election process in Bolivia) but fundamentally because of the satisfaction of a condition (paragraph m): consultation with and approval by Peru. In other words, the proposal had a suspension clause the non-compliance of which would render it no longer valid. And now the Chilean Government is going back on its commitment and attempting to transfer the responsibility to Bolivia, even though it is not legally, politically or diplomatically within Bolivia’s remit.
Rejecting (declining) consideration of the Peruvian proposal puts the negotiation back at square one, even more so if, as we were told, they will not consider engaging in any negotiations to obtain Peru’s consent, which would allow them to proceed with the transfer of the territory.
For the foregoing reasons, it was stated that it is not up to the Bolivian Government to mark the “rhythm and intensity of the negotiations”.
8. Satisfaction of Peru's historical moral. When this point was raised, we received the following answer: “If Peru's claim related to the return of the Huáscar and a pavilion where it could raise its flag at El Morro in Arica, the Chilean Government, as in the past, present and future, would reject the petition””and would see no other outcome
1474
Annex 237
Annex 237
1475
due to the subjective nature of the proposal.
9. Proposal by the presidential envoy G. Amunategui. The possibility raised by Mr. Amunategui of "metre for kilometre" is rejected because, without any explanation, it was reiterated that an essential condition for the exchange is “metre for metre, kilometre for kilometre”.
10. Evaluation of the status of the negotiation. After indicating that the purpose of the mission entrusted to me was to clarify specific points, for a realistic evaluation of the status of the negotiations, I thought it would be appropriate to send you the evaluation that I believe they deserve:
Due to the inflexibility of the conditions, which seem insurmountable under the current circumstances, the negotiation is in a vicious circle, because essentially the exchange and the lack of titles for the transfer have eliminated the possibility of an understanding, and it was necessary to explore other alternatives to the proposal for a sovereign outlet to the Pacific. Perhaps to reach this objective, a gradual approach was needed, with a transcendent formula, essentially political and with an great expression of solidarity with Bolivia, one that would not demand the exchange of territory as a condition nor (if possible) a consultation with Peru.
11. Territory linking Bolivia with the Pacific, under a status of autonomy. In accordance with the instructions received,
1476
Annex 237
Annex 237
1477
we explored this topic at the morning meeting, so that consultations could be made at a higher level. The answer was positive in principle, because it was recognized how difficult it was to see that the negotiations would advance to reach a final solution under the current circumstances. The attitude was reticent at the afternoon meeting.
In any event, the scope of “autonomy” was described in greater detail, emphasizing that the political agreement would make it possible to create appropriate legal solutions. The need for a consultation under the terms of the Supplementary Protocol of 1929 was left for the consideration and responsibility of Chile, to the extent that the proposal in question “could be viable"” (expression of the Foreign Minister).
12. Railway from Arica to Vis Viri. The Chilean Foreign Minister was in favour of leasing this part of the railway, with Bolivia managing a sector of the port and warehouses for cargo, as a step towards rapprochement. I made him see that in reality, it would not constitute an interim solution, because it is not consistent with the spirit and scope of achieving an outlet to the Pacific through territory where we aspire to have sovereignty and that was preferable to move ahead with the concept of autonomous territory that would naturally include the exploitation of port and transport services.
13. Adjustment of railway rates. The issue was brought up by the Chilean Foreign Minister, who explained his Government’s reasons for approving the new rates, the level of which had not yet been
1478
Annex 237
Annex 237
1479
adjusted to the levels in force in Bolivia. He said that it was a private company that could not receive subsidies from the State.
In response, I told him that it was not understandable how, at a time when our public opinion was hypersensitive due to the virtual shutdown of the maritime negotiations, an action of this nature had been taken that would transfer its negative effects to the social and economic level. I took this as an example of the fact that the problems needed to be faced with the goal of coming up with specific, lasting solutions, since the frequency with which they arise would undoubtedly have a harmful effect on our relations.
Since this is a public service subject to a concession that was originally granted by Bolivia to the English company, when Antofagasta was under its sovereignty, with full knowledge that the concession would expire in the short term, we wanted to know whether it was possible to expect the Bolivian railway company to take over these operations, on the same conditions, in view of the fact that the majority of the cargo on the stretch Antofagasta-Ollague is from and to Bolivia.
They were not receptive to this idea, and it was agreed that the issue would be analyzed by the mixed commission at the meeting to be held next Monday.
14. Level of Diplomatic Representations. I must mention that the Chilean Foreign Minister stated his concern with the appointment of the Bolivian Ambassador, and asked what decision
1480
Annex 237
Annex 237
1481
had been made in this regard. When he received an evasive answer, he said that it was necessary to determine whether the desire is to maintain the representations at the level of Chargés d’Affaires.
Mr. Foreign Minister, I am submitting this report as an objective summary of the discussions that were held. I have avoided any interpretation subsequent to the meetings, so as to give you the most accurate version possible of what happened.
I am at your disposal for any additional information about this report or the performance of the Mission that you entrusted to me, and am pleased to express to you my most distinguished considerations.
La Paz, 13 March 1978.
1482
Annex 238
Confidential Memorandum from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile to Chile’s Directorate General for Foreign Policy, No 116, 15 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1483
1484
Annex 238
Annex 238
1485
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM No. 116
FROM: DIREL
TO: DIGEN, INFO MINGAB – SUBSEC – AMBASSADOR DAZA – DIPL
I. At the request of the interim Chargé d’Affaires of Bolivia, the Minister of this Portfolio granted an audience today, 10 March, at 9:00 a.m., to the Bolivian Chargé d’Affaires, who was accompanied by Ambassador Willy Vargas Vaca Flor.
Minster Counselor Saavedra presented Ambassador Vargas to the Chilean Foreign Minister and stated that he was the National Secretary for issues concerning Bolivia’s Integration, and was also a man of recognized loyalty to President Banzer, and therefore had his entire trust. This is why he had been selected as his Special Envoy for the delicate Mission that brought him to our country.
II. After greeting the Foreign Minister and thanking him for granting him an audience so soon, Special Ambassador Vargas announced that the specific mission that brought him to Chile was to state on behalf of his country’s President his concern regarding
1486
Annex 238
Annex 238
1487
the maritime negotiations – particularly because of the current circumstances in his country, which is currently faced with an election campaign in which they want to give the greatest participation to all sectors of the Bolivian public.
Naturally, he says, the weight of public opinion, in a situation like the current one, takes on a much greater dimension, and a very important part of that public opinion is related to and greatly interested in the maritime question.
On this point, and on behalf of his Government, he would like to talk with the Minister with complete sincerity so that an analysis of the negotiation to date can clarify the most important points, so that once these points are confirmed, the dialogue to reach specific agreements can be continued. To do so, and without any intention of turning this conversation into an interrogation, he would like to ask the Foreign Minister several questions to clarify the matters involved in the negotiation.
He asked whether Chile’s position on the “territorial exchange” has changed, particularly now that it has learned Peru’s response and heard President Banzer’s Christmas address.
In this regard, the Minister reminded him that Chile’s position is very well known and that Peru directly answered Chile’s proposal. Regarding President Banzer’s Christmas Address,
1488
Annex 238
Annex 238
1489
he said that now that he knows the Bolivian President’s intention of making this call on Peru and Chile, an intention that was transmitted by Ambassador Violand himself two days prior to the address, President Pinochet answered before the speech was given that “that was the principal condition and that it could not be changed.” The same thing was stated later at the meeting of the three Presidents in Washington, and has been repeated by himself on numerous occasions, both to Foreign Minister Adriázola and to Ambassador Violand.
The Minister explained that this was not a condition imposed at the whim of a person. He described the internal difficulties in drafting the note of 1975’ and said that the only way that they managed to overcome opinions against important sectors was to establish the condition of an exchange.
He also said that there is very clear awareness that, in principle, that formula was accepted by Bolivia – so much so that Foreign Minister Adriázola had twice told him that the terms of the 1975 note had basically been accepted by Bolivia. He even announced that he had gone round various military garrisons, where they had obtained support for this principle of agreement. The Minister said that afterwards, Foreign Minister Adriázola had told him about the trips by the Peruvian Ambassador,
1490
Annex 238
Annex 238
1491
Mr. Llosa, to the interior of Bolivia, primarily to Cochabamba, where in discussions with politicians, military sectors and the press, he had managed to reverse their support for the formula proposed by Chile, which in principle had already been accepted by the Bolivian Government. He pointed out that Ambassador Gutiérrez upon arriving in Bolivia had stated that “he brought the sea in his pocket”.
The Minister said that he is certain that both President Banzer and Foreign Minister Adriázola are clearly aware that Chile has taken the same unchanging position on this matter throughout. But that Chile understands that for internal political reasons of his country, President Banzer may say something different in public. He said that what Chile is asking for is to maintain the surface of its territory, and thus compensation must be made kilometre for kilometre, metre for metre. It is also important to consider that the cession to Bolivia not only involves ground territory, but also the added value of the ocean.
He compared this situation with the Agreement reached between Saudi Arabia and Jordan in which Saudi Arabia ceded a coastal strip of land on the Gulf of Aqaba to Jordan, obtaining as compensation more surface than it had ceded.
He said that he is convinced that President Pinochet feels genuine friendship for President Banzer and
1492
Annex 238
Annex 238
1493
his desire for cooperation must be seen as unquestionably sincere. However, if he is asked to erase this condition, he will be unable to do so. He noted that he does not see how the problem could be so great for Bolivia, because Bolivia has more surface area than Chile, while its population density is much lower. He explained that the current Chilean government could not even consider reducing the size of its territory because this would be too dangerous, given the pressure of public opinion and the judgment of history.
Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Minister said that certain points referred to as differences could be reviewed and clarified, and both parties could state their reasoning to return to the situation of understanding that existed at first.
Ambassador Vargas responded that although it is true that the Foreign Minister’s statement is consistent with the reality of the circumstances at that time, it is no less true that those circumstances have changed following Peru’s response, which brought about a complex change in the image of the situation among the Bolivian public, a change that has been exacerbated by the attitude of the press and by the political campaign for the Presidency. He referred to the fact that the Chilean proposal, accepted in principle, was before these events and that now that they have occurred,
1494
Annex 238
Annex 238
1495
Chile could recognize that there is a new factor that requires that it be adjusted. The visiting Ambassador said that during a trip to Chile by Foreign Minister Adriázola, Mr. Gregorio Amunátegui had told him that the compensation did not necessarily have to be equivalent.
This statement was immediately denied by the Foreign Minister. He repeated what was said about the exchange being metre for metre, as stated by the President of the Republic himself. The only thing that could be changed was the compensation with respect to the patrimonial sea, since it was agreed in principle that the internationally accepted measurement would apply at the time of the exchange.
Continuing with his questions, the Special Ambassador asked whether the exchange necessarily had to be territorial; whether it had to take place simultaneously; whether it could be mixed (territorial and creation of a development hub or another formula).
The Foreign Minister’s answer was clear: it is territorial; it is simultaneous; mixed forms of compensation are not allowed.
Ambassador Vargas then mentioned the topic of the differences (the waters of the River Lauca, demilitarization, and the patrimonial sea) and suggested eliminating the first of these from the maritime negotiation. The Foreign Minister explained that if the Government
1496
Annex 238
Annex 238
1497
of Bolivia officially requested this point, it could not even be considered by the Government of Chile, because the problem has been going on since 1938 and needs to be cleared up once and for all. He said that it did not involve all of the waters, but only those that have their source within Chilean territory. Mr. Vargas insisted that the topic could be separated from the rest of them because in essence it is not part of them. It ought to have its own term for negotiation.
The Minister again gave our Government’s reasons for declaring this a condition of the negotiations and indicated that it is a subject that, once and for all, must be cleared up, so that it will not constitute a thorn in the flesh of the relations between the two countries, as it has thus far. He also said that the River Lauca is in the region covered by the negotiations.
In response to Ambassador Vargas’s suggestion that the issue of the River Lauca be dealt with simultaneously but not as part of the negotiation, the Minister indicated that that would only be feasible if it is clearly established that a simultaneous agreement must be reached.
With respect to demilitarization, the Minister stated that there have been discussions to find the proper moment to create an Ad Hoc Commission and that it would not be a matter that would disrupt the negotiations. In this regard, Ambassador Vargas
1498
Annex 238
Annex 238
1499
said that he had understood that there was an agreement that the matter would be resolved by a unilateral sovereign declaration by Bolivia.
As for the compensation established for the area of patrimonial sea, the Minister referred to what had already been stated.
The Foreign Minister said that if the situation of the Bolivian Government were benefited somewhat by the fact that progress was made on these issues, Chile would have no problem with beginning to work on an Addendum on this matter, that would have a positive effect on the public opinion in that country.
The Foreign Minister told his visitor that Chile’s intention was to make the negotiation a dynamic factor in solving problems and therefore a factor in rapprochement between the two countries. That Chile had always demonstrated this and that it ratified this in New York at a meeting held by the three Foreign Ministers (De la Puente, Adriázola and Carvajal). It happened in New York that Foreign Minister De la Puente received a message informing him that President Banzer had just made statements to the effect that there would have to be a break in the negotiation, that thus far they had been progressing rapidly and that now the decision on the territorial compensation would be left pending until there was a Congress in his country. He thus emphasized that the attacks by the Bolivian
1500
Annex 238
Annex 238
1501
press on our country, which they blamed for the “stagnation of the negotiation”, were unfounded, and demonstrated that the idea of taking a break came from Bolivia, from the Bolivian President himself.
The Foreign Minister said that notwithstanding this fact, Chile had continued working; he informed him of his unofficial dealings with Peru to get Peru to consider the idea of an exchange for an extension of coastline that it would cede to Bolivia in exchange for the sulfur mines in Tacora and the waters of the Uchusuma and the Mauri. This idea was later rejected by the Peruvian Government, as stated by Foreign Minister de la Puente himself who, in principle, had stated that he was interested in the proposal. He also said that Chile had already appointed a Delegate to the Special Commission that the three countries involved in the issue had agreed to establish.
Mr. Vargas said that Peru had not complied with this idea of the Tripartite Commission and that it wants to participate solely as an observer.
Foreign Minister Carvajal explained that this Commission was not tripartite even though it was triangular. He explained that Chile and Bolivia, through their delegates, would study matters that lead to partial agreements and that they would inform Peru through them so that Peru could submit to its Government the points on which its approval was needed.
Mr. Vargas said that the system seemed ambiguous to him, because Peru could reject the negotiation, as it previously had done.
1502
Annex 238
Annex 238
1503
The Minister dissented from this opinion and mentioned what Foreign Minister de la Puente had said in New York when he remarked that Bolivia and Chile could only ask for Peru’s agreement once they had reached an agreement between themselves.
He insisted that Chile is waiting for Bolivia to appoint its Delegate.
Vargas asked about what other actions Chile had taken in addition to sounding Peru out on an exchange with Bolivia.
Minister Carvajal said that Bolivia is the one that has to make proposals, either to Peru or to Chile. The parties with problems are the ones who have to seek solutions to their problems.
Vargas said that our negotiation is a “vicious circle”.
He continued his questions by asking the Foreign Minister how possible it was that an understanding between Chile and Bolivia could be reached.
The Foreign Minister said that since there had been a change in the Peruvian Government, he thought that Peru could make its position more flexible. Unfortunately, he said, Peru’s answer and its proposal of “shared sovereignty” were created by Foreign Minister de la Puente, who came up with, or to use his words, “revived” this formula that had already been studied during the Leguía administration.
1504
Annex 238
Annex 238
1505
Vargas asked what President Morales Bermudes was referring to in Washington when he said that Peru’s historic moral had to be returned to it.
Foreign Minister Carvajal responded that he was referring to placing a Peruvian flag on the Morro de Arica or to the sinking of the Huáscar. He saw no future for any actions that Peru might take in this regard. There are things that must be left unmoved so as to not stir up old resentment.
Vargas asked whether intermediate solutions could be found to avoid having to have Peru’’ acceptance, to grant a strip of sovereign territory to Bolivia. He suggested granting Bolivia a leased concession to the railway from Arica to La Paz.
The Foreign Minister answered that Bolivia had been told on many occasions that we can keep talking and move ahead on the idea of a railway operated by Bolivia, which reaches Bolivian warehouses, that loads its products onto ships sailing under its flag, etc. He even suggested that we could form a joint Bolivian-Chilean Navigation Company, with all the contributions and assistance that Chile could give. He said that this would be a magnificent approach, that could later lead to a definite solution.
When the meeting was continued, in the course of the afternoon,
1506
Annex 238
Annex 238
1507
Vargas summarized what they had discussed at the meeting hours before.
He repeated that, given the change in internal political circumstances in his country, and the Peruvian proposal, the condition of an exchange imposed by Chile has become an enormous stumbling block in the negotiation.
He said that the most likely thing is that Peru will not change its position in insisting on “tripartite sovereignty”.
He said that these two points make the negotiation politically unpresentable in his country and that we should try to seek interim solutions.
Referring to the note (letter) from President Pinochet declaring that the 1975 proposal was in effect, he said that although the differences could be reconciled, there was still lack of understanding on the main issue, which is the exchange.
Moreover, he said, it has become necessary to find a formula that is binding on Chile and Bolivia but does not require Peru’s consent. He suggested that the “corridor” could be characterized as a concession of autonomy to exploit the railway system. Mr. Vargas answered that the concession should not only be for the railway service, but also for the strip of land offered in the negotiations, but without cession of sovereignty. He said that this is a means of creating the conditions that at a better political
1508
Annex 238
Annex 238
1509
point in time would facilitate the exchange.
The Foreign Minister said that they would study the possibilities, but that it is important mind Peru’s sensitivity. The Treaty must be analyzed in detail, but it is a possibility that certainly can be explored.
Now that they were addressing the issue of the railway, the Foreign Minister reminded his Bolivian visitor of the outstanding debt that amounts to 3 million dollars, which the Chilean Government needs in order to improve the conditions of service between Arica and La Paz.
He then mentioned the railway from Antofagasta to Bolivia and said that the new rates are fully justified because the survival of this railway depends on them. He pointed out that the Chilean Government does not have a rate agreement with the company that operates it, because it is not a State-owned company. It is a private company that, on the stretch that it operates, provides the service at a lower cost than the cost charged by Bolivia on the Bolivian stretches of the same railway. He also mentioned that the authorization granted by Chile was given after an exhaustive study of the actual costs, which is as much in Chile’s interest as it is in Bolivia’s, because we must not forget that the railway serves a substantial part of the transport of copper from Chuquicamata.
The Bolivian Foreign Minister said that their problem could be solved by creating better conditions on their highways,
1510
Annex 238
Annex 238
1511
which are the natural competition of the railway. He said that in the Chilean section, the highway to Tambo Quemado is practically complete, whereas in the Bolivian section it is still missing two hundred and forty kilometres.
The special Bolivian representative said that although he recognizes the truth of what the Foreign Minister was saying, they must try to find a solution to the problem of the rate increase, because this increases Bolivia’s freight costs by two and a half million dollars.
The Foreign Minister said that Chile is not in a position to subsidize this railway, since it is a private railway, and besides, within the political scheme of the Government, it is has been established that State-owned companies ought to pay for themselves.
Ambassador Vargas suggested that our countries should make an effort to envisage a solution to the problems such as the rate increase. He saw the possibility that once the concession granted to the English company to operate the railway from Antofagasta to Bolivia is over, his country could participate in a public tender for the service and operate it for its own account. Foreign Minister Carvajal said that the ideal thing would be for it to remain under the English company’s administration, because States are usually poor managers and their companies operate at a loss; besides, it has been shown that Bolivia would raise the rates even more. Indeed,
1512
Annex 238
Annex 238
1513
it already has higher rates on the internal stretches of the same service. Moreover, Chile would not agree, because as he has already mentioned, a large part of the cargo is Chilean minerals.
The Minister asked whether, in order to move ahead with these exploratory discussions to find a new formula, Bolivia had considered keeping the relations at the level of Ambassadors or at the level of Chargés d’Affaires. Chile needs to know what Bolivia decides in this respect, to be able to act accordingly.
The Bolivian visitor said that he cannot announce any decision on this matter because he has not been given any instructions.
It was reiterated to him the sincerity of our Government’s purposes.
The visitor says goodbye by thanking the Foreign Minister for granting him an audience; he said that he would emphasize to his Government Chile’s interest in continuing to negotiate and repeated the greetings sent with him by the President of the Republic and Foreign Minister Adriázola.
SANTIAGO, 15 March 1978.
CLN/mmv.
Approval
EDUARDO CISTERNAS PARODI
Director of International Relations
1514
Annex 239
Letter from the President of Bolivia to the President of Chile, 17 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, History of the Chilean-Bolivian Negotiations, 1975-1978 (1978), pp 74-75
1515
1516
Annex 239
Annex 239
1517
PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
La Paz, 17 March 1978.
His Excellency
Augusto Pinochet Ugarte
Army General
President of the Republic of Chile
Santiago.-
Dear President:
I am writing in response to your letter of 18 January of this year, in circumstances that, despite my best will, concludes the dialogue we resolved to resume on 8 February 1975, under such promising auspices.
Many explanations were absent until a very few days ago. Since they were indispensable for entering a new phase of bilateral dialogue (between the Special Representatives, as agreed to in September of last year), I made an effort to obtain them, going so far as to send a Confidential Envoy to Santiago.
Unfortunately, the doubts that we sought to dissipate by that means were indeed dissipated, but in a negative manner and contrary to my deepest desires. In the discussion that Ambassador Vargas had as Confidential Envoy with the Chilean Foreign Minister, the terms of which were personally reported to me in recent days, concepts were clarified and fears were confirmed that had been hovering all these years like a nebula, despite the insistent actions taken by our diplomats.
Personally, I have wondered on more than one occasion how, notwithstanding the optimistic expressions by Your Excellency, it could be possible to overcome problems and make progress with future actions. I am convinced that this is possible only when there is firm political will, that is clearly expressed and fully resolved, to reach an objective, particularly if it is of an international nature, and the coinciding motivation of the sovereign parties involved becomes indispensable.
The Confidential Envoy brought very discouraging news that confirmed the concerns that I had sent to Your Excellency, with total candour, in my letter of 21 December of last year. Among other minor concerns, I was surprised to learn that Foreign Minister Carvajal had told Ambassador Vargas that his Government had not
1518
Annex 239
Annex 239
1519
made or even considered any efforts to seek Peru’s prior agreement, as set forth in the Chilean-Peruvian Protocol of 1929; and that all the conditions for granting us a sovereign outlet to the sea through the North of Arica, as indicated in the response dated 19 December 1975, particularly with respect to the exchange of territory, would remain unchanged and would not be subject to further negotiations.
Although this rigid stance would turn the Chilean proposal from a basis for reconciling criteria into a non-negotiable “diktat”, I still ask myself: how can I encourage further steps without deceiving my people with useless meetings that are a waste of time?
The clarifications given have thus made it clear that the situation is painfully pointless. They have shown us, once and for all, that the Chilean Government has abandoned the spirit that guided the meeting in Charaña and in so doing, is destroying the key foundation for the dialogue that, with the greatest good faith on my part, we re-established three years ago.
Consequently, my Government has no other path than to suspend diplomatic relations with the Government presided over by Your Excellency, as I am informing your representative Foreign Minister Adriázola today. We Bolivians must take this stance until Chile understands that it in no way benefits from keeping an entire people indefinitely asphyxiated, as they will reintegrate to the Pacific Ocean someday, despite any adversity. We are encouraged by the hope that that day will arrive, not only because Chile will revise its radical position to date, but also because we count on an international consensus that endorses the fairness of our cause and because, with a noble and peaceful desire, my people have the virtue of valour, which makes them even greater as their difficulties increase.
