Volume 5

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE ACCESS TO THE
PACIFIC OCEAN
(BOLIVIA v. CHILE)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
Volume 5 of 6
(Annexes 279 – 332)
13 JULY 2016

i
Index to Volume 5 of 6
Annexes 279 – 332
No
S
ource
Page No
Annex
no
Title
Source
PAge
no
Annex 279 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 80, 14 February 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile
1841
Annex 280 Minutes of the Third Meeting of the
General Committee of the Organization
of American States General Assembly,
6 December 1985
(English translation only)
Organization of
American States,
General Assembly,
Fifteenth Regular
Session, 1985,
Proceedings, Vol. II,
Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/XV.O.2
(1986), pp 140 and
149-168
1845
Annex 281 Minutes of the Third Plenary Meeting
of the Organization of American States
General Assembly, 9 December 1985
(English translation only)
Organization of
American States,
General Assembly,
Fifteenth Regular
Session, 1985,
Proceedings, Vol. II,
Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/XV.O.2
(1986), pp 41and 48-50
1865
Annex 282 Organization of American States,
General Assembly, resolution
AG/RES. 766 (XV–O/85), Report on
the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 9
December 1985
(Original in English and French)
Organization of
American States,
General Assembly,
Fifteenth Regular
Session, 1985,
Proceedings, Vol. I,
OEA/Ser.P/XV.O.2
(1986), pp 22-23
1869
ii
xxxviiAnnex noTitleSourcePAge noAnnex 283 “Foreign Minister Del Valle: ‘Chile and Bolivia Must Seek a Rapprochement’”, El Mercurio (Chile), 25 February 1986 (Original in Spanish, English translation)El Mercurio (Chile)1873Annex 284 Minutes of the Binational Rapprochement Committee, 17 October 1986 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile1879Annex 285 Minutes of the Third Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 12 November 1986(English translation only)Organization of American States, General Assembly, Sixteenth Regular Session, 1986, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XVI.O.2 (1987), pp 313, 317-319 and 322-3251911Annex 286 Minutes of the Ninth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 15 November 1986(English translation only)Organization of American States, General Assembly, Sixteenth Regular Session, 1986, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XVI.O.2 (1987), pp 247 and 256-2571919Annex 287 Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 816 (XVI–O/86), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 15 November 1986 (Original in English and French)Organization of American States, General Assembly, Sixteenth Regular Session, 1986, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XVI/O.2 (1986), pp 39 and 401923xxxviiiAnnex
iii
xxxviii
Annex
no
Title Source
PAge
no
Annex 288 Empresa Portuaria de Chile, Resolution
No 160, 15 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile
1927
Annex 289 Bolivian Memorandum No 1 of
18 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile,
Memoria of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs for 1987,
pp 32-34
1933
Annex 290 Bolivian Memorandum No 2 of
18 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile,
Memoria of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs for 1987, p 34
1939
Annex 291 Speech of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Chile, 21 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile,
Memoria of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs for 1987,
pp 29-31
1943
Annex 292 Questions sent by Chile to Bolivia
concerning the Bolivian proposals,
21 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile,
Memoria of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs for 1987,
pp 35-36
1951
Annex 293 Bolivian Memorandum No 3 of
22 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile,
Memoria of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs for 1987,
pp 36-39
1955
iv
xxxixAnnex noTitleSourcePAge noAnnex 294 Press Release from the Foreign Ministers of the Republics of Bolivia and Chile, 23 April 1987 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile1965Annex 295 Minutes of the Meeting of the Permanent Commission for the Study of the Bolivian Proposal, 25 May 1987(Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile1973Annex 296 Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 9 June 1987 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Memoria of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 1987, pp 40-411981Annex 297 Aide Mémoire from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 10 June 1987 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile1987Annex 298 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States, 17 June 1987 (extract)(Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Library of the Organization of American States1991Annex 299 Minutes of the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 14 November 1987(English translation only)Organization of American States, General Assembly, Seventeenth Regular Session, 1987, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XVII.O.2 (1988), pp 252 and 258-2602053xlAnnex
v
xl
Annex
no
Title Source
PAge
no
Annex 300 Organization of American States,
General Assembly, resolution
AG/RES. 873 (XVII–O/87), Report on
the Maritime Problem of Bolivia,
14 November 1987
(Original in English and French)
Organization of
American States,
General Assembly,
Seventeenth Regular
Session, 1987,
Proceedings, Vol. I,
OEA/Ser.P/XVII.O.2
(1988), pp 29 and 33
2057
Annex 301 Memorandum of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile on Bolivian Transit
through Chile: Advantages Additional
to those Established by Treaties and
Conventions, June 1988
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile
2061
Annex 302 Minutes of the Third Meeting of the
General Committee of the Organization
of American States General Assembly,
16 November 1988
(English translation only)
Organization of
American States,
General Assembly,
Eighteenth Regular
Session, 1988,
Proceedings, Vol. II,
Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/XVIII.O.2
(1989), pp 380-394 and
396-403
2075
Annex 303 Minutes of the Thirteenth Plenary
Meeting of the Organization of
American States General Assembly,
19 November 1988
(English translation only)
Organization of
American States,
General Assembly,
Eighteenth Regular
Session, 1988,
Proceedings, Vol. II,
Part 1,
OEA/Ser.P/XVIII.O.2
(1989), pp 266 and
272-279
2097
vi
xliAnnex noTitleSourcePAge noAnnex 304 Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 930 (XVIII–O/88), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 19 November 1988 (Original in English and French)Organization of American States, General Assembly, Eighteenth Regular Session, 1988, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XVII.O.2 (1989), pp 52 and 562107Annex 305 Minutes of the Ninth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 18 November 1989 (English translation only)Organization of American States, General Assembly, Nineteenth Regular Session, 1989, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XIX.O.2 (1991), pp 283 and 2892111Annex 306 Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 989 (XIX–O/89), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 18 November 1989(Original in English and French) Organization of American States, General Assembly, Nineteenth Regular Session, 1988, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XIX.O.2 (1989), pp 33-342115Annex 307 Minutes of the Second Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 6 June 1990(English translation only)Organization of American States, General Assembly, Twentieth Regular Session, 1990, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XX.O.2 (1991), pp 295 and 304-3092119
vii
xliiAnnex noTitleSourcePAge noAnnex 308 A. Crespo Rodas, Banzer and the sea (1993), pp 3-8 (extract)(Original in Spanish, English translation) 2127Annex 309 Joint Press Release issued by Bolivia and Chile, 16 July 1993(Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2137Annex 310 Memorandum of Understanding between Bolivia and Chile, 24 November 1994 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2145Annex 311 Minutes of the Second Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 6 June 1995(English translation only)Organization of American States, General Assembly, Twenty-Fifth Regular Session, 1995, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XXV.O.2 (1996), pp 223-2272151Annex 312 Minutes of the Third Meeting of the Political Consultations Mechanism, 11 June 1995 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2157Annex 313 Empresa Portuaria de Chile, Resolution No 99, 26 December 1996 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2165Annex 314 Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of the Political Consultations Mechanism, 21 March 1997(Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2179Annex 315 Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the Political Consultations Mechanism, 9 February 1998 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2191
viii
xliiiAnnex noTitleSourcePAge noAnnex 316 Minutes of the Third Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 2 June 1998(English translation only)Organization of American States, General Assembly, Twenty-Eighth Regular Session, 1999, Proceedings, Vol. II, OEA/Ser.P/XXVIII-O.2 (1999), pp 79-80 and 87-942203Annex 317 Bolivian Customs Law No 1990, 28 July 1999 (as amended in December 2015) (extract)(Original in Spanish, English translation)<http://www.cumbre.com.bo/procedimientos/LEY%20GENERAL%20DE%20ADUANAS.pd…;, pp 1-4, 11-13, 27, 31-32 and 36-382215Annex 318 Joint Press Release issued by Bolivia and Chile, 22 February 2000 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2243Annex 319 Chilean Ministry of National Defence, Undersecretary of the Navy, Decree No 009, 29 February 2000 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2247Annex 320 Minutes of the Meeting of Experts from Chile and Bolivia on Issues of Integration and Development, 10 November 2000(Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2255xlivAnnex
ix
xliv
Annex
no
Title Source
PAge
no
Annex 321 Minutes of the Ministerial Meeting on
Physical Integration and Development
between Chile and Bolivia,
30 January 2001
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile
2263
Annex 322 Report of René Peña Castellon,
United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development Consultant, to the
Meeting of Governmental Experts from
Landlocked and Transit Developing
Countries and Representatives of
Donor Countries and Financial and
Development Institutions, 16 July 2001,
UN Doc UNCTAD/LDC/113 (extract)
(Original in English)
<https://documents-ddsny.
un.org/doc/UNDOC/
GEN/G01/520/12/
PDF/G0152012.
pdf?OpenElement>,
pp 1 and 8-11
2279
Annex 323 Joint Press Release issued by Bolivia
and Chile, 12 April 2002
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile
2285
Annex 324 Minutes of the Fourth Plenary Meeting
of the Organization of American States
General Assembly, 4 June 2002
(English translation only)
Organization of
American States,
General Assembly,
Thirty-Second Regular
Session, 2002,
Proceedings, Vol. II,
OEA/Ser.P/XXXII-O
(2002), pp 149-150 and
195-199
2289
Annex 325 Draft agreement between Chile and
Bolivia, 22 August 2002
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile
2297
Annex 326 Operating Manual, Integrated Transit
System for the Ports of Arica and
Antofagasta, 2003, pp 3-15 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Chile
2303
x
xlvAnnex noTitleSourcePAge noAnnex 327 E. Pérez Yoma, One Mission: The Traps in the Chile-Bolivia Relationship (2004), pp 86-106 (extract)(Original in Spanish, English translation)2321Annex 328 A. Violand Alcázar, Sovereign Return to the Sea: A Frustrated Negotiation (2004), pp 97-114, 161, 184 and 211 (extract)(Original in Spanish, English translation)2349Annex 329 Minutes of the Twelfth Meeting of the Political Consultations Mechanism, 17 February 2004 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2379Annex 330 Agreement on Customs Cooperation and Information Exchange between Bolivia and Chile, signed at Santiago on 17 February 2004(Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2397Annex 331 Convention between Chile and Bolivia on Integrated Border Controls, signed at Santiago on 17 February 2004 (Original in Spanish, English translation)Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile2413Annex 332 Minutes of the Fourth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 8 June 2004(English translation only)Organization of American States, General Assembly, Thirty-Fourth Regular Session, 2004, Proceedings, Vol. II, OEA/Ser.P/XXXIV-O.2 (2004), pp 143-144 and 159-1712433
Annex 279
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 80, 14 February 1985
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1841
1842
Annex 279
Annex 279
1843
REPUBLIC OF CHILE COPY: 1 PAGE: 333
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECTION: POLITICAL
OFFICIAL
MESSAGE 0004469
Classification
ORDINARY
Number
080
Time Origin
141030
Month
FEBRUARY
Year
1985
From: CONGECHILE LA PAZ [Consulate of Chile in La Paz]
To: DIBILAT [Directorate of Bilateral Affairs] cc DIMULTI [Directorate for Multilateral Policy]
INTER-MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE (COMINF)
LOCAL FOREIGN MINISTRY ISSUED THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION YESTERDAY:
1. ON THE OCCASION OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE OF THE MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE CARTAGENA CONSENSUS, HELD RECENTLY IN THE CITY OF SANTO DOMINGO, AND IN RESPONSE TO A KIND INVITATION BY THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF COLOMBIA, MR. AUGUSTO RAMIREZ OCAMPO, ON THE 6TH OF THIS MONTH A MEETING WAS HELD AT THE COLOMBIAN AMBASSADOR’S RESIDENCE. THE PARTICIPANTS OF THIS CONVERSATION, ASIDE FROM THE HOST MINISTER, WERE THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CHILE, MR. JAIME DEL VALLE, AND THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BOLIVIA, MR. EDGARDO CAMACHO OMISTE.
2. ON THAT OCCASION, MANY IDEAS WERE EXCHANGED TOGETHER WITH A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE BACKGROUND AND CONTACTS THAT TOOK PLACE DURING RECENT MONTHS BETWEEN THE FOREIGN MINISTRIES OF BOLIVIA AND CHILE IN ORDER TO INITIATE A FORMAL DIALOGUE TO SEEK, THROUGH DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS, SOLUTIONS TO BOLIVIA’S MARITIME PROBLEM.
3. THE CONVERSATION ALLOWED US TO VERIFY THAT THE CHILEAN FOREIGN MINISTRY REMAINS RELUCTANT TO ADVANCE WITH THE PROCESS OF RAPPROCHEMENT SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OF BOLIVIA HAS AN INTEREST AND FOR WHICH PURPOSE BOLIVIA IS SUPPORTED BY THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE AMERICAS.
THE GOVERNMENT OF BOLIVIA SHALL CONTINUE TO PROPITIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW DIRECT DIALOGUE TO BE INITIATED IN THE NEAR FUTURE, TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THE HUNDRED-YEAR-OLD PROBLEM OF ITS FORCED GEOGRAPHIC CONFINEMENT.
VIAL
REFERENCE: COMMUNICATION BY THE BOLIVIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY
1844
Annex 280
Minutes of the Third Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly,
6 December 1985
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Fifteenth Regular Session, 1985, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XV.O.2 (1986), pp 140 and 149-168
1845
1846
Annex 280
[p 140]
GENERAL COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING
Date: 6 December 1985
Time: 3:30 p.m.
Location: Barahona Room
President: Mr. Augusto Ramírez Ocampo
Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Colombia
Attendees: Messrs.
James O’Neil Lewis
(Trinidad and Tobago)
José Roberto
Andino Salazar (El Salvador)
Roberto Leyton (Panama)
Gastón de Prat Gay
(Argentina)
Joseph Edsel Edmunds
(Saint Lucia)
Gastón
Araoz (Bolivia)
Keith Johnson
(Jamaica)
Ernest Remy
(Haiti)
Luis F
. Vidal Espaillat (Dominican Republic)
Rafael de la Colina
(Mexico)
Rafael García Velasco (Ecuador)
Albert O. Xavier
(Grenada)
Lowell R. Fleischer
(United States)
Guillermo Fernández de Soto (Colombia)
Luis E. Guardia (Costa Rica)
Peter D. Laurie
(Barbados)
Edmund H. Lake
(Antigua and Barbuda)
Marcos Martínez Mendieta
(Paraguay)
Orlando J. Moncada
(Nicaragua)
Jor
ge Raygada (Peru)
Jor
ge R. Hernández Alcerro (Honduras)
Eduardo
A. Mayora (Guatemala)
Ruwaldo E. van Bochove
(Suriname)
Pedro Uriarte
(Chile)
Edilberto Moreno
(Venezuela)
Geor
ge Stewart (Bahamas)
Dário M. de Castro Alves (Brazil)
Mateo Marques Seré
(Uruguay)
João Clemente Baena Soares (Secretary General of the OAS)
V
al T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
Annex 280
1847
[…]
[p 149]
5. Report on Bolivia’s maritime problem (Draft resolution submitted by the Delegations of Bolivia, Mexico, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay and Venezuela (AG/doc.1912/85 and AG/CG/doc.11/85 (item 13 on the agenda) (continued)
The PRESIDENT: So, we will move on to item 5 on the agenda related to the report on Bolivia’s maritime problem. This item was included in the agenda at the request of the Government of Bolivia through a note included in document AG/doc.1912/85. I give the floor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, who yesterday requested that consideration of this issue be postponed in order to submit a draft resolution at this meeting.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Araoz): Mr. President, distinguished Representatives, Secretary General:
Since the search for a solution to Bolivia’s maritime problem is being pursued under the auspices of the OAS, the corresponding report on this matter has been included on the agenda, in accordance with successive resolutions of our General Assembly. Consequently, I have the honor to submit for your consideration this report about item 13 on the agenda.
Before doing so, I would like to make some brief points that support my country’s reasons for requesting, through this Organization, a just solution to the geographic confinement that has been imposed upon it.
It is not necessary to reiterate the historical and legal background that led to Bolivia’s possession, since time immemorial, of a vast littoral zone, which was severed by a war of expansion and the imposition of a treaty. The international community has expressed its awareness of the just cause of Bolivia’s return to the Pacific Ocean by means of free, useful, and sovereign access, and it has done so with clear expressions of solidarity and recognition.
Regarding these expressions, we mention specifically only the most recent ones. These include the statement made in the Bolivarian Declaration of Caracas, which was issued on the occasion of the conference on Latin American political thought, held on the bicentennial
1848
Annex 280
[p 150]
of the birth of the Liberator, Simón Bolívar. In it, citizens with various ideological perspectives, from all of the countries of the great Latin American community, stated: “In the process towards unity, we call on the Latin American people to commit to peacefully resolving their territorial disagreements and ongoing disputes, such as Bolivia’s landlocked situation, among other cases.” The Declaration of the Presidents of the Andean countries, “Para nosotros la Patria es América” [“The Americas are our Homeland”], which was also issued on the occasion of the bicentennial of Simón Bolívar’s birth, states the intention to take effective action to contribute to resolving its landlocked situation, since Bolivia does not have a sovereign useful access to the Pacific Ocean.
The Non-Aligned Movement, at its recent ministerial meeting in Luanda, Angola, adopted the declarations of Havana and New Delhi, and reiterated its categorical support for the Republic of Bolivia’s legitimate, just claim to regain a direct and useful outlet to the Pacific Ocean with full sovereignty.
As this clear demonstration of understanding and support shows, the community of nations is convinced that this deplorable situation must be rectified by means of a peaceful settlement. During six ordinary session of the General Assembly of our Organization, resolutions were adopted that state that this problem is categorically a matter of continuing hemispheric interest. This designation gives the matter a high degree of significance, reflecting a concern with ensuring peace, harmony, and justice. In general, the provisions of the OAS Charter are intended to prevent possible causes of difficulties and ensure the peaceful settlement of disputes; seek the solution to political, legal, and economic problems that may arise among them; condemn wars of aggression: victory does not give rights; maintain friendly relations among the Member States; and effectively assist them in the peaceful settlement of their disputes.
The forced landlocked situation that has been imposed on Bolivia does not have the same connotation than that of the situation of other sister nations that are also confined, but that did not previously have maritime coasts or suffer a loss of territory. The nations of the Continent know that Bolivia’s confinement is also the cause of enormous limitations, the most significant of which continue to pose serious difficulties to its full economic and social development ... 1 a country deprived of its maritime connection to the world. It is worth citing the principle set forth in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, which establishes the remedying of injustices which have been brought about by force and which deprive a nation of the natural means necessary for its normal development.
1 Faulty recording.
Annex 280
1849
[p 151]
Having elucidated these statements and the reasons behind them, I now offer the following report to the Assembly.
In addition to the circumstances that are recorded in the minutes of the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly, covering up to 17 November of last year, I must note that some other meetings between Bolivia and Chile took place after that date. Later, in February of this year, those meetings were interrupted for various reasons put forward by both Parties. However, it is worth noting that during the Cartagena Consensus ministerial meeting, held in Santo Domingo in early February of this year, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Colombia, and Chile met, and Foreign Minister Jaime del Valle informed the other two Foreign Ministers that his Government had decided to wait for the new administration to take office in Bolivia, in August, before taking up further consideration of the matter.
I take this opportunity to thank Colombia for the interest that it has shown in attempting to foster a productive dialogue. I would like to have the record show that I welcome this attitude of the Government of Colombia towards the dialogue, based on the view that initiatives of this kind will play an effective and positive role in encouraging the success of the negotiations to resolve Bolivia’s maritime problem.
Bolivia is present here today with the wish to overcome the difficulties that are constantly arising because of attitudes that in fact constitute delay tactics. We return to this great American entity that has never lacked understanding and support for our just cause, which is recognized as a problem whose solution is of interest to the hemispheric community.
The forced geographic confinement that confronts Bolivia is not consistent with an era when nations foster processes of integration, cooperation and coexistence in a spirit of fraternity realistically to overcome their differences, in a generous spirit of mutual trust and good faith. We believe in the path that leads to ongoing rapprochement, and in good neighborly relations.
With an intent that is clearly peaceful and consistent with the principles that govern the international legal order, Bolivia now seeks a definite, pragmatic decision, a course of action that indicates certain, concrete, constructive paths to the solution of its centuries-old problem.
Bolivia hopes for a sincere positive response that is governed by the spirit that also prevails in our continental community’s concerns regarding Bolivia’s maritime problem. When we act with a genuine desire for Latin American unity, in reliance on law and justice, we will be able to achieve peaceful coexistence in a spirit of fraternity. Our nations must ensure a united Latin American Homeland for future generations. It would not be fair to leave them with dangerous animosities, much less with conflicts without solutions.
1850
Annex 280
[p 152]
The time has come, Mr. President, for a just solution to a just cause. That solution will require the persistent attentive support of our regional organization. It is clear that Bolivia always has been and remains willing to engage in direct negotiations with the interested parties. With Chile and, of course, with Peru, if necessary.
At the present time, nations are realistically confronting their differences, and so we welcome the winds that are blowing for understanding. We are also encouraged by the outcome of the meeting between the leaders of the two great powers. At that meeting, the foundation was laid for a dialogue aimed at seeking solutions that would allow a glimmer of world peace and security, reducing the risks of a holocaust.
At this moment in our time, with these good omens, we must not leave problems without a peaceful resolution. We are certain that at this important regular session of the General Assembly, progress will be made in this direction.
As I indicated during the Extraordinary General Assembly that was just held, my Government reiterates its long-standing willingness to maintain a dialogue that enables constructive cordial negotiations. They could continue according to the letter and the spirit of the resolutions adopted by the General Assemblies of the OAS, and the proposals made by my country, provided that the purpose is to find a just solution regarding Bolivia’s legitimate right to a free, sovereign, and useful outlet to the Pacific Ocean without territorial compensation.
Mr. President, Representatives: Bolivia cherishes the certainty that when it returns to the sea, it will do so with the minimum essential conditions that would enable it, like its sister nations along the Pacific, to again have a sovereign access that is genuinely useful and that responds to its major national objectives in the context of fruitful coexistence and in a spirit of integration and effective cooperation under the constant, indissoluble fraternity and loyal Americanist friendship. Indeed, as everyone knows, where the great cause of maritime integration is concerned, the unanimous will of the Bolivian nation is united with the full backing of the hemisphere and the world.
Here in Cartagena de Indias, the birthplace of decisions essential to forging our common destiny, it is instructive to recall the words spoken in this Assembly by the illustrious leader Belisario Betancur. Recalling the solution to the issue of the Panama Canal, he said: “It is a matter of resuming that path, which is certainly better than the path of confrontation ...” Well, if we take those realities as our starting point, we will be able to enshrine in the law a new pact of association that would bring peace to our nations.
Before introducing the draft resolution that has been distributed, Mr. President, I would like to request that this report on item 13 on our agenda, and the deliberations about it, be placed on the record.
Annex 280
1851
[p 153]
We have introduced a draft resolution [AG/CG/doc.11/85], which is co-sponsored by our fellow Delegations from the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Uruguay, and Venezuela; Panama has announced that it will also co-sponsor it. I express my gratitude to these countries for this new gesture of their support and understanding for the cause of the Bolivian Government and people. We are sure that this draft resolution will be approved and adopted by our other sister nations on the Continent, in the spirit of steadfast solidarity that they have traditionally expressed. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, distinguished Foreign Minister of Bolivia. The Foreign Minister of Chile has the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF CHILE (Mr. del Valle): Mr. President, first of all, I would like to note that unfortunately the draft resolution referred to by my distinguished friend, Foreign Minister Araoz of Bolivia, has not come into our possession. So, my words will be in response to his words, but without concrete knowledge of the draft resolution.
Mr. President, as all of you know, Bolivia has insisted on addressing the issue of its maritime aspiration in this multilateral forum. For the past six General Assemblies, my Delegation has repeatedly stated that it does not recognize this Organization’s power to rule on situations that are solely within the exclusive competence of the States, and that involve matters which affect their territorial integrity or the relations among one another.
We have spoken against this Assembly’s intervening in the way Chile must conduct its bilateral relations. We have not accepted that the OAS, in violation of its own Charter, can issue opinions about a demarcation of borders established by virtue of a treaty.
Nor can it be accepted that an inter-American doctrine or an OAS doctrine exists on this subject. On the contrary, this Organization came into being precisely to defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of its members. The members of the OAS could hardly hold opinions that are at odds with the principles underlying the entire hemispheric System.
What we can indeed accept as doctrine is the unanimous opinion of the members of this Organization, to the effect that Bolivia’s maritime aspiration can only be addressed bilaterally.
The Delegation of Bolivia has, once again, described its wish to have access to the Pacific Ocean as a right. Once again, I must recall the existence of a treaty that definitively established the borders between Chile and Bolivia. There are no pending problems, involving either borders or territory, between the two countries. Chile is the sole holder of the
1852
Annex 280
[p 154]
rights to its territory; these rights belong to Chile, not only by the force of a treaty, but also because this territory is inhabited by Chileans.
Bolivia’s aspiration to count on a sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean through Chilean territory does not constitute a right. The sources of a right have been defined and classified by international law. My country’s rights derive from the first and most authoritative of the sources recognized by international law, i.e., treaties. The will or desire of one party is not a source of international law. Therefore, Bolivia’s aspiration does not change Bolivia into the holder of a non-existent right nor does it make Chile responsible for a non-existent obligation. Consequently, neither the OAS nor any of its Member State has the power to decide on rights that have only one exclusive holder: Chile and its people.
The principle of non-intervention has been one of the cornerstones of the System of which we are all part. Articles 18 and 19 of the OAS Charter lay the foundation for inter-American coexistence, by establishing that no State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other. Furthermore, no State may use or encourage the use of measures in order to force the sovereign will of another State to obtain advantages of any kind.
The principles indicated have been ratified and strengthened by the Cartagena Protocol, since they form the essential foundation for hemispheric relations. If the OAS has repeatedly recommended, urged, recognized that Bolivia’s maritime aspiration can only be addressed bilaterally, why compromise the Organization and insist that it take actions that are beyond the scope of its competence and the gravity of its decisions? Chile has reiterated, before the hemispheric community, its willingness to engage in dialogue with Bolivia. It has also reiterated its opposition to this Organization taking up matters that significantly impact Chile’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
We have repeatedly indicated that this willingness to engage in dialogue is being seriously affected by the OAS’s involvement. Since the first time that the matter was included on the agenda, we have been saying that Bolivia, by bringing its aspiration to this forum, is complicating the chances of reaching a good understanding. We have invariably insisted that as long as Bolivia is resorting to multilateral channels, bilateral negotiations are difficult. However, Bolivia has once again brought this matter before this Assembly. We have learned that Bolivia will insist on introducing a resolution to involve the Organization in a matter that has been resolved by a treaty in force. This amounts to interfering in internal Chilean affairs, by taking a position on the conduct of my country’s bilateral relations. For all these reasons, my Delegation will vote against any draft resolution introduced. Thank you very much.
Annex 280
1853
[p 155]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, distinguished Foreign Minister of Chile. The Foreign Minister of Bolivia now has the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Araoz): Mr. President, it is my belief that the Representatives present at this great Assembly should not have been surprised by the statements legitimately made by the distinguished Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. They are also well aware of the position taken by my country in regard to these statements; we do not agree with them. Therefore, I would like to conclude my remarks in this way, without going into the details, because the details are already a matter of long-standing knowledge within our Organization. Thank you very much.
[…]
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. del Valle): Mr. President, although I have already announced our vote against this draft resolution, I would like to note that point 3 of the operative part goes further than previous resolutions, because it aims to have the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia included on the agenda of subsequent regular sessions of the General Assembly. This would mean that the OAS is giving a matter that it has always classified as simply a problem, and not as a dispute—these are the words of the Delegation of Bolivia alone—even greater priority than it gives the Contadora situation, which is included every year at this Assembly.
Finally, Mr. President, I would like to say something very important to this Assembly. Chile has demonstrated—specifically with the outcomes of the past year—that it is able to solve its problems through bilateral talks.
The Treaty of Peace and Amity with the Argentine Republic is a clear demonstration of what Chile’s political will can accomplish when it comes to resolving its problems with its neighbors. That Treaty has been mentioned here and in other international forums as an example to the world.
[p 156]
Not more than a week ago, Chile put an end to all of the unresolved problems that it could have had with its sister nation, the Republic of Peru, in regard to the treaty executed in 1929. It has been fifty-five years. Those problems that had been debated for so many years were resolved directly with my colleague, the distinguished Foreign Minister Wagner, in only six days of meetings. So, when I say that Chile knows how to solve its problems through bilateral talks, I say this because Chile has shown it to be the case. We are not stalling or deceiving anyone. We are stating a truth.
1854
Annex 280
Mr. President, my words represent my country’s sincere attitude, a sincere attitude that has been plainly demonstrated, in the opinion of this Assembly and the opinion of the entire world. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Representative of Chile. The Representative of Trinidad and Tobago now has the floor.
[…]
[p 157]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, distinguished Representative of Antigua and Barbuda. The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Araoz): Mr. President, in regard to point 3 of the operative part, I wanted to note that the previous Resolution of our Assembly stated:
To declare that either of the parties may request inclusion of the topic “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia” on the draft agenda of the next regular session of the General Assembly.
As it is written now, it conveys some of the meaning of other resolutions that have now been introduced, and it simply expresses the idea of continuing to consider the report on Bolivia’s maritime problem during subsequent sessions of the General Assembly. This is not an automatic thing, because it goes on to say: “any of the parties may request”. This is because if, during the course of the negotiations—which we approach in the most constructive open spirit; in my country, there is a Government that expresses that willingness, and I want to expressly mention it here—if, at a later point, as I say, we are engaged in dialogue and the issue need not be included on the agenda, we will not do so. But otherwise, as it was formulated, it would seem that in the event that one of them is forgotten, there would be some kind of usefulness in a way which might not be felt by the other side. I think that from this moment on, we should act in good faith, with the thought that what I have said on behalf of my Government, Mr. President and Representatives, really is a clear expression of the spirit in which we wish to overcome any differences that may exist between us. Let us look forward, with the conviction that in this way, as I said a moment ago, we will re-establish a fraternal friendship, a coexistence that rests on the best foundation, oriented towards the prospect of cooperation, of integration, of complementarity, which I think is the shared responsibility of all of the sister nations on our Continent. I wanted to give that explanation in regard to point 3 of the operative part, Mr. President.
Annex 280
1855
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Foreign Minister. For those Representatives who have, with all reason, noted that no translation of this document exists, I would ask for your indulgence to let the Secretary read the draft resolution and use the simultaneous interpretation channels to hear the draft. I ask the Secretary to be so kind as to read the draft.
The SECRETARY: [Reads:]
[p 158]
THE ASSEMBLY GENERAL,
IN VIEW OF
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; AG/RES. 602 (XII-0/82) of 20 November 1982; AG/RES. 686 (XIII-0/83) of 18 November 1983 and AG/RES. 701 (XIV-0/84) of 17 November 1984, where it was repeatedly declared that finding an equitable solution whereby Bolivia would obtain sovereign and useful access to the Pacific Ocean was a matter of continuing hemispheric interest, and
WHEREAS:
In view of the auspicious invitation made by the Government of Colombia, preliminary conversations were initiated,
RESOLVES:
1.
To take note of the report by the Government of Bolivia concerning that country’s maritime problem, of the reply by the Government of Chile on this topic, and of other statements made.
2.
To reiterate its appeal to the Governments of Bolivia and Chile to resume dialogue, with a constructive and Americanist spirit, in order to find a satisfactory solution that will give Bolivia a connection with and sovereign and useful territorial access to the Pacific Ocean, based on a consideration of the rights and interests of all Parties.
3.
That any of the parties may request that the topic report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia be considered by the next regular session of the General Assembly.
1856
Annex 280
[…]
[p 159]
THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CHILE (Mr. del Valle): Mr. President, I cannot let the words of the Representative of Saint Lucia pass without comment, because I believe that it is necessary to state something clearly. We have here a treaty signed by these countries in 1904. In other words, many years after the end of the armed conflict between Bolivia and Chile.
Second, just as he has read an article of the Charter, I also want to read Article 1 of the Charter, which states:
Article 1: The American States establish by this Charter the international organization that they have developed 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.
So I believe, first, that it is necessary to specify that no conflict exists here, because a conflict hardly could exist, with the Treaty being in full force.
Second, just as Article 2 has been mentioned, there is also another provision in the Charter—the first provision, no less—which contradicts the spirit, at least, that he believed he found in the Charter.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Foreign Minister. I am very thankful to the Ambassadors who have suggested the possibility that the President attempt to obtain consensus again.
In relation to this matter, Colombia has worked hard for the past two years and we have had several meetings with the different Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and Chile, separately, and on two or three occasions, we met with them jointly at informal and preliminary meetings. Based on such
[p 160]
knowledge of the matter, I would say, with a great deal of frustration, that I do not see any grounds for consensus at the moment, in this Room, on a project of this nature and, therefore, the situation we are faced with is the same situation faced by last year’s Assembly in Brasilia, when it was necessary to put the matter to a vote.
Annex 280
1857
I would like to ask the Foreign Minister of Bolivia and the Foreign Minister of Chile if at this moment they are of the idea of putting the matter to a vote or not. The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Araoz): Mr. President, the remark actually was made in regard to point 3. I want to report that the rest of the draft has been the subject of laborious negotiations and rapprochement in regard to its text, being the substance of the problem, in the terms of the exhortation that appears here.
Next, in respect of point 3 of the operative part, I would like to ask for some understanding in this regard, because we see another resolution being introduced within this same Assembly, stating: “To continue examining this issue in future regular sessions of the General Assembly until its definitive settlement.” And we, precisely for the sake of always offering an alternative and an opening, are adding the phrase “any of the parties may request” as a condition.
It is likely, as I said a moment ago—and I would like to make the Room understand this point—that we would not need to do so, depending on the progress of the dialogue. It is likely that at the next Assembly, we will be engaged in negotiations which—we hope—are based on a great understanding, and it is likely that we will decide by mutual agreement not to include the matter on the agenda. Because, a contrario sensu, it could happen that at a later regular session of the Assembly, if no provision of this kind is established, there would be no possibility of including the matter on the agenda. The meaning, and the scope of the provision, is the same as existed in previous resolutions. This is what I wanted to explain in very good faith, making clear that this is in fact merely a procedural issue, and there is no question of ulterior motives behind it, once the explanation has been given as to why, in light of another resolution of this Assembly, we have added them. Now, it would be a serious matter if we had just simply put “until the problem is resolved”. But it is always at the request of either Party, and I think that this is reasonable, Mr. President. I do not mean to lock myself into a position, but rather to explain what we have done, in the most constructive spirit.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Foreign Minister of Bolivia. The Representative of Chile has the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF CHILE (Mr. del Valle): Mr. President, I would like to make some minor clarifications. Firstly, regardless of whether point 3 of the operative part is omitted, this does not alter the substance of Chile’s observation, which is based on the idea that this
1858
Annex 280
[p 161]
matter should not be addressed in this forum. This is so true that last year I asked the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs specifically not to bring the matter to this forum. And I want to tell the members of the OAS in detail about something that I think they should know.
After 1983, I myself was specifically the one who approached Bolivia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time on several occasions to deal with this matter. I was the one who approached him; I was the one who suggested to him the procedure that we should follow. Chile was the one who yielded in regard to the process of how we should handle this matter. We even altered the procedure or framework that the OAS had suggested, at the request of the Government of Bolivia. We took all of those steps, and we were on the point of issuing a joint declaration, one day before the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia was going to give his speech at the United Nations, in 1984. And that joint declaration was not signed, because the content of the Bolivian Foreign Minister’s speech was so offensive to my country that we were left with no choice but to not sign.