I salute Your Excellency,
HUGO BANZER SUAREZ
General of the Army
President of the Republic of Bolivia.
1520
Annex 240
Declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 17 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, History of the Chilean-Bolivian Negotiations, 1975-1978 (1978), pp 78-79
1521
1522
Annex 240
Annex 240
1523
DECLARATION OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CHILE
Today, 17 March 1978, the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs sent a note to our interim Chargé d’Affaires in La Paz reporting his Government’s decision to suspend diplomatic relations with Chile.
To justify this measure, the Minister states that the resumption of diplomatic relations agreed to in the Charaña meeting was based on the intention to “bestow on the dialogue being re-established, the primordial purpose to reach through it a fair solution to the geographic confinement that was imposed on us 99 years ago.” He goes on to say that in the meantime, the Chilean Government has not shown any flexibility and has maintained all the conditions from its proposal of 19 December 1975. He further states that recent confidential actions taken at Bolivia’s initiative have shown that the Chilean Government has abandoned the essential commitment that justified reopening the dialogue that fundamentally sought its sovereign return to the sea.
The Government of Chile received these statements with profound surprise, for the following reasons.
1. The Charaña meeting was held at the initiative of the President of Chile. At it, both Heads of State resolved solely to “seek formulas for solving the vital matters that both countries face, such as the landlocked situation that affects Bolivia, taking into account their reciprocal interests and addressing the aspirations of the Bolivian and Chilean peoples.”
2. In December 1975, the Chilean Government proposed grounds for negotiations that were accepted by Bolivia in general terms.
3. Thereafter, as shown by the numerous meetings between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of both countries, by the express statements of the President of Chile to the President of Bolivia and by permanent instructions to our Embassy in La Paz, the Chilean Government has been reiterating its purpose to advance the negotiations aimed at satisfying Bolivia’s aspiration to have a sovereign outlet to the sea.
4. During a meeting held in New York, on the occasion of the last General Assembly of the United Nations, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Bolivia and Peru agreed to appoint special representatives specifically to move ahead with the negotiations.
5. According to a cable transmitted by Agency Ansa, President Banzer, in statements made to the newspaper “Presencia” acknowledged on those same days that the events related to the negotiations had been very dynamic, “and therefore
1524
Annex 240
Annex 240
1525
he announced that his Government would take a break in order to analyse the situation” and that it would be the future Parliament elected by the people that would decide whether Bolivia accepted or rejected the territorial exchange proposed by Chile. He also said that his Government would not make a final decision on the matter.
6. However, the Chilean Government insisted on executing the mechanism agreed to in New York. Indeed, in a letter dated 23 November 1977, President Pinochet said the following verbatim to President Banzer: “My Government maintains unchanged the political will that gave rise to these negotiations and is willing to move ahead with them in accordance with the desires and the with the intensity that Your Excellency deems advisable.” In a subsequent letter dated 18 January 1978, he said to him: “Therefore, I still consider that in order to avoid obstructing the negotiations, it would be useful to appoint the Special Representatives, as was agreed just four months ago. It is clear for me that if they come to an evaluation of the points of agreement and those that must be overcome, and make suggestions for future action to be taken by our Governments, the negotiations will progress. This is not a ‘delaying phase’ as Your Excellency seems to think, but a way to avoid the stagnation of the dialogue.”
7. On 10 March of this year, a special envoy from President Banzer, his Minister of Integration, Mr. Willy Vargas, met with the Chilean Foreign Minister in Santiago to analyse the current status of the negotiations and stated that, since the necessary climate for the maritime negotiations had been disrupted, his Government wished to explore the possibility of finding a “middle-of-the-road” solution which would not replace the current negotiations but would allow us to reach certain immediate objectives. The Chilean Foreign Minister told President Banzer’s Special Envoy that his Government was willing to study these proposals with due care to reach a solution that is compatible with the Treaties in force.
8. The decision to suspend diplomatic relations was taken at the very end of a technical meeting between Chile and Bolivia presided over by the Undersecretaries of Transport of both countries, with the aim of perfecting the current transit facilities that Bolivia enjoys. This meeting ended today with the signing of agreements that were highly favourable to the interests of the neighbour country.
All of the foregoing demonstrates that there are no facts to explain the unusual decision taken by the Bolivian Government, which will disrupt the harmony in the americas—today more necessary than ever before.
Santiago, 17 March 1978.—
1526
Annex 241
Official Declaration of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia breaking-off diplomatic relations with Chile,
17 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 147 to its Memorial
1527
1528
Annex 241
Annex 241
1529
BOLIVIA DECIDED TO BREAK–OFF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
WITH CHILE
(La Paz, March 17, 1978)
1. Today, March 17, the Government of the National Armed Forces has decided to break-off diplomatic relations with the Government of the Republic of Chile, a decision that has just been announced to the Representative of that country in Bolivia.
2. In order to understand the extent of this measure, it must be compared with its immediate predecessor, that is the resumption of those relations, agreed to on February 8, 1975. In fact at that time, resumption of normal Bolivian-Chilean bilateral relations was justified since both governments had decided, at a very high level and as an expression of a will for mutual understanding, to bestow on the dialogue that was being re-established a specific and primordial purpose with a historical content, that of searching in frank negotiations a fair and viable solution for the geographical isolation imposed on Bolivia ninety-nine years before by means of a fully sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
3. In the time elapsed since then, the Government of Bolivia has exerted its outmost efforts to find basic common grounds and fair terms in the attempt to reach a solution for the century long Bolivian isolation.
4. However, after three years of ignoring such efforts, disregarding the expectations of an entire people and scorning a high degree of the Americas’ feelings of solidarity, the Chilean Government has maintained,
PRESS STATEMENT
(Breaking-off Diplomatic Relations with Chile)
1530
Annex 241
Annex 241
1531
with no attempt at flexibility whatsoever, all its initial conditions, thus making what should have been the basis for a conciliation of criteria a non-negotiable attitude or “diktat” which not only counteracts the nature of any negotiation process, but willfully dismisses the spirit of the Charaña document and discards any possibility of making progress towards a solution.
5. Recent endeavors carried out at the initiative of Bolivia, by means of sending an Ambassador on Special Mission to Santiago, provide additional evidence that the Government of Chile has abandoned the essential commitment that provides a historical explanation for resuming dialogue that was justified by the decision to place it at the fundamental service of our sovereign return to the sea, thus leaving it totally devoid of a raison d’être.
In fact, far from finding the required receptivity for identifying new factors that would provide an effective projection to the Special Representatives level, the confidential enterprise confirmed highly disappointing positions and concepts, such as that Chile, in addition to maintaining all their demands contained in the December 19, 1975 document without any modification, had not exerted any efforts aimed at obtaining a previous agreement with Peru, neither did it consider it should exert any efforts for that purpose, within the framework of the 1929 Protocol. Obviously, those positions make it impossible to promote negotiations with real prospects of achieving their goals in actual fact, as it was analyzed in last February 14 statements.
6. In the face of those facts, and after exhausting all instances and everything that could be done to persuade the Government of Chile to adopt attitudes
1532
Annex 241
Annex 241
1533
that would guarantee observable progress towards the solution proposed by Bolivia, the Government of the National Armed Forces considers it its duty to decide to break-off diplomatic relations with that country. By all background information provided, those relations have lost all meaning for the Bolivian people, as long as Chile maintains an inflexible position.
7. It is necessary to enter into the records that the decision is the result of a very thorough analysis of the situation. It has been taken after having examined it with the earnestness required by a responsible management of external affairs, as it has been the invariable standard of governmental behavior during the presidency of General Hugo Banzer Suarez. It is also inspired in the undeniable good faith of all the actions of the Government during negotiations about the sea, and, as it was pointed out previously, no one is responsible for the lack of respect for that good faith. We went to Charaña with the earnest purpose of looking for a solution to the foremost problem of our nation, since serving the higher interests of the motherland should not be constrained by fear of uncertainty about any results. Our constant concern has been avoiding the combination of the deepest-rooted national aspiration with demagoguery or circumstantial debate, so frequent in internal political activities.
8. The Government of Bolivia reserves multilateral instances at the regional and global levels, specially in the framework of the Security Council of the United Nations, to again voice its demand of access to the sea. In those fora, our Representatives will fully present the basis and the extent
1534
Annex 241
Annex 241
1535
of the negotiations initiated by Bolivia on August 26, 1975.
9. We proclaim once again the unremitting right due to the Bolivian nation to reintegrate itself to the Pacific Ocean, and to reassume the maritime sovereignty of which we were so brutally dispossessed in an unjustifiable war of conquest.
10. We denounce once again the aggression carried out against Bolivia’s geographical heritage by the diversion of the waters of the Lauca River, the
reparation of that damage was firmly sustained during the negotiations about access to the sea.
11. We also consider that systematically placing obstacles to the solution of Bolivia’s geographical isolation cannot be an international objective, and that such an attitude takes on the shape of another aggression, this time aimed at the purpose of arriving at constructive agreements which would have provided undeniable benefits, such as the re-establishment of trust among neighboring countries, and it would have promoted ideals of peace, development and integration in the community of the Americas.
12. We vehemently call upon all Bolivians to set aside their political differences and other circumstantial differences and to express their strong will converging on the achievement of our sovereign return to the sea, because History teaches us that only those causes succeed that can count on the strength of an ironclad national unity. The day will come when Bolivia, by the unremitting decision of its people, will return to the Pacific Ocean because no country can eternally
1536
Annex 241
remain in isolation, nor can any nation be insensitive to the demands for solidarity, because the international consensus guarantees the justice of our cause, and because we Bolivians have the virtue of courage that grows to gigantic proportions in adversity.
Annex 242
Declaration of the Government of Chile of 23 March 1978
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, History of the Chilean-Bolivian Negotiations, 1975-1978 (1978), p 80
1537
1538
Annex 242
Annex 242
1539
DECLARATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CHILE
The same day, 17 March 1978, on which Bolivia officially communicated its decision to break off diplomatic relations with Chile, President Hugo Banzer answered a personal letter that President Pinochet had sent him on 18 January last.
In it, the Bolivian Head of State referred in particular to the conversion that his Confidential Envoy, Minister Willy Vargas, had on the 10th of this month with the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The illustrious sender referred to the unchanged condition of territorial compensation to cede an outlet to the sea, indicated in the Chilean Note of 19 December 1975 and says that Ambassador Willy Vargas “has clarified concepts and confirmed fears to him that had been hovering all these years like a nebula, despite the insistent actions taken by Bolivian diplomats.”
It is incredible that the Bolivian Government has a nebula about this in circumstances when that condition—territorial compensation—has been reiterated personally from President to President, from Foreign Minister to Foreign Minister, and to the two Ambassadors that Bolivia had in Santiago in the past three years.
Moreover, in the interviews granted on two occasions on the same day by the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Confidential Envoy of Bolivia, the Minister reiterated Chile’s point of view expressed on multiple prior occasions. Therefore, there was not any type of great change that the Bolivian Government was not previously aware of. These interviews were held in the presence of the Chargé d'Affaires in Santiago and the Chilean Ambassador in La Paz. The Chilean representative appointed for the negotiations with Bolivia, Mr. Enrique Bernstein, was also present at the second interview.
The Chilean Government reiterates that in its negotiations with Bolivia it has proceeded with the seriousness that characterizes the management of its international relations.
Santiago, 23 March 1978
1540
Annex 243
Verbatim Record of the Fifth Plenary Meeting of the Tenth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly,
UN Doc A/S-10/PV.5, 26 May 1978
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL8/105/71/PDF/NL810571.p…;
1541
1542
Annex 243
Annex 243
1543
1544
Annex 243
Annex 243
1545
1546
Annex 243
Annex 243
1547
1548
Annex 243
Annex 243
1549
1550
Annex 243
Annex 243
1551
1552
Annex 243
Annex 243
1553
1554
Annex 243
Annex 243
1555
1556
Annex 243
Annex 243
1557
1558
Annex 243
Annex 243
1559
1560
Annex 243
Annex 244
Verbatim Record of the Sixth Plenary Meeting of the Tenth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly,
UN Doc A/S-10/PV.6, 26 May 1978
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL8/105/72/PDF/NL810572.p…;
1561
1562
Annex 244
Annex 244
1563
1564
Annex 244
Annex 244
1565
1566
Annex 244
Annex 244
1567
1568
Annex 244
Annex 244
1569
1570
Annex 244
Annex 244
1571
1572
Annex 244
Annex 244
1573
1574
Annex 244
Annex 244
1575
1576
Annex 244
Annex 244
1577
1578
Annex 244
Annex 244
1579
1580
Annex 244
Annex 244
1581
1582
Annex 244
Annex 244
1583
1584
Annex 244
Annex 244
1585
1586
Annex 244
Annex 244
1587
1588
Annex 244
Annex 244
1589
1590
Annex 244
Annex 244
1591
1592
Annex 244
Annex 245
Verbatim Record of the Ninth Plenary Meeting of the Tenth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly,
UN Doc A/S-10/PV.9, 30 May 1978
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL8/105/75/PDF/NL810575.p…;
1593
1594
Annex 245
Annex 245
1595
1596
Annex 245
Annex 245
1597
1598
Annex 245
Annex 245
1599
1600
Annex 245
Annex 245
1601
1602
Annex 245
Annex 245
1603
1604
Annex 245
Annex 245
1605
1606
Annex 245
Annex 245
1607
1608
Annex 245
Annex 245
1609
1610
Annex 245
Annex 245
1611
1612
Annex 245
Annex 245
1613
1614
Annex 245
Annex 245
1615
1616
Annex 245
Annex 245
1617
1618
Annex 246
Letter dated 1 June 1978 from the Permanent Representative of Bolivia to the United Nations addressed to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations,
UN Doc A/S-10/18, 2 June 1978
(Original in English)
<https://disarmament-library.un.org/UNODA/Library.nsf/ff5669f6c76a379085…;
1619
1620
Annex 246
Annex 246
1621
1622
Annex 247
Letter dated 5 June 1978 from the Permanent Representative of Chile to the United Nations addressed to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations,
UN Doc A/S-10/19, 6 June 1978
(Original in English)
<https://disarmament-library.un.org/UNODA/Library.nsf/ff5669f6c76a379085…;
1623
1624
Annex 247
Annex 247
1625
1626
Annex 248
Minutes of the Second Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly,
26 October 1979
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly,
Ninth Regular Session, 1979, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/IX.O.2 (1980), pp 353, 356-372, 386-388 and 395-397
1627
1628
Annex 248
[p 353]
GENERAL COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING
Date: 26 October 1979
Time: 11:35 a.m.
Place: Salón Libertador (Sheraton)
President: Mr. Gustavo Fernández Saavedra
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Bolivia
Present: Messrs.:
Raymond Mathieu (Haiti)
Rafael Angel Calderon F. (Costa Rica)
Leonardo Kam (Panama)
J. Eugenio Jacquet (Paraguay)
José A. Zambrano Velasco (Venezuela)
Wolsey P. Louis (Dominica)
Oliver H. Jackman (Barbados)
Alfred A. Rattray (Jamaica)
Eliseo Pérez Cadalso (Honduras)
Gonzalo Romero (Bolivia)
Ernesto Vela Angulo (Colombia)
Viron P. Vaky (United States)
Eladio Knipping-Victoria (Dominican Republic)
Mauricio Rosales Rivera (El Salvador)
Roel F. Karamat (Suriname)
Raúl A. Quijano (Argentina)
Rafael de la Colina (Mexico)
Leonte Herdocia (Nicaragua)
Jerome Jones (Trinidad and Tobago)
Mario Marroquín Nájera (Guatemala)
Julio César Lupinacci (Uruguay)
Raúl Falconí (Ecuador)
João Clemente Baena Soares (Brazil)
Carlos García Bedoya (Peru)
George Odlum (Saint Lucia)
George Louison (Granada)
Alejandro Orfila (Secretary General of the OAS)
Jorge Luis Zelaya (Assistant Secretary General)
Annex 248
1629
[…]
[p 356]
2. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (Item 19 on the Agenda)
(AG/doc.5/79)
The PRESIDENT: The second item on the order of business is to discuss the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.5/79) (Item 19 on the Agenda).
The Delegation of Bolivia has asked for the floor in order to discuss this matter, but first I give the floor to the Representative of Chile for a point of order.
[p 357]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Daza): In the prior plenary session, this Representative spoke in order to state my country’s position on the speech of the President of the Republic of Bolivia at the opening session. That fact did not change the position we have been maintaining regarding item 19 on the agenda, which will be discussed here. Indeed, from the time of the Preparatory Committee meeting in Washington to date, my Delegation has been opposed to including this issue, because all indications emanating from the Bolivian authorities themselves have confirmed that this report seeks to affect sovereign Chilean territory and the validity of an international treaty that is in full force and effect, matters over which this Assembly has no jurisdiction whatsoever.
Once again, my Delegation would like to point out the serious precedent that is being set. I believe I am not mistaken that, with this action, the Assembly is opening up a Pandora’s box, which will hold drastic surprises in the future for many of the countries here represented, and certainly for the entire Inter-American system.
It is impossible for me to participate in a debate in which the territorial sovereignty of my country is disputed, just as I would not be able to participate in a debate discussing some matter under the exclusive sovereignty of other States. This is why my Delegation will not participate in the discussion of this matter. I will now leave this Room and will return and make our contribution when the meeting addresses other matters over which the OAS actually does have jurisdiction. With your permission, then, I will now leave. [The Representative of Chile leaves the Room.]
The PRESIDENT: Note is taken of the statement made by the Delegation of Chile. The Representative of Bolivia has the floor to make his presentation on Item 19 on the agenda.
1630
Annex 248
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Romero): Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor of reading a report on Bolivia’s maritime problem, for the information of this General Committee.
1.
History
For the last 100 years, Bolivia has been existing in a situation of enforced geographic containment as a result of the war with Chile in 1879.
On account of that war, Bolivia lost 158,000 square kilometers of territory from the department of Litoral. The coastline lost exceeding 400 kilometers in length and included the good ports of Tocopilla,
[p 358]
Cobija, Mejillones and Antofagasta, and the coves of Paquíca, Gualeguala, Cabre and Tames.
Bolivia’s rights to its territory of Atacama on the Pacific Ocean go back to pre-Colombian times. Since Spanish colonial days, they have been based on incontrovertible legal terms. Indeed, the Pacific coastal border of the Real Audiencia of Charcas and later, that of the Republic of Bolivia, extended from the mouth of the Loa river at 21° 27’ south latitude in the north, to the upper end of the Copiapó valley, at 27° south latitude in the south.
During the days when our nations were declaring independence, their new territorial boundaries were based on the principle of “Uti possidetis juris of 1810”, a long standing principle of American Public International Law. Consequently, as far as Chile was concerned, there could be no doubt about the legitimacy, sovereignty and jurisdiction that Bolivia exercised over its territory on the Pacific Coast. Chile’s recognition of these Bolivian rights was evident not only in the text of that country’s constitution, but also in the first bilateral instrument signed by both nations, the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, approved by the Chilean Congress in 1833 and 1834.
After 1842, a change came about in Chile’s conduct as that country became aware of the existence of enormous riches in Bolivia’s coastal areas. We will make more specific reference to this point later. It was then that the Chilean Government got its National Congress to pass a law by which it pushes its boundary with our country north to the 23rd parallel, south latitude. In view of this development, Bolivia sent several successive diplomatic missions to Chile to defend its sovereignty and assert its rights. Nevertheless, from 1843 on Chile made several advances north toward Bolivian territory. New advances came in the 1850s as part of a deliberate policy of expansion as laid out in no uncertain terms by their geopolitician, Diego Portales. These plans even went beyond Bolivia’s territory, as the invasion did not stop at the Bolivian territory that Chile said was its but continued into Peru.
Annex 248
1631
So much did Chile’s interest grow that it proposed to the Bolivian envoy Dr. Tomas Frías, in 1864, the purchase of the rich Bolivian zone of Mejillones. This proposal showed clearly that Chile considered those territories to belong to Bolivia, because no one buys what is already theirs.
So serious became the problems caused by the frequent Chilean incursions into Bolivian territory that it became
[p 359]
imperative to sign a boundary treaty, which was done in 1866. In that treaty, Bolivia ceded to Chile the land between the 27th and 24th parallels and Bolivia’s southern boundary with Chile was fixed at the latter. In addition, the treaty established a nefarious medianería, an agreement by which both countries shared in whatever resources were found in the area between the 25th and 23rd parallels.
In 1874, only eight years after the first boundary treaty, and following new difficulties, a second instrument had to be signed. This fixed the 24th parallel. The boundary eliminated the medianería, and stipulated in the fourth clause a new source of problems, that for 25 years Bolivia could not levy any new taxes on Chilean persons, industries or capital.
Sheltered by the arbitrary concessions of a dictatorial Bolivian government, groups of Chilean citizens settled on coastal lands. One of these groups which represented certain extra-continental economic interests, gave the Chilean government a pretext for starting the conflict. While the terms of these concessions were being finalized with the Bolivian state, the company offered a payment of 10% of its profits. The Bolivian Congress preferred, however, to impose a tax of 10 cents per hundred pounds on exports of nitrate. For protection, the company turned to the Chilean government, which invoked the 1874 treaty. Faced with Chile’s threats, the Government of Bolivia rescinded the contract with the company and Chile with no declaration of war, occupied Bolivia’s coast by force of arms.
Thus, in 1879, Bolivia found itself dragged into a war which it neither wanted nor sought. Unarmed, it had to defend its sovereignty, and requested the application of the Defense Treaty of Alliance which it had signed with Peru.
The war was waged on unequal terms. Chile had armed itself on a par with its intentions. Bolivia and Peru were caught napping and were almost completely without arms. The inevitable result was the consummation of Chile’s expansionist plans towards Atacama and Tarapacá.
In 1884, Bolivia had to sign a truce. Under the terms of this document, Chile continued occupying the Bolivian territory conquered during the war, controlled the customs houses and imposed advantageous terms in which they could send their goods freely into Bolivian territory. Because of this treaty, Bolivia had its coast
1632
Annex 248
under military occupation and was left without ports or transportation facilities. It had to endure a burdensome customs yoke and was economically strangled to the degree that it had no choice but to sign the 1904 Treaty.
[p 360]
Since it signed this treaty, Bolivia has not ceased its efforts to return to the Pacific Ocean. In 1910, the Bolivian Government requested the foreign ministries of Peru and Chile to re-establish Bolivian access to the sea by ceding to it the territories of Tacna and Arica, which were in the temporary possession of Chile.
After that, the problem took on such importance that in 1925, the U.S. Secretary of State, Frank Kellogg, the arbitrator of the frustrated plebiscite over possession of the territories of Tacna and Arica, proposed their transfer to Bolivia. The proposal was not accepted. Three years later, Peru and Chile signed a treaty whereby Arica was delivered to Chile and Tacna returned to Peru. The protocol to this treaty was specified that neither party could turn over the territories in question to a third party without the prior consent of the other party.
In their bilateral relations, and continuing Bolivian efforts, Chile offered Bolivia access to the Pacific Ocean on several occasions. Among these are the following:
- Under the terms of the Treaty of Transfer of Territories of 1895, Chile was committed to deliver Tacna and Arica to Bolivia if the plebiscite agreed upon with Peru favored it.
- If this attempt failed, Chile agreed to turn over Vítor Cove, up to the Camarones gorge, or an equivalent piece of land.
- In January 1920, Chile agreed to give Bolivia access to the sea, north of Arica.
- In 1923, when Bolivia proposed a revision of the 1904 Treaty, Chile agreed to sign a new treaty to placate Bolivian demands, provided that it did not imply any disruption of Chilean territorial continuity.
- In 1950, Chile agreed to enter into direct negotiations “aimed at searching for a formula that would make it possible to give Bolivia its own sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, and for Chile to obtain compensation of a non-territorial character which effectively takes into account its interests.”
- In 1956, Chile once again stated its agreement to resolve Bolivia’s landlocked situation through “strictly confidential Negotiations.”
Annex 248
1633
- In 1961, the Chilean Ambassador in La Paz reiterated his country’s offer, in a memorandum addressed to the Bolivian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
[p 361]
- In 1975, new negotiations between Chile and Bolivia started. The negotiations failed because of Chile’s insistence on receiving territorial compensation which, in the end, brought about the rupture of diplomatic ties between the two countries.
All of these agreements amounted to nothing in the end since Chile made offers that depended on the convenience of the moment or to avoid any chance of conflict with third powers. Once the danger passed or circumstances changed, Chile forgot the negotiations.
On the other hand, if it were true–as has been alleged–that Bolivia never had any right to the sea, how then can it be explained that Chile was ready to negotiate the matter?
2.
Background of the 1904 Treaty
After the battle of Tacna, or Alto de la Alianza, on 26 May 1880, Bolivia terminated its active participation in the War of the Pacific. Four years later, on 4 April 1884, the governments of Bolivia and Chile, as said before, signed a Truce in Valparaiso.
Article 2 of this pact provided that the lands of the Atacama coast would remain in the possession of Chile until a peace treaty were signed. During the term of this truce, Chile was to govern the lands between the 23rd parallel and the mouth of the Loa River at the Pacific Ocean under the political and administrative regulations established by Chilean law.
Moreover, to benefit its own industry, Chile demanded in Article 5 that Bolivia would not change any duties on Chilean products.
Finally, under Article 6, Chile imposed a heavy war compensation because it alleged Bolivia had confiscated property owned by Chilean residents. This article stipulated that, at the port of Arica, import fees based on the Chilean tariff schedule would be charged on goods going to Bolivia, and that no other fees could be levied on them upon entry into Bolivia. Chile provided that it would take approximately 55% of the total amount collected by the Arica customs house, that is, 25% to cover the customs service and 30% to cover the value of the Chilean property mentioned above.
1634
Annex 248
Four years after the pact was signed, Chile created the Province of Antofagasta in the Bolivian territory it had occupied. The
[p 362]
formal protest made by the Bolivian government against this violation of the provisions of the truce was completely ignored.
The tense relations between Argentina and Chile stemming from border problems and the possibility that Bolivia might form an alliance with Argentine to relieve the oppressive effects of the truce led the Government of Chile to the decision to sign a new treaty with Bolivia.
As a result, three treaties were signed in Santiago on 18 May 1895.
The first was a Treaty of Peace and Amity. In it, Bolivia acknowledged Chile’s domain over the lands south of the Loa River to the 23rd parallel.
The second was a trade and transit agreement.
The third was a special treaty covering the transfer of territories; this provided that if Chile acquired permanent domain and sovereignty over the territories of Tacna and Arica, it was required to transfer them to Bolivia in the same form and extension in which it received them. Should it not obtain those territories, Chile was to cede Vitor Cove or some similar lands to Bolivia, as noted in the preceding chapter.
Even though they were ratified by both countries, those treaties were never enforced.
At the beginning of this century, when Bolivia was suffering the damaging effects of the situation imposed by the truce, Chile sent as its Ambassador Plenipotentiary, Mr. Abraham Konig, who gave in his country’s name, in an official note addressed to our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the most eloquent possible proof of how things actually stood. The note began by retracting the commitment made in 1895 with respect to Tacna and Arica. “In an attempt to put it as clearly as international affairs sometimes demand– Chile stated in Konig’s note that Bolivia must not count on the transfer of the TERRITORIES OF TACNA AND ARICA, EVEN IF THE RESULTS OF THE PLEBISCITE ARE FAVOURABLE TO CHILE… CHILE HAS OCCUPIED THE DEPARTMENT OF LITORAL AND HAS TAKEN IT OVER ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME RIGHT THAT GERMANY HAD TO ANNEX ALSACE LORRAINE TO ITS EMPIRE… OUR RIGHT ARE BORN OF OUR VICTORY, THE HIGHEST LAW AMONG NATIONS… THAT THE LITORAL IS RICH IN RESOURCES AND WORTH MANY MILLIONS WE ALREADY KNEW. WE ARE KEEPING IT BECAUSE IT IS VALUABLE. IF IT WERE NOT, RETAINING IT WOULD BE OF NO INTEREST.…”
Annex 248
1635
With these arguments as the true causes of the war, Chile successfully forced the signing of the Peace Treaty of 20 October 1904, which signified the loss of the Bolivian coast.
[p 363]
The 1904 Treaty was imposed at a time there was already a clear understanding in the Americas with respect to proscribing the use of force in international relations. A century before Europe was to do so, the Americas denied the validity of territorial gains won by the use of armed force. The Marshall of Ayacucho, Antonio José de Sucre, Bolivia’s chief lieutenant, had already proclaimed in 1829 that victory does not confer rights.
The principle of proscription of armed force had been advocated in the Americas since the appearance of the first multilateral instrumented aimed at regulating relations among the nations. It appeared in the conclusions of the Congress of Panama of 1926, the First Congress of Lima, 1847, the Washington Agreement, 1856, and the Second Congress of Lima, 1854.
But it was the First International Conference of the American States, held in Washington in 1889, a series of conferences that would ultimately bring the Organization of American States into existence, that it was proclaimed that no res nullius territories existed in the Americas; that wars of conquest between American nations were unjustifiable acts of violence; that territorial insecurity inevitably led to the ruinous system of armed peace.
At this International Conference of American States of 1889, the participating countries – Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, El Salvador, Venezuela and the United States of America – signed a unanimous Recommendation (the only abstention, logically enough, being that of Chile), which contained the following basic points:
(1)
The principle of conquest shall be repudiated by American international law;
(2)
Any cession of territory carried out under the threat of war or in the presence of armed force shall not be recognized and shall be null and void;
(3)
Any nation which has been deprived of its territory in this way may demand that the validity of the cession be submitted to arbitration.
1636
Annex 248
The 1904 Treaty, concluded after the categorical Recommendation signed by the participants in the Congress of 1889, contradicts the principles set forth in the Recommendation. Chilean armed forces occupied in the coastal territory of Bolivia. A country under military occupation does not have freedom of consent.
[p 364]
The aforementioned principles, as well as those set forth in later International Conferences of American States, were admitted in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties adopted on 7 May 1968. That convention states that a treaty is void if it has been procured by the threat or the use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodies in the Charter of the United Nations.
Bolivia mentions these antecedents because, in its opinion, they fully demonstrate the justice of its case.
3.
Economic damages resulting from the War of the Pacific
The economic damages that Bolivia had suffered, and still suffers, as a result of the Peace Treaty of 1904 are enormous.
In the first place, as already noted, that instrument meant the loss of 158,000 square kilometers of its coastal territory, that is, an area larger than that of Cuba, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and El Salvador put together. That simple comparison reveals the magnitude of the loss.
But in the economic area, the losses are even greater.
The territory lost to Bolivia as a result of the war was the site of a discovery made at the end of the last century. This discovery was the fabulous Chuquicamata copper deposits, considered among the most important in the world. Thanks to them, Chile is the world’s largest exporter of copper and the second-largest producer of that metal, after the United States.
To date, Chile has exported more than 20 million tons of copper. Although this figure is difficult to comprehend precisely, compare it with the reserves of all of Asia, almost 1.5 million tons, the reserves of Western Europe, estimated at 2.3 million tons, and those of the USSR, approximately 16 million tons.
In other words, in this century Chile has exported as much copper as these other continents put together. This does not take into account the enormous reserves still being discovered.
Annex 248
1637
It is estimated that at the current rate of extraction, the mines of Chuquicamata will not run out of copper until the end of the next century. Quite justifiably, the late Chilean President, Salvador Allende, termed Chuquicamata the “wages of Chile.” Wages that for a century Bolivia has been paying with the resources of mines located in what was once its territory.
[p 365]
Chile’s booty from the War of the Pacific was not restricted to land and copper. One of the economic causes of the War of 1879 was Chile’s intention to take the guano deposits, a natural fertilize left by sea birds over the centuries.
It is estimated that in last fifty years, Chile has extracted from these natural guano deposits more than one million ton of fertilizer for the farm lands of central and southern Chile. This is also a natural resource taken away from Bolivia.
Besides guano, there are the sodium nitrate (saltpeter) deposits in the former Peruvian province of Tarapacá and the Bolivian one of Atacama.
After the military occupation of that Bolivian province had been completed in 1880, Chile exported annually some 12,500 tons of nitrate, which accounted for approximately 20 percent of its total export earnings. While synthetic nitrate invented early in the century, drastically cut international consumption of natural nitrate, until that time, Chilean exports of nitrate and its derivative, iodine, provided nearly 70 per cent of government revenues. Until just before World War I, Chile had a world monopoly on nitrate production.
Some medium-sized nitrate firms are still operating in that former Bolivian coastal province.
Another point worth mentioning is that at present Chile produces nearly ten thousand tons of sulfur and some of the major deposits of this mineral are in the Ollague district, in the former Bolivian province of Atacama.
That province also has deposits of molybdenum, manganese, lithium, iron, and silver in varying quantities.
The port city of Antofagasta owes its progress and prosperity particularly to its trade with Bolivia. It is one of the Chilean ports that Bolivia is virtually forced to use for its exports and imports. The rates of the railway to that port are also being constantly and unilaterally raised. On the other hand, Bolivian goods are subject in all Chilean ports to regular deterioration and pilferage.
1638
Annex 248
Last, but not least, the economic damages that Bolivia suffers are similarly high in marine resources. Without a coast, Bolivia has been deprived of great fish and shellfish riches and the natural resources of the ocean floor.
[p 366]
4.
Jurisdiction and competence
The topic of the maritime problem of Bolivia on the Agenda of the ninth regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, and its consideration, are based on a solid legal foundation, as spelled out in the Charter of the U.N., the world agency of which the Organization of the American States is a regional organ.
In its Article 14, the Charter of the U.N. states:
The General Assembly (unless the matter is before the Security Council) may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare of friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
These purposes and principles are also mentioned in Article 1 of the Charter in the sense of bringing about “by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”. And again in point 3 of Article 2: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered”.
Moreover, in the part on Regional Agreements, Article 52(2) of Chapter VIII states: “The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council”.
Paragraph (3) of the same article states: “The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council”.
The aforementioned article reinforces the application of Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter which state that “the Security Council may investigate
Annex 248
1639
[p 367]
any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction”, and “any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation” – regardless of origin – “to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly”.
In complete accord with those universal precepts, the Charter of the Organization of American States, in which the Organization is declared to be a regional agency of the United Nations, unequivocally establishes in Article 1 the main purpose of its existence and of its service on behalf of the Member States. It states that the goal is “to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence”.
Article 2 of the Charter specifies that one of the essential purposes of the organization is “to prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among the Member States”.
Furthermore, Article 52(a) establishes that the General Assembly may “consider any matter relating to friendly relations among the American States”.
Finally, Articles 80 to 90 of the Charter, related to the powers and duties of the OAS Permanent Council, include provisions that authorize it to take cognizance of “any matter referred to it by the General Assembly or the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs”; it also has the power to keep vigilance “over the maintenance of friendly relations among the Member States, and for that purpose shall effectively assist them in the peaceful settlement of their disputes,” in accordance with procedures such as:
Any party to a dispute may resort to the Permanent Council to obtain its good offices. The Council, in this case, shall have the power to assist the parties and recommend the procedures it considers suitable for peaceful settlement of the dispute.
If the parties so wish, the Chairman of the Council will directly refer the dispute to the Inter-American Committee on Peaceful Settlements.
This summary recapitulates some of the legal grounds underlying the presentation of Bolivia’s landlocked situation to the Organization of American States. In the light of the precepts cited, such landlocked situation, a situation
1640
Annex 248
[p 368]
for 100 years, has militated against the peace and security of the nations of the Continent; it is also a possible cause of difficulties and conflict, not just for the nations directly involved, but for the sub region and the whole Continent, through the ramifications it may generate. In short, it is a factor that has delayed the development and progress of Bolivia as a nation and as a member of the Andean Pact, the Latin American Association of Free Commerce, the Treaty of the Cuenca de Plata and the Amazon Cooperation Treaty. All this represents an obstacle to the development, prosperity and welfare of the continental community.
Because it lies at the geographical center of the continent, forming part of all the three major regional basins of the River Plate, the Pacific Ocean and the Amazon, Bolivia’s logical role has been that of regulator of the continental balance.
As a result of the 1879 war, Bolivia’s influence and presence on the shores of the Pacific Ocean came to an end. The balance between the states was upset in such a way that so far, it has not been possible to restore it. The result has been a tense situation that is characterized by, among other developments, the break in relations between Bolivia and Chile. The break is the result of Chile’s persistence in imposing conditions that are unacceptable if an understanding is to be reached, and the unrelenting will of the people of Bolivia to regain an outlet to the sea.
The justice of the Bolivian cause and the existence of unsettling factors, deriving a situation imposed by force that has not changed in the past 100 years since the War of the Pacific, are obvious. In fact, the cause has been acknowledged internationally in a long series of declarations expressing concern for keeping the peace and harmony of the region. The most recent of these is the Declaration of Havana, whereby the countries of the world gave their support to the just and legitimate claim of Bolivia to regain full and sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. The declaration also called upon member States of the international community to declare their solidarity with that alienable right of the Bolivian people. The countries reaffirmed that constructive and fruitful security and peace in the Americas demands that that problem be solved. Consequently, they supported all efforts made with so noble a motive and means of the peaceful negotiations set forth in the United Nations Charter. The tensions created by the situation described above are also seen in the arms race, the subject of formal international declarations and the root cause behind the opening of official disarmament negotiations.
The 1879 War must end. The state of anxiety that lingers in the southern Pacific must dissipate. The 100-year
Annex 248
1641
[p 369]
separation of Bolivia from the Pacific, a status closely ties to these circumstances, must come to an end. Rules for peace and stability in the region must be found. This matter is unquestionably within the jurisdiction of the Organization of American States and it is the duty of the Organization to help find a prompt solution to the problem.
Distinguished Delegates, this is Bolivia’s position on item 19 on the agenda for the ninth regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of the American States. Thank you, Mr. President. [Applause.]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Representative. Item 19 on the agenda is under consideration. The Representative of Venezuela has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF VENEZUELA (Mr. Zambrano): On behalf of Venezuela and in fulfillment of the express instructions of its President, Luis Herrera Campins, I would like to submit a draft resolution on the landlocked situation of Bolivia for the consideration of the General Assembly.
Allow me, as a Venezuelan, to restate the hope that we have that, based on fair, equitable agreements, a stable peace may be established in the area.
To use that well-known expression, Bolivia is “the beloved daughter of the Liberator.” It would be redundant to extol the sense of brotherhood that unites us.
Chile, as a nation and a people, means a great deal to us. It is worth remembering that the “Intellectual Liberator of America,” our common Andrés Bello, made Chile his second Country, and Chile was a nation that provided generous shelter to exiled and persecuted Venezuelans in the dark hours for the civic-minded republicans in our Country.
We are living in a time in which consideration is being given to revising treaties considered perpetual. This makes us more aware that, in international relations, a rigid position could lead us to ignore the requirements of justice, which are given greater importance in some historical periods, under certain circumstances. In this order of things, such rigidity is an expression of political sterility. The draft resolution we are submitting for the consideration of the Assembly reflects the growing solidarity of the countries in this Hemisphere with Bolivia’s cause.
This solidarity is based on the very justice of its petition and the need to redress a historic injustice.
The problem that concerns us is political in its origins and political in its consequences. Political must be the analysis made by the OAS,
1642
Annex 248
[p 370]
as a regional Organization, and political must be the resolution that emerges from here, as a majority expression of the States of the Continent.
That political will must inspire the new rules, which reflect standards of justice and equity, recognizing Bolivia’s right to the sea.
Dispossession based on force and instruments originating in circumstances of inferiority for some of the signatory States does not support the historical irreversibility of arrangements made in the past.
One of the cornerstones of American International Law is the so-called Sucre Doctrine, which can be summarized in the formula, “victory does not generate rights,” and it is worth adding, even less so, territorial rights, as in the specific case at hand.
Today, the idea that force confers the right to dispossess the loser has not just been left behind, but is now condemned, in a world that knows that peace will not rest on a secure foundation if it is not built on justice.
The rejection of force as a way to create rights in the international order has been an indispensable assumption underlying the Hemisphere’s reasoned objection to colonial enclaves, and its rejection of intracontinental relations consisting of the despicable conduct of powers that distributed areas of influence in the world, during the past century, under a policy of realpolitik, under the reductionist, brutal terms of machtpolitik, the politics of force.
All legal determinations that stem from violence contain a seed of injustice. If we want an integrated America, with growing relationships among our countries based on mutual respect and solidarity, we have to throw the historical claims that separate us in the dustbin of history, eliminating their causes.
One day of war leads to 100 years of hatred. And hatred cannot be the foundation of the joint progress that history requires of us at this time.
The weakest link in this growing and multifaceted process of integration consists of our territorial disputes, through which so much family blood has been spilled on this continent.
Obscure interests may seek to interrupt the growing efforts toward integration or to paralyze the political audacity to which we are called in the complex period in which we live. When this happens, their actions tend to
Annex 248
1643
[p 371]
revolve around the reassertion of border and territorial disputes, presented as insoluble, based on the terms in which they are stated.
Our countries have to show that they have a capacity that goes beyond simply knowing how to listen to such arguments.
Our countries have to show that they have acquired the maturity involved in knowing how to hear and assess the justice of the arguments of those other States with which they had major disagreements in the past.
The new American Law will arise from political will, and this will not entail negation of our own countries, but the recognition that the future of each State is a shared future including the sovereign, free and just existence of other nations. Most importantly, this applies to those countries whose geographic nearness leads them to have a common destiny.
In my statements made in the general debate, I spoke of the mutilation that led to a landlocked Bolivia. I did so as the spokesman for a people that has had solidarity with and support for the just cause of this sister Republic as a historical constant in its international policies. [Applause.]
For the past 100 years, we Venezuelans have supported Bolivia’s Right to the Sea. Our moral authority is derived from the conduct of our liberating troops, which only crossed our borders from the Caribbean coast to the hill of Potosí, behind Bolívar, constructing sister republics, without increasing our territory by one inch. [Applause.]
The Bolivian littoral has been unredeemed Bolivia since the War of the Pacific. And as long as its unredeemed status crushes the daily work of this nation, to which we are united by multiple, permanent, ties, the Continent’s liberty, justice and peace will be incomplete, awaiting a just settlement.
This is why, Mr. President, I come here today in all sincerity on behalf of Venezuela to submit, for the consideration of the Assembly, a draft resolution on the problem of Bolivia’s landlocked status. I am convinced that the political will that is shown in this statement will contribute to stimulating the sincere search for concrete, just and equitable formulas in the spirit of American brotherhood and integration; in short, a search for a concrete formula that will provide Bolivia with sovereign and useful access to the Pacific Ocean. The draft proposal is:
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
DECLARES:
1644
Annex 248
1. That it is of continuing hemispheric interest that an equitable solution be found whereby Bolivia will obtain sovereign and useful access to the Pacific Ocean.
[p 372]
2. To achieve foregoing the objective and to consolidate a stable peace that will promote the economic and social progress in the area of the Americas directly affected by the consequences of the confinement of Bolivia, in a spirit of American fraternity and integration, the ninth General Assembly of the Organization of American States,
RESOLVES:
1. To recommend that the States most directly concerned with this problem that they open negotiations for the purpose of providing Bolivia with a free and sovereign territorial connection with the Pacific Ocean. Such negotiations shall take into account the rights and interests of the Parties involved, and might consider, among other things, the inclusion of a port area for integrated multinational development, as well as the Bolivian proposal that no territorial compensation be included.
2. To continue consideration of the topic “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia” at the next meeting of the General Assembly.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. [Applause.]
[…]
[p 386]
[…]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PERU (Mr. García Bedoya): In view of the importance of this topic being discussed, I am obviously not going to make analogies that have no relation to it.
Mr. President, linked by geography and the imperatives of being close neighbors, as well as by a history of which we have shared a large part of its chapters, Peru and Bolivia, logically sharing the same culture and origins, constitute a real spiritual community. These authentic solid foundations are the soul of the relations between Peruvians and Bolivians, their real raison d’être.
The vicissitudes of the past have accented the sentiments of affection that distinguish us. Thus, within these communitarian sentiments that constitute the natural source of our relations, Peru understands and supports the maritime cause of Bolivia.
Annex 248
1645
Peru has already shown concrete evidence of its political will to contribute to a final solution for Bolivia’s recovery of a maritime coast, which will be the guarantee of peace, integration and development between our nations. Then as now, Peru supports the Bolivian cause due to the sentiments mentioned above and due to the unavoidable compliance, if it should come to that, with the clear provisions of an international treaty. Therefore, we think that the solutions that this organization could make recommend to the States involved could only be understood within respect for treaties, for the rights and for the interests of the parties involved.
Mr. President, Peru’s political will remains in effect, just as the brotherhood between our two nations remains unchanging, and the time is right to tell Bolivia and the Americas that the Peruvian people and their Government look with expectant hope for the day on which through the pathway of law, friendship and understanding, the Pacific Ocean can again return to bathe the land of our sister land Bolivia with its waters. [Applause.]
For these reasons, Mr. President, the Delegation of Peru will support the draft resolution being considered by this Assembly.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Foreign Minister of Peru. The Representative of Argentina has the floor.
[p 387]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF ARGENTINA (Mr. Quijano): Thank you, Mr. President. In the long history of bilateral relations with Bolivia, the Bolivian confinement has been a reason for constant concern, and this circumstance is reflected in numerous instruments and declarations in which Argentina has stated its brotherly bond and its concern about this problem.
We believe that the problem of “Bolivia’s sovereign outlet to the sea” is extremely serious, that my country recognizes and hopes will be resolved because, among other reasons, it is essential to the development and progress of this sister nation.
Mr. President, that is why we have been very interested in the draft proposal submitted by the Delegation from Venezuela, which has been so well received at this meeting. But we would have liked to have a bit more time to try to reach some more complete agreements, which would have allowed us to avoid having any reservation about its text.
We have two reservations, and to clarify our position, I would like to state them.
1646
Annex 248
The first is in the second declaratory paragraph, in which it is proposed to “…consolidate a stable peace, which would stimulate economic and social progress…” We believe that fortunately, peace in America and in our region is not at stake here, and this is essential in this case– and is why we must cooperate to reach a solution.
What must be consolidated is the economic and social progress of the whole region, specifically of our sister Republic, Bolivia.
Therefore, we believe that the words “a stable peace that will promote” may be unnecessary in the text.
Our other reservation, which is more serious, and more important, has to do with the words that appear at the end of point 1 of the operative part, “…and might consider, among other things…” the OAS would be moving onto shaky ground.