In the following months, when we two Ministers of Foreign Affairs were going to come together in Bogotá, specifically to agree on the procedure, the Bolivian Foreign Minister again issued some statements that were so unfortunate that Chile had to refrain from attending. So, I want to make it very clear that the reason why Chile is voting against this proposal is that our experience so far has been extremely disappointing. We have taken the initiative to seek a dialogue, and we have not been able to obtain one. And that is why I told the Foreign Minister at the time, in February of this year, that we were halting this dialogue until the new administration took office in Bolivia. And our hope, Mr. President, is that the new Bolivian Administration understands that the great manner, the great way to approach a fraternal, positive dialogue that brings results is the one that we have vehemently suggested on this occasion. And, Mr. President, before this vote, I will say that I have spoken with complete sincerity, with the sincerity that has characterized all of my actions in this Assembly, in previous Assemblies, or any action that I have taken during my role.
Therefore, I cannot take back the words that I have spoken, to the effect that Chile will cast a negative vote, and its reason for doing so is precisely because it has hopes of seeking a solution to the problem of Bolivia.
So, Mr. President, to respond specifically to what you asked, I ask that a vote be taken, and I hope that it will be a roll call vote.
The PRESIDENT: Yes, clearly, as I was informing the Room, I believe that under the current circumstances it would be really hard, not to say impossible, to reach consensus. We have worked on that very hard and to no avail so far. The Representative of Argentina has the floor.
Annex 280
1859
[p 162]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF ARGENTINA (Mr. de Prat Gay): Thank you, Mr. President. Your words, which affect me deeply, lead me to take the floor at this time regarding our country’s position on this issue.
Argentina’s position, which has been stated during various Assemblies of the Organization, is well known. Our country welcomes any initiative taken to settle international controversies by peaceful procedures. We trust that Bolivia will resolve the problem it is facing, and that this solution will be reached through comprehensive, free negotiations between the Parties directly involved. This should be done with full respect for existing treaties, and with the understanding that both Parties have the right to determine, in a sovereign manner, all matters related to negotiations that may, in due course, be recommended.
On various occasions, through resolutions adopted in recent years in this same forum, the OAS has aspired to reach the goal of a peaceful settlement, through respect for the full sovereignty of both countries.
It is implicitly understood that our Organization must not go beyond urging or calling on the Parties to seek common ground. A recommendation should come from this forum, rather than a formula for negotiations. To offer the latter would be to interfere in problems related to the territorial sovereignty of the States.
A recommendation to seek a solution to the problem is, we think, the task with which our Assembly should concern itself. We trust that this work, together with the work previously done within the Organization, may one day lead to a happy ending to the problem of Bolivia’s confinement.
Consequently, Mr. President, Argentina supports this draft resolution. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Ambassador. The Foreign Minister of Bolivia has the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Araoz): Mr. President, for the sake of maintaining in our deliberations the spirit in which we have been working during these days, if it is satisfactory to do so, I would like to agree that point 3 of the operative part should state: “To continue examining the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia in the next regular session of the General Assembly at the request of either party.” Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Foreign Minister. Therefore, you are formally introducing such amendment to the draft and, would you request that a vote be taken in relation to such amendment?
1860
Annex 280
[p 163]
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Araoz): Yes, to contribute to reaching consensus.
The PRESIDENT: I ask the Foreign Minister of Chile if he would be satisfied with such wording.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. del Valle): Mr. President, I have been very clear. No, unfortunately I have very strong reasons, which I have broadly explained. I believe we have no other option but to take a roll call vote. Thank you.
[…]
[p 164]
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Araoz): Mr. President, I in fact introduced that amendment because I thought, according to some information that I received, that this would be a formulation that could enable us to move forward. That is why I did it, for the sake of a solution. I would even be in agreement, Mr. President, with repeating the same text that is in all of the previous resolutions. We would have no objection. In other words, what is said in the one from 1984, from 1983, which the distinguished Delegation of Chile voted on, and which states:
Either Party may request that the topic “report on the maritime problem of Bolivia” be included on the agenda of the next regular session of the General Assembly.
I even come to that point, because really, I want to convey here what the new Government, headed by Víctor Paz Estenssoro, is, and what that administration represents at this time, insofar as it reflects a new historic circumstance in my country, with effects that are related in significant ways to the events that we are experiencing in our time. Thank you, Mr. President.
[…]
Annex 280
1861
[p 165]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Ambassador. I know that Cartagena works miracles, Sir, and this has really been a place of great consensus decisions. The “Cartagena Consensus” was born here, precisely to address the issue of the debt. Here, a few months ago, we had a wonderful meeting that consolidated the Support Group proposed by the Foreign Ministers of Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Uruguay and that had also been put on the table in the inaugural speech of President Alan García, in a declaration made in Lima. The “Cartagena Agreement”, which has been the basis of the Andean integration program, was founded here. And here, overcoming all kinds of scepticism, we had something that is very much like the rebirth of the OAS. In all or in many of such matters, I have had the chance to act directly, and I know that really the spirit of Cartagena, the environment of Cartagena, can do a lot.
Over the past few days we have been systematically working on this matter with the Ministers and, in view of such conversations, I would like to tell you not that we have fallen and risen, but that really, working in a very pragmatic manner– and in this I believe that specifically the Representatives of the Caribbean, in speaking, usually teach us permanent lessons of pragmatism–, I can say that I do not find grounds at this point to achieve a consensus document. Not once or twice, but many times have we discussed it and tried to achieve it, and at this moment I act in a very realistic manner. I believe that we would make no progress if we delayed a decision on this matter, but I would be willing to, of course, postpone the vote on this resolution, a day or two; but I am afraid that the Foreign Minister of Bolivia will be away on a trip. I understand that he is leaving tomorrow. In addition, the delegations that sponsor this project, among others, the Delegation of Uruguay, have worked hard in preparing a draft resolution that would be as close as possible to the ideas presented by the distinguished Delegation of Chile, and in this regard I would like to acknowledge the efforts made by the Foreign Minister of Bolivia, who has not created any obstacles so that the resolution would be as acceptable as possible.
Even so, as you have seen, the amendments that may be made to the draft resolution are not at all acceptable to the Delegation of Chile. There is an argument that has been stated with great clarity by the Foreign Minister of Chile, who thinks that this should not be a matter to be discussed at the OAS. Thus, he has stated a reason of substance, a matter of principle; however, the distinguished Delegation of Bolivia, and many other delegations, which have even read articles of the Charter to support their position, consider that this is indeed a matter that should be discussed by the General Assembly, and that has in fact been discussed by it for years.
1862
Annex 280
[p 166]
When such a fundamental principle is in play, it really does not seem possible to achieve a new miracle. There was a miracle in 1983, when a consensus resolution was achieved and such consensus resolution significantly raised our hope to continue down the road of negotiations, where the foreign ministers, in this case, two Foreign Ministers who preceded honorable Foreign Minister Gastón Araoz and Foreign Minister del Valle, performed their work in the same manner and these conversations could not be initiated. Therefore, Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, Ambassador of Trinidad and Tobago, believe me that it is not a lack of interest, discouragement, or lack of time; we can stay here until dawn as many times as we like, and dawn in Cartagena also has its charm; but I honestly think that we would be making a futile effort. So, I will put Bolivia’s draft resolution to a vote. I understand that the amendment with the amendment proposed by the Foreign Minister of Bolivia, that is, point of the operative part would be replaced in totum by the exact wording approved by consensus in 1983, that is, establishing here that for the next session any of the Parties may request that the matter be included. I will ask the Secretary to read the new wording of point 3 of the operative part.
The SECRETARY: [Reads:]
3. That any of the parties may request that the topic, “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia,” be considered by the next regular session of the General Assembly.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So, we will proceed to vote on the draft resolution including point 3 of the operative part which has just been read. As a roll call vote has been requested, I ask the Secretary to perform the relevant drawing of lots to determine which delegation will vote first. [A paper slip was taken out]. The Delegation of the United States will vote first.
United States
-
Colombia
Yes
Costa Rica
Yes
Barbados
-
Antigua and Barbuda
Y
es
Paraguay
Yes
Nicaragua
Yes
Peru Yes
Honduras
Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
Guatemala
Yes
Suriname
Yes
Chile
No
Annex 280
1863
[p 167]
Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines [Absent]
Venezuela Yes
Bahamas
Yes
Brazil
Y
es
Dominica
[Absent]
Uruguay
Yes
T
rinidad and Tobago Yes
El Salvador
Yes
Panama
Yes
Ar
gentina Yes
Saint Lucia
Yes
Bolivia
Yes
Jamaica
Yes
Haiti Yes
Dominican Republic
Y
es
Mexico
Yes
Ecuador
Yes
Grenada
Yes
The SECRETARY: The result of the vote has been the following, Mr. President: twenty-five positive votes, one negative vote and no abstentions.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. The draft resolution has been approved. The Representative of Paraguay has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PARAGUAY (Mr. Martínez Mendieta): Thank you very much, Mr. President. By way of explanation of vote, the Delegation of Paraguay would like to state expressly that as the only other landlocked country in the Americas and in our System, we understand the problem well, the situation faced by countries without a maritime littoral. We have supported this resolution with our vote, as we have done on previous occasions. But let us make it very clear that our support should be understood as a call on the Parties involved to find a solution to the problem through peaceful negotiation. My Delegation does not wish to prejudge what that solution might be. And today, as in all of the previous instances, I again reiterate that we are and always will be strong adherents of the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States. That is how Paraguay’s support for this resolution should be interpreted. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Ambassador, for your vigorous explanation of your vote. The Representative of Peru has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PERU (Mr. Raygada): Thank you very much, Mr. President. The Delegation of Peru, with its steadfast support for and understanding of the maritime cause of Bolivia, has joined in approving the resolution on the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia. At the
1864
Annex 280
[p 168]
same time, we note, as we have done on previous occasions, that this matter is the sovereign responsibility and concern of the Parties directly involved, according to their mutual interests and with full respect for the treaties in force on the subject. Mr. President, I ask that you be so kind as to order that this statement be placed on the record of this session. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Ambassador, that will be done. If there are no further vote explanations, we will move on to another subject. The Foreign Minister of Bolivia has the floor.
THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Araoz): Mr. President, Representatives, we have a profound belief in Latin American unity, as well as respect—I will say it again—for the international legal order—we could not do otherwise—and an ongoing commitment to peace. And now we are in Cartagena de Indias and at this Organization of American States, with great respect for its principles and rules, which hold within them the very possibility of a peaceful resolution to situations that, as in Bolivia’s case, may arise during the course of changing historical realities, and as a result of past events that are known to everyone. I again note the constructive spirit in which we have come to address this issue, which is a vital issue in my country, a vital issue to the Bolivian people. It is with great emotion that I wish to express, with recognition for the inter-American community, the community of sister nations that make up the OAS, my deepest appreciation for the vote that has been taken in support of the resolution that we have just approved. And as you will have seen, Bolivia has at all times demonstrated the most open, conciliatory spirit in regard to moving forward with this aim of obtaining a sovereign, useful access to the Pacific Ocean. Thank you, Mr. President.
Annex 281
Minutes of the Third Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 9 December 1985
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Fifteenth Regular Session, 1985, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XV.O.2 (1986), pp 41and 48-50
1865
1866
Annex 281
[p 41]
MINUTES OF THE THIRD PLENARY MEETING
Date: 9 December 1985
Time: 10:15 a.m.
Location: Barahona Room
President: Mr. Augusto Ramírez Ocampo
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia
Present: Messrs.
George W. McKenzie (Trinidad and Tobago)
José Roberto Andino Salazar (El Salvador)
Roberto Leyton (Panama)
Gastón de Prat Gay (Argentina)
Joseph Edsel Edmunds (Saint Lucia)
Armando Soriano (Bolivia)
Keith Johnson (Jamaica)
Ernst Remy (Haiti)
Luis F. Vidal Espaillat (Dominican Republic)
José Luis Vallarta (Mexico)
Rafael García Velasco (Ecuador)
Albert O. Xavier (Grenada)
John J. Crowley, Jr. (United States)
Guillermo Fernández de Soto (Colombia)
Luis E. Guardia (Costa Rica)
Peter D. Laurie (Barbados)
Edmund H. Lake (Antigua and Barbuda)
Marcos Martínez Mendieta (Paraguay)
Orlando J. Moncada (Nicaragua)
Jorge Raygada (Peru)
Jorge R. Hernández Alcerro (Honduras)
Eduardo A. Mayora (Guatemala)
Donald A. McLeod (Suriname)
Jaime del Valle (Chile)
Edilberto Moreno (Venezuela)
Joshua Sears (Bahamas)
Dário M. de Castro Alves (Brazil)
Franklin A. Baron (Dominica)
Alfredo Platas (Uruguay)
João Clemente Baena Soares (Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
[…]
Annex 281
1867
[p 48]
e. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.1986/85)
The PRESIDENT: We are considering the draft resolution on the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia [AG/doc.1986/85]. The Representative of Chile has the floor.
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Larraín): Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, our Delegation requests that a roll call vote be taken on this draft resolution.
The PRESIDENT: Of course, Mr. Representative. I therefore request the Secretary to proceed with the regulatory lottery required to see which delegation will begin the voting. [He draws a paper.] Guatemala will vote first.
[p 49]
(The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:)
Guatemala
—
Suriname
Yes
Chile
No
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
-
Venezuela
Yes
Bahamas
Yes
Brazil
Yes
Dominica
-
Uruguay
Yes
Trinidad and Tobago
Yes
El Salvador
Yes
Panama
Yes
Argentina
Yes
Saint Lucia
Yes
Bolivia
Yes
Jamaica
Yes
Haiti
Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
Mexico
Yes
Ecuador
Yes
Grenada
Yes
United States
-
Colombia
Yes
Costa Rica
Yes
Barbados
-
Antigua and Barbuda
Yes
Paraguay
Yes
Nicaragua
Yes
Peru
Yes
Honduras
Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
1868
Annex 281
The SECRETARY: The result of the vote was as follows: twenty-four votes in favor, one against, and no abstentions.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. The draft resolution has been approved. The Representative of Paraguay has the floor.
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF PARAGUAY (Mr. Fernández): Thank you, Mr. President. I asked for the floor to request that my Delegation’s declaration when we discussed this issue in the General Committee be included in the minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[p 50]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, that is what we will do. The Representative of Peru has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PERU (Mr. Raygada): Thank you very much, Mr. President. The Delegation of Peru requests that the declaration made by my Delegation in the General Committee when this issue was discussed be reproduced in the minutes of this meeting. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: That is what we will do, Mr. Representative. The Representative of Chile has the floor.
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Larraín): Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the Chilean Delegation requests that the record in the minutes show that its negative vote is because this organization lacks jurisdiction to handle this matter, as was noted in due course in the General Committee.
The PRESIDENT: That is what we will do, Mr. Representative.
Annex 282
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 766 (XV–O/85), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 9 December 1985
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Fifteenth Regular Session, 1985, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XV.O.2 (1986), pp 22-23
1869
1870
Annex 282
Annex 282
1871
1872
Annex 283
“Foreign Minister Del Valle: ‘Chile and Bolivia Must Seek a Rapprochement’”, El Mercurio (Chile), 25 February 1986
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
El Mercurio (Chile)
1873
1874
Annex 283
Annex 283
1875
EL MERCURIO
Santiago de Chile, Tuesday, 25 February 1986.
[…]
Foreign Minister Del Valle:
“Chile and Bolivia Must Seek a Rapprochement”
• The Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed his Government’s satisfaction with statements by Bolivian President Víctor Paz Estenssoro, who showed a willingness to review the problem of relations with our country.
Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Jaime Del Valle expressed the Chilean Government’s satisfaction with statements by President of Boliva Víctor Paz Estenssoro, who showed a willingness to review the problem of relations with Chile, with a view to reaching an understanding.
The Bolivian President pointed out this weekend, during a press conference, that his country is carefully pondering the situation with Chile. “I think we need to come up with a fresh approach to the problem, rather than continuing beating around the bush, as has been the rule over the last years,” pointed out Paz Estenssoro. Diplomatic relations between both nations have been broken off since 1978.
Foreign Minister Del Valle said yesterday that
(Continues on page A 12)
1876
Annex 283
Annex 283
1877
“the President of Bolivia in his statements concurred with what we have said on many occasions: that one of the fundamental issues between the two countries is to procure a rapprochement.”
“We agree with his statements, and I believe that such statements agree with what have been claiming for a long time,” he said.
The Foreign Minister pointed out that one of the steps toward complementation is trade, “and then there are other steps revealing a closer degree of friendship between two nations, as might be the case of cultural or technological exchange, for instance. Any type of thing that indicates that the two countries are integrating with each other in some way, as is logical and natural between two American countries.”
When asked about the reasons to
which he attributed to the change in Bolivia’s foreign policy, he replied that this has been taking place since the beginning of the Paz Estenssoro administration, “so we are not surprised at and in some way we are pleased with them,” he pointed out.
The Minister pointed out that, in any case, there have been no further conversations with the Bolivian Government other than those maintained by the Foreign Minister himself with the Foreign Minister of that country at the Cartagena meeting.
PAZ ESTENSSORO’S STATEMENTS
A UPI news cable containing the Bolivian President’s statements reads as follows:
LA PAZ, 23 (UPI). Bolivia will seek a path of understanding with Chile in order to resolve its landlocked situation by means of a “fresh approach” aimed at creating stronger, enduring economic interest relations, as President Víctor Paz Estenssoro stated yesterday.
In that way, he replied to a question put to him during a lengthy press conference held at the Government Palace about what his Government would do to regain a its own outlet into the Pacific Ocean with the support of the hemispheric community.
“We are carefully considering this problem, like all of our country’s problems,” said the President, further adding that he believed that “we need to come up with a fresh approach, rather than continuing beating around the bush, as has been the rule over the last years.”
Bolivia broke off relations with Chile in 1978, as negotiations failed over the granting this country of a strip of land leading to the Pacific Ocean along the Peruvian border, because of Chile’s demands for territorial compensation.
Bolivia’s landlocked situation originated in the war that both countries waged in 1879, which resulted in the Bolivian maritime coast becoming part of Chilean territory.
Paz Estenssoro explained that when he mentioned a “fresh approach” he did so because “Chile has solved its Beagle problem with Argentina and is reaching an understanding with Peru, not only on border issues, but on arms control issues as well.” He further noted that “then we will remain isolated,” for which reason he considered that “we must seek a path of understanding with Chile.”
He further held that, in addition, “there is another circumstance” relating to trade between Bolivia and its neighbors.
“If we analyze the situation with each of our neighboring countries, we will see that we have a stronger economic complementation with Chile,” for which reason “Chile may become a market for a number of Bolivian products.”
He mentioned that, as a result of the current economic policy, and in order to overcome this crisis, “we must become an exporting country above all things,” and then he added that “we must seek non-traditional markets.”
1878
Annex 284
Minutes of the Binational Rapprochement Committee,
17 October 1986
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1879
1880
Annex 284
Annex 284
1881
MINUTES OF THE “BINATIONAL RAPPROCHEMENT COMMITTEE” ORGANIZED BY THE MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CHILE AND BOLIVIA TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AGREED UPON IN THEIR MEETING IN NEW YORK LAST SEPTEMBER, WHICH ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
1882
Annex 284
Annex 284
1883
In conformity to what was agreed upon by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Chile and Bolivia in their meetings held in September of this year in New York, the First Meeting of the Binational Rapprochement Committee between the two countries was held in La Paz between 15 and 17 October 1986.
The Delegation of Bolivia was composed of:
− Ambassador Felipe Tredinnick, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, President of the Delegation.
− Ambassador René Soria Galvarro, Director General of the Cabinet of Ministers.
− Ambassador Carlos Trigo, Director General of the Americas.
− Minister Councilor Ramiro Prudencio, Deputy Director General of the Academy of Diplomacy.
The Delegation of Chile was composed of:
− Ambassador Jaime Herrera C., Director of Bilateral Affairs, President of the Delegation.
− Lieutenant Colonel Sergio Castillo Gonzáles, Director of Planning.
− Minister Councilor Juan Enrique Walker, Director of Bilateral Economic Affairs.
1884
Annex 284
Annex 284
1885
Among the participants in the working meetings were Minister Councilor Eulalio Medina and First Secretary Roberto Calzadilla, on behalf of Bolivia. The Chilean part included Minister Councilor Patricio Rodríguez Rentería, Consul General of Chile in La Paz, and First Secretary Emilio Ruiz-Tagle Orrego, Deputy Consul General of Chile in La Paz.
The Binational Committee set out to study an agenda prepared according to the lists approved by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of both countries in New York. Below is an outline of the main aspects addressed and the progress or the agreements reached in connection with each of the items of the Agenda:
A. ISSUES RELATED TO THE INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEM AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES
1. Antofagasta–Bolivia Railway.
The Binational Committee recommended that any modification to tariffs projected by the company managing the Antofagasta–Bolivia Railway be previously consulted with by Empresa Nacional de Ferrocarriles de Bolivia (ENFE).
In the event that such companies do not reach an agreement in that respect, the Bolivian delegation reiterated that it is necessary for the Government of Chile to ratify its commitment under the Minutes prepared by the Binational Technical Commission in 1974, where it was declared that it would mediate any question arising between the company managing the Antofagasta–Bolivia Railway and the Bolivian authorities.
1886
Annex 284
Annex 284
1887
For its part, the Chilean delegation stated that it would analyze the problems with keen interest.
2. Arica–La Paz Railway.
The Binational Committee took note of the recommendation resulting from the recent meeting held between the Bolivian and Chilean railway companies in Santa Cruz de la Sierra between 30 September and 4 October 1986, where it was agreed that a joint request would be submitted to ECLAC, considering that such regional organization was responsible for analyzing the structure of the original system, so that it may assess the integrated transit system between both countries.
Both delegations agreed to submit this proposition by the railway companies of Chile and Bolivia to the relevant authorities in their countries.
The Bolivian delegation requested that the Chilean section of the Arica–La Paz railway be improved and modernized (traction material, rails, and the communication system). The Chilean delegation took due note of this and undertook to inform the relevant Chilean authorities of this plan, additionally emphasizing that they consider it appropriate to assess the joint efficiency of both sections of the aforementioned railway.
The delegation of Chile added that, as a way of rapidly helping in making the improvements to the Chilean section of the aforementioned railway, it would call on the Bolivian delegation to urgently intercede with the competent Bolivian authorities, so that Bolivia may expedite the relevant payments of all amounts due to the Chilean railway company.
1888
Annex 284
Annex 284
1889
3. Roads to the Pacific.
(a) La Paz–Patacamaya–Tambo Quemado–Arica Road.
Both delegations agreed to give top priority to the completion of this road. The Chilean delegation undertook to have the Chilean section repaired and improved. Bolivia stated that a request is currently underway for the financing to repave the Patacamaya–Tambo Quemado section, and that such project has been given high priority.
(b) Oruro–Pisiga–Iquique Road.
The Chilean delegation took due note of Bolivia’s interest in the construction of this road. Both delegations undertook to develop all pre-feasibility studies for the construction of the respective sections.
4. Permits for Temporary Entry of Vehicles Carrying Goods into Chile.
The Chilean delegation took note of Bolivia’s concern over the current maximum 15-day stay permitted for vehicles carrying goods that temporarily enter its territory. The Bolivian delegation requested that such permitted stay be extended to 30 days.
The Chilean delegation will notify the authorities of the Ministry of Transportation and Telecommunications of Chile of this situation, so that a solution may be found.
1890
Annex 284
Annex 284
1891
5. Construction of Silos in Antofagasta and Arica.
Bolivia expressed the need for silos for storing its grain imports coming mainly into the country through the port of Antofagasta due to the fact that the current situation is causing losses equivalent to between 3% and 5% of the volume of imports and generating pollution problems.
The Chilean delegation fully shared Bolivia’s concern over this issue, and agreed that the referenced silos should be built as soon as practicable. To such end, the Bolivian delegation undertook to submit all relevant background information (number of silos, financing, capacity, and other technical specifications), and the Chilean delegation undertook to streamline the relevant procedure to set this initiative in motion.
6. Safety of Merchandise at Ports (Antofagasta and Arica).
The Bolivian delegation expressed its concern over the high proportion of losses at said ports, which has resulted in claims to Insurance Companies and higher premiums.
The Chilean delegation mentioned a number of other factors that could contribute to merchandise being lost, especially during their transportation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the competent Chilean authorities shall be informed of this situation, and recommendations shall be made for the adoption of measures aimed at overcoming these deficiencies.
1892
Annex 284
Annex 284
1893
7. Port Handling Tariffs for merchandise in transit transported to and from Bolivia.
Both delegations agreed on the appropriateness of requesting technical information from each country’s competent organizations.
8. Exemption from the payment of commissions, taxes and levies on food products in transit transported to Bolivia.
The Chilean delegation took note of Bolivia’s request in this respect, and shall notify the relevant authorities of such request.
B. COMMERCIAL ISSUES:
1. Revision of Partial Scope Agreement N° 27 and other issues within the purview of the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI).
Both delegations agreed to exchange lists of products of interest over the course of the following week, so that experts from both countries may meet this year to revise ALADI’s Partial Scope Agreement N° 27. Furthermore, Bolivia may submit a list of products that it wishes to export to Chile under a preferential regime that is being negotiated at said organization in favor of “relatively less economically developed” countries.
2. Bolivian Gas Sales.
Both delegations suggested that officials from Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos (Y.P.F.B.) and from the Chilean company LIPIGAS meet in order
1894
Annex 284
Annex 284
1895
to conduct a feasibility study on a potential gas sale in Northern Chile.
3. Participation in Fairs and Exhibitions.
Both delegations were in agreement with respect to the importance of these events as instruments for promoting exports.
The delegation of Chile expressed its satisfaction with its recent participation in the EXPOCRUZ 86 Fair. In turn, the Bolivian delegation expressed its willingness to collaborate in having Bolivian businesspeople participate in Chilean fairs, in order to promote Bolivian products in the Chilean market.
4. Bolivian Cattle Sales.
The Bolivian delegation stated that Bolivia is interested in selling cattle to Northern Chile.
In that regard, the Chilean delegation reported that it was necessary for both countries to previously enter into a Phytosanitary Agreement, for which purpose it undertook to submit a draft agreement to the Bolivian Government for consideration.
5. Draft Plant Health Convention.
The delegation of Chile suggested that it was advisable for Peru, Bolivia, and Chile to enter into a Plant Health Convention as soon as practicable, the purpose of which is to regulate the transit of food through borders.
1896
Annex 284
Annex 284
1897
The delegation of Bolivia reported that such draft Convention is currently under review.
6. Export Promotion Structure.
In order for the relevant organizations of Bolivia and industrial sectors to learn about Chile’s export promotion structure, the Chilean delegation invited government officials to visit PROCHILE, so that they may become familiar with such institution’s operations, and further undertook to send information on university courses and seminars for businesspeople on export-related matters.
C. TECHNICAL COOPERATION ISSUES:
1. Means for Technical Cooperation.
Regarding this subject, the Binational Committee considered it appropriate to analyze the means for technical cooperation in several fields, such as the administration of State-run services, the planning, management and control of National Parks, reserves, agricultural services, cattle-related services, housing, urban planning and others.
2. Technological Exchange.
The Chilean delegation expressed its interest in developing a technological exchange between both countries. The Bolivian delegation expressed its interest in implementing this initiative in the mining and iron and steel industries, among others. Further, the need for identifying requirements
1898
Annex 284
Annex 284
1899
in this field in order to inform such requirements in due course was agreed upon.
Both delegations agreed to make the most of their technological experiences through increased cooperation in this field.
[…]
1900
Annex 284
Annex 284
1901
1902
Annex 284
Annex 284
1903
F. MISCELLANEOUS:
1. Pending situation between AADAA and temporary Chilean workers
Consideration was given to the problem existing between the Autonomous Administration of Customs Warehouses (AADAA) and groups of workers hired by such company.
In that regard, the Bolivian delegation requested that the Government of Chile mediate the conflict so these workers accept the settlement amount offered by AADAA.
The Chilean delegation took note of the foregoing and requested that all relevant information on this issue be submitted to it, so that it may analyze such information and determine whether it is possible for it to intercede in the conflict to reach a solution.
2. Situation of Bolivian Immigrants in Northern Chile.
The Bolivian delegation expressed its concern over the situation of the numerous undocumented Bolivian immigrants in the northern area of Chile,
1904
Annex 284
Annex 284
1905
which often creates tensions (expulsions, arrests, etc.) and abuses by Chilean employers, who do not respect the applicable labor laws with respect to them.
The Chilean delegation noted that, as a first measure, it is the Bolivian authorities’ responsibility to control and limit the flow of illegal immigrants, where possible. It equally noted that this situation is aggravating the unemployment rate in that area. Further, it was stressed that there are immigration laws in place, which must necessarily be complied with by regional authorities.
It was agreed that relevant authorities would be informed of this situation, in an attempt to reach a global solution to this problem.
[…]
4. Normalization of activities of the Chilean-Bolivian Mixed Boundary
Commission.
The Chilean delegation expressed the need for a normalization of the activities of this Commission,
1906
Annex 284
Annex 284
1907
which had been postponed on several occasions. Further, a Chilean proposition became known for resuming fieldwork in August 1987, after the 18th Plenary Session has taken place.
The Bolivian delegation expressed its satisfaction with this proposition.
G. TECHNICAL STUDIES:
It was agreed that respective technical entities from both countries would submit to technical consultations, where appropriate, which shall submit their reports to the respective national commissions during the course of next November to be considered by the Binational Committee at its next meeting in Santiago next December.
These Minutes have been executed on 17 October 1986 in two copies, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
[Signed]
By the Chilean Delegation
Ambassador Jaime Herrera C.
[Signed]
By the Bolivian Delegation
Ambassador Felipe Tredinnick
1908
Annex 284
Annex 284
1909
CONFIDENTIAL ADDENDUM
The Minutes of the First Meeting of the Binational Chilean-Bolivian Rapprochement Committee, held in the city of La Paz between 15 and 17 October 1986, include the following confidential Addendum as an integral part thereof:
1. In keeping with the spirit that motivates both governments to achieve an actual rapprochement between both countries, the parties undertake, at the government level, while respecting the freedom of speech, to create an atmosphere of mutual respect, avoiding expressions or publications that may be detrimental to this rapprochement.
2. Both parties express their willingness to provide reciprocal support to each other for all nominations to be submitted to various International Organizations.
[Signed]
By the Chilean Delegation
Ambassador Jaime Herrera C.
[Signed]
By the Bolivian Delegation
Ambassador Felipe Tredinnick
1910
Annex 285
Minutes of the Third Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly,
12 November 1986
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Sixteenth Regular Session, 1986, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XVI.O.2 (1987), pp 313, 317-319 and 322-325
1911
1912
Annex 285
[p 313]
MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE
Date: 12 November 1986
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Hotel El Dorado
President:
Mr. Mario Rafael Quiñones Amézquita
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala
Present:
Messrs.
Carlos Augusto Saldívar
(Paraguay)
Rafael Rangel Vargas
(Venezuela)
Rafael García Velasco
(Ecuador)
Henk F. Herrenberg
(Suriname)
Edmund H. Lake
(Antigua and Barbuda)
Eduardo Castillo Arreola
(Guatemala)
Joseph Edsel Edmunds
(Saint Lucia)
Víctor M. Barletta
(Panama)
Bernardo Pericás
(Brazil)
Guillermo Villalobos Arce
(Costa Rica)
Juan Carlos Capuñay
(Peru)
Mateo Marques Seré
(Uruguay)
William V. Herbert
(Saint Kitts and Nevis)
Pablo M. Alvergue
(El Salvador)
Guillermo Bedregal Gutiérrez
(Bolivia)
Orlando J. Moncada
(Nicaragua)
Mauricio Acero
(Colombia)
James ’O’Neil Lewis
(Trinidad and Tobago)
Jacques Vilgrain
(Haiti)
Richard T. McCormack
(United States)
Peter D. Laurie
(Barbados)
José Luis Vallarta
(Mexico)
Gastón de Prat Gay
(Argentina)
Donald J. Reid
(Dominican Republic)
Jeanette R. Grant-Woodham
(Jamaica)
Hernán Antonio Bermúdez A.
(Honduras)
Jaime del Valle
(Chile)
James B. Moultrie
(Bahamas)
João Clemente Baena Soares
(Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie
(Assistant Secretary General)
[…]
Annex 285
1913
[p 317]
4. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia
(Draft resolution submitted by the Delegations of Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela) (AG/CG/doc.2/86) (item 15 on the agenda)
The PRESIDENT: We will now consider the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia. The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Bedregal): Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would like to briefly discuss this issue at this level.
Mr. President, we will deliberately abbreviate the historical and legal background that illustrates the process that imposed harmful conditions and vital limitations on Bolivia’s development more than a century ago. The
[p 318]
world’s opinion, as categorically expressed by the majority at international forums and meetings, recognizes Bolivia’s just and legitimate claim for obtaining a direct useful outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
Since 1979, the successive Assemblies have presented reports on my country’s maritime problem. These resolutions, drawn up with different formal wording, have invariably maintained a uniform accent that reflects the collective Americanist longing summarized in the recommendations encouraging dialogue to reconcile our rights and mutual interests. The essential wording of the OAS resolutions is inspired by the solidary principle of seeking a conciliation by peaceful means to problems that arise between the American States. The attitude of the OAS in voting on these successive resolutions on the matter in question is based on the conscious conviction that it is of hemispheric interest to find an equitable solution whereby Bolivia obtains useful sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.
This laudable position of the American States has been transformed into a single initiative that unites everyone’s interest in ensuring a future of cordial, friendly understanding between two sister nations and of encouraging economic and social progress in an area of the Americas affected by Bolivia’s geographic confinement. This noble multilateral, unobjectionable, and pacifist position, whose orientation is fair, has been expressed by encouraging dialogue between the countries of Chile and Bolivia, and the eventual participation of the Parties linked to the problem. The multilateral invocation of genuine legal grounds promotes the instigation of dialogue as an indispensable complement to direct, decisive negotiations. A fresh air of optimism encourages the discussions with Chile under the aegis of stimulating initiatives by the largest organization representing the thought and will of the American world.
1914
Annex 285
Bolivia wants to emphasize that, by following the path of international exhortations, it has had promising contacts of rapprochement with Chile that would satisfy the sincere general intention of favouring an equitable solution to our landlocked status. We are pleased to point out, Mr. President, Chile’s willingness to strengthen the efforts that will lead the problem affecting my country to a positive end. As the culmination of this report, we have presented, along with the distinguished Delegations of Guatemala, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, a draft resolution on this issue which we ask be considered. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Foreign Minister of Bolivia. The Representative of Chile has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. del Valle): Mr. President, Chile will vote against the draft resolution entitled “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia.” This position is consistent with the one that
[p 319]
my country has invariably held at prior meetings of the OAS General Assembly. I would like to remind you here again of Chile’s opinion on this issue: there is no territorial dispute between Chile and Bolivia because our borders were determined by the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed in 1904, whose inviolability we uphold. This means that international organizations lack jurisdiction to consider any question related to a matter that has already been resolved by a bilateral treaty.
Distinguished Foreign Ministers, Chile has always made public its willingness to address matters with Bolivia that are of common interest, including those related to Bolivia’s landlocked status. It is important to note that it was at Chile’s initiative that discussions were initiated between our two countries in 1975, with the goal of giving Bolivia access to the Pacific. Since 1984 it has been up to me personally, as Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, to maintain friendly contacts with various Bolivian Foreign Ministers. I have met on three occasions this year, not including this one, with my distinguished colleague present here today, Foreign Minister Guillermo Bedregal: in August, on the occasion of the new President taking office in Colombia; in September, during the United Nations General Assembly, and in October in Lima, where the Latin American Council of the Latin American Economic System met. As a result of these encounters, and by the sovereign will of our Governments, we have initiated a process of rapprochement between Chile and Bolivia. So it is that the first meeting of the Binational Rapprochement Commission was held in La Paz, where around 30 economic, cultural, etc. topics of mutual interest were discussed.
Annex 285
1915
The foregoing shows that the bilateral path is the only one conducive to dealing with the questions that interest Chile and Bolivia. Intervention by the OAS, distinguished Foreign Ministers–I must say it with the candor that is typical of me–is an obstacle on this path and will only make the process of rapprochement between our two countries more difficult. For these reasons, and as it did at the last Assembly, Chile will vote against the resolution presented by Bolivia, and requests that a roll call vote be taken. However, this does not keep me on this occasion from expressing my satisfaction with the positive progress of the process of rapprochement in which Chile and Bolivia are involved, and I reiterate the arguments on this issue that were made in my speech to the plenary Assembly here. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Chilean Foreign Minister for his words. I ask the Secretary to read aloud the draft resolution [AG/CG/doc.2/86].
The SECRETARY: [reads]
[…]
[p 322]
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Representative of Antigua and Barbuda for his interesting arguments.
A roll-call vote has been requested, and therefore, if there are no more comments, we will proceed with the lottery to determine which delegation will start the voting. [He draws a paper.] Based on the lottery, the Delegation of Haiti will vote first.
Please vote in favour, against or abstain, but without making any arguments when you vote. After the vote, you can explain your vote.
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Haiti Yes
United States -
Barbados [Did not participate]
Mexico Yes
Argentina Yes
Dominican Republic Yes
Jamaica -
Honduras Yes
Chile No
Bahamas Yes
Paraguay Yes
1916
Annex 285
Venezuela Yes
Ecuador Yes
Suriname Abstention
Antigua and Barbuda Yes
Guatemala Yes
Saint Lucia -
Panama Yes
Brazil Yes
Costa Rica Yes
Peru Yes
Uruguay Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis Abstention
El Salvador Yes
Bolivia Yes
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [Absent]
Nicaragua Yes
Grenada [Absent]
Dominica [Absent]
Colombia Yes
Trinidad and Tobago Yes
The SECRETARY: Twenty-one votes have been recorded in favour, one against, and two abstentions.
[p 323]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. The result of the vote is twenty-one votes in favour, one against, and two abstentions. Consequently, the draft resolution is approved, and it will be submitted to the plenary meeting.
[…]
[p 324]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. del Valle): Mr. President. I would like to thank the Representatives who have stated their desire in any form to see the Foreign Ministers of Bolivia and Chile seek greater harmony on the resolution, through discussions, so that it may be approved with the consensus of all countries.
However, I should state that such agreement is impossible for us, because even on the substantive issue, we have repeatedly stated that we want to enter into dialogue with our brothers from Bolivia. That is why by mutual agreement, we have initiated a phase of rapprochement. Where we disagree is the issue of this Organization’s competence to handle this matter, which is exclusively within the competence of
Annex 285
1917
[p 325]
Bolivia and Chile, because there is a treaty between them, and we maintain that this treaty is in full force and effect. Therefore, thank you in any event for your understanding and your desire for a dialogue, but I want to repeat that the difficulty solely relates to the fact that we do not grant any competence to this Organization. On the other hand, we repeat, as we did during our speech and as we did last year, that our intention is to get along with the Government of Bolivia, and that is why we ourselves have taken all the steps that are necessary for greater rapprochement. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Bedregal): Mr. President, through you, I would like to express the gratitude of the Bolivian people, those of this and of previous generations, for this vote. We are not going to disagree about problems of methodology and legal interpretation, when a climate seeking peace and understanding prevails in Latin America and the Caribbean, in the hemispheric domain. Any legal subterfuge is worth considering, but it is the not heart of this matter. From that perspective I would like to reiterate that international forums are precisely the place where people seek consensus, or to use a better word, unanimity. This unanimity at times results in an instrument that is neither sure nor exactly democratic, because the democracy that we pride ourselves on having rescued in our countries is based on the will of the majority. That is the essence of representative democracy. Obviously transferring the criterion of consensus to international forums can sometimes mean that we are wrongfully including a criterion that applies to vetoes, or simply subjective positions that are not consistent with the pluralism within which our hemisphere moves.
I would state once again in this forum, which is the forum of all of the Americas, the fraternal, cordial, sincere will of the people of Bolivia, with absolute good faith, and I ratify the words of the Chilean Foreign Minister, my illustrious friend Jaime del Valle, that we are indeed making this effort of both people with a completely clear conscience, secure that in the Americas, in this case as always, as we saw in the case of the Falkland Islands, as we saw in the case of Panama, justice and liberty will prevail over any secondary consideration. Thank you very much, distinguished Representatives, on behalf of the people and Government of Bolivia, and thank you very much, Mr. President, for your exceptional, intelligent moderation in this important matter.
1918
Annex 286
Minutes of the Ninth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 15 November 1986
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Sixteenth Regular Session, 1986, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XVI.O.2 (1987), pp 247 and 256-257
1919
1920
Annex 286
[p 247]
MINUTES OF THE NINTH PLENARY MEETING
Date:
15 November 1986
Time:
9:50 a.m.
Place:
Hotel El Dorado
President:
Mr. Mario Rafael Quiñones Amézquita
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala
Present:
Messrs.
Juan Alberto Llanes
(Paraguay)
Alexandra París
(Venezuela)
Rafael García Velasco
(Ecuador)
Arnold T. Halfhide
(Suriname)
Edmund H. Lake
(Antigua and Barbuda)
Eduardo Meyer Maldonado
(Guatemala)
Roberto Leyton
(Panama)
Dário M. de Castro Alves
(Brazil)
Mario Charpentier
(Costa Rica)
Percy Murillo
(Peru)
Alfredo Platas
(Uruguay)
Erstein M. Edwards
(St. Kitts and Nevis)
Ricardo Acevedo Peralta
(El Salvador)
Armando Soriano Badani
(Bolivia)
Mauricio Herdocia
(Nicaragua)
Franklin A. Baron
(Dominica)
Guillermo Vanegas S.
(Colombia)
James O’Neil Lewis
(Trinidad and Tobago)
Jean-Baptiste Reynold Leroy
(Haiti)
William T. Pryce
(United States)
S. Rozanne Osborne
(Barbados)
Antonio de Icaza
(Mexico)
Gastón de Prat Gay
(Argentina)
Frederick Eman-Zade
(Dominican Republic)
Evadne Coye
(Jamaica)
Hernán Antonio Bermúdez A.
(Honduras)
Jaime del Valle
(Chile)
María Teresa Butler
(Bahamas)
João Clemente Baena Soares
(Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie
(Assistant Secretary General)
Annex 286
1921
[p 256]
d. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.2079/86)
The PRESIDENT: We will now consider the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia [AG/doc.2079/86]. The Representative of Chile has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. del Valle): I would only like to ask that, as in the General Committee, a roll call vote be taken on this draft resolution.
The PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Representative. I therefore ask the Secretary to proceed with the lottery required by regulations to see which delegation will begin the voting. [Draws a paper.] Bahamas will begin the voting.
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Bahamas
Yes
Paraguay
Yes
Venezuela
Yes
Ecuador
Yes
Suriname
-
Antigua and Barbuda
Yes
Guatemala
Yes
Santa Lucia
[Absent]
Panama
Yes
Brazil
Yes
Costa Rica
Yes
Peru
Yes
Uruguay
Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
-
El Salvador
Yes
Bolivia
Yes
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
[Absent]
Nicaragua
-
Grenada
[Absent]
Dominica
Yes
Colombia
Yes
Trinidad and Tobago
Yes
Haiti
Yes
United States
-
Barbados
[Did not participate]
Mexico
Yes
Argentina
Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
Jamaica
Yes
Honduras
Yes
Chile
No
The SECRETARY: The result of the vote is 22 votes in favor and one against.
1922
Annex 286
[p 257]
The PRESIDENT: The resolution is approved.
Annex 287
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 816 (XVI–O/86), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 15 November 1986
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Sixteenth Regular Session, 1986, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XVI/O.2 (1986), pp 39 and 40
1923
1924
Annex 287
Annex 287
1925
1926
Annex 288
Empresa Portuaria de Chile, Resolution No 160, 15 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1927
1928
Annex 288
Annex 288
1929
Empresa Portuaria de Chile
Mailbox 133-V – Valparaiso –Telex No 230313
COMMERCIAL OPERATION DIVISION
No. 647-PCC
REF. ESTABLISHES CARGO STORAGE AREAS FOR CARGO IN TRANSIT COMING FROM OR BOUND FOR BOLIVIA
No. 160
VALPARAISO, 15 April 1987
WHEREAS, it is necessary to update the establishment of cargo storage areas for goods in transit to/ from Bolivia; Resolution No. 552, dated 23 July 1975, established uncovered storage areas at the Arica and Antofagasta ports; Resolution No. 0497, dated 2 June 1981, established a storage area for wheat grain in transit to/ from Bolivia; the final minutes of the Bolivian and Chilean Technical Commissions, which met in La Paz on 14 and 16 April 1971, stipulated an agreement on the use of warehouses in Arica and Antofagasta for the storage of cargo in transit to/ from Bolivia; the Legal Department of the Company furnished information; Supreme Decree No. 465, published in the Official Gazette on 17 January 1975; Resolutions No. 552 dated 23 July 1975, No. 0497 dated 2 June 1981, and the provisions of Section 5, 12, and 13(20) of D.F.L. [Law-ranking decree] No. 290 of 1960, the text of which has been reinstated, coordinated and organized by means of Supreme Decree (TT. and TT.) No. 91 of 1978, I hereby issue the following
RESOLUTION:
1. – The following storage areas are hereby ESTABLISHED for cargo in transit to/ from Bolivia as of 1 May 1987, at the Ports listed below:
a) PORT OF ARICA
a.1) Uncovered areas.
- Southern side
Warehouse No. 6. 7,600 sq. m.
-
Western side Warehouse No. 5. 2,400 sq. m.
- Space between the street dividing forefront
This Warehouse No. 6 is parallel to the railroad 1,000 sq. m.
a.2) Covered areas.
-
Warehouse No. 6. 3,000 sq. m.
- Warehouse No. 5. 2,400 sq. m.
b) PORT OF ANTOFAGASTA
a.1) Bulk wheat grain storage area.
- Space in front of the current Fisheries
Area (210 m. long x 65 m. wide) 13,650 sq. m.
[Seal:] Legality Control. Office of the Comptroller: 24 APR 1987
1930
Annex 288
Annex 288
1931
b.2) Uncovered areas.
- Northern side
Warehouse for cargo in transit 2,210 sq. m.
- Southern side Bolivian
Warehouse 2,210 sq. m.
b.3) Covered areas.
-
Warehouse for cargo in transit on
the rear side of
Warehouse No. 2 3,100 sq. m.
2. – All the above described areas will be subject to the general provisions established in the port rate and service regulations with regard to this transit, under Supreme Decree No. 465, published in the Official Gazette on 17 January 1975.
3. – Resolutions No. 552, dated 23 July 1975 and No. 0497, dated 2 June 1981, are hereby REPEALED.
BE THIS RESOLUTION RECORDED, SENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL FOR LEGALITY CONTROLS, AND NOTIFIED.
[Seal] [Signed]
JORGE BAEZA CONCHA
Vice Admiral
Director
RUM/evg.-
Distributed to:
- Head of Commercial Operation Division
- Head of the Legal Department
- Head of the Internal Control Office
- ARI and ANF administrators
- Offices of the Parties
- Archive
1932
Annex 289
Bolivian Memorandum No 1 of 18 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Memoria of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs for 1987, pp 32-34
1933
1934
Annex 289
Annex 289
1935
MEMORANDUM 1
The Government of the Republic of Bolivia, conforming to what was verbally and informally agreed upon between the Honorable Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and Chile during their preparatory conversations held in Bogotá, New York, Lima and Guatemala last year in 1986, which also gave rise to the creation of the Binational Rapprochement Commission, is honored to set down the basic guidelines for the negotiation that will commence between both countries in Montevideo, capital of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay, in connection with mutually convenient aspects for finding a solution to the problem of Bolivia’s outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
Consequently, it deems it appropriate to submit the following general framework and basic criteria on which said negotiation can be initiated for consideration to the Illustrious Government of the Republic of Chile:
1.
The Government of the Republic of Chile shall cede to the Republic of Bolivia a sovereign and useful maritime coast of its own, joined to the territory of Bolivia by an equally sovereign and useful strip of territory of its own, the boundaries of which shall be as follows:
– Northern Boundary: The Concordia line, current boundary between Chile and Peru, up to the intersection with the Bolivian-Peruvian boundary, in marker V.
– Southern Boundary: From the northern historical center of the city of Arica, including the port area, infrastructure, services and facilities up to the first bridge over the Lluta River, junction with the Arica-Tacna and Arica-La Paz railway sections and the Pan American Arica-Tacna highway. The arcifinious boundary shall be the course of the Lluta River up to a point to the east of Coronel Alcérreca and, finally, a geodesic line up to marker XI in the current boundary of Bolivia and Chile. In this way, Bolivia shall be granted a servitude in respect of the sections or areas of the Arica-La Paz railway and Sica-Sica-Arica oil pipeline that go through or fall within the territory of Chile, as well as the A-15 highway from Arica to Tambo Quemado, as per annex to the Map Sheet “Arica” 1700-6800 published by the Military Geographic Institute of Chile.
2.
The Bolivia-Chile Mixed Boundary Commission shall meet in order to calculate the area and establish the final demarcation of boundaries in accordance with the references provided in Item 1 of this Memorandum for the new territorial delimitation.
1936
Annex 289
Annex 289
1937
3.
Therefore, the Republic of Chile shall cede the maritime territory that is located between the baselines or parallels of the end points of the maritime coast referred to in Item 1 of this Memorandum.
In its maritime area, Bolivia shall apply the principles and regulations acknowledged to the Coastal States by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Furthermore, within the framework of said Convention, the Republics of Bolivia and Chile shall agree through bilateral agreements to establish the necessary reciprocal cooperation for the exploitation and use of the natural living resources of the sea.
4.
The Government of Bolivia undertakes to respect the private rights, legally acquired, in the territory to be ceded to it by the Republic of Chile.
5.
The Republic of Bolivia shall ensure that its strip of territory, maritime coast, and territorial sea complement and contribute to the integral development of the Arica and Tacna regions. Likewise, it shall respect the servitudes that have been established in the territory of the strip.
6.
On the other hand, the Government of Bolivia is willing to search for a real and fruitful physical, economic, and cultural integration with the Republics of Chile and Peru, in order to satisfactorily conclude the question of the Pacific which has ultimately constituted an obstacle to the development and integration of these nations, generating tensions that are contrary to the peaceful purposes of the three countries.
To achieve such a lofty objective and with views to the great challenge posed by the proximity of the 21st century, and promoting the establishment of living borders being imperative, Bolivia proposes to form a Mixed Commission to the Government of Chile to study the rational use of water resources that exist in the Bolivian Plateau basin in favor of the Bolivian-Chilean border area, mainly to preserve the environmental balance, the climate, and the vital needs of Bolivian populations, as well as the existing international conventions.
These water resources could contribute to the increase and improvement of irrigation and generate more hydroelectric power for the Arica region and the strip of territory ceded to Bolivia, as well as to increase the flow rate of the Lluta River.
7.
With a view to the creation of an integrated development zone in the area located between Arica, the strip of territory ceded to Bolivia, and Tacna, Bolivia proposes to create a second Mixed Commission to study the power, mineral, and farming and livestock resources that could be provided not only by Bolivia, but also by Chile and Peru. Peru will be invited to join this Commission in due time.
For financing purposes, Bolivia would request the support of the United Nations, especially the Organization of American States, so that through their respective specialized bodies,
1938
Annex 289
i.e., the Inter-American Development Bank and other international financial agencies, credit can be obtained in order to execute projects and engineering works for the development zone and use of water resources.
La Paz, 18 April 1987.
Annex 290
Bolivian Memorandum No 2 of 18 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Memoria of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs for 1987, p 34
1939
1940
Annex 290
Annex 290
1941
MEMORANDUM 2
The Government of the Republic of Bolivia submits for consideration to the Illustrious Government of the Republic of Chile the proposal to cede a territorial and maritime enclave in the North of Chile which does not affect the territorial continuity of Chile, on the understanding that such an enclave will communicate with the Bolivian territory by means of railways, roads, and multi-purpose pipelines, the use of which shall be agreed to favor Bolivia. In addition, the feasibility of the construction of an airport in the enclave area shall be assessed.
The Government of the Republic of Bolivia shall receive the enclave in perpetuity through a Treaty that shall establish its final boundaries. The Bolivian sovereignty over this territory would be a guarantee of the willingness to cooperate and solidarity on the Pacific Coast between both nations, within the framework of a joint development of the region. To that end, it shall be essential that the port ceded to Bolivia be effectively useful for sea transportation, and quays can be installed therein, if they had not yet already been installed, as well as any other facilities which could facilitate services related to commerce and navigation.
Bolivia submits three enclave alternatives to the Government of Chile for consideration:
1.
FROM CALETA CAMARONES, at 19° 12' to PISAGUA, which is at 19° 35' with a depth to the east up to 70° West longitude, an area of 1,068 km2, which corresponds to a coastal front of 42 km and mean depth of 25 km.
2.
FROM TOCOPILLA, 22° 06' towards the South up to PUNTA COBIJA, 22° 33' with a depth to the East up to 70° West longitude, an area of 1,238 km2, a coastal front of 47 km and mean depth of 25 km.
3.
FROM CALETA MICHILLA, 22° 43' to MEJILLONES, 23° 06' with a depth to the East up to 70° West longitude, an area of 1,500 km2, a coastal front of 50 km and mean depth of 30 km.”
\
1942
Annex 291
Speech of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile,
21 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Memoria of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs for 1987, pp 29-31
1943
1944
Annex 291
Annex 291
1945
Speech of Jaime del Valle, Minister of Foreign Affairs
“Minister:
I
have listened with great interest to the considerations you have formulated regarding the position of your country on the issue of Bolivia’s status as a landlocked country.
It is a matter that, as you have highlighted well, consists of particularly complex elements that need to be analyzed exhaustively.
My intention, as discussed in our previous conversations held in different Latin American capitals over the last few months, is not to now delve into the statements of form and substance that you have already made.
What I do wish to highlight, in any case, Mr. Minister, is the willingness and greatest goodwill with which Chile comes to this meeting, with the purpose of exploring potential solutions that may, within a prudent timeframe, bring positive and satisfactory results in the interests of countries.
You know perfectly well that the Government of Chile has repeatedly stated at different forums that it believes that the boundaries between Chile and Bolivia were definitively established by the 1904 Treaty, which was negotiated and signed by Bolivians and Chileans, who are both responsible and respectable.
The referenced bilateral document, which was named the “Treaty of Peace, Amity and Commerce” of 1904, established a legal status in the area which has done nothing but be recognized and confirmed by the innumerable Conventions and Agreements signed since then.
It would take me too long – and it is not my intention to do so – to go over the countless steps that our two countries have taken throughout the years and which resulted in establishing a scheme whereby Chile recognized for Bolivia the fullest and most free right of transit, as set forth in the 1904 document.
My country believes, in good faith, that no other landlocked country has ever been afforded such amenities as Bolivia has in the course of contemporary history. For instance, it should be remembered that in 1965, after a long process that began in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the United Nations Organization called a conference on the transportation of landlocked countries. The work carried out therein gave rise to the Convention on Transit Trade of Landlocked States, which established principles, rules, and advantages that the international community deemed adequate to solve the transit problems of these countries.
1946
Annex 291
Annex 291
1947
These amenities awarded in the referenced Convention are inferior to that which Chile grants Bolivia and which has been enshrined in numerous documents over the years.
Without expecting to go into further detail or exhaust the subject, which is not the purpose of this meeting, I insist that, in my opinion, it is worth mentioning the facts above.
Neither is it my intention to deal on this occasion with the work performed by the Government of Chile with a view to rationalize the systems for the flow of goods and the procedures related to the Bolivian cargo that passes through the ports of Arica and Antofagasta. In this regard, I can only mention that an integrated transit system was implemented, the usefulness and efficiency of which have been acknowledged by Bolivian authorities.
I could also place an emphasis on the subject of roads, if that were our purpose. With respect to this, I could say that Chile has made a significant effort to build the section of the road connecting Arica and Tambo Quemado that passes through our territory. The importance of this road was acknowledged by Decision 94 of the Cartagena Agreement Commission, which considered it to be an integral part of the backbone of the core Andean road system. Although Chile was even then no longer part of the Cartagena Agreement, it complied with and abided by the referenced decision.
It should not go without saying that Chile has always been willing to have an open and friendly dialogue with Bolivia and has tried to give, in its relations with your country, a creative and positive meaning.
This conduct has been repeated several times throughout our history and I cannot but mention that we strongly believe that Chile cannot be blamed for the failure of several negotiation instances.
In addition to what has been stated above, I would like to reiterate that the current Chilean administration has perhaps been the one that has most clearly adopted a constructive position with respect to the issues that interest Bolivia.
The commitment of Your Excellency the President of the Republic to American interests led you to carry out the negotiations that commenced in the Act of Charaña of February 1975.
As shall be remembered, in the act signed at that time, the Presidents of Chile and Bolivia expressly stated the commitment to continue the dialogue, at different levels, to seek solutions to key issues faced by both countries, such as the landlocked status that affects Bolivia, within the framework of reciprocal convenience and taking into consideration the aspirations of the Bolivian and Chilean nations.
1948
Annex 291
Annex 291
1949
An understanding began to be outlined, which did not finally succeed for reasons that are not appropriate to analyze right now but which can in no way be attributed to Chile.
Other initiatives have been launched in the last years to encourage a rapprochement between both countries.
You are aware of, as well or even better than me, the steps that have been taken so far and that have made it possible to achieve some advances - particularly in 1984 - that were subsequently weakened by facts or circumstances that were also beyond the control of Chilean authorities.
A new atmosphere began to emerge at the beginning of last year, particularly due to the positive statements made to the press by the President of Bolivia, Víctor Paz Estenssoro, who highlighted that the relations between the two countries needed a fresh approach, recognizing with great objectivity that both nations complement each other economically.
You may remember, Mr. Minister, that at that time I allowed myself to express the satisfaction of the Government of Chile with respect to the Bolivian President’s statements.
We have gone through the subsequent stages together, establishing a friendly and fraternal contact in different scenarios that made it possible to arrive precisely at this meeting, which is aimed at initiating what could be – and that is our desire – a mature and sincere dialogue which, if adequately conducted, may lead us to more decisive stages than the ones we could reach in previous negotiations.
We have created a binational commission that is studying new ways of rapprochement and complementation, a task in which it has already concluded two positive negotiation stages. I believe it is important for us to maintain the drive given to this commission.
The only thing left for me to say is that we have arrived at this meeting driven by our feelings of affection and brotherhood to the Bolivian nation.
You can be certain that we will carefully analyze the points of view you have stated on your Government’s behalf. We will give them our fullest and sincere consideration, making efforts to build bridges of understanding between our nations, which have been called by history to walk together due to the large amount of interests in common, leaving aside – hopefully as soon as possible – any issues which could have kept us apart for generations”.
1950
Annex 292
Questions sent by Chile to Bolivia concerning the Bolivian proposals, 21 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Memoria of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs for 1987, pp 35-36
1951
1952
Annex 292
Annex 292
1953
— Questions from the Chilean Delegation in relation to the proposals put
forward by Bolivia on 21 April 1987.
For the sole purpose of specifying the content and scope of the Bolivian proposals, included in Memorandums Nos. 1 and 2, delivered by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Guillermo Bedregal G., on 21 April this year, and thus facilitating a better understanding of them by the Chilean authorities, a number of questions put to the Bolivian Delegation have been included below. Such questions in no way mean a pronouncement on the subject issue or exhausting the possibilities of further consultations in the future, if necessary, given the generality of some of the Bolivian proposals.
I. In relation to Memorandum No. 1
1. Taking into consideration the demarcation specified in item 1, Southern boundary, of the Memorandum dated 18 April 1987, and which is included in the Map Sheet “Arica 1700-6800”, scale 1:500.000, published by Chile’s Military Geography Institute, 1971 Edition, please explain the area calculation procedure specified during the presentation given on 21 April 1987 by the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs.
2. Specify the proposed boundary from the Arica-La Paz railway bridge, over the Lluta River, southward.
3. Specify exactly what the phrase “port area, infrastructure, services and facilities” mentioned in item 1 of the aforementioned Bolivian Memorandum, in describing the southern boundary of the strip of territory, refers to.
4. Clarify the intended solutions to the connection problems arising from the crossing of the strip proposed by Bolivia, with the railway and highway connecting Arica with Tacna.
5. Identify the coordinates of the point lying to the east of the “Coronel Acérreca” Station, which, following a straight line, connects Milestone XI on the current Bolivia-Chile border.
6. Indicate with precision the compensation that Bolivia would be willing to offer Chile.
In that regard, please specify:
(a) Sources and quantity of permanent Bolivian water resources that would increase the water level of the Lluta River.
(b) Sources and quantity of permanent water resources that Bolivia would be willing to deliver for the development of Chile’s Norte Grande region, through watercourses other than the Lluta River.
(c) In connection with the sources of Bolivian water resources that are being offered, we are interested to know whether such waters may be freely used by Bolivia or, if that is not the case, whether the agreement of Peru is required.
1954
Annex 292
7. Specify the form of indemnification:
Within the territory consisting of the strip in which Bolivia is interested, there are several infrastructure works and natural resources, such as railways, stations, bridges, roads, schools, an airport, towns, sulfur mines, etc. The value of such infrastructure and resources shall be indemnified.
II. In relation to Memorandum No. 2
1. Explain the maritime extension that the enclave mentioned in Bolivia’s Memorandum No. 2, paragraph 1, would have, considering Chile’s necessary maritime continuity.
2. Clarify whether the compensations offered by Bolivia to Chile are the same as that for the strip of territory that Bolivia requests as an alternative formula, or if they are different. If the latter, it will be indispensable to define them.
Annex 293
Bolivian Memorandum No 3 of 22 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Memoria of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs for 1987, pp 36-39
1955
1956
Annex 293
Annex 293
1957
MEMORANDUM No. 3
— Answers of the Bolivian Delegation to the Questionnaire submitted by the Chilean Delegation in the Document dated 22 April 1987.
I. In response to the questions about Memorandum No. 1
Answer to point No. 1— For the measurement of the surface of the strip of land proposed in the Bolivian Memorandum No 1, map No 1, the triangulation calculation system was used. The surface of 2,806 km² is an approximation. The final calculation of the area will be entrusted to the Bolivia-Chile Mixed Boundary Commission. The essential aspect of point No. 1 in Memorandum No. 1 is the establishment of a territory that is defined by the Memorandum and the map.
Answer to Point No. 2.— The Bolivian Delegation specified the following with regard to this point:
Starting from the mouth of the San José River in the Pacific Ocean, it will follow the course of the river until it reaches the railroad line from Arica to Visviri; then it will continue on this line towards the North, passing through the crossing of the Pan-American highway from Arica to Tacna and then will continue along the railroad on the Eastern side as far as the bridge over the Lluta River. The town and urban properties existing in this area, i.e., from the San José River to the parallel 18°, 25 minutes, between the two railroads, Tacna-Arica and Arica-Visviri, will remain under Chilean sovereignty. Bolivia's access to the port area will extend to the southern end of the mooring peer built to service Peru.
Answer to point 3.— The port area, infrastructure, services and facilities refer to those existing in the access zone to the pier mentioned above, to facilitate port operations, transport and pumping of hydrocarbons from Bolivian territory.
1958
Annex 293
Annex 293
1959
It does not include the urban area or population existing in the city of Arica.
Answer to point 4.— With respect to the clarification requested regarding the connection problems at the crossing of the railroads and highways, in the area of the Lluta bridge, Bolivia proposes conducting a study on site to determine the feasibility and design for the construction of a road network that ensures the continuity of the services existing between Arica and Tacna.
Answer to point 5.— With respect to identifying the coordinates where the Eastern point of the “Coronel Alcérreca” station is located, it is at the intersection of the 18th parallel of latitude south and 69° 38' of longitude West, at 2,500 metres to the East of that station, approximately, in accordance with the map attached to Memorandum No. 1.
Answer to point 6.—
COMPENSATION
6a) Bolivia formally proposes that both countries need to make a joint effort to find and technically measure the potential of water resources existing in the border zone beginning from the basin of the Lluta River. These resources must strengthen the water course of that river, which will constitute, in the new political division, the natural boundary limit that will guarantee the utility of the area.
A bi-national technical commission will be given the task of making the evaluations immediately, thus taking advantage of the current dry season. Bolivia will employ specialists who are members of the Hydrology Institute at the University of Bolivia, under the responsibility and coordination of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship.
6b) i. With regard to the other water power located in other mountain basins south of the Lluta River, the bi-national Commission will define the aquifers that could improve the lack of water in Chile’s Norte Grande, taking into consideration the preservation of the ecological balance in the western areas of Bolivia, where these watercourses originate. The bi-national commission to perform the studies under points 6a) and 6b) could use the technical assistance of the United Nations Department of Technical Cooperation for Development.
ii. With regard to the agreement on the use of the waters in the Lauca River, the bi-national commission will recommend final joint solutions that take into account the inventory of waters obtained by Chile since 1962, and the formulas for joint use of these waters, ensuring that they are aimed at establishing the best economic and agricultural use of this river.
6c) The sources of the water resources that Bolivia offers as compensation are owned exclusively by the Republic of Bolivia and do not require any agreement from Peru.
1960
Annex 293
Annex 293
1961
6d) Bolivia believes that a compensatory factor to be agreed on is the extension of the Santa Cruz-Sicasica gas pipeline (currently under construction) until the port of Arica and parallel to the existing oil pipeline. Bolivia’s gas potential and its industrial use with bi-national companies (energy, fertilizer and petrochemical companies) is a new factor that both countries should study individually to find a compensatory balance for the cession of the territory.
These bi-national companies for the use of natural gas and the development of petrochemical industries will obtain financing from international agencies, backed jointly by both governments.
Answer to point 7.—
INDEMNIFICATION
7a) Arica-Visviri Railroad. The Republic of Bolivia would pay for this railroad on the basis of a technical evaluation of the value of its current physical inventories. This sale transaction could be combined with a project that includes the railway, stations, rolling stock, maintenance shop services and other infrastructure to ensure the functioning of the railroad, including a program to improve the railway, changing its current track in order to improve its traction.
7b) Other civil engineering work owned by Chile will be paid for on terms to be agreed by both parties, after their actual values and current use is evaluated.
7c) With respect to the Chacalluta Airport, which is to be located in the territory covered by the cession, its facilities, weather services, access zones and complementary work will be transferred to the Bolivian State, in exchange for payment at the amounts and on the deadlines to be agreed to mutually.
Until Chile completes the construction of the airport to replace the one in Chacalluta, as agreed, Bolivia will allow it to use these facilities for any type of Chilean flag carriers.
7d) Sulphur mines. — The Government of Bolivia will grant to the current concessionaire of the sulphur mines in El Tacora the same rights and obligations as those granted under current Chilean law.
II. In response to the questions about Memorandum No. 2.
Answer to point No. 1.— With regard to the use of the territorial waters contiguous to the enclaves, the Republic of Bolivia will ensure the free navigation of any Chilean boat or ship, without any restriction; however, the specific rules to be followed
1962
Annex 293
Annex 293
1963
on this subject will be agreed to in a special regulatory agreement between Bolivia and Chile, which will ensure that the principle established in this document is followed.
In general, the rules that Bolivia adopts on its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone will be consistent with the principles and regulations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The bilateral agreements that Bolivia and Chile sign for the exploitation of living resources from the sea with also be consistent with that Convention.
Answer to point No. 2.— The compensation that Bolivia offers to Chile is of the same nature as the compensation proposed for the strip of land, although it is proportionally less, as is consistent with the nature and size of the enclave to be received.
Montevideo, 22 April 1987.
1964
Annex 294
Press Release from the Foreign Ministers of the Republics of Bolivia and Chile, 23 April 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1965
1966
Annex 294
Annex 294
1967
PRESS RELEASE
The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Republics of Bolivia and Chile, Their Excellencies Messrs. Guillermo Bedregal and Jaime del Valle, held meetings in Montevideo, Uruguay, between 21 and 23 April 1987.
These meetings had been previously agreed to by both Ministers driven by the spirit of mutual rapprochement that inspires their Governments, and their purpose was to become familiar with the positions of both countries with respect to the basic issues that are of concern to the two nations.
The first meeting was opened by speeches given by both Ministers, the texts of which had been distributed to the press and both of which agreed to stress the friendly and constructive disposition that inspires the Governments of Chile and Bolivia, as well as their common will to employ their best efforts in the search for solutions that satisfy both parties.
1968
Annex 294
Annex 294
1969
Then, HE the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia presented his country’s considerations aimed at initiating negotiations to search for a solution to Bolivia’s landlocked situation. Such considerations are included in two memoranda and two maps he delivered to Minister del Valle.
The following day, the Delegation of Chile, with the exclusive purpose of clarifying and defining the contents and scope of the Bolivian proposal to the maximum extent possible and clearly expressing that this did not constitute an advanced decision or opinion on the issue at hand, asked the Delegation of Bolivia several questions, contained in minutes of 22 April that was delivered to the Delegation of Bolivia.
Such questions were answered by Minister Bedregal in a document of the same date, likewise delivered to the Delegation of Chile.
1970
Annex 294
Annex 294
1971
Minister del Valle shall submit all the documents mentioned above, as well as Minister Bedregal’s presentation, for the consideration of the Government of Chile.
When the meeting was adjourned, Their Excellencies the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Chile and Bolivia agreed to leave record of their gratitude towards the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and, in particular, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Enrique Iglesias, for their warm hospitality and kind attention.
Montevideo, 23 April 1987.
1972
Annex 295
Minutes of the Meeting of the Permanent Commission for the Study of the Bolivian Proposal, 25 May 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1973
1974
Annex 295
Annex 295
1975
Republic of Chile
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Minutes of the Meeting of the Permanent Committee for the Study of the Bolivian Proposal, 25 May 1987
The meeting began at 16:15, chaired by Ambassador Javier Illanes (General Director of DIGEN [the Foreign Policy General Division]), assisted by Gen. Pedro Ewing (General Director of DIFROL [the National Directorate of Borders and Limits of the State]), Ambassador Carlos Bustos (General Director of DIPESP [the Special Policy Division]), Col. Juan Enrique Carrasco (Director of DIPLAN [the Planning Office]), Uldaricio Figueroa (Director of DIBILAT [the Bilateral Affairs Office]), Captain (R) Claudio Collados, Col. Julio Von Chrismar, C. Ignacio González (DIMULTI [the Multilateral Affairs Office]), Germán Ibarra (DIBILAT), on behalf of C. Pedro Suckel, and DIPLAN Analyst Jorge Arancibia.
First, it should be noted that Cdr. Collados and Gen. Ewing presented their works to the Committee in accordance with the tasks they were entrusted with (* Cdr. Collados: “Preliminary Analysis of the Proposal in relation to the maritime territory to be potentially transferred. Aspects related to: littoral, territorial waters, sea resources, marine economy, port works, cultural heritage and national defense”; * Gen. Ewing: Preliminary Analysis of the Proposal in relation to the maritime territory to be potentially transferred. Aspects related to: area, population, natural resources, economy, public works, cultural heritage and national defense”) and submitted them to Ambassador Illanes, who thanks them for their contribution.
In this regard, it should be mentioned that Cdr. Collados emphasized that his work only analyzes part of the Proposal, the part referred to the “corridor”, since he considers that the background information of it is a bit unclear as to whether the ports of Pisagua, Tocopilla, and Mejillones would be part of the potential cession (as an alternative) of the “enclaves”.
In this regard, Ambassador Illanes states
SECRET
1976
Annex 295
Annex 295
1977
that, in Montevideo, it was clearly stated –orally– that none of these ports would be part of the concerned “enclaves”.
Thereupon, Cdr. Collados states that he will turn to the second part of his work, analyzing the maritime aspects of the Proposal with regard to the “enclaves”.
In turn, Gen. Ewing stresses the importance of deciding which the least negative proposal is. In a similar sense, he states that, with regard to compensations, it is necessary to determine the amount of water and electric energy the Bolivians may supply, and what use we could put that to.
With regard to this last item, Cdr. Collados states that he does not envisage compensating territories with products and emphasizes that only a territorial compensation should take place. Similarly, Col. Von Chrismar agrees with this view.
In this context, it should be noted that Ambassador Illanes indicated that this Ministry has no preconception regarding the Proposal, and that all the members of the Committee are free to express their opinions on the matter.
In turn, Ambassador Illanes refers to the decision of our Government to make the Proposal public on 5 June of this year, simultaneously with that of Bolivia. He added that, although this will likely result in pressure by the public, said disclosure should be useful given the positive feedback the public could provide and since it should bring an end to the current uncertainty and speculations.