Reference was made here to the Pandora’s Box that could be opened should treaties be revised, and the States’ responsibilities in decisions related to problems that affect the territorial sovereignty of other States was referred to. We would like this historic ninth General Assembly of the OAS to develop a well thought-out and heartfelt recommendation—that I hope all the American States support—rather than a formula for negotiations. We recommend that the parties negotiate bearing in mind their own interests as well as the spirit of American unity that has been stated in this Room, not only today, but from the start of this Assembly and even before that, when the Permanent Council decided to include this item on the agenda.
[p 388]
We believe we would enter on dangerous ground if we suggested parameters for the negotiations. We are concerned about the procedure indicated by the draft resolution; therefore, we would prefer that the final words of the first paragraph of the operative part be eliminated, limiting this to a strong, brotherly recommendation that a solution be sought for this problem, taking into account the rights and interests of the parties involved, as stated in the text, without imposing any limitation on the negotiations. We believe that it is not the responsibility of the OAS to specify details regarding possible negotiations.
If there were a consensus in the Committee–but we have no intention of spoiling the harmony of this debate–, we would prefer that those words be eliminated. If, however, the drafters of the resolution could not withdraw them, we would then request that they be voted on separately, pursuant to Article 75 of our Rules. We make this request because we wish to avoid limiting the scope of those negotiations in any way.
Annex 248
1647
As you all know, at this time, Argentina is involved in a major round of negotiations with respect to a territorial issue, and we know how delicate these steps can be and in order to adopt any measure, it is necessary to act without pressure and without external limitations. The mediation in which we are currently involved is an example, because it has been carried out within a very broad framework. We believe that problems of this nature require that freedom, and that only the parties themselves may set limitations.
Argentina’s position was formulated yesterday by our Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is based on our desire, which we trust will be achieved, that Bolivia may soon solve its problem and may return to being a power with coasts on the Pacific Ocean. Thank you very much.
[…]
[p 395]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF ARGENTINA (Mr. Quijano): The Argentine Delegation’s fundamental purpose in submitting its proposal was to emphasize how important we feel it is to include this phrase in the draft resolution.
As I said in my speech earlier, it is a position of principle that we want to respect and maintain, because we believe that we are venturing into highly dangerous territory. I also said that in no way did I want to alter the harmony of this historic meeting and that if there were objections or negative reactions to my proposal, I was not going to insist on it.
Mr. President, if you agree, I would withdraw the motion [applause], requesting that the minutes reflect Argentina’s express reservation to this paragraph, which we consider a dangerous precedent. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: That’s very nice of you, Mr. Representative of Argentina. Your speech will facilitate the vote on the draft resolution. Therefore, we are going to proceed with a roll-call vote. We will draw straws to determine which delegation will vote first. [He draws a ballot] Saint Lucia.
[The roll-call vote is held, with the following result:]
Saint Lucia Yes
Grenada Yes
Haiti Yes
Costa Rica Yes
Panamá Yes
Paraguay Yes
1648
Annex 248
Venezuela Yes
Dominica Yes
Barbados Yes
Jamaica Yes
Honduras Yes
[p 396]
Bolivia Yes
Colombia Yes
United States Yes
Dominican Republic Yes
El Salvador Yes
Suriname Yes
Argentina Yes
Mexico Yes
Nicaragua Yes
Trinidad and Tobago Yes
Chile Yes
Guatemala Yes
Uruguay Yes
Ecuador Yes
Brazil Yes
Peru Yes
The PRESIDENT: The Assistant Secretary General now has the floor to announce the result of the vote.
The ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL: The result of the vote is as follows: 25 votes in favor; no votes against, no abstentions. [Applause.]
The PRESIDENT: Let the record show, first, that this resolution approved by this General Committee will be considered by the plenary assembly.
Second, I would like to point out that the reservation made by the Delegation of Argentina will also be in the minutes.
The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Romero): First, I would like to give thanks, on behalf of the people of Bolivia and its Government, for the resolution approved at this historic Assembly, which is identifying new ways to conduct international negotiations in the Hemisphere.
Annex 248
1649
I am deeply grateful to the representatives who have voted for Bolivia here, and at the same time, my Delegation is going to explain its vote at this time.
It is my honor to start by confirming, first, the favorable vote Bolivia has cast for the draft resolution submitted by Venezuela.
[p 397]
Secondly, the Delegation of Bolivia nevertheless confirms that it reserves all rights to present its own points of view on the way to recover sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean at the time when the negotiations recommended by the General Assembly are initiated. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
1650
Annex 249
Minutes of the Twelfth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 31 October 1979
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Ninth Regular Session, 1979, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/IX.O.2 (1980), pp 272, 277-283 and 286
1651
1652
Annex 249
[p 272]
MINUTES OF THE TWELFTH PLENARY MEETING
Date: 31 October 1979
Time: 3:30 p.m.
Place: Salón Libertad
President: Mr. Gustavo Fernández
Representative of Bolivia
Present: Messrs.:
Raymond Mathieu (Haiti)
Luis E. Guardia Mora (Costa Rica)
Mario López Escobar (Paraguay)
Hilarión Cardozo (Venezuela)
Wolsey P. Louis (Dominica)
Michael King (Barbados)
Alfred A. Rattray (Jamaica)
Carlos Zambrano Escalante (Honduras)
Gonzalo Romero (Bolivia)
Carlos Bernal Téllez (Colombia)
Irving G. Tragen (United States)
Eladio Knipping-Victoria (Dominican Republic)
Mauricio Castro Aragón (El Salvador)
E. R. Nahar (Suriname)
Raúl A. Quijano (Argentina)
Rafael de la Colina (Mexico)
Saúl Arana Castellón (Nicaragua)
Victor C. McIntyre (Trinidad and Tobago)
Pedro Daza (Chile)
Mario Marroquín Nájera (Guatemala)
Julio César Lupinacci (Uruguay)
Raúl Falconí (Ecuador)
Marcelo Raffaelli (Brazil)
Luis Marchand Stens (Peru)
George Louison (Granada)
Alejandro Orfila (Secretary General of the OAS)
Jorge Luis Zelaya Coronado (Assistant Secretary General)
[…]
Annex 249
1653
[…]
[p 277]
3. Consideration and approval of the draft resolutions submitted by the General Committee
a. Access by Bolivia to the Pacific Ocean (AG/doc.1147/79 rev. 1)
The PRESIDENT: Under consideration is the draft resolution on access by Bolivia to the Pacific Ocean (AG/doc.1146/79 rev. 1). The Representative of Chile has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Daza): Mr. President, the resolution that we have before us for consideration warrants several observations.
We cannot accept that the situation derived from the Bolivian aspiration to have sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean be linked to stable peace in the region. Peace can only be affected if the States are not willing to respect each other and comply with their obligations. I reiterate here my country’s commitment to peace and the absurdity of arguing that the legitimate exercise of rights conferred by a treaty could constitute a threat to peace.
In the operative part there is a recommendation that the States concerned with this problem open negotiations for the purpose of providing Bolivia with a free and sovereign territorial connection with the Pacific Ocean. My country has always been willing to negotiate with Bolivia. Therefore, the call must be directed specifically at Bolivia, which was the country that broke the relations with Chile and put an end to the process of negotiations that was underway.
The operative part also contains another element: involving this Assembly in the substantive parts of any eventual negotiations.
[p 278]
This resolution, which was adopted at the place and under the circumstances known to the Representatives, by attempting, as I have indicated, to establish rules pursuant to which the parties involved must engage in negotiations, in order to reach a solution to the aspiration of one the Member States, and which above all affects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another, constitutes a flagrant violation of one of the basic principles of this Organization, that “the international order is essentially made up of respect for the personality, sovereignty and political independence of States”.
1654
Annex 249
This attempt to use a vote to revoke an instrument such as a Peace Treaty that is in full force and effect between Chile and Bolivia violates another principle set forth in that same Charter, which provides that the international order is essentially constituted by the “faithful fulfilment of the obligations arising from treaties”.
The powers of the Assembly are the result of the principles established in the Charter of the Organization and, therefore, there must be a perfect match between them.
Consequently, we cannot say that the Assembly is empowered to adopt a resolution of this type by virtue of what is established in Article 52(a) when it says that it “may consider any matter relating to friendly relations among the American States”. This is a procedural rule; the rule in Article 3(a) is a substantive rule and therefore takes precedence over that which refers to the powers of one of the organs of the Organization, such as the General Assembly, which is not allowed to depart from the principles that constitute its raison d’être under any circumstances.
In addition, the sponsor of this resolution established that this is a political problem and that its solution must be of a political nature. That constitutes an express admission that when the Assembly considered and adopted this resolution, it had completely departed from the essential legal principles to which that I have referred, thereby setting a nefarious precedent that is affecting my country today and will affect others in the future.
Historical experience shows that when an organization of this type, like the OAS, which is a free association of its States that comprise it on the underpinning basis of respect for fundamental legal rules, departs from those rules, it almost immediately begins to lose its moral authority, first, because of the precedent that we have mentioned, and second, because it very logically gives rise to reticence and distrust on the part of its members.
[p 279]
Consequently, Chile emphatically declares that, in accordance with the legal rules indicated, this resolution does not obstruct it or bind it or obligate it in any way.
On repeated occasions I have indicated Chile’s willingness to negotiate a solution with Bolivia to its aspiration to have free and sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. The way to reach that goal is direct negotiation, conducted at a level of professionalism and mutual respect, without any interference, suggestions or dictates from anyone.
Annex 249
1655
Once again Bolivia has rejected this way, and the path that it has chosen through this resolution, in an attempt to condition and put pressure on Chile, creates an insuperable obstacle to opening negotiations that will satisfy its aspiration and duly contemplate the dignity and sovereignty of both parties.
This Assembly has closed that path. It has made the possibility of Bolivia obtaining satisfaction of its maritime aspiration more remote.
As long as it insists on the path indicated by this resolution, as long as it rejects the proper and logical path of free negotiations without any conditions between the two countries, as long as it attempts to put pressure on Chile through foreign interference, Bolivia will have no outlet to the sea through Chilean territory. The responsibility will not have been Chile’s. Thank you, Mr. President.
[…]
[p 281]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Representative. The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. de Campero): Thank you, Mr. President. I truly admire the specious attempt by the Representative of Chile to turn an exhortation by the General Assembly into a command that does not exist.
Mr. President, I believe that the General Assembly has full jurisdiction, within the terms of the Charter, to exhort, encourage, and push nations to resolve their differences. This is the case with the vote held the other day. Therefore, I emphatically declare that my Delegation recognizes the full jurisdiction of the General Assembly to make this type of documents. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Representative. The Representative of Argentina has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF ARGENTINA (Mr. Quijano): Mr. President, because of the importance of the decision being considered, it is undoubtedly the most important one in this meeting of the General Assembly, the Argentine Delegation would like to briefly explain its vote.
1656
Annex 249
[p 282]
My Delegation supported in the General Committee, and will support in the plenary, the proposal that it is in the interest of all countries in the Americas that a fair and equitable solution be found that provides Bolivia with a sovereign and useful access to the Pacific Ocean.
For Argentina, which has been associated with this problem in different ways for 100 years, the step being taken is of paramount importance. A mere look at the slow evolution of this topic and the great lack of interest in it by a large sector of the international public, even on occasions within the ambit of the OAS, having followed this question for past years, shows the importance of the document we now have before us.
Argentina has followed the topic very closely and has endeavored to do its part to alleviate the grave difficulties that Bolivia has faced because of the disadvantageous situation of lacking a maritime littoral. For years there has been a Bolivian free trade zone in the port of Rosario, on the River Paraná. Moreover, to facilitate its international trade and to reach that port from Bolivia, we have contributed engineers and capital to construct the railway that enters Bolivia at our common border and crosses Bolivia to the North, where it should ultimately reach the Department of Beni.
Now it is a question of taking a new step, one of a more political nature. It would be easy to support the draft that has been submitted without any reservations, solely stating that the solution must be found within the existing legal framework. But that would seriously limit the process that this Assembly, and, of course, the Argentine Republic, want to put into practice without delay.
We prefer, however, the more difficult, but also more realistic, road, of arguing that the negotiations that are fostered must have as their sole guideline the consideration of the rights and interests of the parties involved. They are the only ones in a position to decide on the terms and procedures for the negotiations. Any other factor that might be included to force the will of the parties would only have a symbolic value, or worse, could adversely affect the negotiations.
For all these reasons, through knowing all too well of the dimensions of the problem, we must repeat, with a great sense of responsibility and with our permanent affection for our sister Republic of Bolivia, the reservation made with respect to the additional guidelines proposed in the second portion of operative paragraph 1 of the draft we are considering.
But, notwithstanding this comment, we support the resolution because we are convinced that it will not fall into a void and that its political and moral value, as the expression of the thinking of the countries in the
Annex 249
1657
[p 283]
Americas, must contribute to implementing a process that will conclude in the near future with a solution that Bolivia not only needs for its development, but to which it is fully entitled. Thank you very much.
[…]
[p 286]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Representative. Having heard the presentations made on the topic we are considering, I submit to a vote the draft resolution presented by the General Committee.
All those in favor please so indicate by raising your hand. The Representatives [Vote.] The result of the vote is 21 votes in favor, one against and no abstentions. Approved.
I want to add that the text of this resolution will be accompanied by the explanations of the vote that have been made at this meeting by the delegates who have taken the floor, and, additionally, those made when the resolution was approved in the General Committee. The Representative of Paraguay now has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PARAGUAY (Mr. López Escobar): In homage to the cardinal principles cited in our speech and proceeding on the basis that a solution to the conflict implies the active cooperation of the OAS, but that the powers involved are those that will engage trilaterally in the relevant negotiations, the Delegation of Paraguay very respectfully requests that the President record our reservation with respect to the second part of Point 1, which says:
… and might consider, among other things, the inclusion of a port area for integrated multinational development, as well as the Bolivian proposal that no territorial compensation be included.
The PRESIDENT: The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Romero): Thank you, Mr. President. I reiterate my Delegation’s thanks for the vote in favor of the resolution. On a prior occasion I noted that Bolivia reserved the right to make specific proposals if the negotiations were opened. Please have this statement, which has been repeated, recorded in the minutes. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: That is what we will do, Mr. Representative.
1658
Annex 250
Organization of American States, General Assembly,
resolution AG/RES. 426 (IX–O/79), Access by Bolivia
to the Pacific Ocean, 31 October 1979
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Ninth Regular Session, 1979, Proceedings, Vol. I, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/IX.O.2 (1980), pp 55 and 57
1659
1660
Annex 250
Annex 250
1661
1662
Annex 251
Chilean Ministry of National Defence, Undersecretary of the Navy, Supreme Decree No 923, 26 November 1979
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1663
1664
Annex 251
Annex 251
1665
REPUBLIC OF CHILE MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE UNDERSECRETARY OF THE NAVY ADMIN. DEPT. 747
[Stamped:]
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
Undersecretary of the Navy
7 DECEMBER 1979
PROCESSED
GRANTING YACIMIENTOS PETROLÍFEROS FISCALES BOLIVIANOS A FIRST RENEWAL OF ITS MARITIME CONCESSION OVER A SECTOR OF BEACHFRONT LANDS, BEACH, SEABED, AND WATER PORTIONS IN THE EL CHINCHORRO AREA OF THE PORT OF ARICA
SUPREME DECREE No. 923
SANTIAGO, 26 NOV. 1979
It was decreed, on this day, as follows:
RECITALS:
Whereas, by means of Supreme Decree (M) No. 180 of 8 February 1961, Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos was granted a concession, with expiry on 31 December 1979, over a sector of Beachfront lands, beach, seabed and portions of water at the port of Arica, for the purpose of allowing the laying of underground and submarine pipes of the Sica Sica – Arica oil pipeline terminal and keeping 2 buoys anchored for vessels larger than 10,000 gross registered tons and 3 permanent marker buoys.
Whereas, by means of Supreme Decree (M) No. 1161 of 6 December 1967, the aforementioned Decree for concession was expanded and amended, increasing the number of buoys to 3, establishing its tonnage for vessels between 10,000 tons and 20,000 gross registered tons, and further adding a sea discharge pipe for purified water from the de-ballasting of tanker ships.
Whereas, renewal of the concession has been requested, and there are no regulatory obstacles to granting such request.
Whereas, through this renewal, the 3 buoys shall be classified for ships between 30,000 and 50,000 gross registered tonnage, based on the largest vessel that has used those buoys (S/S “BELOBO” at 42,789 of gross registered tonnage on 27 June 1978); moreover, the 3 permanent marker buoys will be called “permanent marker buoys” in conformity with the regulations currently in force; and
in accordance with the accompanying background, the statements made by the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Navy (General Maritime Territory and Merchant Navy Office) via its Ordinary communication No. 12230/27/214 of 19 November 1979, the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 340, of 1960, and the relevant articles of the Rules approved via Supreme Decree (M) No. 223 of 11 March 1968,
1666
Annex 251
Annex 251
1667
It is hereby DECREED:
1. THERE IS HEREBY GRANTED to YACIMIENTOS PETROLIFEROS FISCALES BOLIVIANOS, domiciled in Arica, Barrio Industrial El Chinchorro S/N, a FIRST RENEWAL of the concession over a sector of BEACHFRONT LANDS, BEACH, SEABED, AND PORTIONS OF WATER it holds by virtue of Supreme Decree (M) No. 180, of 8 February 1961, as amended by Supreme Decree (M) No. 1161, of 6 December 1967, in the El Chinchorro area of the port of Arica, in the municipality and province of the same name, Tarapacá Region, identified at the location indicated on map 30/60, as approved by the Maritime Authority of Arica.
2. Title to the sector of beachfront lands is recorded in the name of the State, more specifically on left-hand page 25 of the 1935 Land Register of the Arica Real Estate Registry. It covers an area of 700 m2. Its measurements and boundaries are: To the North and South by beachfront lands, at 35 m in each direction; to the East by beachfront lands at 20 m, and to the West by beach at 35 m.
3. The beach sector covers an area of 1,400 m2. Its measurements and boundaries are: To the North and South by beach at 70 m in each direction; to the East by the conceded beachfront lands at 20 m; and to the West by seabed at 20 m.
4. The seabed sector covers an area of 26,580 m2, and is a strip 20 m long and 1,329 m wide running next to the sector of the beach concession area.
5. The portions of water will be used to keep three (3) anchored buoys for vessels between 30,000 and 50,000 gross registered tons, and three (3) permanent marker buoys.
6. The purpose is to cover the underground and submarine pipes of the Sica Sica – Arica oil pipeline terminal, markers for the oil pipeline and mooring buoys for the work vessels, as well as a sea-discharge pipe for the purified water for the de-ballasting of tanker ships.
7. The period shall be TWENTY (20) YEARS as from 1 January 1980; it shall expire on 31 December 1999.
8. This concession is granted FREE OF CONSIDERATION pursuant to Section “D” of the agreement on the Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos’s Sica Sica – Arica Oil Pipeline signed on 24 April 1957.
9. This concession shall be governed by the provisions of Legislative Decree No. 340 of 1960, the Maritime Concessions Rules approved by means of Supreme Decree (M) No. 223 of 1968, the General Order, Safety and Disciplinary Rules Aboard Vessels and in the Coastal Area of the Republic, as amended or substituted in the future.
1668
Annex 251
Annex 251
1669
10. The concessionaire shall have this decree memorialized in a notarial deed; the Provincial Treasurer of Arica shall be authorized to sign said deed on behalf of the State; a failure to comply with this obligation shall be grounds for the abrogation of this Decree. The expense for notarization shall be borne by the concessionaire.
This decree is to be acknowledged, notified, and filed with the Office of National Property and Assets of the Ministry of Land and Settlement.
AUGUSTO PINOCHET UGARTE, ARMY GENERAL, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC.
RAUL BENAVIDES ESCOBAR, LIEUTENANT GENERAL, MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENSE.
Transcribed for the record.
[Stamped:]
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
NATIONAL OFFICE OF FRONTIERS
AND LIMITS OF THE STATE
PARTIES OFFICE
No. 1421
Received: 12 DECEMBER 1979
Completed:
1670
Annex 252
Official Message from the Chilean Delegation to the Organization of American States to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 401, 24 November 1980
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1671
1672
Annex 252
Annex 252
1673
OFFICIAL MESSAGE
541854
Classification
ORDINARY
Number
401
Time Origin
241325
Month
NOVEMBER
Year
1980
From: DELCHILE O.E.A. [CHILEAN DELEGATION, OAS]
To: ACTING MINISTER
*** IMMEDIATE DISPATCH ***
THE MINISTER STATES:
1.- AS ESTABLISHED, THE THIRD SESSION OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE BEGAN AT 11:00 AM. THE URUGUAYAN DELEGATION PRESENTED A DRAFT RESOLUTION AND REQUESTED THAT IT BE APPROVED BY CONSENSUS.
2.- AFTER THE PARTICIPATION OF THE URUGUAYAN DELEGATION, I MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO LEAVE EXPRESS RECORD OF OUR RESERVATIONS AGAINST THE INCORPORATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 426 TO THE DRAFT PREAMBLE:
“MR. PRESIDENT:
AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, MY DELEGATION FORMALLY EXPRESSED ITS RESERVATIONS AGAINST THE INCORPORATION OF ITEM 13 TO THIS SESSION’S AGENDA. AS THE DELEGATES KNOW, OUR POSITION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE DO NOT CONFER ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE AMERICAN STATES OR ON ANY OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THE POWER TO RULE ON MATTERS WHICH ARE UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE DOMESTIC JURISDICTION OF STATES, WHICH ARE RELATED TO THEIR TERRITORY OR SOVEREIGNTY, OR WHICH AFFECT THE BILATERAL RELATIONS BETWEEN STATES.
AS FOR THE SPECIAL MATTER WE ARE ADDRESSING TODAY, I REITERATE THE STATEMENTS I MADE AT THE GENERAL DEBATE OF THIS ASSEMBLY, IN THAT THE OBSERVANCE OF THE LEGAL RULES WHICH GOVERN THIS ORGANIZATION IS THE FOUNDATION SUSTAINING OUR COEXISTENCE IN THE SYSTEM. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES, ON THIS OCCASION, OUR DELEGATION HAS COME TO THIS MEETING WITH THE HIGHEST SPIRIT OF COOPERATION SINCE WE ARE AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A DRAFT RESOLUTION WHICH ADDRESSES THE MATTER FROM AN APPROPRIATE PERSPECTIVE FOR ANALYSIS AND SINCE WE KNOW ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING CONSENSUS IN SUCH REGARD.
HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO MAKE CONSENSUS POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE TO STRESS THAT OUR AGREEMENT ON THIS MATTER DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MODIFY THE CLEAR POSITION WE EXPRESSED AT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN LA PAZ.
I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR RESERVATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INCORPORATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 426 TO THE PREAMBLE TO THIS DRAFT, WHICH OUR DELEGATION
REFERENCE:
11/24/80 241704 17:25:02 A.R.R. [Signature] 18962
1674
Annex 252
Annex 252
1675
VOTED AGAINST LAST YEAR. WE CONTINUE TO CHALLENGE THAT RESOLUTION. WE HOLD THAT IT EXCEEDS THE POWERS OF THIS ORGANIZATION. WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE THAT RESOLUTION TO BE VALID AND WE THUS MAINTAIN THE POSITION THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAS NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER TO RULE ON MATTERS WHICH ARE EXCLUSIVELY CONCERNED WITH CHILE’S SOVEREIGNTY.
WE CONTRIBUTE TO CONSENSUS BUILDING IN THE BELIEF THAT WE HELP PREVENT THE OAS’ FOUNDATIONS FROM WEAKENING. WE ALSO SUPPORT THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE RULE IN THE ORGANIZATION.