Additionally, he stresses that, in spite of the disclosure of the Proposal, this Committee shall continue assessing it thoroughly and that there is no peremptory timeframe
1978
Annex 295
Annex 295
1979
for that.
Furthermore, Col. Carrasco expressed the convenience of integrating –permanently– an Attorney from DIJUR [the Division of Legal Affairs], into this committee, given that the assigned tasks are exclusively legal and bear no relation, so far, with the nature of the duties of the DIPLAN.
Ambassador Illanes expressed his agreement in this regard.
Finally, Col. Von Chrismar states that he will be out of Santiago on professional matters between 29 May and 7 June, and he will therefore be unable to assist the following meeting.
The meeting is adjourned at 17:45 and a new meeting is scheduled for the following week, on a date to be determined.
JAU/cgc
1980
Annex 296
Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 9 June 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Memoria of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs for 1987, pp 40-41
1981
1982
Annex 296
Annex 296
1983
1.2. STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CHILE
[...]
“At the express request of HE the President of the Republic, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile hereby informs the public of the following:
1. During the past weeks, Foreign Minister del Valle has completed a series of presentations in order to explain and consider the contents of the proposal submitted by the Government of Bolivia with regard to its aspiration to gaining sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. Among those meetings, of particular importance are those held with the Honorable Government Junta, with the Staff of the Armed Forces, and with the Generals of Chile’s Uniformed Police, Ministers of the State, former Foreign Ministers, business leaders, journalists and, in general, representatives of various sectors of our country.
2. After this intense period of analysis, consultations and detailed briefings, and within the spirit of seriousness and honesty that characterizes Chilean foreign policy, the Foreign Ministry feels the duty to express that the substance of the Bolivian proposal is not acceptable for Chile in either of its alternatives, i.e., the cession of sovereign Chilean territory, whether through a corridor north of Arica or through enclaves along its littoral.
1984
Annex 296
Annex 296
1985
3. Nonetheless, and in line with its permanent will to reach a rapprochement with the lovely Republic of Bolivia, Chile understands that it may collaborate with said country in the search for solutions that, without altering the national territorial or maritime patrimony, would allow for a bilateral integration that would effectively serve the development and well-being of the respective countries.
4. The Government of Chile deems it its duty to explain these details, since it does not consider it fair –with its silence or delay– to generate confusion for the national public, or to give rise to false expectations of the Bolivian Government and people that would, in time, be frustrated.
Santiago, 9 June 1987.”
1986
Annex 297
Aide Mémoire from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 10 June 1987
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
1987
1988
Annex 297
Annex 297
1989
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AIDE MEMOIRE
Between 21 and 23 April 1987, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Chile and Bolivia held a meeting in Montevideo, Uruguay, with the aim of learning Bolivia’s proposal in connection with its aspiration to gain an outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
Thereafter, the Government of Chile assessed the proposal submitted by the Government of Bolivia.
After an intense preliminary analysis, which included consultations with several representative sectors of the country, and within the spirit of seriousness and honesty that characterizes Chilean foreign policy, the Government of Chile regrets to inform the Government of Bolivia that the substance of Bolivia’s proposal is not acceptable for Chile in either of its alternatives, i.e., the cession of sovereign Chilean territory, whether through a corridor north of Arica or through enclaves along its littoral.
Nonetheless, and in line with its permanent will to reach a rapprochement with the sister Republic of Bolivia, Chile understands that it may collaborate with Bolivia in the search for solutions that, without altering the national territorial or maritime patrimony, and respecting the interests of both countries, would allow for a bilateral integration that would effectively serve the development and well-being of the respective countries. Furthermore, the Government of Chile reiterates its willingness to continue the work of the Binational Rapprochement Committee with Bolivia, in the understanding that such work is the right and fruitful path of shared cooperation and progress.
1990
Annex 297
The Government of Chile deems it its duty to explain these details, since it does not consider it fair –with its silence or delay– to generate confusion for the national public, or to give rise to false expectations of the Bolivian Government and people that would, in time, be frustrated.
Santiago, 10 June 1987. –
Annex 298
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States, 17 June 1987 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Library of the Organization of American States
1991
1992
Annex 298
Annex 298
1993
PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON 17 JUNE 1987
[…]
1994
Annex 298
Annex 298
1995
OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BOLIVIA ON THE SUSPENSION OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH CHILE IN RELATION TO AN OUTLET TO THE SEA
Mr. President: I declare this special meeting of the Permanent Council of the Organization in session. It has been convened pursuant to Article 15 of the Rules of Procedure at the request of the Representative of Bolivia, in order to inform this Body of the official declaration issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of his country on the suspension of negotiations with Chile in relation to an outlet to the sea.
I would like to now ask the Secretary to read the note dated 12 June requesting that this meeting be convened.
The SECRETARY: [reads:]
12 June 1987
Mr. President:
Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rules of Procedure of the Permanent Council, I would like to ask you to convene a Special Meeting of the referenced Council. The purpose of this meeting is to inform this collegial body of the official statement issued by my country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, regarding the negotiations suspended by Chile in relation to Bolivia’s forced geographic confinement.
I request that this meeting be held this coming Wednesday, 17 June.
I thank you in advance for your willingness to grant this request, and would like to reiterate the expressions of the highest and most distinguished consideration.
(Signed)
Amando Soriano Badani
Ambassador
, Permanent Representative
[…]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA: Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to make known the official communiqué issued by my country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship related to maritime negotiations with Chile.
1996
Annex 298
Annex 298
1997
The Government of Bolivia, before the international public, denounces the bad faith exhibited by the current Chilean Government, which, after having agreed to enter into negotiations on Bolivia’s maritime confinement problem and having further agreed to a formal meeting of the Foreign Ministers of both countries where Bolivia presented an official solution to this problem, it unexpectedly gave a response indicating that this solution was not acceptable to the State.
As the international community is aware, talks between the Foreign Ministers of Bolivia and Chile, Messrs. Guillermo Bedregal and Jaime del Valle, aimed at reaching an agreement to resolve the geographic confinement from which Bolivia suffers, were held in New York in September 1986 during the Forty-First General Assembly of the United Nations.
At that time, both Ministers of Foreign Affairs agreed to form a Mixed Bilateral Commission for Rapprochement, which had the mission of searching for solutions to certain problems stemming from Bolivia having to travel through Chilean territory in order to conduct foreign trade, as well as to encourage any type of relations between the two countries aimed at creating a friendly environment between the Bolivian and Chilean peoples in order to subsequently be able to enter into a second round, where the substantive issues, including the Bolivian maritime problem, would be studied.
The Bilateral Commission for Rapprochement fulfilled its mission, and as such it was decided that the substantive issues would be studied at a meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of both countries, in the territory of a friendly nation, at which time Bolivia would present a concrete proposal for a negotiated solution to Bolivia’s fundamental problem.
Thanks to the kind offer by the illustrious Government of Uruguay, this meeting of Foreign Ministers was held in Montevideo on 21-23 April of this year.
As stipulated, Bolivia formally submitted a proposal set out in two Memoranda, thereby desiring to put an end once and for all to the unjust geographic confinement from which Bolivia had suffered for more than a hundred years.
The Chilean Foreign Minister, Jaime del Valle, and the delegation that accompanied him to Montevideo, received the Bolivian documents, and after reviewing them, submitted a document asking for clarification and precision about the specific content of the Bolivian proposal.
The Bolivian Delegation responded to these questions in a third Memorandum, in which all of the issues submitted by Chile were duly addressed and clarified.
1998
Annex 298
Annex 298
1999
The Chilean Delegation headed by Foreign Minister del Valle appeared to be satisfied with this, and said that its Government would seriously study the Bolivian proposal in a spirit of true American allegiance.
As a corollary to this first round of formal diplomatic negotiations between the two States, both Foreign Ministers issued a press release, which was widely disseminated in all types of means of communication.
After returning to his country, Foreign Minister del Valle made repeated statements and comments about the Bolivian proposal, calling it “serious, realistic, and practical.”
Later, Mr. del Valle publicly stated that his Government had created a commission to carefully study the matter and that Chile would issue a response before the end of the year.
While Bolivia and the international community—particularly the members of the Organization of American States, who had reiterated in important resolutions issued starting in 1979 that Bolivia’s maritime issue affected not only Bolivia but also constituted a Hemispheric problem—were waiting for a worthy response from Chile, the Chilean Government unexpectedly issued a declaration characterized by clumsiness and incoherence, putting an end to the diplomatic actions that had been initiated under the auspices of the international community of the Americas.
The Government of Bolivia would like to point out that the Chilean response, expressed in an unusual and hardly dignified manner, demonstrated only an unfathomable lack of adherence to the most fundamental rules of civilized coexistence, thus revealing abhorrent arrogance and reactionary patriotism.
Given this deplorable attitude by Chile, the Government of Bolivia would like to not only denounce such conduct but also ask the international community to recognize how difficult it is to achieve true brotherhood between the member nations of the Organization of American States when there are governments such as Chile’s that disrespect and disregard the dignity of other States.
The negotiations related to the forced geographic confinement of Bolivia—which had been taking place pursuant to the urging of the Organization—were unexpectedly and unilaterally suspended by Chile, in an attempt to randomly revoke the formal commitments made in official notes in the year 1950. These notes were signed by the Chilean Foreign Minister, Horacio Walker Larraín, and the Bolivian Foreign Minister, Alberto Ostria Gutiérrez, who textually agreed: “To seek a solution that would make it possible to give Bolivia
2000
Annex 298
Annex 298
2001
its own sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean and allow Chile to receive compensations that are not territorial in nature and effectively take its interests into account.”
This agreement, which engages the faith of the Chilean State in its bilateral relations as well as in terms of the international community, has been ignored with the abrupt decision in contempt of the essential principles of international law.
Peace is not only the absence of war or armed conflict, but also public tranquility in the relations of States, in order to guarantee regional harmony that is conducive to coexistence and development. Ensuring peace means taking unified action to prevent the tensions that generally predispose the use of force. The hemispheric community has the unified mission of promoting peace, which is a fundamental principle of the Charter of the Organization of American States.
It provides that international law is the rule of conduct for States and that good faith must govern the relations between them.
The multinational longing to resolve this problem is based on conscious pacifist convictions and is inspired by genuine feelings of continental solidarity.
My country expects the Organization of American States to take a unified action that will help achieve order, peace, and justice, as advocated in our Charter, honoring one of its most important principles.
The preceding concepts derive from the regulatory structure of the founding instruments that justify the existence of our Organization and define the direction of its development in order to achieve its lofty objectives.
This unfortunate temporary setback will not quash Bolivia’s legitimate desire to return to the sea, which is very much alive and well and rooted in the collective soul of its people.
The successful promise of the destiny of the nations of the Americas lies in the decision-making will of our Organization.
Mr. President, at this time of bitter frustration, our desire, which has become even more fervent, is to duly confirm with the Preparatory Committee the inclusion of this issue that is of such concern to the international community in the agenda of the next General Assembly. Thank you, Mr. President.
[…]
2002
Annex 298
Annex 298
2003
2004
Annex 298
Annex 298
2005
The REPRESENTATIVE OF VENEZUELA: Thank you, Mr. President. The topic that prompted this special session of the Permanent Council is an old one in this setting, the consideration and analysis of which cannot, however, be characterized. Old or new, distant or recent, it has been there, demanding a unified stance on the part of the American countries, rising above events that seem to alienate desirable solutions to a problem that concerns all of us and goes beyond a mere political statement.
Ambassador Armando Soriano Badani, in his very personal style, just gave us an admirable summary of the negotiations that were unilaterally suspended by one of the Parties, just when international public opinion was generating optimistic expectations about the bilateral dialogue that had been taking place between Bolivia and Chile on Bolivia’s keen desire to have an outlet to the sea, and the ways in which both parties were discussing the issue on equal footing, of course, in an effort, to make it possible to reach an understanding on the issue.
Such an understanding was not achieved this time. But it will be achieved sooner rather than later, because a fair solution based on such an understanding is a categorical imperative at this time in America, which is in such need of a fruitful dialogue and is so urgently required in order to secure the ties of solidarity between our two countries.
It is good that this issue has come before us again. The Permanent Council is about to hear about this situation, but no one would expect the Council to make a decision on it. This is a step that can only be taken by the two parties that have been bilaterally dealing with an issue that certainly concerns all of us, but whose resolution naturally is unequivocally up to those parties.
This issue has already been discussed at the regional level for some time. In 1979, the ninth regular session of the OAS General Assembly heard the issue for the first time, where Venezuela submitted a draft resolution, which at the time showed that the Hemispheric countries supported Bolivia’s cause. Since that date, the issue has been discussed almost unabatedly in the General Assembly, at times unleashing veritable verbal battles in a vicious cycle that revolves around two opposing axes: Bolivia’s just aspiration to leave its forced geographic confinement and Chile’s unwavering position of not discussing a matter under its national jurisdiction within the OAS.
But this issue is still there, cutting and bitter, calling for a process of brotherly rapprochement in a spirit of friendship, in order to overcome problems that
2006
Annex 298
Annex 298
2007
are not simple and to reach the long-desired understanding based on reciprocal interests. There is no question that such an understanding will be the only way to break the vicious cycle. And our efforts must be directed toward encouraging the use of channels that would lead to just that, further supported by the very clear imperatives set out in our Charter. This is how my Delegation understands it, and it has consistently advocated it since 1979 when it expressed the idea in the draft resolution that was approved in the General Assembly, that Bolivia’s landlocked status and its long-desired outlet to the sea are issues of interest to the entire hemisphere, even suggesting that the parties might consider, among other things, “the inclusion of a port area for integrated multinational development,” without any territorial compensation.
In 1980, Bolivia’s maritime problem was the subject of a new resolution of the General Assembly approved in the sixth plenary meeting, which urged the parties to reach the most satisfactory solution possible through dialogue (GA/RES. 481).
In 1981 (GA/RES.560), support for the aforementioned resolutions was reiterated, and the Parties were again encouraged to find a solution.
In 1982 (GA/RES. 602), it was stressed that a solution to the issue at hand must be found, “in a spirit of brotherhood and American integration.”
In 1983 (GA/RES. 686), “the constructive spirit” that inspires both countries was highlighted, and Bolivia and Chile were again urged to begin a process of rapprochement on grounds “that take into account the reciprocal concerns and rights and interests of the parties involved.”
In 1984 (GA/RES. 701), satisfaction was expressed with the fact that Bolivia and Chile had accepted the invitation extended by the Government of Colombia to meet in Bogotá to enter into talks and overcome problems to ensure the success of the negotiations aimed at resolving Bolivia’s maritime problem.
In 1985 (GA/RES. 766), the invitation extended by Colombia to enter into preparatory talks was deemed auspicious, and the Governments of Bolivia and Chile were again urged to resume the dialogue and find a satisfactory solution that would give Bolivia “a connection and sovereign and useful territorial access to the Pacific Ocean.”
In 1986 (GA/RES. 816), the General Assembly took note with satisfaction of the decision made by the two governments to find a solution to the substantive issues of interest to them, and at the same time expressed its desire “for the success of this process of rapprochement and its noble objectives.”
Then, in 1987, we found ourselves with a new problem. An incident had occurred. The talks were broken off, but this did not mean that the issue had been exhausted. We must view the current state of affairs as a mere
2008
Annex 298
Annex 298
2009
delay tactic that has not resolved the substantive issue, a solution about which we must remain optimistic in order to avoid feeling that we are mired in provisional proceedings, since we cannot even draw procedural parallels in a matter that has long been a substantive issue of great interest in this hemisphere.
The problem is still there, as a challenge to get all of us involved. Among our initial arguments, my country once supported the so-called “Sucre proposal,” according to which “victory does not confer territorial rights.” This proposal is consistent in our legal tradition with the constitutional principle of uti possidetis juris, which was a founding doctrine of our Venezuelan nationality. For this reason, in the ninth regular session, our delegation was pleased to approve what was called the “Declaration of Peace” that was included in a resolution, which in operative paragraph 12 reads as follows:
12. Stress is laid on the need for the Member States to promise their best efforts to alleviate and overcome the serious problems faced by certain countries in the region caused by their geographic features or the lack of basic resources required to achieve their full economic and social development.
This is not the time or place to speak about the support that Venezuela has been giving Bolivia for more than a century. With this authority we would like to establish our position in this debate: we believe, and this is how we have interpreted it, that Ambassador Soriano, the illustrious Representative of Bolivia, has not come to this Council meeting that he convened in order to tell us about the problem, which we are already sufficiently familiar with, but rather to inform us of the rupture of talks. And it is our most sincere vow, in supporting Bolivia once again, that these talks will be resumed so that the Parties can achieve the ultimate goal of a reciprocal understanding on an issue that is in the interest of both countries and is of exceptional Hemispheric interest, as is Bolivia’s desire to gain an outlet to the sea. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[…]
2010
Annex 298
Annex 298
2011
The INTERIM REPRESENTATIVE OF COLOMBIA: Thank you very much, Mr. President. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Ambassador of Bolivia on his elevated, somber speech in this special meeting of the Permanent Council.
The Delegation of Colombia hopes that the willingness to hold talks and to reach an accord will prevail over the difficulties that have arisen on the road to finding a solution to this delicate matter.
Mr. President, for some years now, Colombia, true to the spirit of the Americas, has sought to help bring Bolivia and Chile together, and has cooperated to this end, so that relations could be normalized between these two sister nations, that they overcome their differences, and that a solution can be found that gives Bolivia an outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
It was in this spirit that in 1983 our Delegation presented to the General Assembly a draft resolution that was unanimously accepted, and which urged the two countries, in the interests of American brotherhood, to begin a process of dialogue aimed at resolving their differences.
My country had the honor of sponsoring the commencement of the talks that later took place between Bolivia and Chile, in response to urgings by the OAS General Assembly. And over these last few years, we have attentively followed the progress of these talks, the success of which benefits not only the Parties involved, but the entire Inter-American system. For these reasons, Colombia regrets that the process of rapprochement undertaken by Bolivia and Chile has essentially stagnated.
2012
Annex 298
Annex 298
2013
My Delegation also wishes to again express its solidarity for Bolivia’s aspiration to obtain useful sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean by means of an equitable solution. This is an aspiration that has garnered international support and sympathy, and as the General Assembly of our Organization has been saying since 1979, its solution is of interest to the entire Hemisphere.
Colombia fervently wishes that the currently suspended process of rapprochement between Bolivia and Chile will be resumed as soon as possible in order to seek a fair and equitable solution for the Parties involved.
We have not lost the faith that understanding, willingness, and dialogue will make it possible to walk the constructive road to rapprochement, instead of reviving old quarrels.
My Government also feels, now more than ever, that this matter is of continuing hemispheric interest, as has been stated on several occasions by the General Assembly of this Organization. I would therefore like to note that from now on my Government will be very interested in seeing that this matter is included on the agenda of the next session of the General Assembly.
It only remains for me to say that we continue to hope for a positive outcome that creates a climate of peace and harmony and facilitates a solution to this matter for the good of the two countries and our entire hemisphere, in accordance with the procedures established by international law. Thank you very much.
[…]
2014
Annex 298
Annex 298
2015
2016
Annex 298
Annex 298
2017
2018
Annex 298
Annex 298
2019
2020
Annex 298
Annex 298
2021
2022
Annex 298
Annex 298
2023
2024
Annex 298
Annex 298
2025
2026
Annex 298
Annex 298
2027
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I have listened to our distinguished Bolivian colleague’s statement and speech, along with the contributions made by you, Messrs. Representatives, this morning in this special meeting. I understand your points of view and I appreciate the willingness and good intentions behind these contributions, the constructive ideas you offer for encouraging two sister nations to reunite.
I will faithfully report to my Government what has been said this morning in this meeting of the Council. Nonetheless, Mr. President, in the same loyalty, I must once again insist upon what we have said in the General Assembly when it has dealt with the Bolivian issue: the OAS has no jurisdiction, under its Charter or under general international law, to deal with a matter that was resolved by an international treaty that was entered into lawfully and that is still in full force and effect. There is no international dispute here or any danger or threat to peace. No Bolivian rights are being threatened or ignored. The only rights that exist are Chilean rights.
2028
Annex 298
Annex 298
2029
Mr. President, although repetition is tedious, I would like to recall that the Treaty of 1904, which fixed the current borders between Chile and Bolivia, was entered into 20 years after the cessation of hostilities between the two countries and received overwhelming popular support in Bolivia through the electoral victory of the negotiator of the treaty: it contemplated sizeable compensation for Bolivia and set forth the fullest system of free transit for persons and goods between Chilean ports and Bolivia. This system has been expanded and improved even further over the years to the point where it constitutes the most generous and enlightened system of this kind in the world.
Bolivia, by means of two roads and two railways built by Chile, has easy access to the ports of Arica and Antofagasta, where it possesses warehouses, silos, tanks, and expansive facilities. An oil pipeline was added in recent years. Chile has shown that it is consistently willing to address all of Bolivia’s concerns and aspirations, improving and making even better provision for these services, which means a heavy financial burden for my country. I will provide the Representatives with a pamphlet that gives further details on this matter.
And this is an opportune time to note that this system goes well beyond the provisions of the United Nations Convention on Transit Trade of Landlocked States of 1965, which has not been ratified by Bolivia.
In addition to the facilities provided by Chile, Bolivia’s other neighbors with Pacific and Atlantic coastlines also generously give it access to the sea across free trade zones for its products in their respective ports, which serve nearby parts of Bolivia.
It is thus clear that Bolivia’s landlocked status poses no obstacle to its trade or its economic and social development. However, for reasons that are not mine to analyze, for many years now Bolivia raised the flag of its maritime aspiration to the sea, which, as we all know, has become an emotional sticking point in that country’s policy.
This aspiration has been presented in international forums since the era of the League of Nations and has long been an attempt to unilaterally amend the Treaty of 1904 through international pressure. However, the international community’s clear awareness of the inviolability of border treaties has foiled this attempt. That is why Bolivia has been trying new strategies and proposals in those forums to force Chile into negotiations that would lead to the same result. My country has firmly opposed international handling of this Bolivian aspiration, and has emphasized that international organizations lack jurisdiction for dealing with a matter that has already been settled by a treaty which, as I said, was entered into freely and is in full force and effect.
2030
Annex 298
Annex 298
2031
Mr. President, it is true that Chile has on several occasions shown a willingness to consider, in direct talks with Bolivia, with no undue international pressure, everything Bolivia would like to put forth, including its aspiration for an outlet to the Pacific Ocean. I think it is convenient to recall the most important of these instances, because it illustrates important lessons that apply to this case.
In Charaña, on 8 February 1975, the Presidents of both countries met and agreed to renew diplomatic relations. Both leaders noted that “in the spirit of mutual understanding and animated constructiveness…dialogue should continue at several levels to seek solutions to the vital issues affecting both countries, such as the landlocked status that affects Bolivia, in such a way as to be mutually beneficial and to address the aspirations of both the Chilean and the Bolivian people.”
The Charaña declaration adds that, “the two Presidents have resolved to continue developing policies that foster harmony and understanding so that a climate of cooperation prevails, allowing a joint solution for peace and progress on our continent.”
In Santiago on 26 August 1975, the Ambassador of Bolivia presented a document that specified the guidelines for negotiations that could lead to solutions that are mutually convenient and adequate and that address Bolivia’s landlocked status. These bases were accepted by Chile, and an agreement was finally reached with regard to an exchange of territory that would provide Bolivia with access to the sea through a strip or corridor of land north of Arica in exchange for territory of the same size to be ceded to Chile, as determined by mutual agreement.
I will not bore the distinguished Representatives here with a detailed description of these negotiations, which are fully documented in a pamphlet I will distribute to you. It is sufficient to note for the moment that this very promising process that was about to come to fruition was frustrated by a shift in Bolivian public opinion with respect to question of the exchange of territory. Bolivia broke off diplomatic relations and cancelled these negotiations on 17 March 1978.
After the failure of the negotiations initiated by the meeting of the Presidents in Charaña, Bolivia again adopted the multilateral strategy it had begun in 1920 at the League of Nations.
It knew then, as it knows now, that it would not be able to satisfy its aspirations through such a process, since Chile —and I reiterate it now— will never be brought to the negotiating table under pressure of any kind, much less by resolutions contrary to law.
2032
Annex 298
Annex 298
2033
Unfortunately, today we are once again witnessing an attempt to involve the OAS in a matter over which it does not have jurisdiction, prolonging the ill-fated precedents introduced in 1979 at the General Assembly held in La Paz, where the parties went so far as to detail the characteristics of the territorial cession that Chile should make to Bolivia.
In view of the failure of bilateral talks, Bolivia now says that it will once again bang on the doors of international organizations. This statement is inexact, since Bolivia has never entirely abandoned the multilateral approach. The most tangible proof of this lies in the many resolutions it has presented to the General Assembly and which have been consistently opposed by Chile.
Despite this behavior, Chile has shown its willingness to talk to Bolivia about any matters of bilateral interest that would result in an effective rapprochement and integration of our nations.
Bolivia now denounces Chile’s rejection of its proposal. This attitude is certainly surprising, since by simple definition, a proposal can be accepted or rejected, something that happens every day in relations between countries. The contrary would be to accept that this is not a proposal, but essentially an ultimatum, and Chile, like your countries, has never and will never accept an ultimatum.
While it is true that my Government has objected to the substance of the Bolivian proposal, it is no less true that it has left open the possibility of jointly exploring the wide path for the integration of our nations in all areas, to thus lay the foundations for a solid, far-reaching understanding.
It is obvious that the campaign of insults and accusations, as well as the recent threat by various Bolivian sectors and officials to suspend consular and commercial relations, conspire against this goal, and make any constructive dialogue more difficult instead of easing the way. Likewise, the insistence on resorting to international organizations to attempt to force decisions that are solely the purview of Chile’s internal sovereignty will only cloud our understanding.
In this sense, the involvement of the OAS in a matter over which it has no jurisdiction is an attack on the principles and provisions of the Charter in force—reaffirmed and strengthened by the Cartagena Protocol—and will not aid the necessary bilateral dialogue between Chile and Bolivia. This is something that I beg the Representatives to take this into account.
2034
Annex 298
Annex 298
2035
In this Hall, Chile once again reaffirms what it has on many occasions stated on this matter: the only way Bolivia can hope to satisfy its aspirations is through bilateral channels, since no country would agree to having decisions that affect its sovereignty and territorial integrity made in international forums.
Mr. President, I ask for everyone in this Hall’s indulgence as I recapitulate, as concisely as possible, the latest events that have unfortunately proven my assertions.
Since the meeting of Foreign Ministers of Bolivia and Chile in Bogotá on the occasion of the new President taking office, Ministers Bedregal and del Valle held private talks, during which an attempt was made to create an adequate framework for beginning a process of rapprochement between the two countries.
This contact led to a meeting held in New York, where both Foreign Ministers were present at the United Nations General Assembly. An agreement was reached on this occasion to create a Binational Commission for Rapprochement and to deal with matters of mutual interest.
After a third meeting, in Lima, a fourth meeting was held in Guatemala in November of last year, which resulted in several strictly bilateral contacts, which culminated in separate press releases issued by each Foreign Minister, in which they agreed to meet again in Montevideo in April of this year.
The Chilean press release states:
We have agreed with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia that, notwithstanding the significant and fruitful talks and work of the Binational Commission for Rapprochement, that both Foreign Ministers will meet in Montevideo at the end of April in order to talk about substantive issues of interest to both Governments.
Throughout these meetings, our Foreign Minister insisted on a point traditionally raised by Chile, which is: the need to complete a process of rapprochement between the two nations, which were distanced, among other reasons, by the prolonged campaign of negative propaganda run by Bolivia, particularly after the break in diplomatic relations in 1978. That is why the Chilean Government put so much emphasis on the need for gradual negotiating stages that would allow timely information and adequate preparation of public opinion in both countries.
2036
Annex 298
Annex 298
2037
Given the experiences with this complex topic, Chile also trusted that Bolivia would present —finally— a “fresh” approach to dealing with this matter, this being the expression used by President Paz Estenssoro himself. In other words, we were expecting imaginative proposals that would contribute new points of view with respect to a solution that was satisfactory to the interests of both Parties.
Unfortunately, since Bolivian officials wanted to skip steps and accelerate the process, they presented their final proposal without enough time to create the aforementioned climate of understanding, not to mention the fact that the proposal reiterated solutions that had not prospered in previous negotiations. Thus, by acting with the aforementioned undue haste and by insisting on a cession of Chilean
sovereignty, the only thing they achieved was a rejection by broad, influential sectors of Chilean society. The Binational Commission was created precisely to avoid this problem.
Prior to the meeting in Montevideo, several statements by high-level Bolivian officials showed that this meeting, which was intended to start talks on the substantive issue, was brought forward by Bolivia in an attempt to force Chile, at such a preliminary stage, to consider a formal proposal with regard to its maritime aspiration.
The process of rapprochement that had barely begun was completely overshadowed by the substantive Bolivian proposal, which received widespread publicity and became a dominant topic in both countries.
We must remember that, concurrent with these talks, Bolivia insisted on continuing its excursions to international organizations, the last manifestation of which was the presentation of a draft resolution to the OAS General Assembly in Guatemala and then, after obtaining a declaration from the Non-Aligned Movement, at the recent meeting in Guyana.
The formal undertaking agreed upon by the Foreign Ministers in Guatemala has been fulfilled only by Chile, which showed good faith and a real desire for integration at the Montevideo meeting, which was held with the generous hospitality of the Government of Uruguay on 21-22 April of last year.
Our Foreign Minister kept the appointment and stated that Chile was attending the Montevideo meeting in a spirit of open-mindedness and with the same willingness it had shown in previous talks with Bolivia.
On 21 April, Foreign Minister Bedregal handed over two memoranda in which he noted:
2038
Annex 298
Annex 298
2039
Basic guidelines have been set for the negotiations to begin in Montevideo between both countries on mutually convenient matters in order to find a solution to the problem of Bolivia’s outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
I would like to highlight that Bolivia’s stated objective was that the proposal be mutually convenient.
Once these documents were received, our Foreign Minister stated:
It is not my intention to perform an in-depth analysis of the form and substance of the proposals at this time. The matter under discussion includes particularly complex elements that must be studied with the greatest care.
Likewise, he confirmed that Chile was attending this meeting in the spirit of willingness and good faith, ready to explore solutions that could, in a reasonable period of time, be favorable to the interests of both countries.
In order to prevent new delay tactics, on the same day, the 21st, Chile formulated specific requests that Bolivia provide details on the content and scope of some of its proposals. These requests were answered by Bolivia the following day.
The Montevideo meeting ended with a Press Release in which Chile undertook to study the Bolivian proposals and to provide a timely response.
Having been informed of the Bolivian proposal, the Government of Chile formed a high-level commission under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which received advice from various national organizations and institutions. At the same time, Foreign Minister del Valle relayed the Bolivian request to the highest political authorities in the country and to distinguished officials in the most varied national circles. On 5 June, and by agreement of both Parties, the Bolivian proposal was made public in both capitals. That was necessary owing to the pressure of the Chilean public, since it was highly concerned by articles and comments that had appeared in the media. This situation was even more critical in the northern part of the country, whose people felt directly involved.
Once the Bolivian proposal, which contained a request to transfer a corridor of approximately 2806 km2 along the Peruvian border or to cede one of three territorial enclaves in exchange for mere economic compensations that were very vague, conditional, and subject to the administrative whims of future Bolivian authorities, was made public, it was nearly unanimously rejected in Chile.
2040
Annex 298
Annex 298
2041
Furthermore, the Bolivian proposal, which I would also like to distribute to all the Representatives, says that the “Pacific question” has been an obstacle to development and integration, creating tension among Chile, Peru, and Bolivia. This assertion implicitly entails the supposition that there are pending questions as a result of the War of the Pacific, which ended more than one hundred years ago. This was an attempt to reopen a chapter of our history that was closed by our ancestors. Therefore, I must categorically reject the existence of any so-called “Pacific question.” Not to do so would be to accept the possibility —obviously a threat to the stability of the continent—, that our borders, fixed largely by peace and border treaties, can be unilaterally altered.
I would like to emphasize that the unilateral cession of territory by Chile, contained in the aforementioned proposal, was not favorably received in my country.
On 9 June, and in the face of this overwhelming sentiment, the Government of Chile was obliged to tell the Consul General of Bolivia, in Santiago, that his country’s proposal was not acceptable, while at the same time delivering the official statement that I will duly send to the distinguished delegations.
Mr. President, Chile preferred to give a definitive response to the proposal formulated by Bolivia on the 21st of last April. The official statement delivered to the Consul General of Bolivia revealed the sincerity with which we have acted. We acquired this commitment in Montevideo and we opted for a procedure that was measured but not dilatory, since it was not our intention to play with the expectations of the Bolivian people.
We are saddened now to see the reaction provoked in Bolivia by Chile’s response. Foreign Minister Bedregal has even categorized it as an “hostile act,” adding personal attacks and insults directed at the Government of Chile and Foreign Minister del Valle. We cannot understand such an attitude expressed by Bolivian authorities that, up to a few days ago, were willing to talk about their maritime aspiration with our Government and its Foreign Minister.
A sovereign, straightforward foreign policy action merits the qualification of hostile. This suggests that we are not being offered a proposal, but are being pressured by an ultimatum, which is unacceptable.
Today, in this meeting of the OAS Council, we reject the accusations that blame my country for the failure of the bilateral talks. We again promise the willingness of Chile to cooperate with Bolivia in the search for solutions that contribute to the development and wellbeing of our nations.
2042
Annex 298
Annex 298
2043
Neither of our countries requires larger territories in order to continue developing. We will progress by using our capacities and by being willing to cooperate.
Bolivia must be realistic and practical about its maritime aspirations. It will not get anywhere by insisting on a historical claim, since Chile does not owe the country anything, nor does it recognize a conflict or an unresolved problem under international law. That is why the position of our neighboring country requires new and pragmatic ideas aimed not at forcing Chile to cede territory, but at implementing mutually beneficial projects to encourage integration, in which framework the aforementioned maritime question can be satisfactorily resolved.
Chile has not given up on negotiations with Bolivia. On the contrary. As noted in the statement of the 9th of this month, my country is open to lending all its cooperation in seeking a true integration of the two nations, based on mutual respect, trust, and reciprocal cooperation. Thank you very much.
[…]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA: Thank you, Mr. President. My intention was simply to convey how touched and happy I feel to be able to convey deep appreciation for the clear and evident expression of solidarity and support for my country in its unshakeable desire to return to the sea. I will not put forth any arguments that may seem to respond to the contentions of my esteemed Chilean colleague, who appeared to have been reading from a document written in 1980, a year after the General Assembly of 1979. In other words, there are the same old stereotyped arguments that have always been put forward, except for the last part, which clearly refers to the current situation.
I will not talk about this or the speciousness of Chilean fears that Bolivia is dangerously trying to violate the intangibility of agreements, making references to an alleged attempt to modify the Treaty of 1904, which was signed at the point of a sword, even though the war was over. Bolivia has in no way attempted to undermine this international principle, but has invoked the part of this document that refers to the 1950 instrument that I have quoted and that clearly —1950 being much later than 1904, indicating that the fear is unjustified—bears the signature of the Chilean Foreign Minister, thereby expressing the will of Chile, which has always been— as is obvious throughout the Americas— “very respectful” of all of its international conventions.
I would also like to make some reference to how obvious it is that Chile is “willing” to work toward a dialogue that opens the door, with the perception that it is barely a sliver of that territory that belonged to Bolivia, which, by the way, is not
2044
Annex 298
Annex 298
2045
complaining or whining. It is merely a historic reference. It is obvious that this is a fresh approach, which should not have piqued the Chilean government, since we are not trying to reclaim anything by asking for a strip of Concordia. If we were trying to reclaim something, we would be looking at Antofagasta, which also used to belong to Bolivia. No, it is not that, ladies and gentlemen.
This was an intelligent attempt to negotiate in the encouraging, motivating, and legitimate forum of the OAS. These negotiations have a commercial element that should have overwhelmed the Chilean spirit, since we would be giving something in exchange for what used to be ours.
We are obviously giving water, electricity, and gas, even though our country is poor and still suffers from poverty. But we are giving, trying to give Chile something. It is a negotiation. And here, in Ambassador Illanes’ very clear reference, which deserves consideration, there is a slight error of perception in saying that Bolivia is responsible for the rupture of these negotiations. Bolivia, I do not know what it would have needed to do to not be considered guilty. According to them, simply delivering the document was a sign of haste. It is an odd type of haste, since we have only been waiting for a solution to this problem for a century. So it is hasty to deliver papers to be used in negotiations. In four days, the Government of Chile was not able to easily and quickly decide on what we consider to be the result of a well-considered and weighty issue of concern to our country, which is trying to provide categorical arguments and concessions for negotiations. It seems to me, then, that the references made by Chile are not accurate, and furthermore, as I noted, the first part is exactly the same and never changes; it cannot change because it is history. But there is no justification for the second part, where there is unfortunately a rupture initiated by Chile. And my fair and honest nature did not allow me to finish my speech by reading pamphlets and books, but rather just one sentence, one sentence that exactly reflects the overbearing arrogance of the dictatorial cruelty that imbues those words. I am going to read a sentence that must be familiar to the Ambassador of Chile, and even if it is not, it will not strike him as strange.
Yesterday in Arica, Pinochet said that Chile will not sell or negotiate those territories, since much blood was shed by the Chileans who conquered those lands, and they will never sell or cede them. I would like to analyze this as well, going beyond the stridency that precludes any intelligent possibilities for negotiation and that does not match the “very nice” words just said by your Ambassador. This could possibly be another case of mass suicide by Chileans. I have just learned that no Bolivians or Peruvians died in that territory, and that the usurpers must have committed suicide, since the only blood spilled there was Chilean.
2046
Annex 298
Annex 298
2047
This episode also leaves a rather sour taste in my mouth because I am not accustomed to the indignity of speaking in this manner; I feel it, Mr. President. I would have been happy to come to this meeting —because I have not come seeking resolutions, nor do I believe this Council is the place for certain types of arguments with my Chilean colleague— merely to officially state willingly that something occurred. That something has a corollary that is deeply satisfying.
Mr. President, I have received unanimous —unanimous is a slight error, since it is of course understood that the Ambassador of Chile does not think the same way, or perhaps he really does somewhere deep in his heart— but Mr. President, I have received the unanimous support of the Americas for Bolivia’s cause and for the desire that Chile and Bolivia hold genuine talks to find a solution, because I also agree with the Ambassador of Chile that this is a problem that must obviously be
resolved at the bilateral level. I never made any barbaric statement to the contrary, but neither do I wish to hear someone else make the barbaric statement that the OAS has absolutely no power to hear a problem that concerns the Americas. Of course it does. And it has it in sufficient, but unfortunately long-term, measure to solve this problem. Because if the OAS, which is not the venue for resolving this problem, had the power to resolve it, we would have already solved the problem. It is clear that the OAS only expresses its solidarity, its strong support, recognized by Bolivia and much appreciated.
But everyone in this Hall must be fully convinced and remember that Bolivia’s problem is also a multilateral problem, because it is an ongoing concern in the Americas. And fortunately, this is not just the opinion of myself, as an interested party, but the opinion of all, which I deeply appreciate, Mr. President, and accord it the only blameless veneration, that of respect and gratitude. Thank you, Mr. President.
[…]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE: Thank you, Mr. President. I was certainly not trying to start an argument with my dear friend, Ambassador Soriano, and I already feel guilty enough for having spoken at length, keeping all of you in this meeting today. Nonetheless, I must take up a certain point, albeit briefly. I would like to say that when he speaks of the statements made by my President in Arica, the Ambassador is providing only a partial quote, because the President also said in Arica: “Possibly out of haste, our neighbors have made a request that cannot be accepted under any circumstances.” I think that this phrase balances the others read by my dear friend, Ambassador Soriano.
2048
Annex 298
Annex 298
2049
As for Mr. Horacio Walker’s document, I have not challenged its existence nor have I ignored it. I think my contribution notes that Chile has been ready to talk about this problem with Bolivia on many occasions. When talking about this problem with Bolivia, other factors of which you are aware enter into the discussion, including, the principal factor that the proposal be acceptable to the Chilean people. Nor have I said that Bolivia is responsible for the breakdown of these negotiations. It is not responsible for the breakdown of these negotiations, but I have highlighted certain mistakes it made due to haste and excess emotion, thus contributing to my country’s negative response.
I would like to remind everyone that in the Charaña negotiations, where considerable progress was made by the two countries, it was Bolivia that quit, breaking diplomatic relations with Chile. Nor did I wish to quote the words of the President of Bolivia, General Hugo Bánzer, but I will do so now, when on 28 December 1975, in response to journalistic concerns on why the solution then put forward included an exchange of territory, the General said: Because we do not really think that any Chilean government could sell territory. No government can accept anything other than territory, since there is no historical justification. I sincerely believe that no Chilean government would accept gas, oil, or money, because it could not offer its people any historical justification for negotiations of this kind. We believe that any government would request an exchange of territory, now or in the future, and if there was a past agreement on a negotiating principle based on non-territorial compensation —referring here to Mr. Horacio Walker— I honestly believe that there would be no agreement with Chile, because I repeat, no government —I put myself in the shoes of the Chilean government— would accept negotiations based on payment with products or money. This would be true for Bolivia as well, since this government or future ones would never sell or cede territory. So we believe that it is the only way in which the Chilean government can grant us the corridor in question, and obviously the access to the sea.1 Thank you, Mr. President.
[…]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA: Please just remember what I said, which requires no further reflection, since the negotiations are just that. There is Chile’s clearly-stated position. I also would note: Now Mr. Pinochet does not wish to sell, cede, or anything else. A civilian from one of
1. Not compared with the original.
2050
Annex 298
Annex 298
2051
Chile’s many constitutional governments, more justly says: “Seek a way to give Bolivia its own sovereign outlet to the sea.” This means there is a precedent for the Bolivian way of thinking that makes it much more unacceptable for Bolivia to imagine territorial compensation, when there already exists a resolution properly agreed upon with Chile, precisely to not take into account territorial compensation in negotiations.
I think there is no reason to say anything more. That would show a lack of respect. I have had my say and I will say no more, Mr. President, but if you will allow me, I would like to once again thank all of my colleagues here, in case my previous expressions of gratitude were not noted. Thank you, Mr. President.
[...]
2052
Annex 299
Minutes of the Tenth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 14 November 1987
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Seventeenth Regular Session, 1987, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XVII.O.2 (1988), pp 252 and 258-260
2053
2054
Annex 299
[p 252]
MINUTES OF THE TENTH PLENARY SESSION
Date: 14 November 1987
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Place: Hall of the Americas
President: Mr. Rodrigo Madrigal Nieto
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica
Present: Messrs.
Ernesto Rivas Gallont (El Salvador)
Dário M. de Castro Alves (Brazil)
Jean-Baptiste Reynold Leroy (Haiti)
Edilberto Moreno Peña (Venezuela)
Roberto Leyton (Panama)
Carlos Lemos Simmonds (Colombia)
Guillermo Villalobos Arce (Costa Rica)
Hernán Antonio Bermúdez A. (Honduras)
Ronald L. Kensmil (Suriname)
Juan Carlos Capuñay (Peru)
Andrés Valencia (Mexico)
Gastón de Prat Gay (Argentina)
Erstein M. Edwards (St. Kitts and Nevis)
Sonia M. Johnny (Saint Lucia)
Henry W. Ogilvie (Grenada)
Eladio Knipping Victoria (Dominican Republic)
Miguel Antonio Vasco (Ecuador)
María Teresa Butler (Bahamas)
Juan A. Llanes (Paraguay)
Orlando J. Moneada (Nicaragua)
Juan Larraín (Chile)
William Douglas (Barbados)
Richard T. McCormack (United States)
Cherrie J. Orr (Jamaica)
Alfredo Platas (Uruguay)
Paul O. Spencer (Antigua and Barbuda)
Francisco Villagrán (Guatemala)
J.R.P. Dumas (Trinidad and Tobago)
Fernando Messmer (Bolivia)
João Clemente Baena Soares (Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
Annex 299
2055
[…]
[p 258]
d. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (GA/doc.2232/87)
The PRESIDENT: We will now consider the draft resolution on the maritime problem of Bolivia [GA/doc.2232/87]. In response to a request by the Representative of Chile, a roll-call vote will be taken on this draft.
Mexico
Yes
Argentina
Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
Abstained
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
[Absent]
St. Lucia
Abstained
Grenada
-
Dominican Republic
-
Ecuador
Yes
Bahamas
Yes
Paraguay
Yes
Nicaragua
Yes
Chile
No
Barbados
Yes
United States
Yes
Jamaica
Yes
Uruguay
Yes
Antigua and Barbuda
Yes
Guatemala
Yes
Trinidad and Tobago
Abstained
Bolivia
Yes
Dominica
[Absent]
El Salvador
-
Brazil
Yes
Haiti
Abstained
Venezuela
Yes
Panama
Yes
Colombia
Yes
[p 259]
2056
Annex 299
Costa Rica
Yes
Honduras
Yes
Suriname
Abstained
Peru
Yes
The SECRETARY: The result of the vote was as follows: twenty votes in favor, one against, and five abstentions.
The PRESIDENT: The draft is therefore approved. The Representative of Peru has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PERU: (Mr. Capuñay): Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would simply like to request that the statement made by my Delegation in the General Committee also be put on record in these minutes. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Messmer): Thank you, Mr. President. In the General Committee I had already expressed our profound thanks and gratitude to all those whose votes show that they perfectly understand the scope of an exhortation that seeks to ensure the utmost tranquility in an area that requires a peace that encourages coexistence and development. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. The Representative of Paraguay has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PARAGUAY (Mr. Llanes): Thank you, Mr. President. I would only like to request from the bench that the minutes of this plenary session include the statement on this issue made by the Delegation of Paraguay in the General Committee. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: The Representative of Chile has the floor.
[p 260]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Larraín): Thank you very much, Mr. President. My Delegation would like to put on record that it opposed the inclusion of this item on the agenda and the draft resolution presented, for reasons that we have explained in detail during the debate in the General Committee and during our explanation of our vote on that occasion. Thank you very much.
[…]
Annex 300
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 873 (XVII–O/87), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 14 November 1987
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Seventeenth Regular Session, 1987, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XVII.O.2 (1988), pp 29 and 33
2057
2058
Annex 300
Annex 300
2059
2060
Annex 301
Memorandum of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile on Bolivian Transit through Chile: Advantages Additional to those Established by Treaties and Conventions, June 1988
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2061
2062
Annex 301
Annex 301
2063
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL
ECONOMIC RELATIONS
PROCHILE
BOLIVIAN TRANSIT THROUGH CHILE
ADVANTAGES ADDITIONAL TO THOSE ESTABLISHED
BY TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
1. Integrated Transit System
In 1974, the Governments of Chile and Bolivia requested from the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL) a technical study for the purpose of streamlining both the flow of Bolivian goods through the Ports of Arica and Antofagasta and the relevant documentation procedures. The foregoing was intended to improve and perfect the free transit regime enjoyed by Bolivia.
Given the nature of the studies to be conducted, it was deemed appropriate to start such studies at the Port of Arica.
The analysis and conclusions of CEPAL allowed both countries to agree on a new mechanism for the treatment of goods in transit, known as the Integrated Transit System, which came into force by mid-1975. In addition to streamlining the flow of goods, the system has perfected cargo control procedures with the participation of the Bolivian Autonomous Administration of Customs Warehouses.
The Chilean and Bolivian authorities have evaluated the system and concluded that it is highly beneficial for Bolivia.
The system was analyzed in depth at the Special Technical Meeting on Transportation held between Chile and Bolivia in Santiago between 14 and 17 March 1978.
The following entry was recorded in the Final Minutes of such meeting:
“The technical Delegations from Chile and Bolivia have conducted an in-depth
2064
Annex 301
Annex 301
2065
analysis of the Integrated Transit System covering Goods in transit to Bolivia, implemented at the Port of Arica on 1 August 1975, and of the measures that the Chile-Bolivia Bi-National Commission on Transportation -convened in Arica between 20 and 22 December of the same year- agreed to adopt, in order to achieve increased efficiency with such system, and have concluded that such system is positive, satisfactory, and mutually beneficial for both countries.
“Such Delegations emphasized in particular that the referred Integrated Transit System has made it possible to streamline port operations, providing benefits to the cargo involved, whose condition and care, as a result of enhanced handling practices, has improved noticeably.
“The Delegations further stated that from a technical perspective, the Integrated Transit System has made it possible to make the most of port and railway equipment; and, from an administrative standpoint, it has been possible to reduce the paperwork required for the transit of goods bound for Bolivia and secure an adequate distribution of the personnel involved in such operations and in paperwork processing”.
At this technical meeting, and taking into account the experience gained in Arica, the parties agreed to apply the Integrated Transit System in Antofagasta starting 1 April 1978.
Subsequently, by late 1986, the Governments of Chile and Bolivia requested cooperation from the Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL) for an evaluation of the Integrated Transit System (SIT) in operation in Arica.
The ECLAC accepted the task and submitted a document known as “IC/L.436,” dated 7 December 1987, and entitled “Sistema Integrado de Tránsito para Mercaderías Bolivianas Transbordadas a través del Puerto de Arica: Evaluación a los 12 años de funcionamiento.” [Integrated Transit System for Bolivian Goods Transshipped Through the Port of Arica: An Evaluation After 12 Years of Operation].
This document has been welcomed by the Chilean Government,
2066
Annex 301
Annex 301
2067
which has no objection to the ECLAC analyzing the Bolivian petition to extend the application of the SIT to Bolivian exports and further evaluating the application of such System at the Port of Antofagasta.
The process involving the application of the Integrated Transit System constitutes clear evidence of the willingness permanently displayed by the Chilean Government to analyze procedures and measures intended to facilitate the transit of Bolivian goods.
2. Renewal of the concession for the Sica-Sica – Arica Oil Pipeline
Under the Treaty of Economic Complementation of 1955, the Chilean Government undertook to grant Bolivia advantages to build an oil pipeline on Chilean territory, which will allow Bolivian oil products to reach world markets.
This oil pipeline extends 156 kilometers into Chilean territory and has a Terminal in Arica.
Among the advantages granted by the Chilean Government, the following are worthy of mention:
(a) A concession totally free of charge over the State-owned lands across which the oil pipeline was constructed, for the duration of the exploitation of such pipeline.
(b) Exemption from any right, duty, or lien, imposed on the material and equipment brought into Chile for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the oil pipeline.
(c) An expansion of the Arica Terminal capacity granted in 1974 under an exchange of official letters dated 4 December 1974.
2068
Annex 301
Annex 301
2069
By the end of the 1950s, the construction of the oil pipeline had cost
US$ 9,000,000, which nowadays would be equivalent to over US$ 30,000,000. Since then, it has been barely used.
However, by Supreme Decree No. 923 of 26 November 1979 (i.e. after the diplomatic relations break-off caused by Bolivia), the maritime concession granted to Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos (the pipeline operator) over a beach area, the beach, the seabed, and water areas at a place called El Chinchorro, at the Port of Arica, was renewed for a period of 20 years.
3. Construction of the Arica-Tambo Quemado road
Chile built this road that crosses the Chile-Bolivia border through the Tambo Quemado crossing, whose extension into Bolivian territory should reach Patacamaya, a town on the paved road connecting Oruro with La Paz which is situated approximately midway between these two cities, so that this road would be suitable to serve both La Paz and Oruro from Arica.
Years ago, Chile completed the construction of this road in its territory at a cost of around US$ 120,000,000. This stretch of road consists of an initial 90 km tarmacked section in good condition, an 86 km gravel section in poor condition, and a last 20 km dirt track in bad condition that needs repairing once a year as a result of the winter affecting this area.
At the request of Bolivia, this road was given first priority within the Central Axis of the Andean Trunk Road System, which was approved by Decision No. 94 of the Cartagena Agreement Commission.
Notwithstanding this first priority, the Bolivian Government has done nothing or virtually nothing toward constructing its much-needed section of the road, for which Bolivia is responsible.
2070
Annex 301
Annex 301
2071
While the current capacity of the Arica Railway stands at about 160,000 annual tons, the capacity of this road would be in the order of a few millions of annual tons, which surpasses many times the total volume of Bolivian foreign trade conducted by land.
It is not possible to calculate the exact capacity of this road: this calculation would depend on the composition of road traffic (cars, trucks, and buses) and on the types of vehicles, variables which are unknown. With respect to cargo transportation, we could estimate a minimum of 2 million tons and a maximum of 4 million tons, considering traffic running both ways.
It is incomprehensible, then, that despite the importance that this piece of infrastructure presumably has to Bolivia, along which Bolivian trucks carrying Bolivian crew and fuel from the Bolivian plateau would be able to transport the entire Bolivian import and export cargo across the Pacific region, Bolivia has done nothing toward building a stretch of road that would provide this country with a virtually sovereign maritime exit, given the considerable free transit advantages given by Chile.
The Chilean section of the road is 196 km long and runs up from sea level to a height of over 4,400 m.
This is a clear, concrete example of the advantages granted by Chile to Bolivia concerning transportation infrastructure, which Bolivia, inexplicably, has failed to benefit from, at the expense of its foreign trade.
4. Port tariffs applicable to Bolivian goods in transit
By the late 1960s, Empresa Portuaria de Chile [EMFORCHI] agreed to consult with its Bolivian users about increases and variations in port tariffs applicable to Bolivian goods in transit.
2072
Annex 301
Annex 301
2073
According to the Director of EMFORCHI, in general, the tariffs applicable to such goods meet Bolivian needs in respect of this issue.
Although no treaty, convention or agreement requires these consultations, Empresa Portuaria de Chile conducts such inquiries in order to learn about Bolivian requests and address them where possible.
Office of Transportation
JCR/dhe
June 1988
2074
Annex 302
Minutes of the Third Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly,
16 November 1988
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Eighteenth Regular Session, 1988, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XVIII.O.2 (1989), pp 380-394 and 396-403
2075
2076
Annex 302
[p 380]
GENERAL COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING
Date: 16 November 1988
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Sheraton Hotel
President: Mr. Ricardo Acevedo Peralta
Minister of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador
Present: Messrs.:
Edilberto Moreno Peña (Venezuela)
Diego Cordovez (Ecuador)
Rodney Elpidio Acevedo (Paraguay)
Jean-Baptiste Reynold Leroy (Haiti)
Felipe Valdivieso (Peru)
Franklin A. Baron (Dominica)
Andrés L. Valencia (Mexico)
Roberto Ramos Bustos (Honduras)
Eduardo Meyer (Guatemala)
Sahadeo Basdeo (Trinidad and Tobago)
Jeannette R. Grant-Woodham (Jamaica)
William T. Price (United States)
Franklin Cubero (Costa Rica)
Maurice A. King (Barbados)
Paulette Bethel-Daly (Bahamas)
Javier Illanes (Chile)
Aquilino Boyd (Panama)
Carlos Tunnermann B. (Nicaragua)
Joaquín Maza (El Salvador)
Luis Kreckler (Argentina)
Bernardo Pericás (Brazil)
Edmund H. Lake (Antigua and Barbuda)
Carlos Lemos (Colombia)
Ope Pasquet (Uruguay)
Guillermo Bedregal (Bolivia)
Joaquín Ricardo (Dominican Republic)
João Clemente Baena Soares (Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
Annex 302
2077
[…]
[p 381]
1. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia
(Draft resolution submitted by the Delegations of Bolivia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela)
(AG/doc.2278/88 and AG/CG/doc.3/88) (item 15 on the agenda)
The PRESIDENT: As the first item on the order of business, we have the discussion of the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia [AG/doc.2278/88]. A draft resolution related to this issue has been submitted [AG/CG/doc.3/88], and I ask the Secretary to please read it aloud.
The SECRETARY: [Reads.]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. The draft resolution that was just read aloud is now under consideration, and to that end I offer the floor. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia has the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Bedregal): Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Heads of Delegation, Representatives:
This matter has been under consideration in our Organization since 1979. At that time, the spirit of justice and desire for integration of the Continent were expressed with the statement “that it is of continuing hemispheric interest that an equitable solution be found”, one that is just and provides Bolivia with “appropriate sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean”, in order to create a climate of “stable peace that will promote the economic and social progress of the area of the Americas directly affected by the consequences of the landlocked status of Bolivia.”
The Organization of American States recommended that the States affected by this problem open negotiations for the purpose of providing
[p 382]
Bolivia with a free, continuous, and sovereign connection with the Pacific Ocean. The decision adopted by the 1979 Assembly only reflected the concern and interest of the nations of the hemisphere, already expressed in 1975, in the formal session of the OAS’s Permanent Council held in August to commemorate the sesquicentennial of Bolivia’s independence, where it was recognized by consensus that Bolivia’s geographic confinement was a hemispheric problem that deserved a solution that would benefit not only Bolivia, but also the countries directly affected by this confinement.
2078
Annex 302
Mr. President, it must be noted that prior to the 1979 resolution, the Bolivian maritime matter was also the subject of important bilateral diplomatic efforts, some of which are quite valuable background, which we will briefly point out in this report. In 1895, pursuant to the Treaty on Transfer of Territories, Chile committed to hand over Tacna and Arica if the result of the plebiscite agreed to with Peru favored it, and if not, the cove of Vítor or another similar one.
In 1920, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and Chile signed a Protocol in which Chile expressed its willingness for Bolivia to acquire access to the sea, to the north of Arica and the railway line, which is territory subject to the plebiscite provided for in the Treaty of Ancón, which was the point that ended the war between Chile and Peru.
In 1926, the U.S. Secretary of State, Frank P. Kellogg, in the use and exercise of his good offices, proposed that: “The provinces of Tacna and Arica should become part of Bolivia’s geographic heritage in perpetuity.” The proposal was accepted in principle by Chile.
In 1950, notes were exchanged between the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia Gutiérrez and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile Larraín, through which Chile agreed to negotiate the concession to Bolivia of its own continuous and sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, without territorial compensation.
In 1961, through the so-called Trucco memorandum, named after the Chilean ambassador to Bolivia who submitted the official document, Chile reiterated its offer under the same framework as in the aforementioned notes of 1950.
In 1975, based on the Charaña bilateral meeting, held on 8 February between the President of Bolivia, Hugo Banzer Suárez, and the President of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, a negotiation process began in which the Government of Chile accepted to grant to Bolivia its own free, useful, sovereign access over contiguous territory in the north of Arica.
Finally, in 1986, the process of rapprochement between the Minister of Foreign Affairs Guillermo Bedregal of Bolivia, who is speaking at this meeting, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Jaime del Valle
[p 383]
of Chile, was unilaterally and abruptly interrupted, regarding which I will make a brief comment later.
Distinguished Representatives, unfortunately all this history and these diplomatic efforts did not achieve the desired outcome. Nevertheless, this valuable background confirms the desire to reach an agreement between the parties, and, for different reasons, the unwillingness of the Republic of Chile to conclude the negotiations with Bolivia since the War of the Pacific ended.
Annex 302
2079
On the other hand, it is also observed that Bolivia sought renewed access to the Pacific Ocean in accordance with the customs and diplomatic practice established by the community of States. Bolivia affirms, like all the nations in the Americas, that our Organization, i.e., the OAS, is morally and legally the appropriate forum for reaching a solution to its confinement. International law of the Americas has never been hermetic and has never been fossilized in unyielding dogmas. Nor has inter-American law tolerated abuse of process, and it has always responded to good faith. In this regard, it seems necessary to repeat the legal grounds that support the OAS’s jurisdiction in this matter, contained in Article 2 of our Organization’s Charter.
Bolivia’s maritime issue is a problem that has still not been resolved. Therefore, it can, and does, create tensions and ill-will in the region. As a result, it is appropriate for the Organization to take initiatives to guarantee harmony and co-existence without threats and uncertainty.
The profound content, annually ratified, of the 1979 resolution, is inspired by the desire for Latin American unity and the conscious conviction of the countries of our hemisphere, which declare that finding an equitable solution, through which Bolivia would obtain sovereign and useful access to the Pacific Ocean, is of permanent interest to the hemisphere.
Hemispheric interest is a collective desire of the Americas sustained by the OAS’s belief and conviction that a solution to this problem must be found. This hemispheric conviction is a concept from which the jurisdiction of the Organization emanates, because the unanimous declaration, reflecting a multilateral principle that expresses the hemispheric intent, is transformed into a conducive will to dialogue. This is confirmed in turn by the obvious fact that current hemispheric circumstances are different from those that prevailed in 1904. Nevertheless, we must remember that the Treaty was signed at a time when a general awareness could already be noted in the Americas with regard to the prohibition on the use of force in relationships between the States.
Mr. President, as early as 1829, the Grand Marshal of Ayacucho had already proclaimed to the entire world that victory does not convey right. Regarding that
[p 384]
doctrine, which is so in fashion currently, it is appropriate to cite the text of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Summi Pontificatus of 20 October 1939, which states:
Now, it is true that with the passage of time and the substantial change of circumstances, which were not and perhaps could not have been foreseen at the time of making of a treaty, such a treaty or some of its clauses can in fact become, or at least seem to become unjust,
2080
Annex 302
impracticable or inapplicable for one of the parties. It is obvious that should such be the case, recourse should be had in good time to a frank discussion with a view to modifying the treaty as advisable or fully replacing the existing one.
The historical and legal background to Bolivia’s maritime problem reveals that the unfortunate confinement of Bolivia, arising from Chile’s expansionist activities, has created a historical disproportion that unjustly affects and limits my country’s economic and social development. This is another reason for reiterating from a doctrinal standpoint that there is a substantial change in the circumstances that has occurred compared to those existing in 1904, and this is fully compatible with Article 62 of the Vienna Convention.
The forced landlocked situation of my country, in addition to causing insurmountable obstacles to its development, establishes a situation of dependence that is in frank opposition to the procedures for integration and fraternal cooperation and co-existence that inspire the contemporary American spirit. This dependency is evident and it cannot be concealed by the granting of limited “transit” facilities. It is a fact that the person granting such facilities makes them exclusively dependent on his will and the recipient is at the mercy of the grantor.
Mr. President, convinced that the spirit of justice and the unquestionable reality of the international legal doctrine of our Organization have full political and diplomatic validity, Bolivia comes before this General Assembly to insist on a dialogue aimed at finding the mutual agreement that will resolve this problem. During the last nine General Assemblies, our sister nation members of the OAS urged and emphasized this path for the resolution of this dramatic injustice. As a result, with the appeals issued by this forum, Bolivia repeatedly sought to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Chile to try to find potential solutions, through sincere conversations, in good faith and kinship.
All the distinguished Representatives present here know that in 1986 Bolivia promoted negotiations with Chile, which culminated in an official meeting at the level of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, in Montevideo, in April 1987, thanks to the generous hospitality of the illustrious
[p 385]
Government of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, as Bolivia and Chile in due time informed the sixteenth General Assembly of the OAS, held in Guatemala City.
The unfortunate outcome of that negotiation is also well-known by all, which was not due to my country’s inconsistency or lack of desire, but rather due to Chile’s sudden suspension of negotiations in June 1987, once again thwarting a possible solution. This unilateral decision was denounced by my country during the OAS’s last General Assembly, held in Washington.
Annex 302
2081
Our regional organization, joining the new frustration of the Bolivian nation, during the 1987 Assembly, passed a resolution that lamented the interruption of the negotiations held between Bolivia and Chile, and again urged that the negotiations aimed at finding a formula to make it possible to give Bolivia access to the Pacific Ocean be resumed, within the framework of the resolutions that were approved annually from 1979.
Distinguished Representatives, one year has passed since the last Assembly in Washington. Today we find ourselves meeting again in the capital of this noble and generous country, El Salvador, and as our working agenda demands, a report must be made to this General Assembly regarding the progress that has occurred as a result of the adoption of Resolution 873.
I must report to this Assembly that unfortunately no progress has been made in the past year regarding the resolution of this problem, increasing the anguish of the Bolivian people and the difficulties that my country must face to achieve harmonious and sustainable development. This lack of progress in the negotiations is not due to absence of desire on the part of the Government of Bolivia.
Bolivia, because reason is on its side—and I think it can invoke the justice and tradition of the public law of the hemisphere—brings its legitimate complaint before this Organization once again, and repeats its commitment and determined intention to seek, within a hemispheric framework of solidarity, a solution that includes the interests of all the parties involved, through frank and direct dialogue with them.
Before ending this presentation, I am pleased to report that His Holiness Pope John Paul II, on his visit to Bolivia, upon addressing the diplomatic corps in La Paz, stated:
I believe the supreme value of peace, of which you must be convinced advocates, indefatigable defenders, and restorers when necessary, must be placed among your priorities as diplomatic professionals.
[p 386]
In this regard, I would like to remind you of the principles of reciprocity, solidarity, and effective cooperation in international relations.
The Holy Father continued:
Peace, to whose cause we must all contribute, is not achieved through intransigence or national egocentricities. On the contrary, it is achieved and guaranteed through mutual understanding. Moreover, that understanding is made easier and more fruitful when it comes
2082
Annex 302
from a sincere spirit of solidarity; from that solidarity that makes all men of this world brothers, destined by the Creator so that we may all partake of its assets equitably.
Only thus -- said John Paul II -- on the basis of justice and solidarity, and with the effort of mutual understanding, is it possible to establish stable bases of equilibrium to build an international community without permanent and severe anxiety, without dramatic insecurities, without conflicts with irreparable consequences. Only thus will it be possible to find appropriate solutions to the latent problems in various parts of Latin America, such as certain border disputes or the matter of Bolivia’s landlocked situation.
The moral recognition that His Holiness gave to the problem of Bolivia’s maritime confinement and his call to resolve it through the contributions of the diplomatic community reinforces our commitment and conviction to seek a negotiated solution that will ultimately overcome the century-long confinement that has been imposed on Bolivia. By virtue of this background I request, Mr. President and Representatives, the approval of the current draft resolution that repeats, in unifying and respectful language, the content of the resolutions adopted in the previous Assemblies of the Organization of American States. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia. The Representative of Chile has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Illanes): Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, an essential duty, that of safeguarding the historical and legal truth, obliges me to respond to the ideas of the distinguished Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Treaty of 1904, which definitively fixed the border between Chile and Bolivia, was not imposed under any pressure whatsoever. Quite to the contrary, its basic terms were proposed by the Bolivian Government at the time; it was negotiated for two years with the highest Bolivian authorities, several of whom, years later, and
[p 387]
by popular vote, again held those same high offices. The Treaty imposed onerous commitments on Chile, some for fixed terms, others in perpetuity. The simple recounting of them would suffice to debunk the allegation that this accord reflects the absolute will of only one of the parties.
The Treaty of 1904 granted Bolivia, in perpetuity, the broadest and most favorable legal regime for access to the sea, through Chilean territory and ports,
Annex 302
2083
to which no landlocked country has a right, and this regime does not depend on Chile’s will, Mr. President, it is established in a treaty. It is a legal obligation for my country. It cannot be altered by Chile and does not depend on our whim, on our desire. It is permanent; it is binding. The foregoing eliminates the alleged maritime confinement of Bolivia. That theory is also contradicted by the access facilities to the Pacific and the Atlantic that four other countries bordering Bolivia have granted it. These include connections by road, railway, warehouses, free trade zones, etc. All this, not to mention the rights that multilateral agreements, such as the 1965 United Nations Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States, the Protocol that amended the LAFTA, changing it to LAIA in 1980, etc., establish in favor of landlocked States.
Finally, the Treaty of 1904 was signed one-quarter of a century after hostilities between the countries ceased. Furthermore, it is appropriate to recall that it was approved by the Bolivian parliament prior to its ratification by the Government of that country. Thus, the Bolivian Representatives cannot keep repeating that that instrument was imposed by force, when in reality it was freely negotiated, signed, and approved by two sovereign nations.
The ancient Roman fathers of the compendium of logic and rational thinking known as the law coined an aphorism that is on point—valenta non site in juri [sic], that is to say, there is no injustice committed against one who consented.
Moreover, it is fitting to note that Bolivia has always recognized the full validity of the treaty in question. For example, in the past, as in 1910, in a note that the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Sánchez Bustamante, sent to his Chilean and Peruvian colleagues, or as recently as last September, from the mouth of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Bedregal himself in his presentation before the United Nations General Assembly. They could hardly have taken a different stance given the fact that, since 1904, Chile and Bolivia have entered into dozens of treaties, agreements, conventions, etc., many of which are based precisely on the aforementioned Treaty of Peace and Amity.
No one can, therefore, ignore that, during its 84 years in force, the said instrument has enjoyed a permanent,
[p 388]
uninterrupted, and fruitful application, which has made it the cornerstone of Chilean-Bolivian relations. As we recognized with satisfaction, my country, and Bolivia too, have honored the binding word, respecting and exercising the rights and faithfully complying with the obligations included in that treaty.
Mr. President, faced with this objective reality, on what logical basis could the Bolivian claim that there is a maritime conflict or dispute between our countries that would involve a risk to the peaceful co-existence in the region be accepted?
2084
Annex 302
To dismiss such a senseless idea, it would be sufficient to remember here that the Treaty of 1904 definitively settled all disputes between the parties. In fact, its articles include a border agreement and a commercial free transit regime in Bolivia’s favor, expressly characterized by the perpetuity of those commitments.
From another perspective, Bolivia states that the existence of this hypothetical dispute is due to Bolivia’s alleged right to reclaim from Chile its own sovereign access to the Pacific. However, from which of the sources of international law — specifically recognized by Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice — does this alleged right that Bolivia confers upon itself arise? Certainly there is no international convention or custom, general principle of law, judicial decision, or published legal opinion on which Bolivia can base this claim.
In truth, just as non-existent as the alleged Bolivian right is the resulting Chilean obligation to ensure sovereign access to the sea for this country. Nor is there a dispute or conflict of any type between our countries. On the whole, it seems to concern the Bolivian Representatives that this illusory dispute might disrupt the peace in our region. My country in no way shares such apprehensions.
Now I repeat what has been said so many times in the past. Chile’s legitimate and peaceful exercise of the rights granted to it by a valid and current treaty can never be the source of a dispute. Proof of this is the absolute peace in which Chileans and Bolivians have co-existed for more than a century.
Furthermore, Chile has shown by its acts that even facing serious and real international conflicts, such as the one that would be brandished now, its manifest peace-loving ideals have not changed. My country, a State party to the United Nations and the OAS Charters, as well as to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, has renounced the threat and use of force in its international relations.
[p 389]
Mr. President, Chile will never resort to aggression, it would only exercise its inherent right to self-defense in the unthinkable event it were a victim of aggression.
Thus, if there is no threat to the peace of our region, because there is no dispute between Chile and Bolivia that could put it at risk, their representatives cannot rightly invoke the measures intended to provide a peaceful solution, less still imagine procedures intended to enforce resolutions adopted not only with the dissenting vote of my country, but outside the limits of the express jurisdiction that the OAS Charter grants to this Assembly.
Mr. President, the Bolivian proposal to enhance or update treaties such as the Treaty of Peace and Amity that binds our two countries in light of contemporary realities would entail a foreseeable and serious risk to the stability of the relationships between States. Just imagine the chaos that would occur in international life
Annex 302
2085
if treaties that establish borders could later be updated or adapted based on the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs’ new legal theory. Who, how, according to what criteria, would the updating or redrafting of such instruments be carried out?
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, in his speech yesterday in the plenary meeting, attempted to set out some so-called historical-dialectical analogies between certain current international situations and, we assume, the treaty that established the Chilean-Bolivian border. Even without an in-depth study, it is immediately apparent that the cases he mentioned reveal obvious confusion of ideas that hinder any analogy. Thus, the cases of Gibraltar and Hong Kong are typically colonial situations, created between countries that are separated by large geographic distances, if not located on different continents. Those situations also appear to be characterized by the non-existence of disputed territorial rights prior to the establishment of the colonial administration.
In the specific case of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands, another example of colonial imposition -- the most painful for us Americans --, we were not aware that there was, as the Foreign Minister stated, “an obsolete treaty”, which had to be overcome. We would appreciate clarification in that regard by the distinguished Bolivian Delegation.