3.- NEXT, THE BOLIVIAN DELEGATE, MARCELO OSTRIA, SPOKE IN THE FOLLOWING WEIGHTED TERMS, HIGHLIGHTING THE SCOPE THAT RESOLUTION 426 HAS FOR BOLIVIA. HE INSISTED ON THE IDEA OF SOLIDARITY AND THAT PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS SHOULD BE FOUND TO ACCOMPLISH THE STATES’ EFFECTIVE PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT. HE STATED THAT A SOLUTION SHOULD BE REACHED THROUGH DIRECT NEGOTIATION BY THE PARTIES.
4.- THE DELEGATIONS OF MEXICO, ECUADOR, PERU, ARGENTINA, PARAGUAY, BRAZIL, THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, NICARAGUA, THE UNITED STATES, COSTA RICA, COLOMBIA, AND HONDURAS ALSO EXPRESSED THEIR AGREEMENT AND SATISFACTION WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED.
DAZA
1676
Annex 253
Minutes of the Sixth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 27 November 1980 (extract)
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Tenth Regular Session, 1980, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/X.O.2 (1981), pp 138 and 197
1677
1678
Annex 253
[p 138]
MINUTES OF THE SIXTH PLENARY MEETING
Date: 27 November 1980
Time: 2:00 a.m.
Place: Hall of the Americas
[…]
[p 197]
h. The maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.1299/80)
The PRESIDENT: We will now consider the draft resolution on the maritime problem of Bolivia [AG/doc.1299/80]. The Representative of Chile has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Scheggia): Thank you very much, Mr. President. In the General Committee, my Delegation established its point of view about this draft resolution, and on this occasion I would like to refer to that declaration. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Loayza): Thank you, Mr. President. When the draft resolution was considered in the General Committee, my Delegation emphasized Bolivia’s special conditions with regard to its sovereign outlet to the Pacific, and we would like for the considerations indicated on that occasion be transcribed within this resolution. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. If there are no objections, the draft resolution is considered approved. Approved.
Annex 254
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 481 (X–O/80), The Bolivian Maritime Problem, 27 November 1980
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Tenth Regular Session, 1980, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/X.O.2 (1981), p 28
1679
1680
Annex 254
Annex 254
1681
1682
Annex 255
Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 7 December 1981
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Eleventh Regular Session, 1981, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XI.O.2 (1984), pp 425, 482-483 and 486-488
1683
1684
Annex 255
[p 425]
MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE
Date: 7 December 1981
Time: 5:30 p.m.
Place: Hotel La Toc – Room “A”
President: Mr. Peter Josie
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Commerce, Industry and Tourism of Saint Lucia
Present: Messrs.
Ernesto Arrieta Peralta (El Salvador)
César Elvir Sierra (Honduras)
Manuel E. Tavares Espaillat (Dominican Republic)
Cherrie J. Orr (Jamaica)
Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann (Nicaragua)
Hilarión Cardozo (Venezuela)
Filiberto Ginzo Gil (Uruguay)
Gustavo Santiso Gálvez (Guatemala)
Juan Manuel Castulovich (Panama)
Charles A. T. Skeete (Barbados)
Raúl Falconí (Ecuador)
Alberto Quiroga García (Bolivia)
Edouard Francisque (Haiti)
Raúl A. Quijano (Argentina)
Dessima Williams (Grenada)
Alberto Nogués (Paraguay)
René Rojas Galdames (Chile)
Luis Marchand Stens (Peru)
Carlos Bernal Téllez (Colombia)
Herbert B. Thompson (United States)
Ruwaldo E. van Bochove (Suriname)
Victor C. McIntyre (Trinidad and Tobago)
Rafael de la Colina (Mexico)
Marco César Meira Naslausky (Brazil)
José Rafael Echeverría (Costa Rica)
Wosley P. Louis (Dominica)
Kenneth A. Browne (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines)
Edmund H. Lake (Antigua and Barbuda)
Barry B. L. Auguste (Saint Lucia)
Alejandro Orfila (Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
[…]
Annex 255
1685
[p 482]
3. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia
(AG/CG/doc.12/81) (item 15 on the agenda)
(conclusion)
The PRESIDENT: Since there is no delegation that wishes to take the floor, I submit for the consideration of the distinguished members of the General Committee the desires expressed by the distinguished Ministers of Chile and of Bolivia to listen to the working group that this same Committee appointed with respect to item 15 on the agenda. If there is no objection, I will give the floor to the distinguished Representative of Costa Rica so he can give his report.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF COSTA RICA (Mr. Echeverría): Thank you very much, Mr. President. I cannot add much; I will simply read the draft resolution.
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
HAVING CONSIDERED:
Resolutions AG/RES. 426 and AG/RES. 481 of sessions nine and ten, respectively, of the General Assembly, which declared it to be of continuing hemispheric interest that an equitable solution be found whereby Bolivia obtains a useful sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean,
[p 483]
RESOLVES:
1. To reiterate its support for the contents of these resolutions.
2. To encourage the States involved to initiate a dialogue, through the proper channels, that would permit the most satisfactory solution to the Bolivian maritime problem.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[…]
1686
Annex 255
[p 486]
[...]
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Rojas): Thank you, Mr. President. First, I would like to especially thank my distinguished colleague, the Representative of Costa Rica, Ambassador Echeverría, for the intelligent efforts made to reconcile our sister Delegation of Bolivia with the one over which I preside, and to seek an understanding that has reached a happy culmination. At the same time, I would like to emphasize the dignity with which the Foreign Minister of Bolivia has handled his position in this matter.
I would, however, like to explain why I have reached a consensus on this occasion. During this meeting, Mr. President, I said that the
[p 487]
OAS should be a meeting place and not one of confrontation, but for this to happen it is important to combine positions. In that spirit I have joined this consensus to approve this resolution, even though we have serious objections to part of its text. My country’s position on resolution AG/RES. 426 is well known, as we consider it unlawful and contrary to the basic principles of this Organization. Therefore, the fact that we are joining the consensus does not in any way mean that we are changing our position, because we do not recognize the validity of that resolution and because the OAS has no authority whatsoever to rule on matters that are within the domain of Chilean sovereignty. By joining in the consensus, we believe that we are contributing to weakening the legal part of the OAS and are thus making a contribution to the spirit of cooperation that we want to see prevail in our Organization. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[…]
[p 488]
THE PRESIDENT: The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Romero): Thank you, Mr. President. My first words must be to thank the Delegation of Panama, which has supported us from the beginning on the draft resolution as well as the wise, correct, and gentlemanly speech by distinguished Ambassador Echeverría from Costa Rica. I must also not forget, Mr. President, the various delegations that have dealt with this issue with interest, giving initiatives, suggesting formulas, and in such a way that I also want to have the record reflect my thanks.
Annex 255
1687
The distinguished Delegation of Chile has made some reservations to its vote, and I would like to add, Mr. President, that we also reaffirm our opinion, which fortunately is included in the resolution, that we have managed to update the resolution of 1979, which to a certain extent, Mr. President, means that there are lookout points on this journey by two sister nations which can be reconciled. There are stars that point the way, Mr. President, and I think that the OAS is one of those stars. The proof is clear that we are reaching a consensus.
In my opinion, the OAS has great authority—one to encourage, stimulate and promote everything related to agreement, peace, harmony and equilibrium. Once again, Mr. President, I would like to say that in this belief, and on this road, we will seek the solutions that two sister nations can find. Thank you very much.
1688
Annex 256
Minutes of the Eighth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 10 December 1981
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Eleventh Regular Session, 1981, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XI.O.2 (1984), pp 239 and 292-293
1689
1690
Annex 256
[p 239]
MINUTES OF THE EIGHT PLENARY MEETING
Date: 10 December 1981
Time: 8:15 p.m.
Place: Hotel La Toc, Room “A”
President: Mr. Peter Josie
Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Commerce, Industry and Tourism of Saint Lucia
Present: Messrs.
Ernesto Arrieta Peralta (El Salvador)
Diego Landa Celano (Honduras)
Eladio Knipping Victoria (Dominican Republic)
Keith Johnson (Jamaica)
Casimiro Sotelo (Nicaragua)
Edith Márquez de Pereyra (Venezuela)
Francisco Bustillo del Campo (Uruguay)
Hernán Hurtado Prem (Guatemala)
Juan Manuel Castulovich (Panamá)
Charles A. T. Skeete (Barbados)
Manuel Romero Cevallos (Ecuador)
Armando Loayza Mariaca (Bolivia)
Fritz N. Cinéas (Haiti)
Raúl A. Quijano (Argentina)
Dessima Williams (Grenada)
Uldaricio Figueroa (Chile)
Luis Marchand Stens (Peru)
Carlos Bernal Téllez (Colombia)
Herbert B. Thompson (United States)
Eugene R. Nahar (Suriname)
Victor C. McIntyre (Trinidad and Tobago)
Barry B. L. Auguste (Saint Lucia)
Marcelo Vargas (Mexico)
Gilberto Ferreira Martins (Brazil)
O'Neale Sinclair Barrow (Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines)
Edmund H. Lake (Antigua and Barbuda)
Alejandro Orfila (Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
[...]
Annex 256
1691
[p 292]
1. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.1463/81)
[...]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Daza): Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, when this draft was approved in the General Committee, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of my country made a statement, the terms of which I would like to be included in the minutes of this meeting. Thank you, Mr. President.
[...]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Loayza): Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to speak, on behalf of my Delegation, which would appreciate it if the minutes could also reflect the statement that the Head of the Bolivian Delegation made in the General Committee, when this draft of such importance to my country was approved, under the title “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia”. Thank you.
[...]
[p 293]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PERU (Mr. Marchand): Mr. President, I ask that the declaration made by Peru when this document was approved in the General Committee also be recorded in the minutes. Thank you very much.
1692
Annex 257
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 560 (XI–O/81), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 10 December 1981
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Eleventh Regular Session, 1981, Proceedings, Vol. II Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XI.O.2 (1982), pp 95 and 97
1693
1694
Annex 257
Annex 257
1695
1696
Annex 258
Minutes of the Eighth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 20 November 1982
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Twelfth Regular Session, 1982, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XII.O.2 (1983), pp 212 and 222-223
1697
1698
Annex 258
[p 212]
MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH PLENARY SESSION
Date: 20 November 1982
Time: 11:30 a.m.
Place: Hall of the Americas
President: Mr. Rodrigo Lloreda Caicedo
Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Colombia
Present: Messrs.
Eladio Knipping Victoria (Dominican Republic)
Raúl Falconí (Ecuador)
Fernando Volio Jiménez (Costa Rica)
Fernando Salazar Paredes (Bolivia)
Luis M. de Posadas Montero (Uruguay)
Luis Marchand Stens (Peru)
Victor Chrysostom McIntyre (Trinidad and Tobago)
H. H. Naarendorp (Suriname)
Sonia M. Johnny (Saint Lucia)
M. Patricia Durrant (Jamaica)
Edmund H. Lake (Antigua y Barbuda)
Francisco Posada de la Peña (Colombia)
Policarpo Callejas Bonilla (Honduras)
Rafael de la Colina (Mexico)
Herbert B. Thompson (United States)
Pedro Daza (Chile)
Armando Muñoz Pinzón (Panama)
Mario López Escobar (Paraguay)
Gustavo Santiso Gálvez (Guatemala)
Yvette Goddard (Barbados)
Winston K. Davis (Grenada)
Juan José Uranga (Argentina)
Ernesto Arrieta Peralta (El Salvador)
Alarico Silveira Junior (Brazil)
Víctor Giménez Landínez (Venezuela)
Leonte Herdocia (Nicaragua)
Gabriel Ancion (Haiti)
Alejandro Orfila (Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
[…]
Annex 258
1699
[p 222]
[…]
t. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.1604/82)
The PRESIDENT: Under consideration is the draft resolution on the maritime problem of Bolivia [AG/doc.1604/82]. The Representative of Chile has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Daza): Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to formally request that, following the precedent set on other occasions, and by virtue of Article 84 of the Rules of the General Assembly, the minutes reflect the following declaration on the resolution entitled “Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia.”
The resolution approved in the General Committee goes beyond the authority of the General Assembly. The Government of Chile does not recognize any authority of either this General Assembly or any international organization to express itself on matters of exclusive internal competence or on how Chile should conduct its bilateral affairs.
Resolution AG/RES. 426, adopted on 31 October 1979, with the negative vote of Chile, continues to be illegal and constitutes no impediment to Chile. The resolution to which this statement refers and which is now submitted to this plenary meeting is not binding on Chile.
For these reasons, and to be consistent with Chile’s non-participation in the consideration of this matter, Chile is not taking part in the vote on this resolution. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: That will be done. The Representative of Paraguay has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PARAGUAY (Mr. López Escobar): Thank you, Mr. President. I want to repeat, Mr. President, the words of my Foreign Minister on the occasion to approve this draft. Thus, he said:
My Delegation voted in favor of the draft resolution that has just been approved, with the express reservation that we believe, conforming to what we have stated on prior occasions, that said resolution must be interpreted as an exhortation to the Parties involved in the so-called maritime problem of Bolivia to find a solution through peaceful negotiations. Therefore, Mr. President, Paraguay reiterates and notes that, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and faithful to its policy of non-
[p 223]
intervention in the internal affairs of other States, what is called the maritime problem of Bolivia must be conducted within the principles established in Article 3 of the OAS Charter.
Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Representative. …
1700
Annex 259
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 602 (XII–O/82), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 20 November 1982
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Twelfth Regular Session, 1982, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XII.O.2 (1982), pp 35-37
1701
1702
Annex 259
Annex 259
1703
1704
Annex 259
Annex 259
1705
1706
Annex 260
Official Message from the Chilean Delegation to the Organization of American States to the Directorate for Multilateral Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 297/298, 14 September 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1707
1708
Annex 260
Annex 260
1709
OFFICIAL NOTE 284964
Classification
CONFIDENTIAL
Number
297/8
Time Origin
141520
Month
SEPTEMBER
Year
1983
From: DELCHILE OEA [CHILEAN DELEGATION, OAS]
To: DIMULTI [Directorate for Multilateral Policy] CC: DIBILAT [DIRECTORATE OF BILATERAL AFFAIRS] – DIPLAN [Directorate for Planning]
REQRES.
1.- DURING MY STAY IN CARACAS, AMBASSADOR FERNANDO SALAZAR OF BOLIVIA EXPRESSED THAT IT WAS URGENT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ME UPON MY RETURN TO WASHINGTON. WE HELD THAT CONVERSATION TODAY.
2.- THE AMBASSADOR OF BOLIVIA STATED THAT HE WANTED TO DISCUSS THE LATEST EVENTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOTH OF OUR TWO COUNTRIES AND HOW TO ADDRESS THE UPCOMING OAS ASSEMBLY.
3.- HE MENTIONED THAT THE BOLIVIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS HAS MADE PROGRESS IN THE TREATMENT OF THE MARITIME PROBLEM, SHIFTING FROM THE RIGID STANCE ADOPTED BY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS VELARDE TO THE POSITION OF FRANK UNDERSTANDING AND COLLABORATION SOUGHT BY FOREIGN MINISTER TAMAYO, WHICH THE CURRENT MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BOLIVIA MAINTAINS AND WHICH AIMS AT COMMENCING A PROCESS THAT PERMITS POSITIVE RELATIONS WITH CHILE.
4.- HE INQUIRED AS TO WHETHER I WAS AWARE OF THE INITIATIVE OF COLOMBIA, TO WHICH I RESPONDED I WAS GENERALLY AWARE OF IT.
5.- WITH REGARD TO THIS INITIATIVE, SALAZAR TOLD ME THAT HIS GOVERNMENT HAD EXPRESSED ITS GRATITUDE TO THE COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT FOR THE INITIATIVE AIMED AT RESUMING DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH CHILE, WHICH THEY CERTAINLY ACCEPTED. THEY TOLD THE COLOMBIAN FOREIGN MINISTER THAT, IN ORDER TO ADDRESS A SERIES OF ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE COUNTRY WAS MOST SENSITIVE, THE COLOMBIAN INITIATIVE SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN LESS SWIFTLY THAN AS PROPOSED. IN THIS REGARD, AND BEFORE THE MEETING BETWEEN THE MINISTERS OF CHILE AND BOLIVIA TOOK PLACE, WHICH COLOMBIA PROPOSED TO HOST IN BOGOTA IN SEPTEMBER, THEY WOULD PREFER THE BOLIVIAN MINISTER HOLD AN INFORMAL MEETING WITH YOU DURING THE UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY. THEN THE OAS ASSEMBLY WOULD TAKE PLACE, AND THE BOGOTA MEETING WOULD BE HELD AFTER THESE TWO EVENTS.
CONTINUES IN MY TELEX 298.-
DAZA
1710
Annex 260
Annex 260
1711
CONTINUATION OF MY TELEX 297.-
6.- THE BOLIVIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS BELIEVED THAT THE OAS ASSEMBLY WOULD SERVE COLOMBIA’S PROPOSAL. BOLIVIA WAS BOUND TO INCLUDE THE MATTER IN THE FOLLOWING ASSEMBLY, BUT, TO THIS END, BOLIVIA WOULD MERELY ISSUE A BRIEF REPORT AIMED AT LAYING EMPHASIS ON A DIALOGUE WITH CHILE, WITHOUT SEEKING OR OBTAINING ANY KIND OF RESOLUTION FROM THE ASSEMBLY. THEY WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH HAVING CERTAIN COUNTRIES, SUCH AS COLOMBIA OR OTHERS, MAKING STATEMENTS URGING FOR DIALOGUE.
7.- I TOLD SALAZAR THAT WE HAD AT ALL TIMES BEEN IN FAVOR OF ENGAGING IN DIALOGUE WITH BOLIVIA TO RESOLVE OUR ISSUES, BUT THAT I HAD TO REMIND HIM THAT THE ATMOSPHERE OF DIALOGUE HAD BEEN DISRUPTED PRECISELY BECAUSE BOLIVIA HAD RUPTURED RELATIONS WITH CHILE, ITS ACTION BEFORE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE ACTIVE CAMPAIGN DEVELOPED AGAINST OUR COUNTRY, ALL OF WHICH HAD HAD A PROFOUND IMPACT ON THE CHILEAN PUBLIC, WHICH CURRENTLY DID NOT FAVOR ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH BOLIVIA. I ADDED THAT THIS WOULD BE A LENGTHY PROCESS, IN WHICH BOLIVIAN ACTIONS HAD TO BE RECTIFIED SO AS TO CREATE A POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT IN BOTH OF OUR COUNTRIES.
8.- BASED ON THE STATEMENTS BY SALAZAR, BOLIVIA’S STRATEGY BEFORE THE OAS AIMS AT INTRODUCING THE MATTER IN THE UPCOMING ASSEMBLY, AS PEACEFULLY AS POSSIBLE, IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE REALIZATION OF THE COLOMBIAN INITIATIVE.
9.- I AM CONVINCED THAT SALAZAR IS ACTING ON VERY CLEAR INSTRUCTIONS FROM HIS FOREIGN MINISTRY. HOWEVER, AWARE OF THE WHIMSICALITY OF HIS COUNTRY’S POLITICS, HE TOLD ME, IN ANTICIPATION, THAT HE WOULD IMMEDIATELY INFORM ME OF ANY CHANGE IN THIS POSITION.
10.- I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS IN THE EVENT OF A NEW OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE WITH SALAZAR.
THE END
DAZA.
1712
Annex 261
Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Attitude of the Most Important Bolivian Officials (from Government and Parliament) During the Administration of President Siles, that Evidences an Anti-Chilean Climate, 15 September 1983 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1713
1714
Annex 261
Annex 261
1715
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS CONFIDENTIAL
PLANNING DIVISION
Assessment and Analysis Department
ATTITUDE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT BOLIVIAN OFFICIALS (FROM GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT) DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRESIDENT SILES, THAT EVIDENCES AN ANTI-CHILEAN CLIMATE
1716
Annex 261
Annex 261
1717
1718
Annex 261
Annex 261
1719
1720
Annex 261
Annex 261
1721
1722
Annex 261
Annex 261
1723
1724
Annex 261
Annex 261
1725
1726
Annex 261
Annex 261
1727
[…]
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 147
ANNEX A
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS
1728
Annex 261
Annex 261
1729
[…]
Annex A
148
CHILEAN-BOLIVIAN DISCUSSIONS
In
response to a friendly invitation of His Excellency the President of Colombia, Belisario Betancur, our country accepted to visit the city of Bogotá with the aim of initiating a phase of rapprochement with Bolivia, proposed under Resolution No. 686 approved on 18 November 1983 by the General Assembly of the O.A.S., in Washington, thus demonstrating that it encourages a conciliatory and neighborly spirit.
This
attitude of willingness of the Government of Chile had already been evinced at the last General Assembly of the United Nations in September 1984 in New York. There, in the presence of the Colombian Foreign Minister, Mr. Augusto Ramírez Ocampo, Minister del Valle and his Bolivian colleague agreed to issue a Joint Communiqué that would define the procedural aspects for carrying out the Resolution of the O.A.S. mentioned above. (The Draft Joint Communiqué is included as an annex).
Moments
before signing the aforementioned release, the Bolivian Foreign Minister spoke at the general debate of the Assembly and dedicated a large part of his speech to Bolivia’s maritime aspiration, using phrases and expressions which, in my country’s opinion, contradicted the spirit that should have inspired the dialogue between States determined to resolve matters of mutual interest. In light of the foregoing, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile was forced to put an end to this first stage of rapprochement.
Although
the Government of Chile was convinced that the only possible way to study the Bolivian maritime aspiration was through bilateral negotiations in an environment of mutual respect and seriousness, and after demonstrating once again its high spirit of conciliation, during the last meeting of the General Assembly of the O.A.S., held on November 1984, in the city of Brasilia, it agreed to attend a meeting in Bogotá in order to continue with the process of rapprochement between both countries, which had been interrupted in the city of New York.
1730
Annex 261
Annex 261
1731
Before
that meeting, scheduled for the first days of February of this year, Mr. Gustavo Fernández, before leaving his position as Foreign Minister of Bolivia, issued a statement, noting that there were “a number of previously agreed upon guidelines between both countries”, and specifically, that:
a)
Chile and Bolivia were “willing to negotiate under the Inter-American System and the auspices of the President of Colombia, Belisario Betancur.”
b)
The matter was multilateral and of hemispheric interest.
c)
There was no commitment to restore relations until “negotiations show signs that we are close to a solution favorable to Bolivian interests.”
d)
Negotiations will seek to build “lasting peace in the region,” especially among the three countries (Bolivia, Chile, and Peru) involved in the war of the Pacific, after which Bolivia became a landlocked country.
e)
“Lasting Peace in the region means that the interests of the three countries should be properly addressed in the solution.”
f)
The solution had to ensure a sovereign and useful maritime outlet in the Pacific Ocean coast to Bolivia. The coast must be geographically connected to Bolivia’s territory.
g)
Negotiations will not entail any territorial compensation on the part of Bolivia.
This
statement, widely publicized, gave rise to a Communiqué announced by Minister del Valle where he indicated that the Government of Chile had not previously assumed any commitment to Bolivia regarding substantial aspects intended to fulfil the maritime aspiration of that country, and made it clear that Chile was not going to accept any conditions to attend to the meeting in Bogotá.
1732
Annex 261
Annex 261
1733
Likewise,
Minister del Valle specified the true sense which, after several conversations with his Bolivian colleague through which they agreed to patiently go forward, was meant to be given to the scheduled meeting in Bogotá.