For its part, the 1903 treaty relating to Panama was never a border treaty like the one entered into by Chile and Bolivia one year later. That treaty established a series of rights in favor of one party that seriously limited the sovereignty of the other, so both parties mutually decided to modify that situation.
[p 390]
The treaty entered into between Mexico and the United States for the territory of Chamizal and the one between Bolivia and Brazil, of 1958, the latter having no relationship whatsoever to border issues, were also amended by agreement of the parties.
Finally, the dispute between Chile and Argentina over the Austral zone, which fortunately was resolved thanks to the mediation of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, specifically had to do with the interpretation of a border treaty entered into one century earlier, which was and is fully respected by the parties. This instrument was not modified at all by the 1985 treaty that the mediation gave rise to.
As is easily observed, the alleged analogies mentioned do not apply when compared to the Chile-Bolivia Treaty of 1904, which is a border treaty entered into between bordering countries and which put an end to a territorial dispute that lasted for more than 60 years.
Mr. President, let’s consider seriously matters related to our nations. The wise rules of civil law prescribe that the contract is the law of the contracting
2086
Annex 302
parties; if this rule is essential in the scope of private relationships, there is all the more reason for it to be so in the international arena. Respect for, and the sanctity of, treaties is an inescapable requirement for rational thinking and peaceful co-existence of nations, especially in the case of treaties that set borders; there is a reason they were excluded by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties from the application of the exceptional clause rebus sic stantibus.
For these reasons, my country rejects, as it always has in the past, the steps Bolivia is taking with a view to amending the 1904 Treaty. Likewise, it considers all individual or collective attempts by third-party States aimed at this same unacceptable end to be interference in its foreign affairs.
In the presence of this Assembly, Chile reiterates to Bolivia its desire for peace and harmony so that through broad cooperation and effective integration we can achieve the shared well-being and progress that our countries imperatively need. I can assure the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs that this is the only viable path of cooperation, on which we once more cordially invite him to travel. Furthermore, I venture to predict that the position of future Chilean Governments will not be fundamentally different. In fact, the principles that the current Administration has held on this matter correspond to the deepest feelings and national interests, those that cannot be compromised because they are identified with our homeland itself. That is why I do not hesitate
[p 391]
to say that such motivations will be shared and maintained in the future, whatever the political definition or ideology of those who are responsible for guiding Chile’s destiny.
The Representatives know that Chile has invariably maintained that the OAS lacks jurisdiction to hear Bolivia's aspirations. Nothing in the Organization’s Charter authorizes it to do so. Therefore, we cannot continue to participate in this debate; in the vote on the respective draft resolution, which we request be done by roll-call, we will vote against it and we urge the Representatives not to support it. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Representative of Chile. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia asked for the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Bedregal): Mr. President, Representatives, this is a subject that would seem to be located either in science fiction or in the absolute validity of historical experiences such as those I have indicated. I do not intend to discredit the intelligent argument of the Representative of our sister Republic of Chile regarding this matter, but it is part of history, a part that does not really correspond to what this Assembly has been analyzing and considering for more than a decade.
Annex 302
2087
Latin American public opinion during the last fifteen years has, unfortunately, sided with the authoritarian government in power in Chile, whose diplomacy, unfortunately, has systematically and capriciously falsified the historical and legal truth regarding the inalienable and legitimate rights of Bolivia to access to the Pacific Ocean. This Chilean offensive, which attempts to confuse international public opinion, maintains things such as: “Bolivia never had the sea; Chile does not owe anything to Bolivia; the borders have been defined by the 1904 Treaty; it enjoys the greatest free transit facilities; the OAS has no jurisdiction over this matter, as the Chilean Representative has just said”, etc.
Included among these actions, which are launched, I believe, in a disrespectful manner, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has recently published and distributed a booklet titled “The Maritime Aspirations of Bolivia,” which even states that the liberator Simón Bolívar, the first governor of my country, Bolivia, arbitrarily and unilaterally usurped Chilean coastlines for Bolivia. This is one more affront that I believe Bolivia and the Continent cannot adequately quantify.
Mr. President, attempts are always made to distort history, and in this regard my Government, with the greatest care and objectivity, has distributed a document indicating the real history of this
[p 392]
matter. At no time we are seeking to denounce a treaty, at no time we are seeking a confrontation, but we feel that it is essential to reiterate before an Assembly such as this one that Bolivia’s rights over the territories of Atacama along the Pacific Ocean go back to times even before our independence. And when independence was proclaimed, the principle of uti possidetis juris of 1910 fully included, as shown in the cartography of that time, Chile’s recognition of Bolivia’s rights over Atacama, which is included not only in the constitutional texts that said country enacted for itself in 1822, 1823, and 1833, but also in the first bilateral legal instrument entered into between the two nations, the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, approved by the Chilean Congress in 1833 and 1834. I could easily and happily, but with little seriousness, say that this is a Treaty that is also fully valid, because it has been discussed and approved by their congresses in the exercise of their sovereignty.
It is important, Mr. President, and excuse the need for this explanation, to remember that the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs, Santamaría, an important person from that country, who even became President of the Republic, courageously acknowledged the historical truth: Chile occupied the Bolivian coastline, but he was not sure that it had the legitimacy to do so; in a letter sent to Rafael Sotomayor, Minister of War, on 1 December 1880, in the midst of the War of the Pacific, he made the following statement: “In what situation will that Republic remain if it is deprived of its entire littoral? We would do poorly to believe that because of our desire and without consulting any other interest but our interest that we are going
2088
Annex 302
to be able to alter the map of Latin America.” The aggression and usurpation of the littoral took place during a time recognized by all important Chilean figures. Thus, President Santamaría himself, with notable concern regarding the consequences that the conflict that Chile caused would give rise to, said: “Let’s not forget that we cannot cut off Bolivia -- Santamaría says --, deprived of Antofagasta and the entire littoral it previously held up to the Loa River. We must provide them with their own port somewhere, a gateway to gain entrance to the interior without anxiety, without requesting authorization.”
Chile caused Bolivia’s forced landlocked situation of 109 years, as a result of the military usurpation undertaken by Chile in 1879; 158,000 km2 of territory in its littoral department and 400 km of maritime coastline and incalculable economic losses, as well as its isolation from proximity to and the riches of the sea.
The Treaty of Amity of 1904, was entered into by Bolivia, which was forced to do so after 25 years of military occupation; it resulted in: complete interference in its customs, ports, and trade, free admission of Chilean products to the Bolivian market, widespread obstacles to the exit of Bolivian products. Ultimately, this was an oppressive customs and trade noose that suffocated its economy, in addition to the permanent threat that if Bolivia did not
[p 393]
sign the Treaty this would mean a return to war and reinitiating military hostilities.
With this history, what other choice did Bolivia have to escape the economic stranglehold that Chile imposed on it? As explicit recognition of Bolivia’s right over the maritime territory of Atacama and with a guilty conscience for having dispossessed violently assets belonging to others, Chile grants in the 1904 Treaty, which the distinguished Chilean Representative just mentioned, the broadest free transit regime to Bolivia through all its territories and ports. Nevertheless, truth and practice, my fellow Representatives, are very different; Chile’s permanent unilateral position is reflected by limits on the transit of people and goods, arbitrary increases to transport tariffs, judgments against the Bolivian State for onerous amounts of money, slow procedures and administration in port services, lack of port infrastructure for warehousing of grains destined for Bolivia, which when left outside suffer 30 per cent loss to their original volume due to seabirds and loss to value and nutritional quality due to the effects of humidity and wind. Proof of this is that at the second meeting held by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and Chile in New York, in 1986, as a prelude to the last negotiation that was held in Montevideo from 21 to 23 April 1987, the Binational Commission for Rapprochement was formed to first resolve pending issues or deficient services in the free transit system, such as the Antofagasta-Bolivia railway, the Arica-La Paz railway, roads to the Pacific, Oruro-Pisiga-Iquique road, temporary access permits for Bolivian cargo vehicles, construction of silos in Antofagasta and Arica, merchandise security in Antofagasta and Arica, which pay the highest insurance in the world due to the lack of security
Annex 302
2089
at the warehouses; port mobilization fees for goods in transit to and from Bolivia, unilateral and arbitrary diversion of the waters of the Lauca River.
Mr. President, distinguished Representatives, a regime theoretically called “free transit” with the broadest range of facilities, as the Chilean Representative has mentioned, which in practice does not respond to the obligations undertaken by Chile in the Treaty of 1904, with various deficiencies, obsolete or non-existent services, obstacles and barriers to the transit of people and goods, unilateral decisions and innumerable limitations, constitutes absolute proof of the inviolability and non-performance of the treaties that Chile so lightly proclaims. Paradoxically, these treaties are being violated by Chile’s own diplomacy and its own civil authorities.
Regarding the OAS’s jurisdiction, which was arrogantly or at least inconsiderately brought up this time just as it was previously, to specify its legal basis as the principal multilateral instrument of public international law of the Americas, we must remember its
[p 394]
post-war origin, as the Pan-American League of Nations, is based on the civilized progress and evolution of the relationships between the American States that are aware of the need to establish dialogue, understanding, solidarity, and justice, as rules of peaceful co-existence, so that truth and reason prevail over the violence of war, classified permanently by Chilean geopolitics as “the supreme law of nations.”
As a result, Mr. President, distinguished Representatives, Bolivia again appeals to the American conscience, to fraternity, and the desire to negotiate at this time in which we are going to renew the possibilities for peace through negotiations, for the respectful adoption of the draft resolution that has been submitted for your consideration. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[…]
[p 396]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. If there are no further comments, we have on the Table the proposal that the draft resolution be submitted to a roll-call vote, paragraph by paragraph. If there is no objection, we will deem this proposal approved and I would ask the Assistant Secretary General to proceed with the lottery to determine which delegation will start the voting. [He takes out a paper.] Based on the lottery, the Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago will vote first. I would ask the Secretary to read aloud the first paragraph of the resolution.
The SECRETARY: [Reads.]
2090
Annex 302
1. The dialogue aimed at seeking a solution to Bolivia’s geographic confinement is still suspended, a dialogue that had been taking place consistent with resolutions 426, 481, 560, 602, 686, 701, 766 and 816, in which it was declared “that it is of continuing hemispheric interest that an equitable solution be found whereby Bolivia will obtain appropriate sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean”.
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Trinidad and Tobago
Abstention
Jamaica
Abstention
United States
Yes
Costa Rica
Yes
Barbados
Abstention
Bahamas
Abstention
Chile
No
Panama
Yes
Nicaragua
Yes
El Salvador
Yes
Argentina
Yes
Suriname
Abstention
Brazil
Yes
Antigua and Barbuda
Abstention
Saint Lucia
[Absent]
Colombia
Yes
Uruguay
Yes
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
[Absent]
Bolivia
Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
Venezuela
Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
Ecuador
Yes
Grenada
[Absent]
Paraguay
Abstention
Haiti
Abstention
Peru
Yes
Dominica
Abstention
Mexico
Yes
Honduras
Yes
Guatemala
Yes
[p 397]
The SECRETARY: Seventeen votes have been recorded in favor, one against, and nine abstentions.
Annex 302
2091
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. The result of the vote is seventeen votes in favor, one against, and nine abstentions. Therefore, the first paragraph of the preamble has been approved.
The SECRETARY: [Reads:]
The objective indicated in the preceding paragraph must be accomplished in a spirit of brotherhood and American integration in order to achieve the harmony that will stimulate economic and social progress in the area of the Americas directly affected by the consequences of Bolivia’s confinement.
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Trinidad and Tobago
Yes
Jamaica
Yes
United States
Yes
Costa Rica
Yes
Barbados
Abstention
Bahamas
Abstention
Chile
No
Panama
Yes
Nicaragua
Yes
El Salvador
Yes
Argentina
Yes
Suriname
Abstention
Brazil
Yes
Antigua and Barbuda
Abstention
Santa Lucia
[Absent]
Colombia
Yes
Uruguay
Yes
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
[Absent]
Bolivia
Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
Venezuela
Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
Ecuador
Yes
Grenada
[Absent]
Paraguay
Yes
Haiti
Yes
Peru
Yes
Dominica
Abstention
Mexico
Yes
Honduras
Yes
Guatemala
Yes
[…]
2092
Annex 302
[p 398]
The PRESIDENT: The President has no objections. If the Assembly agrees, we can quickly take the vote again. I ask the Secretary to read the second paragraph.
The SECRETARY: [Reads:]
The objective indicated in the preceding paragraph must be accomplished in a spirit of brotherhood and American integration in order to achieve the harmony that will stimulate economic and social progress in the area of the Americas directly affected by the consequences of Bolivia’s confinement.
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Trinidad and Tobago Abstention
Jamaica Abstention
United States Yes
Costa Rica Yes
Barbados Abstention
Bahamas Abstention
Chile No
Panama Yes
Nicaragua Yes
El Salvador Yes
[p 399]
Argentina Yes
Suriname Abstention
Brazil Yes
Antigua and Barbuda Abstention
Saint Lucia [Absent]
Colombia Yes
Uruguay Yes
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [Absent]
Bolivia Yes
Dominican Republic Yes
Venezuela Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis [Absent]
Ecuador Yes
Grenada [Absent]
Paraguay Yes
Haiti Yes
Peru Yes
Dominica Abstention
Mexico Yes
Annex 302
2093
Honduras Yes
Guatemala Yes
The PRESIDENT: The resulted of the vote on the second paragraph of the preamble is as follows: nineteen votes in favor, one against and seven abstentions. Therefore, the second paragraph of the preamble has been approved. The Representative of Ecuador has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF ECUADOR (Mr. Cordovez): Mr. President, could you tell us the votes in favor of the paragraph?
The PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir, gladly. There are nineteen votes in favor, one against, and seven abstentions. Let us continue on to the first operative paragraph.
The SECRETARY: [Reads:]
1. To regret, once again, that the latest talks held between Chile and Bolivia were suspended, and to again urge the States directly involved in this problem to resume negotiations in an effort to find a means of making it possible to give Bolivia an outlet to the Pacific Ocean on a basis that takes account of the mutual advantages and the rights and interests of the parties concerned.
[p 400]
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Trinidad and Tobago
Yes
Jamaica
Yes
United States
Yes
Costa Rica
Yes
Barbados
Yes
Bahamas
Yes
Chile
No
Panama
Yes
Nicaragua
Yes
El Salvador
Yes
Argentina
Yes
Suriname
Abstention
Brazil
Yes
Antigua and Barbuda
Yes
Saint Lucia
[Absent]
Colombia
Yes
Uruguay
Yes
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
[Absent]
Bolivia
Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
2094
Annex 302
Venezuela
Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
Ecuador
Yes
Grenada
[Absent]
Paraguay
Yes
Haiti
Yes
Peru
Yes
Dominica
Abstention
Mexico
Yes
Honduras
Yes
Guatemala
Yes
The SECRETARY: Twenty-four votes have been recorded in favor, one against, and two abstentions.
The PRESIDENT: The result of the vote is as follows: twenty-four votes in favor, one against, and two abstentions. As a result, the first operative paragraph has been approved. We move on to the second operative paragraph.
The SECRETARY: [Reads:]
2. That 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.
[p 401]
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Trinidad and Tobago
Yes
Jamaica
Yes
United States
Yes
Costa Rica
Yes
Barbados
Yes
Bahamas
Yes
Chile
No
Panama
Yes
Nicaragua
Yes
El Salvador
Yes
Argentina
Yes
Suriname
Abstention
Brazil
Yes
Antigua and Barbuda
Yes
Saint Lucia
[Absent]
Colombia
Yes
Uruguay
Yes
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
[Absent]
Annex 302
2095
Bolivia
Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
Venezuela
Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
Ecuador
Yes
Grenada
[Absent]
Paraguay
Yes
Haiti
Yes
Peru
Yes
Dominica
No
Mexico
Yes
Honduras
Yes
Guatemala
Yes
The PRESIDENT: The result of the vote is as follows: twenty-four votes in favor, two against, and one abstention. As a result, operative paragraph 2 has been approved. Now we are going to submit the entire draft resolution to a vote.
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Trinidad and Tobago
Yes
Jamaica
Yes
United States
Yes
Costa Rica
Yes
Barbados
Yes
Bahamas
Yes
Chile
No
[p 402]
Panama
Yes
Nicaragua
Yes
El Salvador
Yes
Argentina
Yes
Suriname
Abstention
Brazil
Yes
Antigua and Barbuda
Yes
Saint Lucia
[Absent]
Colombia
Yes
Uruguay
Yes
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
[Absent]
Bolivia
Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
Venezuela
Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
Ecuador
Yes
Grenada
[Absent]
2096
Annex 302
Paraguay
Yes
Haiti
Yes
Peru
Yes
Dominica
Abstention
Mexico
Yes
Honduras
Yes
Guatemala
Yes
The PRESIDENT: The result of the vote is twenty-four votes in favor, one against, and two abstentions. The draft resolution is therefore approved. The Representative of Paraguay has the floor to explain the vote.
[…]
[p 403]
[…]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Representative. The Representative of Peru has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PERU (Mr. Valdivieso): Thank you, Mr. President. The Delegation of Peru, inspired by the goals of harmony that motivated the approved resolution, would like to have the record to reflect that, as on previous occasions, what this Assembly is formulating at this time may only be understood within the respect for the sovereignty, rights, and interests of the parties concerned, and in accordance with the treaties in force on the subject. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Representative of Peru. The Minister of Bolivia has the floor.
THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Bedregal): Mr. President, thank you very much. One last word on this thorny issue, although that I am convinced that in the course of the events, it will turn out satisfactorily. The people of Bolivia, and its Government, extend their gratitude to the Hemispheric community for this interest, for the open and frank way in which they made certain comments, which are the result of the pluralism and the focuses on this issue throughout the entire Hemisphere. I think that this vote is the democratic result that is converging towards a consensus that we must resolve all issues in Latin America in a civilized manner, with good faith, but above all, ensuring that the unity of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Hemispheric unity with the United States, are a fundamental factor for world peace, and that if these issues can be overcome, this will give strength, vitality and vigor to our entire Hemisphere, so that, with the right to which it is entitled, it can occupy that fundamental place for the development of history in the next millennium. Many thanks, gentlemen, and may God bless the OAS.
Annex 303
Minutes of the Thirteenth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 19 November 1988
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Eighteenth Regular Session, 1988, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XVIII.O.2 (1989), pp 266 and 272-279
2097
2098
Annex 303
[p 266]
MINUTES OF THE THIRTEENTH PLENARY MEETING
Date: 19 November 1988
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Place: Sheraton Hotel
President: Mr. Ricardo Acevedo Peralta
Minister of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador
Present: Messrs.
Edilberto Moreno Peña (Venezuela)
Miguel A. Vasco (Ecuador)
Juan Alberto Llanes (Paraguay)
Jean-Baptiste Reynold Leroy (Haiti)
Edmundo Haya de la Torre (Peru)
Franklin A. Baron (Dominica)
Andrés L. Valencia (Mexico)
Roberto Ramos Bustos (Honduras)
Mario Marroquín Nájera (Guatemala)
J.R.P. Dumas (Trinidad and Tobago)
Jennifer Lester (Jamaica)
Richard T. McCormack (United States)
Guillermo Villalobos Arce (Costa Rica)
William Douglas (Barbados)
Paulette Bethel-Daly (Bahamas)
Javier Illanes (Chile)
Soraya Cano (Panama)
Orlando Guerrero M. (Nicaragua)
Joaquín Maza (El Salvador)
Gastón de Prat Gay (Argentina)
Arnold T. Halfhide (Suriname)
Bernardo Pericás (Brazil)
Edmund H. Lake (Antigua and Barbuda)
Joseph Edsel Edmunds (Saint Lucia)
Leopoldo Villar Borda (Colombia)
Ope Pasquet (Uruguay)
Jaime Arellano Castañeda (Bolivia)
Joaquín Ricardo (Dominican Republic)
João Clemente Baena Soares (Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
Annex 303
2099
[…]
[p 272]
c. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.2343/88)
The PRESIDENT: We will now consider the draft resolution on the maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.2343/88). The Representative of Antigua and Barbuda has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA (Mr. Lake): Thank you, Mr. President. I wish at this stage to request that the statement made by the Honorable Minister of Barbados at the meeting of the General Committee on this resolution, on behalf of five countries namely Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Barbados, The Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, be incorporated in the minutes of this plenary meeting. I imagine, Sir, that following the voting pattern in the General Committee that a roll-call vote will be taken on this resolution. Thank you, Sir.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Representative, for your suggestion, and your request is noted. [See Annex I.]
The Representative of Barbados has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BARBADOS (Mr. Douglas): Mr. President, regarding the proposal made by the distinguished Representative of Antigua and Barbuda asking that the statement of the Representative of Barbados be incorporated, I think we should have followed the procedure adopted in the General Committee, and I would, therefore, ask for the resolution to be taken paragraph by paragraph.
[p 273]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Representative of Barbados. The Representatives of Barbados and of Antigua and Barbuda have requested that this draft resolution be submitted to roll-call voting, paragraph by paragraph, as was done in the General Committee. Therefore it is appropriate to proceed to the ballot to determine which delegation will begin the voting. [Draws a paper.] Based on the ballot, the delegation of Bolivia will begin the voting. We begin with the first paragraph of the “preamble,” which the Secretary will now please read:
The SECRETARY: [Reads:]
The dialogue aimed at seeking a solution to Bolivia’s geographic confinement is still suspended, a dialogue that had been taking place consistent with resolutions AG/RES. 426 (IX-0/79), AG/RES. 481 (X-O/80), AG/RES. 560 (XI-O/81), AG/RES. 602 (XII-0/82), AG/RES. 686 (XIII-O/83), AG/RES. 701 (XIV-O/84), AG/RES. 766 (XV-O/85), and AG/RES. 816 (XVI-O/86), which had declared it to be
2100
Annex 303
of continuing hemispheric interest that an equitable solution be found whereby Bolivia obtain appropriate sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, and
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Bolivia Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
V
enezuela Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
Ecuador
Y
es
Grenada
[Absent]
Paraguay
Abstention
Haiti
Abstention
Peru Yes
Dominica
Abstention
Mexico
Y
es
Honduras
Y
es
Guatemala
Y
es
T
rinidad and Tobago Abstention
Jamaica
-
United States
Y
es
Costa Rica
Y
es
Barbados
Abstention
Bahamas
Abstention
Chile
No
Panama
-
Nicaragua
Y
es
El Salvador
Y
es
Ar
gentina Yes
Suriname
Abstention
[p 274]
Brazil Yes
Antigua and Barbuda
Abstention
Saint Lucia
-
Colombia
Y
es
Uruguay
Y
es
Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines [Absent]
The SECRETARY: Sixteen votes have been recorded in favor, one against, and eight abstentions.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. The result of the vote is sixteen votes in favor, one against, eight abstentions. Therefore, this first paragraph of the preamble has been approved.
We will move on to the second paragraph.
The SECRETARY: [Reads:]
Annex 303
2101
The objective indicated in the preceding paragraph must be accomplished in a spirit of brotherhood and American integration in order to achieve the harmony that would stimulate economic and social progress in the area of the Americas directly affected by the consequences of Bolivia’s confinement.
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Bolivia Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
V
enezuela Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
Ecuador
Y
es
Grenada
[Absent]
Paraguay
Y
es
Haiti
Yes
Peru Yes
Dominica
Abstained
Mexico
Y
es
Honduras
Y
es
Guatemala
Y
es
T
rinidad and Tobago Abstention
Jamaica
Abstention
United States
Y
es
Costa Rica
Y
es
Barbados
Abstention
Bahamas
Abstention
Chile
No
Panama
-
[p 275]
Nicaragua Yes
El Salvador
Y
es
Ar
gentina Yes
Suriname
Abstention
Brazil
Yes
Antigua and Barbuda
Abstention
Saint Lucia
-
Colombia
Y
es
Uruguay
Y
es
Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines [Absent]
The SECRETARY: There are eighteen votes in favor, one against, and seven abstentions.
2102
Annex 303
The PRESIDENT: The result of the vote on the second paragraph of the preamble is as follows: eighteen in favor, one against, and seven abstentions. Therefore, it has been approved. First operative paragraph, please.
The SECRETARY: [Reads:]
1. To regret, once again, that the latest talks held between Chile and Bolivia were suspended, and to again urge the States directly involved in this problem to resume negotiations in an effort to find a means of making it possible to give Bolivia an outlet to the Pacific Ocean on a basis that takes account of the mutual advantages and the rights and interests of the parties concerned.
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Bolivia Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
V
enezuela Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
Ecuador
Y
es
Grenada
[Absent]
Paraguay
Y
es
Haiti
Yes
Peru Yes
Dominica
Abstention
Mexico
Y
es
Honduras
Y
es
Guatemala
Y
es
T
rinidad and Tobago Yes
Jamaica
Y
es
United States
Yes
[p 276]
Costa Rica Yes
Barbados
Y
es
Bahamas
Y
es
Chile
No
Panama
-
Nicaragua
Y
es
El Salvador
Y
es
Ar
gentina Yes
Suriname
Abstention
Brazil
Yes
Antigua and Barbuda
Yes
Saint Lucia
-
Colombia
Y
es
Uruguay
Y
es
Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines [Absent]
Annex 303
2103
The SECRETARY: The result of the vote is as follows: twenty-three votes in favor, one against, two abstentions.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the result of the vote, the first operative paragraph has been approved. We move on to the second operative paragraph.
The SECRETARY: [Reads:]
2. 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 meeting of the General Assembly.
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Bolivia Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
V
enezuela Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
Ecuador
Y
es
Grenada
[Absent]
Paraguay
Y
es
Haiti
Yes
Peru Yes
Dominica
abstention
Mexico
Y
es
Honduras
Y
es
Guatemala
Y
es
T
rinidad and Tobago Yes
Jamaica
Y
es
United States
Y
es
Costa Rica
Yes
[p 277]
Barbados Yes
Bahamas
Y
es
Chile
No
Panama
-
Nicaragua
Y
es
El Salvador
Y
es
Ar
gentina Yes
Suriname
Abstention
Brazil
Yes
Antigua and Barbuda
Yes
Saint Lucia
-
Colombia
Y
es
Uruguay
Y
es
Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines [Absent]
2104
Annex 303
The SECRETARY: The result of the vote is as follows: twenty-four votes in favor, two against, and one abstention.
The PRESIDENT: As a result, the second operative paragraph has been approved. We will move on to vote on the draft resolution in its entirety.
[The roll-call vote is taken, with the following result:]
Bolivia Yes
Dominican Republic
Yes
V
enezuela Yes
St. Kitts and Nevis
[Absent]
Ecuador
Y
es
Grenada
[Absent]
Paraguay
Y
es
Haiti
Yes
Peru Yes
Dominica
Abstention
Mexico
Y
es
Honduras
Y
es
Guatemala
Y
es
T
rinidad and Tobago Yes
Jamaica
Y
es
United States
Y
es
Costa Rica
Y
es
Barbados Yes
Bahamas
Y
es
Chile
No
Panama
Y
es
Nicaragua
Y
es
El Salvador
Y
es
Ar
gentina Yes
[p 278]
Suriname Abstention
Brazil
Yes
Antigua and Barbuda
Yes
Saint Lucia
-
Colombia
Y
es
Uruguay
Y
es
Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines [Absent]
The SECRETARY: Twenty-four votes have been recorded in favor, one against, and two abstentions.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. The result of the vote is twenty-four votes in favor, one against, and two abstentions. The resolution is approved.1 The
1 Resolution AG/RES. 930 (XVIII-O/88).
Annex 303
2105
Representative of Peru has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PERU (Mr. Haya de la Torre): Thank you very much, Mr. President. The Delegation of Peru requests that the declaration that was drafted in the General Committee be recorded in the minutes of this plenary meeting. [See ANNEX II.]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Representative, it will be done. The Representative of the United States has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES (Mr. McCormack): Thank you, Mr. President. My Delegation wishes the record to reflect that it has voted in favor of the first paragraph of the preamble of this resolution, with the exclusive understanding that the paragraph accurately states the historic record of certain previous decisions taken by the General Assembly. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Representative. The Representative of Paraguay has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF PARAGUAY (Mr. Llanes): Thank you, Mr. President. I ask that the reservation expressed by the Delegation of Paraguay in the General Committee concerning the first operative paragraph appear in the minutes of this plenary meeting. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Representative. It will be done. [See ANNEX III.] The Representative of Haiti has the floor.
[p 279]
The REPRESENTATIVE OF HAITI (Mr. Leroy): Thank you, Mr. President. The Delegation of Haiti would greatly appreciate it if you would include the statement it made in the General Committee in the minutes of this plenary meeting. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Representative. It will be done. [See ANNEX IV.] The Representative of Bolivia has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA (Mr. Arellano): Thank you, Mr. President. The Delegation of Bolivia would like to very sincerely express its heartfelt appreciation to the delegations that with their votes supported the draft resolution submitted by my Delegation on the matter of Bolivia’s landlocked situation. We also thank the distinguished Delegations of Mexico, Venezuela, Costa Rico, Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua, which co-sponsored this draft resolution.
I would like to very sincerely express, Mr. President, the hope that this new
2106
Annex 303
appeal that the Organization of American States is making to our sister Republic of Chile to restart the dialogue—which never should have been interrupted—in an attempt to find a solution to the dramatic landlocked situation of Bolivia, will be accepted in the interests of justice, unity, brotherhood, and the integration of our nations.
Mr. President, Representatives, thank you very much, again, in the name of the Government and the people of Bolivia.
Annex 304
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 930 (XVIII–O/88), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 19 November 1988
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Eighteenth Regular Session, 1988, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XVII.O.2 (1989), pp 52 and 56
2107
2108
Annex 304
Annex 304
2109
2110
Annex 305
Minutes of the Ninth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 18 November 1989
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Nineteenth Regular Session, 1989, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XIX.O.2 (1991), pp 283 and 289
2111
2112
Annex 305
[p 283]
MINUTES OF THE NINTH PLENARY MEETING
Date: 18 November 1989
Time: 4:10 p.m.
Place: Hall of the Americas
President: Mr. Carlos López Contreras
Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Honduras
Present: Messrs.
Bernardo Pericás Neto (Brazil)
José Luis Fernández Valoni (Argentina)
Edilberto Moreno Peña (Venezuela)
Guillermo Villalobos Arce (Costa Rica)
Julio Icaza Gallard (Nicaragua)
Ivon Perrier (Haiti)
Angus Khan (Trinidad and Tobago)
Erstein M. Edwards (St. Kitts and Nevis)
Marcos Martínez Mendieta (Paraguay)
Willem A. Udenhout (Suriname)
Edmund H. Lake (Antigua and Barbuda)
Rómulo Escobar Bethancourt (Panama)
Antonio de Icaza (Mexico)
Paulette Bethel-Daly (Bahamas)
Mauricio Granillo Barrera (El Salvador)
Xenia Wilkinson (United States)
Albert O. Xavier (Grenada)
León Paredes Lardizábal (Honduras)
Joseph E. Edmunds (Santa Lucia)
Keith Johnson (Jamaica)
Leopoldo Villar Borda (Colombia)
Edmundo Haya de la Torre (Peru)
Jaime Arellaño Castañeda (Bolivia)
Miriam Cabrera Passarelli (Guatemala)
Miguel A. Vasco (Ecuador)
William Douglas (Barbados)
Uldaricio Figueroa (Chile)
Eladio Knipping Victoria (Dominican Republic)
Didier Opertti (Uruguay)
João Clemente Baena Soares (Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
Annex 305
2113
[…]
[p 289]
g. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.2502/89)
The PRESIDENT: We will now consider the draft resolution on Bolivia’s maritime problem (AG/doc.2502/89]. If there are no objections, we will consider it approved. The Representative of Chile has the floor.
The REPRESENTATIVE OF CHILE (Mr. Figueroa): Mr. President, this draft resolution was approved by a vote in the General Committee, and I would ask that it also be put to a vote in the plenary session. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDENT: At the request of the Representative of Chile, I submit the draft resolution to a vote. All Representatives who are in favor, please so indicate by raising your hand. [Voting.] The result of the vote is twenty-two votes in favor, one against, and four abstentions. Approved.
2114
Annex 306
Organization of American States, General Assembly, resolution AG/RES. 989 (XIX–O/89), Report on the Maritime Problem of Bolivia, 18 November 1989
(Original in English and French)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Nineteenth Regular Session, 1988, Proceedings, Vol. I, OEA/Ser.P/XIX.O.2 (1989), pp 33-34
2115
2116
Annex 306
Annex 306
2117
2118
Annex 307
Minutes of the Second Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly,
6 June 1990
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Twentieth Regular Session, 1990, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XX.O.2 (1991), pp 295 and 304-309
2119
2120
Annex 307
[p 295]
GENERAL COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING
Date: 6 June 1990
Time: 4:30 p.m.
Location: Central Bank of Paraguay
President: Mr. Luis María Árgana
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Paraguay
Present: Messrs.
John F. Maisto (United States)
Julio E. Linares (Panama)
Adolfo Raúl Taylhardat (Venezuela)
Paulette Bethel-Daly (Bahamas)
Mario Marroquín Nájera (Guatemala)
William Udenhout (Suriname)
Joyce Bourne (Barbados)
Sahadeo Basdeo (Trinidad and Tobago)
Undine George (Saint Lucia)
Mauricio Granillo Barrera (El Salvador)
Jean F. Chéry (Haiti)
Bernardino Hugo Saguier Caballero (Paraguay)
Mario Carías Zapata (Honduras)
Keith Johnson (Jamaica)
Luis E. Guardia (Costa Rica)
Miriam Argüello (Nicaragua)
Louise Frechette (Canada)
Franklin A. Baron (Dominica)
Edmund H. Lake (Antigua and Barbuda)
Antonio de Icaza (Mexico)
Carlos Iturralde Ballivián (Bolivia)
Enrique Silva Cimma (Chile)
Héctor Gros Espiell (Uruguay)
Jaime Girón Duarte (Colombia)
Alfonso Rivero Monsalve (Peru)
Carlos A. Vasconcellos (Dominican Republic)
Luiz de Araujo Castro (Brazil)
Jonathan Augusto Peters (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines)
William V. Herbert (St. Kitts and Nevis)
Miguel Antonio Vasco (Ecuador)
João Clemente Baena Soares (Secretary General of the OAS)
Val T. McComie (Assistant Secretary General)
[…]
Annex 307
2121
[…]
[p 304]
4. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.2540/90) (Item 17 on the Agenda)
The PRESIDENT: The second item on the order of business is a discussion of the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia (AG/doc.2540/90). This item was included on the agenda at the request of the Government of Bolivia, through the note contained in document AG/doc.2540/90. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Bolivia has the floor.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF BOLIVIA: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for agreeing to discuss this matter at the very beginning of this meeting.
Since 1979, Bolivia has invariably received the solid support of the countries in the OAS, through 11 resolutions of the General Assembly, three
[p 305]
of which were adopted by consensus. Those resolutions repeatedly affirm that the need to find an adequate solution to Bolivia’s maritime confinement is of permanent hemispheric interest.
All of this support, which is now part of the history of the successive Assemblies of the OAS, has preserved the principles of non-intervention and respect for the sovereignty of States, because it has been limited to recommending negotiations between the Parties involved, respecting their rights and their self-determination.
In addition to these repeated pronouncements by the OAS, several other international organizations have also made pronouncements to this effect, including the Non-Aligned Movement, the Andean Group and, recently, the Latin American Parliament. The need to find a solution to the problem of Bolivia’s confinement is no longer just a matter of hemispheric interest; it has been recognized by the world.
During the last regular session of the General Assembly of our Organization, a resolution was adopted to permit the inclusion of the matter on the agenda of any future General Assemblies of the OAS, at the request of either of the parties involved. As a result, Bolivia believes that with this step, one phase is drawing to a close and making way for another, and in this phase that is beginning, solutions developed in a constructive manner by the interested parties will emerge, in keeping with the spirit of the OAS in regard to this matter.
2122
Annex 307
The President of Bolivia, Jaime Paz Zamora, already indicated at the last Assembly of the United Nations, and repeated with sincerity here at the event marking the centennial of the inter-American system, that we must not continue to approach this problem with the outdated, tired mentality of the 19th century. Rather, we should discuss it from the perspective of the new understanding that must open the way to the 21st century, in keeping with the changes of our time, and in keeping with the spirit of fairness and modernity characterized by constructive interdependence that must prevail in contemporary international affairs.
From this perspective, Bolivia reiterates its steadfast decision to regain its identity and status as a maritime nation. It seeks the path of dialogue, with renewed vision and with the understanding that in a world of profound changes, where dogmas are being overcome, the logical and sensible thing, in keeping with the course of history, is to open the way for solidarity and shared progress. Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile has the floor.
[p 306]
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CHILE: Thank you, Mr. President. I have listened with particular interest to the words of the distinguished Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia. Chile’s democratic Government, headed by President Patricio Aylwin, is firmly determined to undertake, together with its sister nation of Bolivia, a great project for understanding, cooperation, and political, economic, cultural, and commercial development, in keeping with the challenges of the emerging international reality. We share the wise invitation made to us by President Paz Zamora in his speech before this Assembly, when he proposed that we consider Chilean-Bolivian relations from the perspective of the imminent 21st century.
Approaching our relations among our Latin American nations in a spirit suited to the 19th century would mean reviving tense quarrels among neighbors that, with their burden of confrontations, animosities, and mistrust, have until now delayed the possibility of a more fraternal, prosperous, and developed Latin America. Approaching relations among our nations from a future-oriented perspective, on the other hand, means leaving in the past everything that has placed us in opposition to one another, and projecting the rich, creative energy of our men and women in pursuit of a shared aim of progress and friendship among nations that are sisters.
On this occasion in which a democratic Chile returns to the General Assembly of the OAS, we would like to speak only of the present and the potentially promising future of our relations as neighbors. However, we cannot avoid referring very briefly to the words of our distinguished friend, the Foreign Minister of Bolivia. In a way, after hearing his words, we are forced to recall, in passing, that just as he
Annex 307
2123
defends what he believes to be the legitimate right of his people, by stating the basis and justice of that right from his point of view as a Bolivian, we too have asserted reasons that support the legitimacy of our position.
Chile, in its past as a democratic nation and again now, has held the position that the matter raised by Bolivia is already resolved by a Treaty that was validly concluded and is in full force and effect. That point, in fact, is not in dispute. However, we believe that in this matter, much more than that problem is at stake for Chile. Also at stake is respect for the principles that constitute the framework, the essential instrument, the structure that governs the peaceful life of nations subject to international law and the Latin American system in particular such as the faithful observance of treaties, territorial integrity of States, and non-intervention in matters of exclusive sovereignty.
Allow me, Mr. President, to recall that two days ago, we were reflecting on the brilliant speeches by the Heads of State who honored us with their presence on the occasion of the centennial of the OAS, here in
[p 307]
this same room. I could not stop thinking about the profound nature of the thoughts of President Collor de Mello, when he discussed the importance of treaties, as well as the thoughts of President Menem, when he talked about how his country will tirelessly seek a way to reach bilateral agreements between Great Britain and Argentina in regard to the Falklands. Yesterday, our distinguished friend, the Foreign Minister of Bolivia, recalled the words of that eminent legal scholar, the Head of State and President of Uruguay.
Certainly, as men of law, we must agree with President Lacalle’s words when he said that “unquestionably, it will be necessary to adjust and modernize the legal understanding. We have never believed that legal rules can serve as a basis for hindering the development of communities.” This, clearly, is the essential foundation, which we must continue to share, and which forms the basis for Mr. Lacalle’s insight.
But on this very special and very solemn occasion, I would not like to give a long and laborious legal discourse. Still less would I like to return to the grounds on which, in the past, the Chilean Foreign Ministry has defended its point of view in response to certain proposals—grounds that unquestionably have irrefutable value from the perspective of international law. Suffice it for us to recall that the border issue between Chile and Bolivia was resolved in 1904, by a treaty that was signed twenty years after the end of the war—I repeat, twenty years after.
Chile has fulfilled and is fulfilling completely all of its obligations under the Treaty of 1904. Its sister nation the Republic of Bolivia enjoys treatment that far exceeds the conditions agreed upon by the United Nations to benefit landlocked
2124
Annex 307
States, although we believe, and we state with the deepest conviction, that such treatment flows precisely from texts like the last peace treaty with Argentina. At the time of that treaty, His Holiness noted that the existence of good faith on the part of the Parties and between the Parties was desirable in order to apply the rules of mutual understanding between nations that are sisters. I think that those rules should exist and do exist now between Bolivia and Chile; I think, I mean, that it is still possible to modernize, a great deal more, the proposals flowing from the Treaty that was approved at that time.
Experience has shown that, oddly enough, all of the resolutions mentioned by the distinguished Foreign Minister have far from succeeded in leading to a rapprochement between Chile and Bolivia in recent years; they have only caused friction in bilateral relations. That insistence on that approach lamentably has failed to produce any positive outcome. From our point of view, the discussion of this matter at the level of General Assemblies is at least counterproductive, if not fruitless, and particularly so now, when Chile has just inaugurated a democratic government after sixteen long years of authoritarianism.
[p 308]
That is why I was pleased to hear the Foreign Minister of Bolivia say that he was limiting himself to recalling the earlier precedents, as he indeed did in his well-spoken remarks. My country hopes to count on American understanding and solidarity, so that this understanding and solidarity may help strengthen Chile’s democracy and contribute to the development of a hemispheric policy of cooperation and integration. By the same token, we would not want an intervention of some other sort in this matter, well-intentioned though it might be, to somehow hinder the great possibilities that we Chileans and my Government are convinced exist on the bilateral level, possibilities that are based on tireless efforts to develop cooperation and a full rapprochement between Chile and Bolivia.
The stance taken by the democratic Government is both constructive and pragmatic. We aspire to place the issue of our joint development at the center of our bilateral relations. We have the political will to do so, and furthermore, we are certain that the future prospects that would flow from this political will, for both countries, could be enormous.
Mr. President, Chile is willing to seek ways to perfect the transit rights and amenities that Bolivia enjoys for its access to the sea. We are willing to move towards full bilateral rapprochement, and we are also willing to agree to realistic, strong, and lasting cooperation for the good of both of our nations. We would not like to become involved, once again, in a pointless controversy that would only result in skepticism and weariness. We would like to concentrate, instead, on the auspicious opportunities that are opening up for both of our countries and for our people at this new stage.
Annex 307
2125
Mr. President, Chile pledges its willingness to work tirelessly, opposite Bolivia, in the constructive spirit of our new times, to make the true endeavor for integration a reality. That same endeavor is the inspiration for the attitude with which Chile has attended this Assembly, and it also guides Chile’s reintegration into the Latin American and Caribbean community.
Allow me a brief digression. Just two and a half months ago, Mr. President, a presidential inauguration took place, after sixteen years in which an authoritarian regime was in power in our country. The President of Peru, Mr. Alan García, attended that unforgettable event for the first time—as I am sure that many of the very distinguished Representatives present here did too. We recall that he received applause and a most tremendous display of affection at Chile’s National Stadium—a tribute unlike any that a Peruvian leader had received before, and an event that we recall as worthy of note.
[p 309]
I am fully convinced that if the President of Bolivia, Mr. Jaime Paz Zamora, had also been able to attend that event, in the spirit of fellowship and fraternity that we are seeking, the warm feelings of the Chilean people towards him would have been similar. And I speak these words from the bottom of our heart, because Chile loves its sister nations in Latin America and deeply believes that the time has come to seek rapprochement through bilateral engagement, which allows us to act more expeditiously and readies us to join in a fraternal embrace. All of this could be stated as the belief that what unites us, and what we can do in that unity, is much greater than any potential source of disagreement that might divide us at this moment.
Mr. President, I conclude by saying: Let us mutually grant one another the opportunity to set forth on a clear, successful path of cooperation, friendship, and integration, to which our nations aspire and which they need. That is all,
Mr. President. Thank you very much.
2126
Annex 308
A. Crespo Rodas, Banzer and the sea (1993), pp 3-8 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
2127
2128
Annex 308
Annex 308
2129
2130
Annex 308
Annex 308
2131
[…]
THE FIVE
PRESIDENTS
On 20 December 1975, Banzer announced the global acceptance of the Chilean formula.
The proposal, which was accepted without rejoicing, soon became a subject of controversy, which again proves that it is difficult to satisfy certain Bolivians when it comes to the maritime problem. For some of them, the corridor was too narrow; for others, the coast was not suitable for building a port; the army demanded that the corridor be militarized; certain recalcitrant people were calling for nothing less than the return of Antofagasta. There were even people who proposed creating a port on some island in the Caribbean, or the use of dirigibles. And lastly, people seeking revenge insisted that the former Littoral should be recovered using weapons, at the appropriate time.
Of even greater concern than these inconsistent statements was a document signed by five former presidents: Víctor Paz Estenssoro, Hernán Siles, Luis Adolfo Siles, Alfredo Ovando and José Torres, who made their opposition public on 6 March 1976:
“…our attitude is an expression of repudiation and condemnation of these acts that the government of General Hugo Banzer has accelerated behind the backs of the people, under the influence of foreign forces, and betraying the interests of the Bolivian people…
…this decision is based on under-handed ambitions of the current Bolivian government, whose perpetuation in power is decisively convenient to the anti-national business oligarchy, that is strengthening and that is the co-government along with tyranny, in addition to responding to foreign interests in hegemonic expansion in the area …
…the Patria Oprimida, the organizations of workers
2132
Annex 308
Annex 308
2133
and university students, the political parties, the voices representing politicians and specialists in the matter have denounced these acts and called them irresponsible. President Banzer and the economic and political groups supporting his government are jointly and severally liable for an unprecedented compromise of the assets and future of the nation…
…we call upon the Armed Forces to substantially change the orientation of these international negotiations…
…we propose immediately holding a tripartite conference of Bolivia, Chile and Peru tasked with defining a new perspective that will cure the errors, defects and omissions that have resulted from the bilateralism that originated in Charaña….”
2134
Annex 308
Annex 308
2135
2136
Annex 309
Joint Press Release issued by Bolivia and Chile, 16 July 1993
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2137
2138
Annex 309
Annex 309
2139
JOINT PRESS RELEASE
1. On the occasion of the 3rd Ibero-American Conference of Heads of State and Government, which took place in the City of Salvador, Bahia, on 15 and 16 July 1993, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, Mr. Ronald McLean Abaroa, and of Chile, Mr. Enrique Silva Cimma, held a new informal meeting.
2. During their discussions, they examined the state of bilateral relations.
In this regard, they highlighted the importance of the efforts made to discuss several topics of common interest and for a greater exchange of information and points of view in order to foster a more thorough perception and mutual interpretation of both countries’ interests.
They agreed that the progress and achievements made as a result of such efforts were possible due to the use of a renewed approach in addressing the issues on the bilateral relations agenda, as well as a very constructive stance on the part of both Governments as highlighted in the most recent period.
3. The Ministers confirmed that there are still differences with respect to certain specific matters.
At the same time, however, they underscored the significance of improved bilateral relations, as well as improved communications between the two Governments, as a means to increase and solidify mutual trust and create adequate conditions to better address the bilateral relations agenda, and, in particular, to overcome those
2140
Annex 309
Annex 309
2141
differences by means of appropriate mutual understanding, always seeking the interests of both nations.
Likewise, they expressed their conviction that the best course of action is to continue to make converging efforts to create such conditions, with a disposition for a reciprocal understanding of the interests of both countries.
4. Both Ministers were in agreement that, as a consequence of the efforts made to timely and effectively address the various issues on the bilateral relations agenda, certain understandings have been reached which, in practice, have made the following, among other, results possible:
(a) The execution of an Economic Complementation Agreement.
(b) The execution of an Agreement on Cooperation in the Fight Against Drug Trafficking.
(c) The settlement of all outstanding issues concerning border demarcation.
(d) The conclusion of an International Air Transportation Agreement.
(e) The conclusion of an Agreement on Technical Adaptation Works at the Sica Sica-Arica Pipeline.
(f) The lifting of tourist visa requirements for nationals of both countries.
(g) Other issues are being worked on, in connection with which both countries are unilaterally promoting the adoption of measures of common interest.
5. Similarly, they pointed out the importance of the conversations the two Governments have held over other issues such as projects for the development of transportation infrastructure to connect both countries, the enforcement of the regulations in place for road
2142
Annex 309
Annex 309
2143
transportation services, and the Cochabamba Act, which mandates the formation of a Mixed Technical Group to review issues concerning the stockpiling and transit of Bolivian minerals through the ports of Arica and Antofagasta.
They further stressed the significance of the related consultations and the preliminary understandings reached to promote the development of complementation projects for the energy sector.
6. They also welcomed the efforts made by business sectors in order to promote growing interrelations between private agents, through a greater exchange of goods and services and the exploration of joint investment opportunities.
7. The Ministers agreed that, in addition to the efforts made in connection with economic relations, particularly noteworthy are those seeking to improve communications between the two Governments, which efforts have taken the form of informal conversations between their top-ranking officials, as well as political leaders and members of their respective Congresses.
They specifically noted the importance of the creation of the Permanent Consultations Mechanism, handled at the level of the Undersecretaries of Foreign Affairs, to tackle bilateral and multilateral matters of common interest.
8. The Ministries agreed that these efforts and achievements have also been possible due to the favorable climate resulting from the existence of democratic systems, guided by coinciding interests and a predisposition for cooperation and understanding in both countries.
2144
Annex 309
Moreover, they agreed that such efforts, particularly in the area of bilateral economic relations, have been driven by the vast areas of coincidence in the economic models and relevant policies adopted by both countries.
Salvador, Bahia, 16 July 1993.–
[Signed]
Ronald McLean Abaroa
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia
[Signed]
Enrique Silva Cimma
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile
Annex 310
Memorandum of Understanding between Bolivia and Chile, 24 November 1994
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2145
2146
Annex 310
Annex 310
2147
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
An agreement has been reached to sign the following Memorandum of Understanding by and between the Undersecretariat for Migration of the Ministry of Government of the Republic of Bolivia and the General Office of Consular Affairs and Immigration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Chile.
1.
Nationals of the Republic of Bolivia and nationals of the Republic of Chile who are holders of regular passports may enter the territory of the other party, for purposes other than immigration or the development of remunerated activities, for a period not exceeding ninety days, extendable for no more than 90 days, from anywhere in the world, bearing a valid passport that is in full force and effect.
2.
The extension referred to in clause No. 1 above shall not exempt the nationals of either country from complying with domestic regulations regarding the entry, residence, and employment or occupation of foreign citizens. The Parties shall exchange information – through consular channels – regarding the aforementioned regulations.
3.
Nationals of either country who violate such provisions may be denied authorization to enter or stay in the relevant territory.
4.
The competent Chilean and Bolivian authorities hereby reserve their right to deny authorization to enter or stay in their respective territories to individuals whose entry has been deemed not to be advisable pursuant to the laws and regulations of the respective States.
5.
Either Party may fully or partially suspend the enforcement of this Memorandum of Understanding on the Waiver of Visas on a temporary basis due to public policy or public health reasons. Both the suspension and the lifting of that measure shall be notified to the other Party in writing through consular channels without delay.
2148
Annex 310
Annex 310
2149
This Memorandum of Understanding on the Waiver of Visas shall become effective on 1 December 1994, and shall remain in full force and effect indefinitely. It may be annulled by either Party upon three months prior notice given in writing through consular channels.
This Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by Lic. Victoria Baldivieso, Undersecretary for Migration of the Ministry of Government, on behalf of the Republic of Bolivia, and Ambassador Julio Lagarini Freire, General Director of Consular Affairs and Immigration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of Chile.
Signed in two copies of equal value in the city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, on 24 November 1994.
[Signed]
FOR THE REPUBLIC OF
BOLIVIA
[Signed]
FOR THE REPUBLIC OF
CHILE
2150
Annex 311
Minutes of the Second Meeting of the General Committee of the Organization of American States General Assembly,
6 June 1995
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Twenty-Fifth Regular Session, 1995, Proceedings, Vol. II, Part 1, OEA/Ser.P/XXV.O.2 (1996), pp 223-227
2151
2152
Annex 311
[p 223]
GENERAL COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING
Date: 6 June 1995
Time: 10:15am
Venue: Club Med
President: Madam Claudette Werleigh
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Haiti
In attendance: Danilo Jiménez Veiga (Costa Rica)
Fernando E. Petrella (Argentina)
Antonio Araníbar Quiroga (Bolivia)
Beatriz Ramacciotti (Peru)
José Miguel Insulza (Chile)
José Delmer Urbizo (Honduras)
William George Mallet, CBE (Santa Lucia)
José Bernard Pallais Arana (Nicaragua)
José Roberto Andino Salazar (El Salvador)
Corinne McKnight (Trinidad and Tobago)
Benjamin Clare (Jamaica)
Luis María Ramírez Boettner (Paraguay)
Miguel Ángel Burelli Rivas (Venezuela)
Carlos Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay)
Alpian Allen (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines)
Willem A. Udenhout (Suriname)
Patrick Albert Lewis (Antigua and Barbuda)
Galo Leoro Franco (Ecuador)
F.A. Baron (Dominica Republic)
Peter Laurie (Barbados)
Clement Rohee (Guyana)
Harriet C. Babbitt (United States)
Christine Steward (Canada)
Marithza Ruiz de Vielman (Guatemala)
Sebastião do Rego Barros (Brazil)
Fabio Villegas Ramírez (Colombia)
Denneth Modeste (Grenada)
Dean O. Barrow (Belize)
Lawrence Chewning Fábrega (Panama)
Janet A. Bostwick (Bahamas)
Carlos A. Morales Troncoso (Domenica Republic)
Sergio Romero Cuevas (Mexico)
César Gaviria (OAS Secretary General)
Christopher R. Thomas (Assistant Secretary General)
[…]
Annex 311
2153
[p 224]
-
Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia
[…]
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF BOLIVIA: Thank you very much, madam President. As Your Excellency, madam President, and the representatives present in this room are aware, the Organization of American States approved successive resolutions indicating, on repeated occasions, that “it is of permanent hemispheric interest that an equitable solution be found whereby Bolivia would obtain sovereign and useful access to the Pacific Ocean”.
According to those resolutions, this objective of the OAS must be achieved in a spirit of brotherhood and Latin American integration, to consolidate a stable peace that stimulates economic and social progress in the region, affected by the consequences of Bolivia’s confinement.
The General Assembly also recommended that the States directly concerned with this problem initiate contacts and negotiations for the purpose of providing Bolivia with its own territorial connection with the Pacific Ocean.
Significantly, and in spite of the years that have passed, and notwithstanding the initiatives raised by Bolivia on various occasions in response to the call of the OAS, its maritime problem has fundamentally remained unchanged, with the economic, political and moral effects that such a situation causes.
We especially appreciate the international understanding our country has received and we consider it very important for making progress towards finding effective solutions. It is also true that the search for answers to questions that come from the generations that went before us depends not only on adding new declarations to those already made, but also on stimulating the political willingness of the States to assume with sincerity their responsibility to find constructive actions that take into account the rights and interests of all the parties involved.
Therefore, the inclusion of this item on the agenda of the meetings of the General Assembly should not just be a formal ceremony that is held every year. The presentation of this report ought to be an occasion on which the progress in a historic negotiation is solemnly recorded for the effective solution of a problem in the inter-American community that remains unsolved.
The renewed OAS is the forum where we want to discuss the thoughts aimed at promoting a better future for international relations, inspired by legal and ethical grounds of justice for fraternal coexistence and solidarity between countries and citizens of the Americas.
At a time when the American hemisphere is overcoming ideological conflicts, intolerance and isolation, and embracing common values such as democracy, solidarity, social equity and collective actions such as economic, physical and energy-related integration, it is not permissible to think that Bolivia should still bear the economic,
2154
Annex 311
[p 225]
political and cultural consequences of a forced oppressive geographical confinement, which has been going on for more than a century.
The objective conditions of the inter-American system now require all the countries in the Hemisphere to look ahead and overcome the obstacles that keep us from achieving effective integration. To do this, there must be constructive dialogue that allows us to develop the ability of governments to face the challenges that destiny poses for us at the end of the 20th century.
The integration of the Americas, the linking of our geographic diversity through bioceanic corridors, energy networks, roads, and the Paraguay-Paraná waterway, are elements that will put this agenda into movement for the new world that we want to construct in the region.
To this end, we must use our efforts and our will to turn words into actions, solving the problems that emerge from the wounds of the past and making proposals aimed at the future, which should find us united within a genuine American spirit.
As we stated at the 24th regular session of the General Assembly, Bolivia has initiated a process of rapprochement with Chile, through dialogue, coordination and finding points of agreement that are in our mutual interest, that resolve specific problems, generate trust between the parties and allow us to move ahead with our search for a solution to Bolivia’s maritime problem and the negative consequences of the forced geographic confinement of my country.
Convinced of the continuing hemispheric interest in Bolivia’s maritime problem, we want to issue a fraternal call to the Republic of Chile to leave behind the traditional answers that seek a legal basis but avoid solidarity and do not fully assume the principles of justice, modernity, integration and change proclaimed with so much vigor at the Summit meetings in Miami and Copenhagen and in this very Assembly.
In our opinion, international law must be an instrument that can construct a future of justice, in a wise and timely manner, and should not be limited to perpetuating errors and injustices from the past.
Bolivia and Chile can and must set an example of this new spirit that motivates our Hemisphere. Thank you very much, madam President.
[…]
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CHILE: Thank you, madam President. Madam President, I listened with great interest to the speech by my distinguished colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and this leads me, once again, to discuss Chile’s position on the matter and to indicate the grounds that underpin it.
Chile has invariably argued that the issue raised by Bolivia was resolved by a treaty that was validly agreed to and is in full force and effect.
Annex 311
2155
The Treaty of Peace and Amity of 1904, between Bolivia and Chile, was signed 24 years after the hostilities had ceased, and it can therefore hardly be claimed that it was imposed by force, particularly given the fact that in it, Chile accepts a series of obligations, which my country has faithfully complied
[p 226]
with. Bolivia enjoys conditions that are much superior than those granted in the United Nations to States without a coastline, notwithstanding the fact that we believe that it is possible to modernize even more the understandings that result from the treaties that the two countries have signed. The transit facilities granted by its neighbors, and by Chile in particular, are greater than those granted to any other country without a coast. It goes without saying that our country grants the broadest access to the sea through the transit facilities that are at its disposal in perpetuity under the Treaty.
We therefore hope, madam President, that the member States will understand this issue so that what is being accomplished at the bilateral level will not be hindered, because we are convinced that there are important aspects of cooperation and understanding between Chile and Bolivia. The discussion of this issue by the Organization of American States again calls into question the principles of inviolability of treaties and faithful compliance with them, territorial integrity and non-intervention in matters of exclusive sovereignty of other States, which peaceful coexistence and the very inter-American system are grounded upon.
I mean to say, madam President, that presently the relations between Chile and Bolivia are developing on a basis of reciprocal dialogue, in a creative and constructive spirit, which has permitted us to accomplish valuable initiatives towards rapprochement in multiple fields of the relationship existing between our nations.
In particular, I want to highlight some important advances made in the most recent period, during the presidencies of Sánchez de Lozada and Eduardo Frei.
The Political Consultations Mechanism, which was created in 1993, has been an effective mechanism for dialogue, in which a wide range of topics has been discussed, identifying and seeking solutions to the problems that affect the bilateral relationship and hinder greater rapprochement.
The economic relationship has been fruitful in the context of the Economic Cooperation Agreement between Chile and Bolivia: agreements have been signed for the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments, for the promotion of exports, on phytosanitary issues, and other agreements are being negotiated.
In terms of physical integration, Chile has finished paving the highway between Arica and the Bolivian border and is waiting for Bolivia to finish paving the section between that point and the capital of Bolivia, La Paz.
2156
Annex 311
With respect to consular matters, since the end of 1994, the system of passport registration for tourists from the two countries has been terminated, and in 1995, a Visa Exemption Agreement was signed for holders of diplomatic, official and special passports. At the initiative of President Eduardo Frei action has begun to promote rapprochement between the institutions of national defense and the police, in order to improve relations at the global level and generate greater trust.
These aspects are only some of the diverse matters and initiatives that the two countries have developed to benefit the bilateral relationship with the “profound conviction that the time has come for sincere, fruitful dialogue between the governments of the region to overcome the old walls of misunderstanding that separate our peoples and nations”. This quote is from the letter from President Sánchez de Lozada to
[p 227]
President Eduardo Frei, published in the press in both countries in March 1994.
In this context, Chile reaffirms its intention to favor a continuing and permanent relationship with its sister the Republic of Bolivia, with which there are so many ties that bind us, and it is our aim to enrich and strengthen this relationship by seeking constructive and imaginative mechanisms of constructive complementarity.
Madam President, this is why we want to emphasize that the measures agreed upon with Bolivia are in keeping with the spirit of Latin American unity promoted by Chile, which seeks to preserve, promote and strengthen, with new momentum, the harmony and understanding among the States in the Americas. My country, through its initiatives, shows the good will that drives it to seek relations with Bolivia. We should have a clear understanding that there is much more that unites us than there is that separates us and should remain firm in our desire to continue on the path we have already started down. An insistence on bringing this issue before multilateral fora can only affect the normal coexistence that in our opinion we maintain. Thank you very much, madam President.
Annex 312
Minutes of the Third Meeting of the Political Consultations Mechanism, 11 June 1995
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2157
2158
Annex 312
Annex 312
2159
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MINUTES
A meeting of the Political Consultation Mechanism was held in the city of Cochabamba, on 11 June 1995, between the National Secretary of International Relations and Worship of Bolivia and the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs of Chile, at which the following issues were discussed and agreed:
I. Port aspects.
On the basis of the points contained in the Minutes of the Bi-National Technical Meeting signed in the city of Santiago on 31 May 1995, the Deputy Foreign Ministers agreed to the following:
a) Delinking of AADAA and EMPORCHI.
The following schedule will be followed with respect to undoing the commercial link between AADAA and EMPORCHI:
1. Export goods. Beginning 1 July 1995, transport in the ports of Arica and Antofagasta will be contracted freely.
2. Transport of wheat in transit to Bolivia. Beginning 1 July 1995, the transport service may be freely contracted in these ports.
3. Other imports. On 31 December 1995, the exclusive commercial link between AADAA and EMPORCHI will end. Therefore, beginning 1 January 1996, Bolivian users may freely contract transport services in the ports mentioned above, without prejudice to the provisions of the current agreements between the two countries and the provisions of Bolivian law.
2160
Annex 312
Annex 312
2161
4. Beginning 1 July 1995, EMPORCHI will reduce 50% of the difference between the current transport rates and the cost of external subcontracting.
5. Beginning 1 July 1995, EMPORCHI will eliminate the current surcharge for volumes greater than 10 tons.
The foregoing points mean that beginning on the dates indicated in each of them, all of EMPORCHI’s rates in force between the two institutions, as set forth in Resolutions 13 and 14 of 15 March 1993 (a copy of which is attached to these minutes), will no longer apply.
6. Beginning 1 July 1995, AADAA will reduce 50% of the excess between the direct costs and its current rates.
7. In order to implement the agreements reached at this Meeting, both Deputy Ministers agree to instruct the relevant institutions to call and coordinate under their direction, a Meeting of the Integrated Transit System for 11 and 12 August of this year.
II. Evaluation meeting.
In order to evaluate compliance with the items indicated in the previous paragraphs, the Deputy Ministers agreed to hold a meeting of this Mechanism during the month of November 1995.
III. Private Investment in the Ports of Arica and Antofagasta.
Both Authorities welcomed with satisfaction the proposal whereby EMPORCHI “indicated that spaces are available in the Port of Arica for private Bolivian investment in infrastructure for storage of minerals prior to shipment, imported minerals and imported and exported grains”.
To this end, the Chilean Foreign Ministry provided all documentation about the terms of these investments.
2162
Annex 312
Annex 312
2163
The Deputy Ministers stated their desire to follow up on this issue at the next Meeting of the Political Consultation Mechanism.
IV. Establishment of Working Group.
Having been informed of the progress of the work on the international road in Tambo Quemado, the Deputy Ministers decided to establish a Working Group, coordinated by the two Foreign Ministries, which will submit, as soon as possible, proposals to make the movement of persons and cargo at the border more fluid.
[Signed]
Mariano Fernández Amunátegui
UNDERSECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC
OF CHILE
[Signed]
Jaime Aparicio Otero
NATIONAL UNDERSECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND WORSHIP OF THE REPUBLIC
OF BOLIVIA
2164
Annex 313
Empresa Portuaria de Chile, Resolution No 99, 26 December 1996
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2165
2166
Annex 313
Annex 313
2167
FINANCES AND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND CONCESSIONS
No. 344
REF. SETS PORT RATES FOR THE SERVICES THAT EMPORCHI PROVIDES TO CARGO IN TRANSIT COMING FROM OR BOUND FOR BOLIVIA
No. 99
VALPARAISO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the understanding reached at the meeting of the Political Consultations Mechanism held in Cochabamba between the National Secretary of International Relations and Worship of Bolivia and the Chilean Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs on 11 July [sic] 1995; the agreements executed by the representatives of the Empresa Portuaria de Chile [EMPORCHI] and Bolivia’s Autonomous Administration of Customs Warehouses in the context of the Technical Conference held in Viña del Mar on 13 September 1996, with regard to the new rate and service regime applicable to international cargo in transit to or from Bolivia through the ports of Arica and Antofagasta; the need to repeal Supreme Decree (TT. and TT.) No. 11 of 1993, T.R.C. dated 12 March 1993, as amended by Supreme Decrees (TT. and TT.) No. 73 of 1993, T.R.C. dated 4 June 1993 and No. 165 of 1995, T.R.C. dated 12 July 1995; Supreme Decree (TT. and TT.) No. 347 dated 31 October 1996, T.R.C. dated 12 December 1996; whereby the Port Company Director was authorized to set port rates applicable to cargo in transit to or from Bolivia; Resolution No. 0514 dated 14 November 1996, establishing the Director’s role as acting officer, the provision of Section 14(1) of D.F.L. No. 290 of 1960, the text of which has been reinstated, coordinated and organized by means of Supreme Decree (TT. and TT.) No. 91 of 1978, I hereby issue the following:
RESOLUTION
1. The following rates for the services that Empresa Portuaria de Chile provides to international cargo in transit coming to and from Bolivia are hereby ESTABLISHED.
ART. 1 Cargo Docking Service US$0.85 per ton
This rate will apply to all cargo the freight rates of which have been agreed on FIO conditions or to those goods in respect of which payment for loading and unloading services must be made by the consignee.
2168
Annex 313
Annex 313
2169
ART. 2 Storage Service for General Cargo and Bulk Cargo
Import Free for 365 days, with respect to cargo that is stored in the storage areas, taking into account the agreements on mobile metering concluded between AADAA and EMPORCHI
Export Free for 60 days
ART. 3 Storage Service for Immediate Shipping Cargo
Import (Dollars per ton)
From day 1 to 5 1.04
From day 6 to 10 2.10
From day 11 to 15 2.57
From day 16 to 20 3.27
From day 21 to 25 3.97
From day 26 to 30 5.60
For each 5 day period exceeding
30 days and up to 60 days 7.70
For each 5 day period exceeding
60 days and up to 90 days 10.96
For each 5 day period exceeding
90 days 19.59
Export (Dollars per ton)
From day 1 to 5 0.68
From day 6 to 10 1.37
From day 11 to 15 1.67
From day 16 to 20 2.13
From day 21 to 25 2.58
From day 26 to 30 3.64
For each 5 day period exceeding
30 days and up to 60 days 5.01
2170
Annex 313
Annex 313
2171
For each 5 day period exceeding
60 days and up to 90 days 7.12
For each 5 day period exceeding
90 days 12.73
ART. 4 Goods or items stored in the patios and esplanades shall pay 50% of the rates established for the service described in Article 3.
ART. 5 The cargo docking service consists of the provision of the infrastructure of the dock aprons and the corresponding maintenance and conservation of the same; facilities, lighting, craneways etc, which allow the infrastructure to be operational to undertake loading and unloading procedures from and to the vessels.
ART. 6 The storage service is that provided to goods or items that are stored for the purpose of loading them or unloading them onto a vessel. Empresa Portuaria de Chile will be responsible for the loss and damage these stored goods or items may suffer, according to legislation in force, from the moment it physically receives them (with their corresponding paperwork) until their delivery, in the same way, to the shipper, consignee or legal representative.
The reception of goods by the port occurs at the place of storage, when the goods are physically handed by the shipper, duly classified and stocked. To that effect, the shipping agent, Emporchi and the consignee or its legal representative will sign a document.
ART. 7 The storage service provided to goods or items stored in the port warehouses will begin from the date the reception ticket is issued.
ART. 8 The storage rate is cumulative, which means that when a series of periods concur, the sum of all of them will indicate the amount that must be paid.
2172
Annex 313
Annex 313
2173
ART. 9 Immediate shipping cargo is that cargo the storage of which is deemed hazardous, conditional or forbidden, or cargo that, due to its nature, the Company determines cannot be stored at the port. Subject to prior approval of the port manager, certain immediate shipping cargo may be exceptionally stored.
ART. 10 Goods in transit may not remain at the port for a period longer than one year, starting from the date of submission of the manifest of the vessel. Upon expiration of the one year period, the Bolivian Customs Directorate shall order their shipment to Bolivia or their delivery to the Chilean Customs so the goods can be auctioned as abandoned goods.
ART. 11 When goods or items need to be retrieved from the port and their retrieval cannot be carried out for reasons exclusively attributable to the port manager, the time during which the retrieval is not possible will not be counted towards determining the storage fees.
ART. 12 The free-of-charge period for unloaded goods or items will be 365 days when they are stored in warehouses, deposits or patios reserved for the storage of Bolivian goods. When these goods are stored in areas reserved for the storage of Chilean cargo, the free-of-charge period will be 60 days. Upon expiration of both periods, storage of these goods will be charged at the rates set forth in Supreme Decree No. 125 of 1990, of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications of Chile, published on 11 January 1991.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the port administrator will consider the total area for storage of Bolivian cargo in a “mobile metering” manner, whenever it deems it necessary and for operational reasons, as long as the total surface area for the port is not altered.
With the purpose of avoiding the double handling resulting from moving cargo between the Bolivian and Chilean areas, a strict daily schedule will be established in order to ensure definitive storage, in accordance with the previously defined procedure.
ART.13 Goods or items deemed as immediate shipping cargo, under the terms of Article 9, are not subject to the free-of-charge provisions of Article 12.
2174
Annex 313
Annex 313
2175
ART. 14 The port manager may agree with Bolivian users for cargo intended to be loaded or unloaded to be kept in the ports. The location, surface area required, prices and other conditions will be agreed between the parties and must be written down in a document called a storage agreement, which must be signed by both parties. These contracts take precedence over the rates set forth for storage services, except for the provisions governing the liability of the Empresa Portuaria de Chile and applicable customs laws, particularly with respect to storage periods.
ART. 15 The port shall not be responsible for any loss or damage suffered by goods or items that, having been officially delivered to their owner, consignees or representatives, remain at the port premises, whether on the surface, railway cars, trucks or vehicles employed to take the cargo outside the port.
Likewise, the port shall not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by goods or items to be shipped that, having been entered into the port and remaining in the surface, railway cars, trucks or vehicles, have not been officially handed over to the port, in the place for storage reserved for such purpose.
ART. 16 Use of the port facilities and services constitutes acceptance of the rates, regulations and all relevant administrative provisions, which will be indicated promptly and on a continuous basis.
ART. 17 Users must provide the port manager with invoices for the services performed, and the port manager must, in turn, give notice of the collection document, which must be paid within fourteen days from the date of issuance of the invoice.
ART. 18 Everything that is not incompatible with the provisions of the preceding articles, and for all the services, rates and matters not covered by such provisions, the general regulatory and rate regime for the services provided by Empresa Portuaria de Chile will apply to international goods in transit coming from or bound for Bolivia at the Ports of Arica and Antofagasta and for the means of transportation employed.