In
this way, and in the absence of a timely and categorical response from Bolivia to the concrete issues raised in the aforementioned release, and after new events occurred that did not favor dialogue at all, Foreign Minister del Valle issued a second communiqué where he stated that in the absence of the minimum conditions necessary for a fruitful understanding with Bolivia, he was forced to decline to attend the meeting in Colombia.
Consequently,
and considering that next June, Bolivia will have general elections and that the Foreign Minister of Colombia, Mr. Augusto Ramírez Ocampo, will leave office soon, it seems advisable to resume dialogue once the new Government authorities take over in La Paz.
[…]
1734
Annex 261
Annex 261
1735
DRAFT JOINT COMMUNIQUE OF CHILE AND BOLIVIA
The Chilean and Bolivian Foreign Ministers, H.E. Mr. Jaime del Valle Allende and H.E. Mr. Gustavo Fernández, respectively, met in New York with the Delegation of Colombia at the United Nations Organization and, after several conversations in the context of the 39th General Assembly being held, they reached an agreement on the main aspects of context and procedure for carrying out Resolution No. 686 adopted at the XIII General Assembly of the OAS on 18 November 1983, in which the two countries were urged to initiate a process of rapprochement oriented towards normalizing their bilateral relations, with the aim of overcoming the difficulties that divide them, including in particular a formula that would make it possible to give Bolivia a sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean, on bases that take into account mutual conveniences and the rights and interests of all parties involved.
In this manner, both Foreign Ministers consider the preparatory stage to be accomplished, thus making possible the Bogotá meeting, to which they were invited by President Betancur and which will be aimed at concluding the pending procedural details and will be held within the next ninety (90) days.
New York, October 1984.
[…]
1736
Annex 261
Annex 261
1737
1738
Annex 261
Annex 261
1739
1740
Annex 261
Annex 261
1741
1742
Annex 262
Report of Jorge Gumucio Granier, Permanent Representative of Bolivia to the United Nations, regarding the meeting between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and Chile,
1 October 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Original submitted by Bolivia as Annex 178 to its Memorial
1743
1744
Annex 262
Annex 262
1745
Permanent [...] of Bolivia
[...] the United Nations CONFIDENTIAL
NOTE FOR THE RECORD
Mr. José Ortiz Mercado, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Bolivia, held an informal interview with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Mr. Miguel Schweitzer, in the presence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, Mr. Lloreda Caicedo, and Ambassadors Alban of Colombia, Trucco of Chile, and Fernando Salazar Paredes and Jorge Gumucio of Bolivia, on 1 October 1983 at 11 a.m. at the residence of the Ambassador of Colombia.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia started the conversation, stressing that the meeting was totally informal, and that it was being held on at the initiative of President Betancur of Colombia, in the hope that these talks might lead to a solution to the problems existing between both countries. The Minister noted that his country did not wish to play a leading role, but simply to act as a host, in the meeting between both countries, with which Colombia shared no borders but did maintain a strong friendship with and deeply appreciated both.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile spoke next. He appreciated the invitation on behalf of his Government, and mentioned that since he became Minister of Foreign Affairs, he had the wish to improve the climate of opinion between both countries in order to try to subsequently resolve the serious problems that separated Chile and Bolivia. He also recalled having made the same comment many times to, among others, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloreda Caicedo in Cartagena, Colombia.
In turn, Foreign Minister Ortiz Mercado appreciated the Colombian initiative and reiterated the Constitutional Government’s willingness to search for constructive solutions to the disputes existing between Bolivia and Chile. The existence of clear ideological differences between both governments was referred to, which constituted a challenge that might contribute to candid discussions.
1746
Annex 262
Annex 262
1747
He stressed that such frankness should be used from the start, that all rapprochement between Bolivia and Chile should be based on a decision of that country to grant Bolivia an outlet to the sea. Otherwise, it would be repeating past experiences that were negative from every point of view. He recalled that both countries held negotiations on nine occasions, at different points in time, without reaching any agreement. Such experience frustrated the Bolivian people, who became totally distrustful of any negotiations with Chilean diplomats.
He said that he considered that the basis of any agreement lay on Chilean good faith and on the decision to grant Bolivia a sovereign and useful outlet to the Pacific Ocean, which was also of hemispheric interest as determined by the O.A.S. and other international forums, such as the Non-Aligned Movement.
For his part, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile thanked his counterpart for the frankness of his approach, and pointed out that he had to mention with the same frankness that the Chilean public opinion of Bolivia was very harsh as a result of the campaign conducted internationally against Chile.
He requested that, to prepare the opinion of both publics for a reconciliation, statements from officials of both governments which were detrimental to a potential reconciliation had to cease.
Chile, aspiring to have normal relations with Bolivia, stated and outlined that, to achieve this, it had to resort to a constructive and imaginative dialogue. Chile could not undertake to resolve the maritime problem without restoring relations, however, it remarked that it was obvious that whatever subject to be discussed between Bolivia and Chile in formalized relations included a solution to the maritime problem.
He further stressed that he had not been able to gain deep insight into Chile’s international problems before becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, the first thing he did upon taking office was to analyze the Beagle problem with Argentina and the problem with Bolivia. He again stressed that any relationship between both countries necessarily involved addressing the maritime problem.
In turn, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia expressed his agreement on the need for imagination and new forms of discussion in order to
1748
Annex 262
Annex 262
1749
resume negotiations over the maritime problem. However, he highlighted that no previous conditions could be set, for although these might possibly preclude discussions, a normalization of relations would not be well received by the Bolivian public opinion on account of the prevailing distrust it has. However, he pointed out that the General Assembly of the O.A.S. might provide an opportunity to begin a thaw in the relationships between both countries.
He mentioned that the maritime problem had been unilateral at the beginning, for it involved a decision by Bolivia to seek a solution to its confinement; it was bilateral because Bolivia and Chile necessarily had to endeavor to find a satisfactory solution; at one point it was trilateral because any solution had to be communicated to Peru, as provided in the Treaty of 1929, whereby any negotiation involving territories of the former Peruvian province of Arica had to be consulted with Peru. This Treaty, he pointed out, was only intended to obstruct any negotiation that might favor Bolivia. He added that such Treaty was hammered out behind the back and without the involvement of Bolivia.
He further pointed out that the problem was also multilateral because such had been determined by hemispheric countries on several occasions at the different O.A.S. Assemblies, because of decisions made at other international forums, and because of countless joint declarations signed by Bolivia with several countries.
In referring to the next O.A.S. General Assembly to be convened next November, he expressed that Bolivia was willing not to seek another Resolution confirming the previous ones, but to simply submit a Technical Report that did not contain controversial paragraphs, emphasizing the difficulties and damages caused to Bolivia by the lack of an outlet to the sea. In that respect, he proposed that a friendly third country, in this case, Colombia, on its own or with the support of some other countries to be defined, submit a Declaration inviting all parties involved to implement the previous O.A.S. resolutions through frank and constructive discussions aimed at finding satisfactory solutions.
It would be important, he stated, that before this call Bolivia and Chile reply favorably to this invitation, solemnly
1750
Annex 262
Annex 262
1751
affirming their commitment to seek solutions.
Regarding this issue, he recalled that Chile had already shown its willingness during the informal consultations conducted by Ambassadors Salazar and Daza when the Council of the O.A.S. met to analyze the issues to be included in its agenda, among them the maritime problem (Calendar of events for the 13th General Assembly).
In referring to the possible Declaration, he suggested that the aforementioned Draft Declaration be prepared immediately and jointly between both countries’ ambassadors to the OAS, with the cooperation of the Ambassador of Colombia to this institution.
To conclude, Minister of Foreign Affairs Ortiz recalled the following phrases by a Spanish poet: “Wayfarer, there are no roads; let’s make our roads as we walk”. These phrases could be applied to the OAS Declaration, as a way of setting the goal of reaching a solution, leaving flexibility for the countries to jointly define the means and the road map to reach the much sought-after goal.
In principle, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile expressed his agreement with the Bolivian approach as regards a strategy to seek a harmonious transition from the multilateral field to the bilateral field under the auspices of the President and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia. He also agreed that both countries would seek agreements on general principles and explore solutions satisfactory to both countries in relation to the maritime issue without previous conditions.
Wherefore, both Ministers of Foreign Affairs agreed to:
Keep the strictest confidence because of the sensitivity of the issues involved.
Make it known to Peru in due course of the purposes and approaches agreed upon.
Subsequently decide the names of the countries that might sponsor the Declaration jointly with Colombia.
Hold informal discussions between the permanent missions of both countries both at the OAS and the UN in New York and Geneva about matters of common interest.
Both Ministers of Foreign Affairs agreed to relay this conversation to their respective Heads of State.
It should be noted that during the interview, Ambassadors Salazar Paredes and Gumucio Granier of Bolivia, Trucco of
1752
Annex 262
Chile, and Alban of Colombia provided suggestions and clarifications supplementary to the approaches put forward by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs.
This Meeting concluded at 12:30 P.M.
[Signature]
Jorge Gumucio Granier
Ambassador, Permanent Representative
of Bolivia to the United Nations.
Annex 263
Official Message from the Directorate for Multilateral Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Chilean Delegation to the Organization of American States,
No 270/271, 27 October 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1753
1754
Annex 263
Annex 263
1755
OFFICIAL NOTE No. 832529
Classification
CONFIDENTIAL
Number
270/271
Time Origin
271952
Month
OCTOBER
Year
1983
From: DIMULTI [Directorate for Multilateral Policy]
To: DELCHILE O.E.A. [Chilean Delegation, OAS]
INTER-MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE (COMINF)
I TRANSCRIBE BELOW THE CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF THE ISSUE OF BOLIVIA'S LANDLOCKED STATUS BEFORE THE OAS:
(PLEASE TRANSCRIBE THE ATTACHED TEXT)
1756
Annex 263
Annex 263
1757
Pursuant to the conversations held with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Colombia and Bolivia, the matter of the “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia” will be addressed in the upcoming General Assembly of the OAS as follows:
1.- Bolivia will make a presentation on the matter, underscoring its economic elements. Chile may respond to this action in the terms it may deem convenient.
These two elements will be agreed upon in Washington by the Ambassadors before the OAS.
2.- This time, Bolivia has stated that it does not seek the adoption of a Resolution by the General Assembly, but would rather be satisfied with having Colombia suggest the rapprochement of the two countries through the re-establishment of diplomatic relations.
3.- Notwithstanding this Bolivian statement, it is necessary to specify how Chile would be able to accept this invitation to resume relations and which elements of it that it should reject:
A) Chile cannot accept any invitation conditioned upon a negotiation of territory or implying the collective involvement of the OAS in this sovereign act.
B) Therefore, we cannot allow any Resolution from the Organization on this matter.
C) We can accept an invitation from one or several member countries extended individually, without entailing any subsequent involvement of those States in the process following the resumption of relations (or any alternatives implemented).
D) The requirement not to condition the re-establishment of diplomatic relations upon a negotiation of Bolivia's territorial aspirations does not entail the exclusion of such aspiration, but rather that negotiations must be directed towards the wide array of matters relevant to the two countries and as diplomatic relations would allow for a change in Chile's and
1758
Annex 263
Bolivia's
public opinions, so that it is possible to raise and support such a sensitive matter.
It should also be made clear
that the Government of Santiago cannot commit to negotiations without considering the compromises arising from the 1929 Treaty entered into with the Republic of Peru.
4.- In the event that the Bolivians modify the position agreed upon with Colombia, all draft Resolutions submitted by it must be rejected, unless the wording is drafted in the terms approved at the 1980 Assembly.
Annex 264
Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly,
18 November 1983
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Thirteenth Regular Session, 1983, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XIII.O.2 (1984), pp 348 and 364-376
1759
1760
Annex 264
[p 348]
GENERAL COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING
Date: Friday 18 November 1983
Time: 11:15 a.m.
Place: Hall of the Americas
President: Mr. Fidel Chávez Mena
Minister of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador
Present: Messrs.
Roberto Martínez Ordóñez (Honduras)
Donastus St. Aimee (Saint Lucia)
Alvar Antillón Salazar (Costa Rica)
Michael I. King (Barbados)
Luis Fernando Roca García (Bolivia)
Francisco Bustillo del Campo (Uruguay)
Hector Denis (Haiti)
Luis Marchand Stens (Peru)
Rafael de la Colina (Mexico)
Alejandro Bendaña (Nicaragua)
Raúl Falconí (Ecuador)
Samuel Fernández (Chile)
María Teresa Butler (Bahamas)
Thomas J. Dunnigan (United States)
Carlos A. Saldívar (Paraguay)
George W. McKenzie (Trinidad and Tobago)
Francisco Posada de la Peña (Colombia)
Dário M. de Castro Alves (Brazil)
Hernán Hurtado Prem (Guatemala)
Joel J. Toney (Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines)
Elías Vargas B. (Panama)
Marino Villanueva Callot (Dominican Republic)
Edith Márquez (Venezuela)
Oscar Castro Araujo (El Salvador)
Edmund H. Lake (Antigua and Barbuda)
Cherrie J. Orr (Jamaica)
Raúl A. Quijano (Argentina)
Marcella H. Mukasa (Dominica)
Alejandro Orfila (Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
Annex 264
1761
[...]
[p 364]
2. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia
(AG/doc.1620/83) (item 9 on the agenda)
The PRESIDENT: The next item is about the maritime problem of Bolivia [AG/doc.1620/83]. It is my pleasure to give the floor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Ortiz): Thank you, Mr. President. Distinguished Foreign Ministers, Representatives, and Heads of Delegation:
I have the honor of presenting to this distinguished Assembly the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia, item 9 on our agenda.
In the last four sessions, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States has approved resolutions to find a just solution to the forced geographic confinement that has affected Bolivia since the War of the Pacific in 1879. The first resolution AG/RES. 426 (IX-0/79), approved at the ninth session, declared it to be a matter of “continuing hemispheric interest that an equitable solution be found whereby Bolivia will obtain useful sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.”
The significant predecessors of such resolution were the Declaration of Ayacucho, signed by a group of Presidents or their representatives who had gathered to commemorate the sesquicentennial of the battle that defined the liberty of America; the declaration of the Permanent Council of the OAS of 1975, on the occasion of the session of honor to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Bolivia’s declaration of independence; and the Resolution also reflects the international solidarity manifested in various international forums,
[p 365]
such as the movement of Non-Aligned Countries, sub-regional groups, and numerous manifestations by friendly countries. In the tenth and eleventh regular sessions, held in Washington, in 1980, and in Saint Lucia, in 1981, and in the twelfth regular session also held in Washington, in 1982, the General Assembly reiterated that concern.
In the last resolution adopted, AG/RES. 602 (XII-0/82), it was resolved:
1762
Annex 264
1.
To reaffirm resolution AG/RES. 426 (IX-0/79) approved on
31 October 1979, and resolutions AG/RES. 481 (X-0/80) approved on
27 November 1980 and AG/RES. 560 (XI-0/81), approved on 10 December 1981.
2.
To urge, once again, the parties directly involved in this problem to resume negotiations in an effort to give Bolivia a free and sovereign territorial connection to the Pacific Ocean.
3.
Either of the parties may request that the item “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia” be included on the agenda for the next regular session of the General Assembly.
Based on these resolutions, the Delegation of Bolivia asked that this session of the General Assembly continue to consider this topic. In this regard, Bolivia deplores the fact that it must state for the record in this report that in spite of its willingness, no progress has been made in the course of the past year towards meeting the objectives prescribed by those resolutions.
Bolivia, concerned with this situation, reiterates its willingness to seek appropriate dialogue mechanisms to commence negotiations to give Bolivia a free, useful, and sovereign connection to the Pacific Ocean. The people of Bolivia reiterate their confidence in hemispheric solidarity and believe that the Inter-American community can face this problem, so that with understanding and friendship these sister nations can find a just and equitable solution for the parties involved. It is in this spirit of American brotherhood that my Delegation submits this report to this Assembly.
Mr. President, distinguished Foreign Ministers, Heads of Delegation, allow me to make some comments that I hope will facilitate a better understanding of the reasons why my country has insisted on including this topic in the present session of this Assembly. We Bolivians believe that Bolivia’s maritime problem should be focused on a view to the future. We have come before this forum once again because we hope that this opinion will resonate with other countries, without intending to revive any longstanding quarrels or to reiterate any criticisms, but rather to find constructive solutions
[p 366]
to the age-old problem of our forced geographic confinement. We would like for it to be understood that for Bolivia, access to the sea is not a mere aspiration, but a vital question for its future. The world is on the threshold of the 21st century, and astounding changes to the lives of nations are already on the horizon. To cite just one example, I will mention communications, which have reduced the size of the planet such that literally instantaneous contacts can be made between peoples who are geographically very far apart. The technological revolution caused by space
Annex 264
1763
satellites is eliminating the political borders created by humans, those borders that André Malraux called the scars of history, which are destined to disappear from the face of the globe sooner or later. Along these lines, we have already seen the appearance and development of regional units such as the European Economic Community or COMECON, entities in which the seeds of great future political units may be hidden. As a theorist of international relations who argued in favor of regionalism as the political formula of the future once put it: “With the nation, beyond the nation”.
Our America cannot avoid this dynamic process of history. Why should we not think that in the future, the countries in the Andean Group or the Rio de la Plata Basin might form political-economic entities similar to those that will presumably arise on other continents?
Mr. President, distinguished Representatives, it is not an exaggeration to situate Bolivia’s maritime problem squarely within a hemispheric scheme. Convinced that our Continent has a promising future in store for it, my country desires to participate in it with its own identity and the economic potential and the political gravitas that would make such participation with our sister nations in Latin America significant.
To this end, why is it necessary for Bolivia to recover its access to the Pacific Ocean? The answer can be found in the words of a famous Argentine and citizen of the Americas, who wrote.
Bolivi
a lives isolated and without any ports, to the detriment of itself, of America and to the world of trade; paths for communication are all that this privileged country needs in order to rise into the world of wealth. It is in the best interest of all of America for Bolivia to resume its nature as an eastern and littoral State, in order to avoid the conflicts of the Pacific that weaken its united action and give Bolivia a guarantee of South American equilibrium.
Such adamant words will become even more important in the future. Let us not forget, distinguished Representatives, that in the same way that the Mediterranean Sea was the focus of the great demographic and economic currents of Antiquity, and was then replaced by the Atlantic Ocean
[p 367]
after the discovery of America, history now seems to have moved to the Pacific Ocean, which is the likely venue of the great events of the future.
It is known that this Ocean bears considerable food and mineral resources, and this fact alone is enough to highlight the importance to the nations of the region of having a direct, appropriate access to it. If there are nations with thousands of
1764
Annex 264
kilometers of coastline along the Pacific, it is difficult to argue that this should be denied to a country that, we must repeat, once possessed sovereign access to that ocean and was deprived of it in an unjust war and an imposed treaty. Moreover, for Bolivia, achieving access to the sea means satisfying the deepest longing of Bolivians: to open a means of communication between the Atlantic region of the Continent and the Pacific Ocean.
Due to its position as the central-most country in South America, Bolivia has been called a land of contacts and a country of multiple gravitations. Because of this situation caused by its geographic location, it plays a role of bringing our continent together, which makes it important in the processes of regional and sub-regional integration, since it belongs to three hydrographic systems: the Amazon, the Rio de la Plata and the Pacific. We state without fear of being mistaken or making presumptuous exaggerations, that without the economic development of Bolivia it will be nearly impossible to move towards effective integration of the countries on the Atlantic and the countries in the Andean Group.
Regional and/or bilateral agreements to establish physical connections with ports on the Pacific that include energy interests, industrial development, agriculture and ground transportation, may constitute in the medium term the most strategic group of projects in the entire process of Latin American regional integration. These projects, and particularly those involving physical infrastructure, will substantially reduce the distances between the Atlantic and the Pacific. The situation of Bolivian territory gives it an international importance that was seen by Bolivar himself, the Liberator of America and the Father of our Country, who at the time of Latin American independence, highlighted this importance in a letter sent to Marshal Sucre: “I would not attempt to march to Upper Peru if the interests at stake there were not so great. The Potosí is the axis of an immense sphere; all of southern American has a part of its fate implicated in that territory.”
Mr. President, my Delegation believes that the time has come for the General Assembly to consider the means necessary to enforce its resolutions within a spirit of continental harmony,
[p 368]
faithful to the spirit of the Charter and in order to put an end to the state of things that hinders the friendship that must reign among the nations in our Hemisphere. In insisting on this call, Bolivia does so with the good-faith purpose of reaching a free, friendly understanding, without an attempt to undermine the sovereignty of any State, but on the contrary, in an effort to create a spirit of understanding that if the respective interests are taken into account, will allow us to reach just, equitable solutions for all the parties affected by this problem. This is why my Delegation is willing to listen and to examine with an open mind any suggestion or initiative that that Assembly deems appropriate to make. We hope and desire that this frank and open attitude of my country will find an echo, as it deserves.
Annex 264
1765
Finally, Mr. President, distinguished Representatives, Bolivia asks that the report on item 9 of the agenda and the discussion of it at this session of the General Assembly be recorded completely and expressly in the relevant minutes. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile has the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CHILE (Mr. Schweitzer): Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Ministers of Foreign Affairs, distinguished Representatives:
The presentation of the “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia” moves my Delegation to make some necessary clarifications. The first relates to the definition of my country’s border with Bolivia. In this regard, I want to be very emphatic: the boundaries between Chile and Bolivia were fixed once and for all by an international treaty that was freely signed by both countries in 1904. Consequently, we do not have any pending legal problems with Bolivia and this Organization of American States has no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue pronouncements on territorial matters of the Member States.
Any negotiations with Bolivia aimed at satisfying Bolivia’s longing for a sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean through Chilean territory is a matter for solution directly between Bolivia and Chile, and might possibly require the participation of Peru, if it involves the territories included in the Treaty of 1929, which Chile signed with Peru. Any negotiations of this type must also be the result of a process; a process that involves improving and normalizing the relations between our two countries and that permits us to create the positive political environment that facilitates an action of this nature. My country is and has always been willing to make a contribution to the beginning of this process.
Another aspect is related to regional cooperation and the purposes of integration that Bolivia mentions.
[p 369]
Chile has been a strong proponent of Latin American integration. We have supported it from a general standpoint and we have repeatedly informed Bolivia of our desire to promote it with them in the bilateral and the regional context.
We do not purport to attribute responsibility for what has not been done in this respect. Nevertheless, Chile has not had and does not have any concerns about initiating a process of rapprochement with Bolivia to realize the vast possibilities of integration between the two sister nations called by history and geography to live together harmoniously under a framework of mutual cooperation.
1766
Annex 264
The Foreign Minister of Bolivia has referred to the integration that has made so much progress in Europe, and without any doubt, the old continent has set an example for us of how countries with an enormous history of rivalry have set aside their past antagonism for the benefit of their people, in broad processes of integration and cooperation.
For integration is a means of overcoming the differences of the past, with a view toward the future, and with modern ideas that allow nations to overcome their historical anachronism, whereby two neighboring countries live distanced from each other and absorbed in futile quarrels.
Another aspect that needs to be clarified is the facilities to access the sea that Bolivia has through Chilean territory. In this regard, suffice it to say that, as we have said before, there is not another country in the world that enjoys greater advantages of communication with the ocean than those offered by Chile to Bolivia. Even so, we have always aimed to improve and perfect the free transit regime.
The Representative of Bolivia mentioned in his declaration that he regretted having to note that, despite his willingness, no progress had been made in meeting the objectives prescribed in the resolutions approved by this Assembly in the past four years.
As far as I am concerned, I would also like the record to reflect that the resolutions approved by this Assembly and rejected by my country could not have given rise to any progress at all. We have stated that it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Assembly and that a process of negotiations with Bolivia regarding Chilean territories can only find an interlocutor when it is done directly with Chile.
We also affirm right from the start that an attempt to have an international organization participate in a matter that is outside its jurisdiction and relates to Chile’s exclusive sovereignty was a wrong, improper path. We repeat that the only appropriate way is to engage in dialogue with Chile to seek a rapprochement between the two countries and a recovery of the bonds of friendship in a climate of mutual respect.
[p 370]
Mr. President, the distinguished Foreign Minister of Bolivia has expressed the intention of his Government to approach this problem with a vision towards the future and in a constructive spirit. We cannot fail to be glad of such positive intentions. Chile firmly believes in a policy of good neighborliness, which has become one the guiding principles driving its foreign policy. As we have already said, borders should be points of union, and become dynamic elements of cooperation. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Annex 264
1767
The PRESIDENT: The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia has the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF COLOMBIA (Mr. Lloreda): Mr. President, distinguished Foreign Ministers, Representatives, ladies and gentlemen:
First of all, I would like to congratulate the Foreign Ministers of Bolivia and Chile on the dignity, responsibility, and truly American-minded language that has characterized their speeches when they discussed this topic that has occupied the Organization of American States for so many years, and I want to tell them with sincerity that in the minds and wills of each and every country represented here, their words have opened the way for reestablishing a constructive dialogue about the topics that interest both countries.
For several months now, Colombia, and its President Belisario Betancur personally, have been interested in finding these paths. But it was the will of Bolivia and Chile that in this process of rapprochement, here in the Organization of American States, in the presence of the representatives of all the countries in this Hemisphere, could take their first step towards rapprochement between these two sister nations.
With this in mind, I have submitted to the Assembly, through the office of the Secretary, a draft resolution that attempts to reflect this mindset, and which I will ask you to read aloud when I have finished speaking. In other words, it seeks to pick back up the thread of a more positive relationship between the two countries, with that the terms in which this draft resolution is worded, aimed at recording the speeches of the two Foreign Ministers (with respect to everything that constitutes the respective position of their countries, and also as expression of good will), this draft also encourages the two countries to start a process of rapprochement that could lead them to normalize their relations and overcome their mutual difficulties, including a formula that makes it possible for Bolivia to have a sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean, an issue that both of them have already addressed.
We have all understood that these matters have begun to be addressed and this beginning could allow progress towards the goal of a closer understanding
[p 371]
between Bolivia and Chile. I also want to indicate that if this initiative, and it is the hope that all of us have, could receive the simultaneous support of both countries and in general, from the entire community in the Americas, my Government, and in particular President Betancur, could quickly arrange for the invitation that has always been open to the two governments represented by their Foreign Ministers, so that in the near future, in Bogota or another location that they may select, they
1768
Annex 264
can commence conversations and dialogues to achieve the purposes set forth in this resolution. In other words, the beginning of a rapprochement process searching to normalize relations, overcome difficulties, and search for a formula that makes possible the desires and the expectations of these two sister nations.
I do not want to outwear my welcome, Mr. President. There has only been one last-minute change to the draft resolution being considered by the distinguished members of the Assembly, in point 2 of the resolution, in the last sentence where it says “the rights and interests of all the parties involved,” the amendment is to delete the word all. The rest of the terms of the resolution remain as set forth in the draft that is being distributed.
I want to reiterate my congratulations to the distinguished Foreign Ministers of Bolivia and Chile for the intellectual dignity and the constructive spirit of their presentations, and naturally, we are all looking forward to finding out whether at least the fundamental points of this resolution will receive the support of the two countries, which would ensure that within the OAS, with the presence of all the countries in the Americas, two sister nations can begin the long, difficult but necessary process of rapprochement. Thank you, Mr. President.
[…]
The FOREIGN MINISTER OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Ortiz): Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Foreign Minister of Colombia, as I stated earlier, Bolivia is attending this meeting of the General Assembly animated, as always, by a high sprit of Latin American fraternity, because we want and desire to find long-lasting, equitable solutions to our century-old “maritime problem,” because the justice of our cause has been widely recognized by the vast majority of the countries in Latin America, whose will has been reflected in the four OAS resolutions signifying their support to Bolivia’s right to recover its outlet to the sea.
Finally, because the generous and lucid sponsorship of a country with the moral hierarchy of Colombia, which has been kind enough to act as an amiable compositeur, guarantees us impartiality and efficiency in the hemispheric context.
For these reasons, Foreign Ministers, Heads of Delegation, Bolivia supports the resolution that was just submitted to us by the
[p 372]
talented Foreign Minister of Colombia, and hopes that the other delegations, without exception, will also support it with their vote.
Annex 264
1769
In accepting this initial solution, my country is aware that there is still a long way to go and this is only a first step, but a first step in the right direction, which is mutual understanding among the countries in the Americas.
Mr. President, we consider it an auspicious coincidence that this event which with time will perhaps acquire historic projection is occurring on the second centennial of the birth of the Liberator Simón Bolívar. The nations of America are showing their faithfulness to the legacy of our immortal hero, who dreamed of a united America that is supportive of its destiny. It is in that sense and with that inspiration that Bolivia’s support for the resolution submitted by the Foreign Minister of Colombia, under the noble auspices of Colombian President Betancur, should be interpreted. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Foreign Minister. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile has the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CHILE (Mr. Schweitzer): Mr. President, I would like to begin my remarks by reiterating what has always been my country’s position with regard to the constructive spirit with which it has always approached its participation in these Assemblies and its cooperation with this Organization, based on a full desire for Latin American unity. In this connection, the proposed resolution submitted to us by our distinguished friend, the Foreign Minister of Colombia, has the support of my Government, although we must state our objection to the preamble, because of the principles that we have repeated in these Assemblies, as we find that it alludes to resolutions that my Government has never accepted.
We believe that today more than ever, Mr. President, the Organization needs clear signs, concrete gestures, that show the true unity of our Latin American brotherhood. The situations that we are all familiar with and that we have noted with heartrending realism in these meetings, the unexpected early resignation of the Secretary General, Ambassador Orfila; in the midst of a widespread economic crisis, the solution to which not only is not simple but also not clear. We could, distinguished Representatives, continue listing the problems but we would still not be able to enumerate the solutions to them.
That is why my Delegation, faced with Bolivia’s aspiration and our position, in order to replace eloquence and rhetoric, so common among us, would like to replace it with tangible demonstrations of good will, good neighborliness, and we welcome the Colombian suggestion set forth in this resolution, with the objection mentioned earlier.
1770
Annex 264
[p 373]
It was high time for this Assembly, outside the Pan-American Union, to practice what was not a novelty, but what in our region appeared to be utopian.
As we said at the beginning of our meetings, it is sufficient for us to give in a little bit in order for all of us to gain a lot.
Finally, Mr. President, I cannot fail to express my admiration and thanks to our friend, the distinguished Foreign Minister of Colombia, who along with His Excellency the President of the Republic, Belisario Betancur, are an example that all of Latin America can be proud of. With their spirit of integration and desire for justice, they have again contributed to cooperation among the peoples of American so that they can find their common identity.
My friend the Foreign Minister has shown, once again, his attributes and gifts, and for having used them, I would like to send him my personal thanks, and the thanks of my Government and my Delegation. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. I ask the Secretary to read aloud the draft resolution.
The SECRETARY: [Reads:]
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
HAVING CONSIDERED:
Resolutions AG/RES. 426 (IX-0/79) of 31 October 1979, AG/RES. 481 (X-0/80) of 27 November 1980, AG/RES. 560 (XI-0/81) of 10 December 1981 and AG/RES. 602 (XII-0/82), which respectively declared and reiterated it to be a matter of continuing hemispheric interest that an equitable solution be found whereby Bolivia will obtain appropriate sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, and
WHEREAS:
There is still a need to achieve the objective indicated in the previous declaration, in a spirit of American fraternity and integration, and to consolidate a climate of peace and harmony that will promote the economic and social progress in the area of the Americas directly affected by Bolivia’s lack of its own access to the sea,
RESOLVES:
1.
To take note of the report of the Bolivian Government on its port problem, the comments made by the Governments of Chile and Bolivia on the decisions adopted in this regard by this Organization, as well as the constructive mindset of both countries.
Annex 264
1771
[p 374]
2.
To urge Bolivia and Chile, for the sake of American brotherhood, to begin a process of rapprochement and strengthening of friendship between the Bolivian and Chilean peoples, aimed at normalizing their relations and overcoming the difficulties that separate them, especially including a formula for giving Bolivia sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean on bases that take into account mutual conveniences and the rights and interests of the parties involved.
3. Either Party may request that the item “Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia” be included on the agenda of the next regular session of the General Assembly.
[…]
The PRESIDENT: The Representative of Argentina has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF ARGENTINA (Mr. Quijano): Thank you very much, Mr. President. The presentations we have heard from the distinguished Foreign Ministers of Bolivia and Chile this morning are a reason for special satisfaction as they presented their positions and specifically accepted the very appropriate conciliatory proposal prepared by the Foreign Minister of Colombia. Obviously extraordinary progress has been made with respect to the debate on this same topic just a year ago, when the tone was different and it was impossible to reach an agreement.
Bolivia’s confinement problem is a cause of major concern to Argentina, and this concern has been reflected over the years in numerous instruments and declarations in which we have expressed our confidence that
[p 375]
our neighbor Republic, with bonds born of our shared history, will achieve its sovereign and useful access to the Pacific Ocean.
Our Organization has joined in this aspiration in resolutions approved in recent years and there is a general Latin American interest in the solution to this problem. Logically the Organization must limit itself to an exhortation and call on the parties to seek points of contact. The main effect of our presentation must be persuasion. Fortunately, in this case, persuasion has already been achieved. The agreement expressed in the proposed resolution presented by the distinguished Delegation of Colombia is the happy fact of this meeting and we think that on this basis we can give an adequate solution to the problem, trusting that the parties will continue their talks with increasing activity.
1772
Annex 264
I would like to say that our position is very clear in this matter; we trust that Bolivia will solve its problem and will have a coastline on the Pacific Ocean, and we also trust that this solution will be reached in broad, free negotiations between the parties directly involved, both of which are sister nations of Argentina. This must logically occur within the framework of full compliance with existing treaties and in the understanding that the parties have the full right to sovereignly determine everything concerning the negotiations recommended here. Once again, we trust that this process that has begun with a resolution will have a very happy ending in the very near future. Thank you.
[…]
[p 376]
The PRESIDENT: The Representative of Peru has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PERU (Mr. Marchand): Thank you very much, Mr. President. In the first place, I would like to indicate that we have listed with great attention to the lofty, cordial, and very fraternal statements by the Foreign Ministers of Bolivia and Chile. Also, Mr. President, we have listened with great attention to the significant proposal submitted by the distinguished Foreign Minister of Colombia, Lloreda Caicedo, and as was said a moment ago, words are not enough to praise his very constructive and humble labor for the Inter-American and Latin American cause.
Mr. President, Peru has consistently supported Bolivia’s maritime aspiration and also fully understands it. It has given concrete evidence of its political will to contribute to the solving of this issue. As we did on previous occasions, Mr. President, I would like to end by making a statement that is consistent with our position here, i.e., that the Delegation of Peru, inspired by the purposes of harmony behind the resolution to be approved wishes to place on the record that, as on other occasions, the recommendation made today by this Assembly can only be understood in the context of respect for the sovereignty, rights and interests of the parties it concerns and in accordance with the legal framework applicable between them.
I repeat, Mr. President, that on this occasion, as we have always done, we will support this resolution just as we have been supporting our sister Republic of Bolivia. Thank you very much.
Annex 265
Minutes of the Seventh Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 18 November 1983
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Thirteenth Regular Session, 1983, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XIII.O.2 (1984), pp 206 and 268
1773
1774
Annex 265
[p 206]
MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH PLENARY MEETING
Date: 18 November 1983
Time: 4:45 p.m.
Place: Hall of the Americas
President: Mr. Fidel Chávez Mena
Minister of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador
Present: Messrs.
Mario Carías Zapata (Honduras)
Donatus St. Aimee (Saint Lucia)
Luis E. Guardia (Costa Rica)
Michael I. King (Barbados)
Gustavo Aliaga (Bolivia)
Rolando Visconti (Uruguay)
Héctor Denis (Haiti)
Luis Marchand Stens (Peru)
Andrés Valencia (Mexico)
Edgard F. Parrales (Nicaragua)
Galo Larrea (Ecuador)
Pedro Daza (Chile)
María Teresa Butler (Bahamas)
J. William Middendorf II (United States)
Juan Alberto Llanes (Paraguay)
George W. McKenzie (Trinidad and Tobago)
Henricus A. F. Heidweiller (Suriname)
María Emma Ardila (Colombia)
Marco Cesar Meira Naslausky (Brazil)
Hernán Hurtado Prem (Guatemala)
Joel G. Toney (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines)
Roberto Leyton (Panama)
Josefina Vega-Batlle (Dominican Republic)
Víctor Giménez Landínez (Venezuela)
Sara Ventura de Nosiglia (El Salvador)
Edmund H. Lake (Antigua and Barbuda)
Evadne Coye (Jamaica)
Gerónimo Cortés Funes (Argentina)
Marcella H. Mukasa (Dominica)
Alejandro Orfila (Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
[...]
Annex 265
1775
[p 268]
[…]
18. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia
(AG/doc.1719/83)
The PRESIDENT: The Secretary informs me that, by error, we failed to consider the draft resolution on the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia [AG/doc.1719/83], also submitted by the General Committee. I apologize for this oversight and submit the draft to the Room for consideration. The Representative of Chile has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Daza): Thank you very much, Mr. President. Just as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile did when this item was discussed by the General Committee, I ask that the minutes of this session reflect my Delegation’s reservation to the preamblular paragraphs of this resolution. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Salazar): Mr. President, I understand that the resolution has been approved, and my Delegation would again like to thank Colombia, its President, its Foreign Minister and its Ambassador before the OAS for their effective contribution to the discussion of this issue and especially for submitting the resolution that obtained the unanimous support of this Assembly. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: If there are no other comments, this draft resolution is deemed approved. Approved.
We have thus completed the drafts submitted by the General Committee, and since there are no other points on our agenda, we will adjourn the meeting.
1776
Annex 266
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 686 (XIII–O/83), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 18 November 1983
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Thirteenth Regular Session, 1983, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XII.O.2 (1983), pp 100 and 105
1777
1778
Annex 266
Annex 266
1779
1780
Annex 267
Official Message from the General Directorate for Foreign Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Consulate General of Chile in Bolivia, No 531/532,
21 November 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1781
1782
Annex 267
Annex 267
1783
OFFICIAL MESSAGE NO. 839784
Classification
SECRET
Number
531/532
Local Time
212040
Month
NOVEMBER
Year
1983
From: DIGEN [General Directorate for Foreign Policy]
To: CONSULATE GENERAL OF CHILE, LA PAZ; EMBASSY OF CHILE, COLOMBIA; CHILEAN DELEGATION TO THE OAS, THE UN, GENEVA; EMBASSY OF CHILE, PERU
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY FURTHER DETAILED INFORMATION, I HEREBY SUMMARIZE THE MAIN CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING FROM THE RECENT CHILEAN-BOLIVIAN NEGOTIATIONS IN THE LATEST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE OAS, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF COLOMBIA.
A. CONTINUING WITH THE RAPPROCHEMENT DEALINGS THAT COLOMBIA HAD BEEN CONDUCTING OVER THE PAST MONTHS, AND AS AGREED BY MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ORTIZ AND SCHWEITZER IN THEIR LAST MEETING IN NEW YORK LAST SEPTEMBER, BOTH MINISTERS AND THEIR ADVISORS (AMBASSADORS CRESPO, SALAZAR AND GUMUCIO FOR BOLIVIA, AND AMBASSADORS DAZA AND DIGEN LAGOS FOR CHILE) MET IN WASHINGTON WITH MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS LLOREDA, WHO WAS ACCOMPANIED BY COLOMBIAN UNDERSECRETARY LUIS CARLOS VILLEGAS AND THE AMBASSADOR TO THE OAS, POSADA DE LA PEÑA.
B. IN THAT MEETING, THE BOLIVIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS INFORMED CHILE OF THE REPORT THAT HE WOULD SUBMIT TO THE OAS ON THE BOLIVIAN MARITIME SITUATION, AS WELL AS THE DRAFT RESOLUTION HE INTENDED TO PRESENT. THE TONE OF THE REPORT WAS CALM AND WITHOUT ANY MAJOR CONTENTIOUS ELEMENTS. AS REGARDS THE RESOLUTION, HE REQUESTED THAT THE PREVIOUS OAS RESOLUTIONS BE REAFFIRMED, CONSIDERED THE MARITIME PROBLEM TO BE TANTAMOUNT TO A DISPUTE, AND REQUESTED THE APPOINTMENT OF A GOOD OFFICES COMMISSION MADE UP BY COLOMBIA, URUGUAY AND PANAMA, AS AN OPERATIVE PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS LEADING TO A SOLUTION TO SUCH PROBLEM.
C. MINISTER SCHWEITZER APPRECIATED THE FORWARD-LOOKING APPROACH OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE BOLIVIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AS WELL AS THE MEASURED TONE OF HIS SPEECH AT THE PLENARY SESSION OF THE OAS ASSEMBLY. HOWEVER, HE EXPRESSED HIS OUTRIGHT REJECTION OF THE SUGGESTED RESOLUTION, WHICH SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT TO INTERNATIONALIZE THE PROBLEM, NOTWITHSTANDING THE REPEATED STATEMENTS FROM CHILE THAT IT WAS ONLY WILLING TO CONSIDER THE PROBLEM BILATERALLY AND DIRECTLY WITH BOLIVIA, ONCE A SUITABLE CLIMATE OF MUTUAL RESPECT WAS CREATED.
D. MINISTER LLOREDA AGREED, IN GENERAL, WITH THE
1784
Annex 267
Annex 267
1785
CHILEAN PROPOSAL, AND REQUESTED, IN THE PRESENCE OF AMBASSADOR OF COLOMBIA POSADA DE LA PEÑA, THAT AMBASSADORS DAZA AND CRESPO PREPARE A NEW DRAFT RESOLUTION.
E. AS A RESULT OF SUCH DEALINGS, WHICH LED TO SEVERAL CONSULTATIONS WITH THE MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, WITH THE INVOLVEMENT OF MINISTER LLOREDA, A TEXT ACCEPTABLE TO BOTH PARTIES WAS FORMULATED AND LATER SUBMITTED TO PERU FOR CONSULTATION. CHILE DECLARED THAT IT WOULD RESERVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE PREAMBLE TO SUCH DRAFT RESOLUTION, FOR IT REFERRED TO OAS RESOLUTIONS THAT CHILE HAD REJECTED BEFORE. HOWEVER, WE SHOWED A WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT ITS OPERATIVE SECTION, FOR IT TOOK ACCOUNT OF OUR INTERESTS, I.E. IT DID NOT REAFFIRM THE VALIDITY OF THE REFERENCED OAS RESOLUTIONS THAT INTERNATIONALIZED THE PROBLEM, OR OPERATIVE PARAGRAPH NO. 2, WHICH, ABOVE ALL, IS THE MOST RELEVANT OF ALL AND SUMMARIZES THE STANCE THAT WE HAVE MAINTAINED SINCE BOLIVIA BROKE OFF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH CHILE IN 1978. INDEED, SUCH PARAGRAPH PROVIDES FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF A RAPPROCHEMENT PROCESS AND THE REINFORCEMENT OF THE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN CHILE AND BOLIVIA, TO NORMALIZE THEIR RELATIONS, OVERCOME THEIR DIFFICULTIES, ESPECIALLY INCLUDING A FORMULA THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO GIVE BOLIVIA A SOVEREIGN OUTLET TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN, ON THE BASIS OF THE RECIPROCAL INTERESTS AND RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS MUST PRECEDE THE MARITIME NEGOTIATIONS. AT ONE POINT, WE EVEN REJECTED A BOLIVIAN APPROACH THAT SOUGHT TO ADDRESS BOTH ISSUES SIMULTANEOUSLY.
F. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS RESOLUTION, DESPITE THE ABOVE RESERVATION BY CHILE, WAS ACCEPTED WITH A STANDING OVATION BY ALL AMERICAN MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND WAS HIGHLY PRAISED AS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS, NOT ONLY IN THIS OAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, BUT IN THE HEMISPHERIC RELATIONS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.
1786
Annex 267
Annex 267
1787
G. UPON GIVING HIS APPROVAL, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF COLOMBIA LLOREDA POINTED OUT THAT PRESIDENT BETANCUR WOULD INVITE THE MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BOLIVIA AND CHILE TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES SET FORTH THEREIN. IN THAT REGARD, PRESIDENT BETANCUR HAS ALREADY DELIVERED A MESSAGE TO THE PRESIDENTS OF BOTH COUNTRIES.
H. FOR YOUR INFORMATION ONLY, I INFORM YOU THAT MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS LLOREDA TOLD MINISTER SCHWEITZER THAT THE MEETING IN BOGOTÁ WOULD BE INTENDED TO RESTORE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS ONLY, AND THAT, ONCE THE FORMER HAD BEEN REALIZED HE WOULD CONCLUDE THE COLOMBIAN INTERVENTION.
I. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD KEEP ME INFORMED ON ANY REACTIONS THAT MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS ISSUE. A FAVORABLE EDITORIAL HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN CHILE, IN “LA TERCERA” NEWSPAPER. DURING THIS WEEK, THE MINISTER WILL INFORM MEDIA OUTLETS AND SECTORS INTERESTED IN INTERNATIONAL ISSUES OF THE MEANING OF THIS AGREEMENT.
1788
Annex 268
Cable from General Augusto Pinochet to President Belisario Betancur of Colombia, 30 November 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
U. Figueroa, The Bolivian maritime demand in international fora (2007), p 501
1789
1790
Annex 268
Annex 268
1791
Annex 27
Telegram from the President of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, to the President of Colombia, Belisario Betancur, acc ept ing the invitation for Chile to meet with Bolivia in Bogotá.
Santiago, 30 November 1983
Your Excellency,
Belisario Betancur,
President of Colombia,
Colombia
Your Excellency,
I ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF YOUR TELEGRAM DATED the 18th of last November, in BOGOTÁ, through which Your Excellency refers to the resolution recently approved at the recent OAS General Assembly, whereby, in the pursuit of unity of the Americas, Chile and Bolivia are encouraged to undergo a process of rapprochement and reinforcement of the amity of the Bolivian and Chilean people, geared towards a normalization of their relations.
In furtherance of the above, Your Excellence has kindly suggested that a meeting between Chile and Bolivia, represented by their Ministers of Foreign Affairs, be held in Colombia. I have instructed the Chilean Foreign Minister, Miguel Schweitzer, to attend said meeting at such date as may be deemed convenient.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.
Augusto Pinochet Ugarte
Captain General of the Army
President of the Republic of Chile
1792
Annex 269
Official Message from the Embassy of Chile in Colombia to the General Directorate for Foreign Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 267/268, 22 December 1983
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1793
1794
Annex 269
Annex 269
1795
OFFICIAL MESSAGE NO. 0335091
Classification
CONFIDENTIAL
Number
267/268
Local Time
221645
Month
DECEMBER
Year
1983
From: Embassy of Chile, Colombia
To: DIGEN [General Directorate for Foreign Policy]
COMINF [Inter-ministerial Committee on Infrastructure].
RE: YOUR TELEX NO. 694.
1. IN VIEW OF THE ABSENCE OF MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS LLOREDA (HE RETURNS TODAY FROM A CONTADORA MEETING IN PANAMA AND IS TRAVELING TONIGHT TO CALI) AND YOUR URGENT REQUEST IN YOUR CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE NO. 12892 FOR THE LETTER TO BE DELIVERED TO FORMER MINISTER SCHWEITZER, I HAD SAID DOCUMENT DELIVERED BY HAND LAST MONDAY THROUGH YOUR CABINET CHIEF. IN VIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS IN YOUR TELEX ABOVE, I MET THIS MORNING WITH SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS VILLEGAS, WHO KNOWS THE CHILE-BOLIVIA ISSUE BEST AS WELL AS THE CONTENT OF THE REFERRED LETTER.
2. I EXPLAINED IN DETAIL TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL OUR GOVERNMENT’S CONCERN ABOUT BIASED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COLOMBIAN MANAGEMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF CHILE, WHICH WARRANT URGENT AND NECESSARY CLARIFICATION. THAT IS: THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IS THE RAPPROCHEMENT AND DIPLOMATIC NORMALIZATION BETWEEN CHILE AND BOLIVIA, AT WHICH POINT THE COLOMBIAN EFFORTS WILL CEASE. ALSO, EXPRESSIONS SUCH AS “RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED” IN THE PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT DELIVERED IN BOYACA ARE INCORRECT FOR THE REASONS YOU KNOW. REFERENCES SHOULD ONLY BE MADE TO “RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OR ASPIRATIONS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED”.
3. AMBASSADOR VILLEGAS TOLD ME EMPHATICALLY THAT COLOMBIA ONLY SOUGHT TO BRING TOGETHER TWO COUNTRIES THAT WERE FRIENDS, AND THAT IT REMAINS IMPARTIAL BETWEEN THEM. HE ADDED THAT HE FULLY CONCURRED WITH OUR INTERPRETATION, WHICH WAS THE GENUINE COMMITMENT ASSUMED BY THE MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AT THE OAS. HOWEVER, HE ACKNOWLEDGED, AS HAD BEEN THE CASE WITH HIS AMBASSADOR IN LA PAZ, “THAT HE COMMITTED A GAFFE FOR WHICH HE RECEIVED A WARNING.” HE DID NOT REFER DIRECTLY TO THE “ENTHUSIASM” OF PRESIDENT BETANCUR IN HIS LATEST STATEMENTS, OR TO THE TEXT OF THE BOYACA DECLARATION. HOWEVER, HE INSISTED THAT PERTINENT CLARIFICATIONS WOULD BE MADE BY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS LLOREDA IN HIS NEW YEAR’S MESSAGE TO HIS CHILEAN AND BOLIVIAN COUNTERPARTS.
I CONTINUE IN MY TELEX NO. 268…….
SALAZAR
…
1796
Annex 269
Annex 269
1797
CONTINUATION OF MY TELEX NO. 267….
4. REGARDING MY REQUEST FOR AN AUDIENCE WITH MINISTER LLOREDA TO REITERATE IDENTICAL DEMANDS, THE SECRETARY GENERAL TOLD ME THAT HE WOULD SUMMON ME EARLY NEXT WEEK FOR ME TO DELIVER THE REFERRED MESSAGE, ON WHICH OCCASION I WILL BRING UP THE SUBJECT AGAIN.
5. AFTER THE MEETING, AND CONSIDERING THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY VILLEGAS, I HAVE THE FOLLOWING IMPRESSION: UPON OFFERING ITS GOOD OFFICES, COLOMBIA HAD A GLOBAL INTEREST IN HELP IN FINDING A SOLUTION FOR BOLIVIA’S LANDLOCKED STATUS (PERHAPS SUCH IDEA WAS ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED BY BOLIVIA ITSELF). AT A SECOND STAGE, WHICH ENDED WITH THE CONVERSATIONS HELD BY THE MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AT THE OAS, THE COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT NOTICED MORE CLEARLY THE ACTUAL IMPLICATIONS OF ITS EFFORTS, AND, THEREFORE, THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED. NOW, AND AFTER SEVERAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS BROUGHT UP ON OUR END, THEY MAY HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE PRECISE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ISSUE. IN SUM, WE MUST WAIT FOR LLOREDA’S LETTER IN ORDER TO RATIFY THE FULL ASSURANCES GIVEN BY COLOMBIA WITH RESPECT TO OUR POSITION.
6. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD HAVE THIS TELEX BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF AMBASSADOR MORALES (PHONE NO. 498106).
END
SALAZAR
REFERENCE: MEETING WITH SECRETARY GENERAL. BOLIVIAN RELATIONS.
1798
Annex 270
Statement by the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs of Chile,
22 December 1983 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1799
1800
Annex 270
Annex 270
1801
SUBJECT
:
1983 BOLIVIA RAPPROCHEMENT
DATE
:
83 12 22
SOURCE
:
UNDERSECRETARY MR. HUMBERTO JULIO
SOURCE COUNTRY
:
CHILE
ISSUED IN
:
SANTIAGO
KARDEX
:
1
SECTION
:
A
BINDER
:
113
RECORD
:
CONTINUED FROM RECORD
:
“Should the statements from President Siles be true, there is, in my opinion, a difference in the approach between the result of the outcome of the latest OAS Resolution and our position on the issue. The position of Chile is that a process of rapprochement must first exist, which hopefully leads to the resumption of bilateral relations, and, subsequently, at a third stage, the existing differences should be addressed, which include any aspects both countries wish to raise”.
The Undersecretary, Humberto Julio, added that Chile maintains its willingness to dialogue, but the attitude towards Bolivia today is the “result of the amicable initiative of Colombia. However, we are naturally not willing to modify our policy; that is to say, relations cannot be subject to conditions”.
The Undersecretary confirmed that the OAS Resolution is an exhortation for both countries to progress toward the gradual resumption of their relations, so that they can reach an agreement on every issue of mutual interest between them.
Upon being asked about the difficult aspects of the situation, about whether Chile and Bolivia rely on different assumptions as a starting point, he stated: “We refer to information in the cablegram, we are based on the assumption that this is true. If it is, naturally the situation is difficult”.
The Undersecretary added that “it is a requirement” of the Foreign Ministry that no conditions are imposed for the resumption of diplomatic relations with Bolivia. He also admitted that there is a possibility the Colombian initiative may fail. In that regard, he said:
“Eventually, it would fail if such different interpretations existed, which differ greatly from the conversations held at the OAS and what our amiable compositeur is fully aware of”.
“There exists a process of rapprochement with Bolivia, but it has no deadlines and it is not tied to negotiations about that country’s maritime problem. The process initiated at the OAS involves rapprochement, but it is not, plainly, a negotiation... It is necessary to approach and maintain good relations with neighbors. It is at that point (on the rapprochement issue) that Colombia acted as amiable compositeur. This must be accomplished in no rush and without false expectations. There is no immediate deadline and we are not talking about the outlet to the sea”.
(Note: This last paragraph was published by the press of La Paz).
1802
Annex 271
Minutes of the Eighth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 17 November 1984
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Fourteenth Regular Session, 1984, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XIV.O.2 (1985), pp 240 and 246-248
1803
1804
Annex 271
[p 240]
MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH PLENARY MEETING
Date: Saturday, 17 November 1984
Time: 3:45 p.m.
Place: Itamaraty Palace – Plenary Room
President: Mr. Ramiro Saraiva Guerreiro
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Brazil
Present: Messrs.
Edilberto Moreno (Venezuela)
Sonia M. Johnny (Saint Lucia)
Edmund H. Lake (Antigua and Barbuda)
John J. Crowley Jr. (United States)
Gaston de Prat Gay (Argentina)
Rafael A. Bolaños (El Salvador)
Rafael de la Colina (Mexico)
Reynold Leroy (Haiti)
Mónica Madariaga (Chile)
Harry Beleván McBride (Peru)
Leonel Morales (Costa Rica)
Fernando Salazar Paredes (Bolivia)
Joshua Sears (Bahamas)
Edgard F. Parrales (Nicaragua)
Alvaro Alvarez (Uruguay)
Juan Guillermo Franco (Dominican Republic)
Roberto Leyton (Panama)
Marcos Martínez Mendieta (Paraguay)
Oswaldo G. Harding (Jamaica)
Hernán Hurtado Prem (Guatemala)
Dário M. de Castro Alves (Brazil)
Luis Carlos Villegas (Colombia)
Albert O. Xavier (Grenada)
James O’Neil Lewis (Trinidad and Tobago)
Franklin A. Baron (Dominica)
Donald A. McLeod (Suriname)
Rafael García Velasco (Ecuador)
Roberto Martínez Ordóñez (Honduras)
Peter D. Laurie (Barbados)
João Clemente Baena Soares (Secretary General OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
Annex 271
1805
[…]
[p 246]
c. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.1858/84)
The PRESIDENT: The next draft is entitled “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia” [AG/doc.1858/84]. The Representative of Chile. The Representative of Chile has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Figueroa): Thank you, Mr. President. As we did in the General Committee, I would ask that a roll-call vote be taken on this resolution as well. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: A roll-call vote has been requested, and therefore we must hold the lottery to determine which delegation will start the voting. [He draws a paper]. The Delegation of Guatemala will start the roll-call vote.
[The roll-call vote was held with the following vote]:
Guatemala Yes
Brazil Yes
Colombia Yes
Grenada Abstention
Trinidad and Tobago Abstention
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [Absent]
Dominica -
Suriname -
Ecuador Yes
Honduras Yes
Barbados Abstention
Venezuela Yes
Saint Lucia Abstention
Antigua and Barbuda Yes
United States Yes
Argentina -
El Salvador -
Mexico Yes
Haiti Abstention
Chile No
Peru Yes
Costa Rica Yes
Bolivia Yes
Bahamas Abstention
Nicaragua Yes
Uruguay Yes
1806
Annex 271
[p 247]
St. Kitts and Nevis [Absent]
Dominican Republic Yes
Panama Yes
Paraguay Yes
Jamaica Yes
The PRESIDENT: The result of the vote is as follows: 19 in favor, 1 against, and 6 abstentions. Consequently, the draft was approved. I now give the floor to the Representative of Antigua and Barbuda for an explanation of the vote.
[…]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PERU (Mr. Beleván): Thank you,
Mr. President. The Delegation of Peru reiterates its support and understanding of Bolivia’s maritime problem, which was expressed, on other occasions, when we supported the resolutions that have been adopted on this subject by this Organization in the past. The recommendation contained in the resolution that was just approved to continue the dialogue initiated between the Governments of Bolivia and Chile should be understood within the respect for the sovereignty, rights, and interests of the parties directly concerned and within the current legal framework. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Representative. The Representative of Paraguay has the floor for an explanation of the vote.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PARAGUAY (Mr. Martínez): Thank you, Mr. President. As we stated in the General Committee, the Republic of Paraguay, faithful to its American desire and as the only other landlocked country in the Americas, has given its support for this resolution, but we should understand it as an exhortation to the parties involved
[p 248]
to find a solution to the problem through peaceful negotiation. As on previous occasions, Paraguay would also like the record to reflect its dedication to and respect for the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other States. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Representative of Chile has the floor for an explanation of the vote.
Annex 271
1807
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Figueroa): Thank you,
Mr. President. In the General Committee, my Delegation had an opportunity to state its position on this issue.
In accordance with the procedures at previous Assemblies, I would ask you,
Mr. President, that this explanation of vote be included in the minutes of this meeting. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
1808
Annex 272
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 701 (XIV–O/84), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 17 November 1984
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Fourteenth Regular Session, 1984, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XIV.O.2 (1985), p 20
1809
1810
Annex 272
Annex 272
1811
1812
Annex 273
Official Message from the Directorate of Bilateral Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Embassy of Chile in Colombia, No 9, 11 January 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1813
1814
Annex 273
Annex 273
1815
REPUBLIC OF CHILE Date Time of Dispatch Operators signature
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS Illegible 111811 signature
PAGE: AREA:
OFFICIAL MESSAGE
No. 1034722
Classification
CLASSIFIED
Number
009
Time of delivery
111742
Month
JANUARY
Year
1985
From: Bilateral Affairs Office (DIBILAT)
To: Embassy of Chile in Colombia (EMBACHILE COLOMBIA)
U R G E N T
INTER-MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE (COMINF)
1. THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE NOTE DATED 10 JANUARY 1985, FROM LA PAZ NOTIFIES THAT FOREIGN MINISTER FERNANDEZ, SHORTLY BEFORE LEAVING OFFICE, EXPLAINED TO THE PRESS THAT THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN AGREED UPON WITH CHILE TO ORIENT THE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE BOGOTA REUNION:
A. THAT CHILE AND BOLIVIA ARE “WILLING TO NEGOTIATE UNDER THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM AND THE AUSPICES OF THE PRESIDENT OF COLOMBIA, BELISARIO BETANCUR”.
B. THIS IS A MULTILATERAL ISSUE OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE AND HEMISPHERIC INTEREST.
C. THERE IS NO COMMITMENT TO RESTORE RELATIONS UNTIL “NEGOTIATIONS SHOW SUFFICIENT SIGNS THAT WE ARE CLOSE TO A SOLUTION FAVORABLE TO BOLIVIA.”
D. NEGOTIATIONS WILL SEEK TO BUILD “LASTING PEACE” IN THE REGION, ESPECIALLY AMONG THE THREE COUNTRIES (BOLIVIA, CHILE, AND PERU) INVOLVED IN THE WAR OF THE PACIFIC, AFTER WHICH BOLIVIA BECAME A LANDLOCKED COUNTRY.
E. “LASTING PEACE IN THE REGION MEANS THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE THREE COUNTRIES SHOULD BE PROPERLY ADDRESSED IN THE SOLUTION,” SAID FERNANDEZ.
F. THE SOLUTION MUST ENSURE THE GRANTING TO BOLIVIA OF A SOVEREIGN AND USEFUL OUTLET TO THE COAST OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN. THIS COAST MUST BE GEOGRAPHICALLY CONNECTED TO BOLIVIA’S TERRITORY.
G. NEGOTIATIONS WILL NOT INCLUDE ANY TERRITORIAL COMPENSATION ON THE PART OF BOLIVIA.
1816
Annex 273
Annex 273
1817
MY TELEX CONTINUES
2. THE MINISTRY IS CONDUCTING A THOROUGH STUDY OF THE CONTENT OF SAID DECLARATION TO TAKE A POSITION, AS WILL BE INFORMED TO YOU AS SOON AS THE MINISTER RESUMES HIS DUTIES NEXT MONDAY.
1818
Annex 274
Communiqué of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile,
14 January 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1819
1820
Annex 274
Annex 274
1821
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
COMMUNIQUÉ
Santiago, 14 January 1985
As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I cannot help referring to the statements made by Mr. Gustavo Fernández when he left his position as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia.
In that regard, I should point out to the public that the Government of Chile has not assumed any commitment with Bolivia on substantive aspects aimed at satisfying the maritime aspiration of this country.
In that sense, I reiterate once again that Chile has no outstanding territorial issues or problems with the Republic of Bolivia; this aspect was finally settled by the Treaty of Peace, Amity and Commerce entered into in 1904.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, given the American spirit which informs our foreign policy, the Government accepted the friendly offer made by the President of Colombia, His Excellency Belisario Betancur, that the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Chile and Bolivia meet in Bogotá in order to agree on a formula that would facilitate compliance with Resolution No. 686, adopted by the 13th General Assembly of the OAS in 1983, which Chile signed with reservations.
That spirit allowed making, in 1984, a number of preparatory contacts with a view to reaching an agreement on the scope and extent of the planned meeting. In such efforts, it was decided that the parties in Bogotá would establish the procedures and steps for conducting Chilean-Bolivian conversations aimed at attaining the goals specified in the above paragraph. Those steps included a work session in Buenos Aires following the Bogotá meeting.
1822
Annex 274
Annex 274
1823
Thus, the interpretation and conditions communicated by the Bolivian representative deserve the following remarks:
1.
Any negotiation that could occur concerning Bolivia's maritime aspiration shall be strictly bilateral. Chile hereby rejects any attempt to make it multilateral.
2.
The allusion in the above-mentioned Statement by former Minister of Foreign Affairs Fernández that “the negotiation seeks to consolidate permanent peace in the region” constitutes, in so far as Chile is concerned, an unnecessary reassertion, since Chile is driven by a strong willingness to strictly comply with the Treaties and International Law.
3.
The Government of Chile will not accept any prior conditions to initiate discussions with Bolivia such as those required by Mr Fernández in pointing out potential pre-established outcomes.
4.
Similarly, the Government of Chile rejects considering the cession of any of its territory without an equitable compensation duly agreed upon by the Parties.
5.
Therefore, I will travel to Bogotá as long as the new Bolivian authorities unequivocally express a constructive position which respects what has been agreed to in New York and Brasilia regarding the actual objective of the planned meeting. Only thus will it be possible to initiate viable discussions.
6.
Finally, I wish to restate the gratitude of the Chilean people and Government of Chile to the Government of Colombia for its interest in sponsoring a rapprochement between two sister nations, offering its capital city as a venue for the meeting.
Jaime del Valle Alliende
Minister of Foreign Affairs
1824
Annex 275
Official Message from the Consulate General of Chile in Bolivia to the Directorate of Bilateral Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 37, 16 January 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1825
1826
Annex 275
Annex 275
1827
OFFICIAL MESSAGE
Classification
ORDINARY
Number
037
Local Time
161000
Month
JANUARY
Year
1985
From: Consulate General of Chile, La Paz
To: DIBILAT [Directorate of Bilateral Affairs]
Inter-ministerial Committee on Infrastructure (COMINF)
Yesterday afternoon, the Senate unanimously adopted the resolution that suggests suspending conversations with Chile, the text of which is transcribed below:
“ONE. Expressing its appreciation for the Democratic Government of Colombia’s initiative, and by resolution adopted by the Organization of American States, and in light of the lack of willingness of Chile to resolve Bolivia’s landlocked situation in the framework of the resolutions adopted by the OAS, the National Senate considers it convenient to suggest to the Executive Power that it suspend the conversations planned.
TWO. Reiterating that the recovery of a sovereign, useful outlet to the Pacific Ocean, overcoming the unjust enclosure suffered by Bolivia, it is of unanimous interest to the Bolivian people above any political, economic, or regional difference, within a constructive approach to peace, integration, and development affecting the continental community and it is of direct interest to the democratic, peaceful coexistence of the sister nations of Bolivia, Peru, and Chile.
Passed in the chamber of the National Senate on this 15th day of January, 1985.
H. Mario Rolón Anaya, Senator of the Republic, H. Luis Anez Álvarez, Senator of the Republic, H. Heberto Catedo Llado, Senator of the Republic.”
Rodríguez.
Reference: Bolivian Senate Resolution.
1828
Annex 276
Communiqué from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 18 January 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1829
1830
Annex 276
Annex 276
1831
COMMUNIQUÉ
A meeting between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Chile and Bolivia had been scheduled to take place in the city of Bogotá on the 4th and 5th of next February, pursuant to a friendly initiative of the President of Colombia, Mr Belisario Betancur.
In a Press Release issued on 14 January of this year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile corrected the statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Mr. Gustavo Fernández, and specified the true spirit that had been agreed after a series of talks with his Bolivian colleague in order to plan the meeting in Bogotá. In addition, he requested that the authorities of the Government of La Paz issue a statement regarding the nature and scope that had been ascribed to the scheduled meeting.
The Government of Bolivia has categorically given no response to the concrete issues put forward in said Press Release, and meanwhile, new elements have arisen which do nothing to encourage the negotiations.
Indeed, the latest official statement from the Palacio Quemado insists on multilateralizing negotiations over its maritime aspiration, relying on an OAS resolution which Chile had voted against. Additionally, the Senate of Bolivia unanimously requested the Executive to suspend the talks agreed upon with Chile, evidencing the lack of support for any eventual outcome that could be reached at the meeting in Bogotá. This parliamentary resolution, supported by political forces of the government and the opposition alike, disproves the alleged national consensus prevailing in that country to carry out the planned negotiations.
Therefore, fundamental differences exist which hamper any approach that might reflect the true spirit of good-neighborliness and friendship traditionally embraced by the Government of Chile in its relationships with the Altiplano.
1832
Annex 276
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
In the present circumstances, given that the minimum conditions are not met for a fruitful understanding with Bolivia, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile considers it imperative to refuse to attend the meeting in Bogotá.
Santiago, 18 January 1985
Annex 277
Official Press Release from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 7 February 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1833
1834
Annex 277
Annex 277
1835
OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE FROM THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
In the evening of Wednesday, 6 February – after the welcome dinner offered by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic in honor of the delegates attending the “Cartagena Consensus Conference” – in keeping with the initiative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, His Excellency Augusto Ramírez Ocampo, I met, at the Embassy of that country in this [sic], with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, His Excellency Edgar Camacho Omiste.
This meeting allowed a detailed analysis of the alternatives experienced over the course of the conversations I held with the former Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Fernández, as well as of the elements that prevented the scheduled meeting of ministers in Bogotá from taking place and the joint release prepared in New York, which would set in motion a bilateral rapprochement process.
Following extensive discussions on the subject, in which the host minister also took part, I stated that -- without prejudice to any approaches that may be currently achieved through consular channels between the Governments of Santiago and La Paz -- Chile will officially re-establish such formal contacts once suitable and timely conditions emerge that render it practicable to achieve positive results in line with the lofty goals that the illustrious President of Colombia took into account when sponsoring said dialogue.
Santo Domingo, 7 February 1985.
(Signed)
Jaime del Valle Alliende
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1836
Annex 278
Official Message from the Consulate General of Chile in Bolivia to the Directorate of Bilateral Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, No 78, 13 February 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1837
1838
Annex 278
Annex 278
1839
OFFICIAL MESSAGE
Classification
CONFIDENTIAL
Number
078
Local Time
131040
Month
FEBRUARY
Year
1985
From: Consulate General of Chile, La Paz
To: DIBILAT [Directorate of Bilateral Affairs]
cc DIMULTI [Directorate for Multilateral Policy]
Inter-ministerial Committee on Infrastructure (COMINF)
1. Minister of Foreign Affairs Edgar Camacho returned yesterday, on which occasion he stated that the circumstances ‘do not allow a closer rapprochement with Chile. Therefore, we have decided to wait for another opportunity to re-establish informal discussions with this country.’
2. He added that ‘a lengthy, detailed assessment has been conducted in Santo Domingo of the steps previously taken toward direct discussions and future negotiations over the issues that concern us, such as the landlocked situation. However, we find that the circumstances do not yet allow a closer rapprochement on this subject. Therefore, we have decided to wait for another opportunity to re-establish discussions.’ He added that, at times, a number of problems refer to terminological differences: ‘There are points of view from the public or from government sectors. It is necessary to reach a consensus internally within each one of the countries, so we can wait for appropriate conditions while we solve other problems of a different nature regarding transportation, ports, and others, which, insofar as they are resolved, would allow a favorable climate for the discussions on the substance, which are the ones that interest us.’
3. Finally, he stated that the approaches adopted by each one of the countries will not affect the progress made toward a solution to the landlocked situation.
4. Yesterday evening, following Camacho’s statements, State-owned TV channels aired the headlines published in Aquí and Meridiano newspapers (My telexes Nos. 075 and 076) over a considerable period of time, making comments similar to those in such newspapers.
VIAL.
Reference: Camacho’s Statements.
1840