2176
Annex 313
Annex 313
2177
2. This Resolution shall enter into force on the day following publication in the Official Gazette.
3. Pursuant to Numeral 2 of the Supreme Decree (TT. and TT.) No. 347 dated 31 October 1996, T.R.C. dated 12 December 1996, from the date established in the foregoing numeral 2, the Supreme Decree (TT. and TT.) No. 11 of 1993, T.R.C. dated 12 March 1993, as amended by Supreme Decrees (TT. and TT.) No. 73 of 1993, T.R.C. dated 4 June 1993 and No. 165 of 1995, T.R.C. dated 12 July 1995, is hereby REPEALED.
4. TEMPORARY PROVISION: Any cargo currently undergoing loading, unloading, storage or other operations subject to the payment of fees, shall be charged according to the Fees and Regulations which were in force at the time the vessel started operations or the goods first entered by land to the port’s enclosure.
The same procedure shall apply to any cargo coming into the port’s enclosure before this resolution becomes effective.
LET THIS RESOLUTION BE RECORDED, SENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL FOR LEGALITY CONTROLS, REGISTERED, NOTIFIED AND PUBLISHED.
[Signed]
HERNAN QUINTANA SEPULVEDA
Attorney
Acting Director
DBR/NPK/mmm
Distributed to:
-
Regional Comptroller’s Office
-
ARI and ANF representatives
-
Internal Control Office
-
Legal Department
-
Administration and Finance Department
-
Official Gazette
-
Coordination Office
-
Offices of the Parties
2178
Annex 314
Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of the Political Consultations Mechanism, 21 March 1997
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2179
2180
Annex 314
Annex 314
2181
5TH MEETING OF THE CHILE-BOLIVIA POLITICAL CONSULTATION MECHANISM
On 20 and 21 March 1997, in the city of Iquique, the Chilean Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, Mariano Fernández, and the Bolivian National Secretary of International Relations and Worship, Jaime Aparicio, and their respective delegations, met in the context of the existing Political Consultations Mechanism between the two countries.
The Chilean Delegation consisted of the Director of Neighborhood Affairs and South America, Ambassador Emilio Ruiz-Tagle; the General Consul of Chile in Bolivia, Ambassador Oscar Fuentes; the Director of Bilateral Economic Affairs, Manuel Valencia; Ambassador Humberto Palza; the Director of Borders, Fernando Silva; the Commercial Attaché of Chile in Bolivia, Rigoberto García; the Chief of Staff of the Undersecretary of Public Works, Felipe Ernst, and the First Secretary, Carlos Olguín Cigarroa.
The Bolivian Delegation consisted of the Consul General of Bolivia in Chile, Ambassador Hermán Antelo; the Director of South America, Roberto Prudencio; the Consul General of Bolivia in Arica, Ramiro Prudencio; the Chief of Staff of the Vice-Minister, Alberto Pinto, and the Consul of Bolivia in Iquique, Fernán Andrade.
During the course of this meeting, the two Vice-Ministers took stock of the various aspects included in the bilateral agenda and evaluated, satisfactorily, the level of agility and monitoring ability of the Political Consultation Mechanism with respect to the matters entrusted to it as a priority.
An analysis of the various specific matters showed the following:
a) Bilateral trade:
Both Vice-Foreign Ministers reiterated their intention to continue developing trade and investment between the two countries, while at the same time attempting to overcome the current imbalance between them, and to this end then agreed to call a meeting of the Administrative Commission for the Agreement of Economic Complementation, for 1 and 2 May, in Santiago. This meeting will have a broad mandate to evaluate the immediate steps to be taken to better achieve these purposes.
b) Private Investment in the Ports of Arica and Antofagasta:
Both Vice-Foreign Ministers ratified the agreements on this matter in the Cochabamba Agreement of 1995, and announced that the ports of Arica and Antofagasta are open to Bolivian private investment, which will facilitate investments in infrastructure. Undersecretary Mariano Fernández requested Bolivian investors interested in investing in the ports of Arica and Antofagasta to be informed of this announcement.
Both authorities noted with satisfaction the installation of the Bolivian company NARITA in the port of Arica, in response to the positive investment conditions in that port.
2182
Annex 314
Annex 314
2183
c) Arica-La Paz Railroad:
In compliance with prior agreements, Undersecretary Fernández informed his Bolivian counterpart of the upcoming bidding process for the lease of the Arica-La Paz Railroad for a period of 25 years. He said that the company which takes over the railroad must guarantee that it will operate on a continuous basis, in order to meet the obligations assumed in the Treaty of Peace and Amity of 1904. He also asked that interested Bolivian investors be informed of this fact, so that they can participate in the bidding process.
d) Collection of minerals:
Undersecretary Mariano Fernández informed Vice-Foreign Minister Jaime Aparicio about the progress made in the work to develop mineral collection sites in Arica and Antofagasta. In this regard, he stated that the Chilean Government had acquired the Punta Condori land in Arica and has the resources to authorize it.
As for the Portezuelo site, located in Antofagasta, he said that it will soon be authorized and available. At the request of Vice-Foreign Minister Aparicio, a working meeting was agreed on the terms set forth in the Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of the Bolivia-Chile Joint Technical Group, in order to analyze the situation and find solutions to the collection of minerals in Antofagasta.
e) Air transport:
The Bolivian Vice-Foreign Minister noted the open sky policy with Chile, which promotes interchange between the two countries. They also noted the high level of efficiency and cooperation reached in this area.
f) Scientific and technical cooperation:
Both Vice-Foreign Ministers agreed to give the Scientific and Technical Cooperation Agreement between the two countries a renewed boost and committed to develop specific programs in various areas, and particularly those related to increasing the competitiveness of Bolivian exports to the Chilean market, such as tropical agricultural exports in particular, which was especially emphasized by the Bolivian Vice-Foreign Minister.
g) Cultural aspects:
The Vice-Foreign Ministers reiterated their intention to make progress on cooperation and cultural exchanges between the two countries, with a view towards signing an agreement in the future to stimulate the growth of these areas.
h) Border facilitation:
Each of the Vice-Foreign Ministers signed agreements creating the Frontier Committees in Tambo Quemado (Arica-La Paz highway) and Colchane (Iquique-Oruro highway), with the conviction that this will help facilitate the transit of tourists and goods, and will also contribute to border integration, by reducing the formalities and time spent at border crossings.
2184
Annex 314
Annex 314
2185
They also agreed to make headway with establishing Integrated Border Complexes for even greater facilitation of transit on international roads.
At the Bolivian party’s request, Undersecretary Fernández agreed to take action to authorize the Tocorpuri border crossing.
i) Tourism:
Both authorities noted with satisfaction the significant increase in tourism between the two countries, and agreed to take specific action to maximize the efficiency of the transit of persons, border formalities, joint tourism programs, money exchange, documentation, etc.
They also agreed to give both Frontier Committees the mandate of finding practical solutions to facilitating the transit of tourists from each of the two countries and from other countries.
j) Elimination of diplomatic visas:
The Vice-Foreign Ministers agreed to speed up their respective internal formalities to eliminate Diplomatic Visas.
Iquique, 21 March 1997.
[Signed]
Mariano Fernández
Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs
of Chile
[Signed]
Jaime Aparicio
Vice-Minister of International Relations
and Worship of Bolivia
2186
Annex 314
Annex 314
2187
RECORD OF CONSTITUTION OF THE CHILE-BOLIVIA
FRONTIER COMMITTEE OF TAMBO QUEMADO
In the city of Iquique, Republic of Chile, on 21 March 1997, the Frontier Committee of Tambo Quemado was constituted as provided in the minutes of the 5th Meeting of the Political Consultations Mechanism.
The purpose of the Frontier Committee of Tambo Quemado will be to promote border facilitation and coordination by formulating cooperative measures that will facilitate the transit of persons, vehicles and merchandise across the common border, and to promote communication and tourism and the exchange of culture, sports, the arts and sciences between Bolivia and Chile.
The Chairmanship of the Committee will alternate between the Consuls of each country, who will preside over the meetings held within their respective jurisdictions. The Vice Chairmanship will be held by the consular official of the host country.
The Committee’s operations will be governed by a set of regulations to be prepared in due time by mutual agreement, and to be approved through the respective Foreign Ministries.
This Record was signed by Mr. Mariano Fernández, Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of Chile, and by Mr. Jaime Aparicio, Vice-Minister of International Relations and Worship, on behalf of Bolivia.
[Signed]
MARIANO FERNÁNDEZ
Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs of Chile
[Signed]
JAIME APARICIO
Vice-Minister of International Relations
and Worship of Bolivia
2188
Annex 314
Annex 314
2189
RECORD OF CONSTITUTION OF THE CHILE-BOLIVIA FRONTIER
COMMITTEE OF COLCHANE-PISIGA
In the city of Iquique, Republic of Chile, on 21 March 1997, the Frontier Committee of Colchane-Pisiga was constituted as provided in the minutes of the 5th Meeting of the Political Consultations Mechanism.
The purpose of the Frontier Committee of Colchane-Pisiga will be to promote border facilitation and coordination by formulating cooperative measures that will facilitate the transit of persons, vehicles and merchandise across the common border, and to promote communication and tourism and the exchange of culture, sports, the arts and sciences between Bolivia and Chile.
The Chairmanship of the Committee will alternate between the Consuls of each country, who will preside over the meetings held within their respective jurisdictions. The Vice Chairmanship will be held by the consular official of the host country.
The Committee’s operations will be governed by a set of regulations to be prepared in due time by mutual agreement, and to be approved through the respective Foreign Ministries.
This Record was signed by Mr. Mariano Fernández, Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of Chile, and by Mr. Jaime Aparicio, Vice-Minister of International Relations and Worship, on behalf of Bolivia.
[Signed]
MARIANO FERNÁNDEZ
Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs
of Chile
[Signed]
JAIME APARICIO
Vice-Minister of International Affairs
and Worship of Bolivia
2190
Annex 315
Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the Political Consultations Mechanism, 9 February 1998
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2191
2192
Annex 315
Annex 315
2193
MINUTES OF THE 6TH MEETING OF THE POLITICAL CONSULTATIONS MECHANISM
Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 9 February 1998
The Delegations were headed by Dr. Fernando Messmer, the Bolivian Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Chilean Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Mariano Fernández. A list of both Delegations is attached to these minutes.
The following topics were analyzed in the course of the Meeting:
COLLECTION OF LEAD CONCENTRATES:
With regard to this point, the Chilean Delegation delivered a letter signed by Undersecretary Fernández on behalf of his Government, informing the Bolivian Government of the reasons why in the future, dirty bulk (and particularly lead concentrates) must be stored in non-urban areas far from the population centers.
In that note, the Chilean Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs reported that the place defined by the Chilean authorities for future storage is the Portezuelo station of FCAB. The note specifies the arrangements that will result in proper authorization of that storage facility, which will permit proper handling, storage, protection and treatment of minerals in transit to the Port, all of this under conditions that do not result in greater costs to Bolivian exporters than those they currently incur. The authorization of the site must be funded by Chile.
The Chilean Delegation also offered the guarantee that while the storage site referred to above is being authorized, the free transit of Bolivian lead concentrates will not be hindered in any way. In this transition period, a flow of information on the volumes to be exported will be maintained so that FCAB can take the necessary action to schedule the storage and shipments.
The Bolivian Delegation stated that in their opinion, the more effective and immediate alternative in the short term to ensure the free transit of the lead concentrates and to best prevent environmental pollution is to use the Bolivian Transit Cargo Warehouse in the port area of Antofagasta.
The Bolivian Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Fernando Messmer, in turn delivered a note to the Chilean Delegation informing them of Bolivia’s point of view and the concerns of the Bolivian Government about this issue, emphasizing that in order to reach a mutually agreeable solution that preserves all of Bolivia’s rights to free transit, and with understanding for the environmental health conditions in Antofagasta, the Bolivian Government accepts the guarantees offered in its note for the storage and shipment of lead concentrates currently in Chilean territory and agrees that it be sent when the storage site in Portezuelo is authorized in 60 days, which, in accordance with the
2194
Annex 315
Annex 315
2195
written commitment, must be equipped with electricity, industrial energy and lighting in general, drinking and industrial water, and room for the current and future storage requirements; fences for proper protection of the concentrates and prevention of loss to guarantee the different products of the various companies and finally the asphalting of the floors to prevent contamination and losses.
As stated in the letter from Ambassador Fernández to Vice-Minister Messmer, the Chilean Government guarantees that there will be no additional costs to Bolivian exporters of lead concentrate, in comparison with the current costs.
The Bolivian Government proposes a Commission to monitor this Agreement, the first meeting of which would have to be held within 15 days.
The Bolivian Government believes that this bilateral Commission should have the authority to verify the re-establishment of free transit (transport, storage and shipment) of the lead minerals, and to evaluate the authorization conditions and the quality of the infrastructure of the Portezuelo storage site.
Both letters are an integral part of these Minutes.
FRONTIER COMMITTEES.
The Delegations agreed on the need to set up the Tambo Quemado and Pisiga-Colchane Frontier Committees, as agreed at the 5th Meeting of the Political Consultation Mechanism in March 1997. Before doing so, they agreed to exchange opinions on the role and authority of each Committee, on the basis of notes already exchanged between the two governments.
LAW TO MODERNIZE THE STATE-OWNED PORT SECTOR IN CHILE.
The Chilean Delegation gave a presentation of Law 19542, which modernizes the state-owned port sector in Chile. The Chilean Delegation stated that this law does not affect in any way the Free Transit treaties in effect, as agreed between the two States.
The Chilean Government announced that it will respond to the Verbal Note No. 63/97 from the Consulate General of Bolivia in Chile, of 1 December 1997, about the decentralization and privatization of the Chilean ports.
2196
Annex 315
Annex 315
2197
When the meeting was over, the Presidents of both Delegations agreed that the Monitoring Commission, mentioned above, would meet in 15 days to verify the storage and shipment in process and the authorization of Portezuelo. They also agreed to hold the next meeting of the Political Consultation Mechanism within 60 days in Antofagasta, on the occasion of the start-up of the storage site.
Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 9 February 1998
[Signed]
Dr. Fernando Messmer Trigo
VICE-MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BOLIVIA
[Signed]
Dr. Mariano Fernández Amunátegui
UNDERSECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF BOLIVIA
2198
Annex 315
Annex 315
2199
REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND WORSHIP
Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 9 February 1998
Mr. Mariano Fernández Amunátegui
Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs
Hand Delivery.
Distinguished Undersecretary:
With respect to your note of 9 February 1998, I would like to express my concern regarding the suspension of shipment of lead concentrates last December in the city of Antofagasta by decision of the local authorities, in violation of the international Free Transit treaties governing the relations between our two countries. I would also like to point out that the agreements reached at the meeting of the Political Consultation Mechanism in 1993 have not been put into practice with respect to storage of lead concentrates in Portezuelo, nor have the agreements reached at the meeting in Antofagasta, between the delegations presided over by Ambassador Emilio Ruiz Tagle, the Director of the Latin America Division of the Foreign Ministry, and Ambassador Mariano Baptista, the Consul General of Bolivia in Santiago, held on 15 January 1998.
Nevertheless, in order to reach a mutually agreeable solution that preserves Bolivia’s rights to Free Transit and protects the environmental health conditions in Antofagasta, the Bolivian Government accepts the guarantees offered in your note for the storage and shipment of lead concentrates currently in Chilean territory and the volumes sent when the storage site in Portezuelo is authorized in 60 days.
In accordance with your written commitment, that site must be equipped with electricity, industrial energy and lighting in general, drinking and industrial water, and room for the current and future storage requirements; fences for proper protection of the concentrates and prevention of loss to guarantee the different products of the various companies and finally the asphalting of the floors to prevent contamination and losses.
It is understood that the Chilean Government guarantees that there will be no additional costs to Bolivian exporters of lead concentrates in comparison with those in effect until December 1997.
The Bolivian Government proposes a Monitoring and Evaluation Committee for this agreement, the first meeting of which should be held within 15 days.
This Bilateral Commission should have authority to verify the re-establishment of free transit (transport, storage and shipment) of the lead minerals, and to evaluate the authorization conditions and the quality of the infrastructure of the Portezuelo storage site.
Sincerely yours. [Signed]
Lic. Fernando Messmer Trigo
Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship
2200
Annex 315
Annex 315
2201
Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 9 February 1998
To the Vice-Minister of
Foreign Affairs and Worship
Mr. Fernando Messmer Trigo
Hand Delivery.
Dear Mr. Messmer:
With respect to the health and environmental problems generated by the storage of dirty bulk, and in particular lead concentrates, in the urban area of the city of Antofagasta, especially in the port area and in the FCAB yards, and with respect to the comments you made at our meeting today on this topic, I would like to inform you of the following:
a) The Chilean Government has determined that a site will be authorized in Portezuelo for the storage of dirty bulk at no additional cost to Bolivian exporters. The site will be operational within 60 days.
b) It is understood that merchandise will be transferred from Portezuelo to the Port using the FCAB railroad system. This does not prevent interested parties from using other systems than the one indicated that they deem commercially acceptable, as long as they comply with the requirements of public health and environmental protection, in which case any additional costs will be borne by the users.
c) The authorization of the Portezuelo Station contemplates the following measures: electricity, water service, disposal of office wastewater, waterproof carpet, and of course, installation of a protection network around the perimeter, as well as a division of the [illegible], to facilitate the protection of the storage and prevent any loss. The installations will be monitored on a continuous basis.
d) In the period during which the site in the Portezuelo station is being authorized, the Chilean government will ensure that lead concentrates can be exported at the same level of protection and fluidity.
e) In order to provide efficient service during this period, the Chilean Government expects Bolivian exporters to provide information as soon as possible about the volume of lead cargo to be transported during the period.
Sincerely yours.
[Signed]
MARIANO FERNÁNDEZ AMUNÁTEGUI
UNDERSECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
2202
Annex 316
Minutes of the Third Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 2 June 1998
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Twenty-Eighth Regular Session, 1999, Proceedings, Vol. II, OEA/Ser.P/XXVIII-O.2 (1999),
pp 79-80 and 87-94
2203
2204
Annex 316
[p 79]
MINUTES OF THE THIRD PLENARY MEETING
Date: 2 June 1998
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Venue: Hotel Caracas Hilton
President: Mr. Miguel Ángel Burelli Rivas
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela
In attendance:
Kingsley C.A. Layne (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines)
Erroll Snijders (Suriname)
Ralph Maraj (Trinidad and Tobago)
Didier Opertti Badán (Uruguay)
Francisco Paparoni (Venezuela)
Lionel A. Hurst (Antigua and Barbuda)
Guido Di Tella (Argentina)
Janet G. Bostwick (The Bahamas)
Billie A. Miller, M.P. (Barbados)
James S. Murphy (Belize)
Javier Murillo de la Rocha (Bolivia)
Luis Felipe Lampreia (Brazil)
Peter M. Boehm (Canada)
José Miguel Insulza Salinas (Chile)
Camilo Reyes Rodríguez (Colombia)
Elaine White Gómez (Costa Rica)
Edward Alexander (Dominica)
Abelardo Posso Serrano (Ecuador)
Mauricio Granillo Barrera (El Salvador)
Madeleine K. Albright (United States of America)
Denis Antoine (Grenada)
Eduardo Stein Barillas (Guatemala)
Clement Rohee (Guyana)
Albert Chassagne (Haiti)
J. Fernando Martínez (Honduras)
Anthony Hylton (Jamaica)
Rosario Green (Mexico)
Emilio Álvarez Montalván (Nicaragua)
Ivette Franco Koroneos (Panama)
Leila Rachid Lichi (Paraguay)
Eduardo Ferrero Costa (Peru)
Eduardo Latorre (Dominican Republic)
Osbert Liburd (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
George W. Odlum (Saint Lucia)
Annex 316
2205
[p 80]
César Gaviria (OAS Secretary General)
Christopher R. Thomas (Assistant Secretary General)
[...]
[p 87]
5. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia
The PRESIDENT: We will now move on to discuss item V on the agenda concerning the report on the maritime problem of Bolivia. I would like to invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Bolivia to take the floor and address the matter.
[p 88]
The HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OF BOLIVIA: Thank you. Mr. President, Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Representatives:
We recently assembled at the Hemispheric Summit in Santiago. There we examined the progress our countries have made towards achieving the goals we set of building a community of interests with strong foundations and shared aspirations. This was done in the context of current and future challenges, the demands of our peoples, and the immediate need to provide them with concrete answers.
We are agreed that the fundamental instrument for responding to these challenges that are the integrative processes that characterize the destiny of our time. We must therefore reflect deeply on the need to strengthen these processes. We must ensure they are coherent, since they represent a potential path to peaceful development for our peoples, a path guided by common objectives and one that promotes common ideals while building a community of nations.
But we must expand the horizons of our coexistence if we are to reach that goal. From a philosophical standpoint, integration tends to eliminate barriers, uniting the many into one, joined by a yearning for the same destiny. That is the future we wish for our Hemisphere.
We would thus like to see an integration that is not based on privileges or procrastination, that does not accentuate differences, and that does not entrench injustice. That type of integration would take us down the wrong road and would be a false path, a path to confusion.
2206
Annex 316
Integration must go beyond economic frontiers; rather than merely eliminating trade barriers, it must cast a wider net and also erase legal and political barriers, which are the great obstacles to understanding among peoples and States. We must overcome the past and renew the present in order to progress towards a better future.
In our view, integration should encompass not only expanded economic activity, but expanded political dialogue. That is the true meaning of integration and its most important impact, Mr. President, distinguished colleagues.
Our Organization has much to do in this area. The OAS would not be fulfilling its true role if it failed to address the serious problems and the serious answers to those problems.
But we ourselves have limited the OAS, entrusting it with the mission of nurturing Inter-American ideals, but not giving it the power to translate these ideals into concrete action. If we had done so, this report would be different.
In October of 1979, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States decided to declare Bolivia’s sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean to be of permanent interest to the Continent. The countries of the Americas are interested in this problem owing not only to the many historical reasons that support my country’s claim, but also to a closer examination of the issues current at that time. The continued existence of this problem represents a risk to security on the Continent for reasons that need not be mentioned at the moment.
[p 89]
Today it could be – or should be – said that Bolivia’s continued confinement in the heart of the Continent is undoubtedly an obstacle to the creation of a greater regional economic sphere. It hinders the process, representing an unjust situation that destroys the coherence of the process both in practice and in principle. It therefore has an impact on our efforts towards integration. Mr. President, that is why the countries of the Americas are interested in, and willing to focus on, the more than a century-old dispute of the Pacific. I am profoundly grateful to this Assembly for their interest and attention to this matter.
Bolivia’s unwavering claim is based on historical, political, and economic considerations that no-one can undermine. Alongside the unquestionable underlying rights that support the need for Bolivia to develop in circumstances equal to those enjoyed by its sister nations on the Continent.
Annex 316
2207
Several studies, such as the one conducted by the United Nations Trade and Development Board in 1983 or those that guided the deliberations of the Cartagena Agreement Commission in 1979, have shown that landlocked status is a barrier to economic and social growth. Recently, a well-known Harvard University professor published an essay in which he revealed that a scientifically rigorous analysis shows that countries lacking access to the sea experience a 0.7 percent loss in annual growth, specifically as a result of this situation.
This means that if Bolivia had retained its sovereign connection to the Pacific, its production levels and growth rates would have been considerably higher than they have been. Of course, it also means that if this situation is corrected, my country will regain the potential for a higher growth rate, leading to improved living conditions for the population and an opportunity to take full advantage of the country’s geographic situation, and it would likewise allow us to make a more positive contribution to Latin American integration.
As part of this report, I present to the Assembly a technical analysis that demonstrates the cost of Bolivia’s landlocked situation. As can be seen from this analysis, the costs of Bolivia’s confinement over the last ten years total more than 4 billion dollars. This implies a significant loss in gross domestic product in Bolivia over nearly 120 years of being cut off from the sea, without even taking into account the loss of the vast natural resources of the littoral that were and are efficiently exploited by Chile. To give just one example, copper represents more than 35 percent of our neighbor’s exports. Therefore, Bolivia’s claim is also supported by the unquestionable weight of numbers.
The objective of achieving a hemispheric community faces another serious roadblock that must be removed. In an atmosphere of historic prejudices and resentments, it is difficult to imagine that our countries could integrate. Trade liberalization, a positive attitude towards investment and businessmen from other countries, the entry of experts, technicians, and workers from other nations, and the adoption of joint policies in sensitive areas such as those involved in the regional integration process, all demand a joint approach to current and future development, which can only be achieved by nations that have overcome their own pasts.
That is what is lacking between Bolivia and Chile, Mr. President, distinguished Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and Representatives. That is why we come to this General Assembly to claim a peaceful solution to the century-long confinement of my country. We do so not only impelled by the unimpeachable logic of a nation that was dispossessed of its maritime quality by a war it did not start, but also
2208
Annex 316
[p 90]
from the perspective of the next millennium. Our demand for maritime reintegration in this and all other fora is based on the constructive spirit of a nation that looks to the future without neglecting the lessons of the past, and on the desire to contribute to a promising future.
Nonetheless, I must confess that we are concerned that this Assembly could lose the authority with which it was originally established and become a ritual where the actors do no more than play the role imposed by the script, with one actor posing the demand and the other repeating that there are no pending problems. In such a context, the remaining actors can only express their interest in the efforts the parties have made or are making in attempting to resolve the difficulties they face, as if we were removed from the concerns of the Inter-American system, as if the resolutions we approve were no more than a record of good intentions and not – as they should be understood – an expression of the committed political will enjoining the OAS to fulfill one of its most important mandates: preventing the causes of potential difficulties and ensuring the resolution of disputes, while seeking to resolve the political, legal, or economic problems arising among member States. Given that this is set forth in the Charter, fulfillment of this mandate cannot in any way be considered incompatible with the authority of the States.
I am sure that was the spirit in which the Inter-American system supported the Bolivian cause in 1979 and declared it to be of permanent interest in 1989, and why it supported the cause of all of us here in the Americas who have faith in the goal of a great community of nations.
This is why it is urgent to eschew rhetoric, this is why other actors must be encouraged to participate more. But we know that this does not depend on the will of one State. Other member States must support these initiatives.
Mr. President, Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Representatives, this is why I would like to now propose to Chile, in the solemn setting of this Assembly under the auspices of the Inter-American system, that as soon as possible, we begin a process of joint reflection on the future of both nations, considering all the dimensions of binational and hemispheric integration, leading to an overarching framework for achieving a definitive solution to the problems we have inherited from the past, the most important being Bolivia’s maritime reintegration. We are not responsible for that past, but we are responsible for the present and the future, and we have no acceptable excuse for continuing to bequeath our disputes to coming generations. That reflection must be comprehensive, without prejudices or preconceptions, and it must permit us to deal with all the obstacles, political, historic, and legal, that impede the complementarity of our economies and societies. Such an analysis should not be limited to identifying problems, but should focus on discussing ways to resolve them.
Annex 316
2209
I suggest we not restrict this dialogue to the representatives of our governments, but that we include the principal institutions of civil society and the most notable figures of our nations in the task of exploring these paths.
Once again, it would be so much better if this work could be carried out under the aegis of this regional Assembly, and if possible, in its own venue! Of course, we are willing to consider any venue or procedure deemed appropriate for the process of consensus we are proposing.
[p 91]
We cannot see how anyone could oppose or mistrust a proposal that seeks only to contribute to an ever stronger and more united hemispheric coexistence. It would be an appropriate tribute to the OAS on its 50th anniversary. It would point the way for future action. We would finally have a direction and we would know whether we are fulfilling or deceiving the expectations we have placed in this regional Assembly as peoples and as States. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Foreign Minister. The Presidency salutes the high-level tone with which this problem has been presented and appreciates the efforts that the parties have been making to find an understanding.
I offer the floor to the Heads of Delegation who wish to address the topic. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile has the floor.
The HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OF CHILE: Mr. President, the speech just made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia compels me to reiterate certain points already noted by Chile in other OAS General Assemblies on this matter. Naturally, I do this on the understanding that this is for the sake of providing better information to the delegations, as Chile considers that the OAS Charter does not grant this Organization jurisdiction or a mandate to address issues that involve the sovereignty of its member States.
As the Ministers of Foreign Affairs here know, Chile and Bolivia do not have diplomatic relations at this time, since they were unilaterally severed by the government of Bolivia more than a decade ago. However, I would like to take this opportunity to state that Chile has no objections whatsoever to unconditionally renewing diplomatic relations whenever Bolivia is prepared to do so.
Of course, Chile has a different viewpoint from Bolivia, but Chile has always noted that this difference of opinion in no way prevents a renewal of dialogue or mutual relations. My country is not closed to dialogue and it does not set any conditions in this respect, nor does it ask Bolivia to renounce any pretension regarding this subject. I will note that there have been periods in which we have had fruitful dialogues with Bolivia; nonetheless, since the new administration that currently governs the country took office last August, Chile has not received any
2210
Annex 316
requests to discuss this issue.
We have attended all the international meetings and listened to these speeches without ever having been asked about the requests mentioned here, without once hearing “Let us restore relations, let us sit down and talk.” Is the intention that the OAS now open discussions in its assemblies on matters of sovereignty pending between its member States? As we see it, Chile has always been open to the possibility of bilateral dialogue and always will be.
Mr. President, the government of Chile has frequently stated that it considers that territorial issues and sovereignty between Chile and Bolivia were definitively resolved in the Treaty of Peace, Amity, and Commerce of 1904. I think it is important to note here that this treaty was signed 25 years after the war began. There were no Chilean troops or any other occupation forces in Bolivia and other treaties between the two countries had even been negotiated.
[p 92]
The Treaty of 1904 signed by the Bolivian government was ratified by the Congress of that country and – although this is incidental – the President who signed the Treaty was reelected later by an overwhelming majority of the Bolivian people.
So then, Mr. President, what exactly would this pending border dispute be? Chile believes that if we are to seriously deal with problems involving landlocked status, as well as access to the sea, first the existence of a border treaty that is fully in force must be recognized. My country understands that there are significant and serious questions related to access, and we are willing not only to talk about them, but to seek solutions.
I do not wish to bore the Heads of Delegation with figures on trade, investment, or exchanges of goods, services, and persons between Chile and Bolivia. I would simply like to say that the two countries are currently more connected than ever before through convenient highways and two rail lines, a concession over one of the latter having just been granted by the Chilean State to Bolivian businessmen for the main rail line that links Arica and La Paz.
In our country, laws that apply in border areas have been amended to allow Bolivians to possess property in border areas in Chile. There is an oil pipeline between Chile and Bolivia, access to which was facilitated by our country through a concession that we are currently in the process of renewing.
Chile and Bolivia have signed a Treaty for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, an Economic Complementation Agreement and agreements in the areas of tourism, scientific and technical cooperation, air transport, and the phytosanitary sector, and for establishing border committees.
Annex 316
2211
In recent years, Chilean businessmen have created projects in Bolivia worth some 300 million dollars. Trade is increasing and we have expressed our willingness to renegotiate a trade agreement with the Bolivian government specifically to improve the bilateral trade balance, because we believe that the imbalance should be corrected.
We recently approved the Port Modernization Law, which will allow any country, including Bolivia of course, to invest in sites on the Chilean coast and set up mooring piers there. In the case of Bolivia, we have an agreement – complemented by the Treaty of 1904 – that guarantees the broadest free trade and free transit of goods.
Recently, the Chilean State established, entirely at its own expense, a storage facility in the port of Antofagasta for Bolivian bulk exporters of zinc and lead. This storage facility is part of our international commitments. With respect to this issue, I would like to note that Chilean health authorities objected to putting this storage facility for polluting minerals in the Antofagasta city center, the very heart of the city. What country would allow storage of minerals in the heart of one of its cities? However, we solved the problem in less than three months and a new storage site for the Bolivian minerals was prepared, with the Chilean State assuming the operating costs.
Mr. President, based on these specific precedents, I would like to point out that Chile is willing to guarantee Bolivia unrestricted and unlimited access to Chile’s Pacific coast, but it is not willing to call into question matters relating to its national sovereignty.
[p 93]
In any case, I wish to repeat in this Assembly that Chile is always willing to continue holding talks on this issue. I would also like to inform the Ministers of Foreign Affairs that any recent lack of dialogue is not attributable to us.
Therefore, today I reiterate my willingness to hold bilateral talks with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia on these issues. However, Mr. President, I must insist that I would not be willing – because I do not consider it acceptable under the OAS Charter nor do I consider such a request justified – to permit any tutelage or supervision over the dialogue between sovereign countries, if they are truly willing to talk to each other. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Foreign Minister Insulza. I find that the dialogue has been good and constructive, keeping the height that this bilateral matter calls for. However, in light of the changes of a new order and an unstoppable process of integration, the Presidency cordially invites the parties to follow that path, so that this, which is so dear to hemispheric sentiment, can be
2212
Annex 316
harmoniously resolved between two countries so loved in the Hemisphere as Chile and Bolivia.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Bolivia has the floor.
The HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OF BOLIVIA: Thank you, Mr. President. It is likewise not my intention to spark a controversy, but I would like to offer certain clarifications, this being necessary to ensure that the information provided to this Assembly is complete.
In the first place, we are raising this issue because it has been declared of permanent hemispheric interest by the selfsame Organization of American States. There is no question of overstepping bounds; this is the fulfillment of a sovereign mandate in keeping with the authority of this Inter-American assembly.
The Treaty of 1904 has been mentioned frequently, and I would like to provide further clarification. The fact that Bolivia finally agreed to sign the Peace Treaty after twenty years is proof of the fierce reluctance of the governments and citizens of that time to accept the loss of the coastline. During those two decades, several attempts were made to negotiate that Treaty, but it was always under the same clauses that were finally imposed in 1904.
We must not forget that the Treaty was signed when the coast was under military occupation by Chile, as were the Bolivian customs facilities in the ports of Antofagasta and Arica, which were already under Chilean administration; the customs revenues were already flowing into Chilean coffers, thus strangling the Bolivian State. I will cease expounding these historical considerations, but we should have all the elements at hand in order to judge these matters.
As for the other opinions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, it is true that a free transit regime exists, but we have a different vision. We are not demanding ports or the possibility of convenient transit through territory that should undoubtedly be under Bolivian sovereignty. We are making a substantive claim to regain our maritime quality.
With reference to the other points, it is true that there is a significant flow of capital from Chile to Bolivia, and the flow of capital and the investments are welcome. That shows that the Bolivian people
[p 94]
feel no animosity, but are open to Chilean investments and economic activities. As for trade, the imbalance is very worrying and I hope that this can be remedied at this stage.
Annex 316
2213
As for the transit of minerals, we suffered enormous difficulties before a solution was found. During the last stage between December and April, Bolivian lead exporters lost approximately six million dollars owing to the difficulties noted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile.
I simply wanted to mention these elements to balance the picture this Assembly should have with respect to this report. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Foreign Minister of Bolivia.
[...]
2214
Annex 317
Bolivian Customs Law No 1990, 28 July 1999 (as amended in December 2015) (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
<http://www.cumbre.com.bo/procedimientos/LEY%20GENERAL%20DE%20ADUANAS.pd…;, pp 1-4, 11-13, 27, 31-32 and 36-38
2215
2216
Annex 317
LEY GENERAL DE ADUANAS
ADUANA NACIONAL
Página 1
LEY GENERAL DE ADUANAS
Ley N°1990 de 28 de julio de 1999
COMPILACIÓN ACTUALIZADA
CON MODIFICACIONES APROBADAS HASTA DICIEMBRE DE 2015
TÍTULO PRIMERO
PRINCIPIOS, OBJETO, ÁMBITO DE APLICACIÓN Y DEFINICIONES
CAPÍTULO ÚNICO
PRINCIPIOS, OBJETO, ÁMBITO DE APLICACIÓN Y DEFINICIONES
ARTÍCULO 1.- La presente Ley regula el ejercicio de la potestad aduanera y las
relaciones jurídicas que se establecen entre la Aduana Nacional y las personas naturales
o jurídicas que intervienen en el ingreso y salida de mercancías del territorio aduanero
nacional.
Asimismo, norma los regímenes aduaneros aplicables a las mercancías, las operaciones
aduaneras, los delitos y contravenciones aduaneros y tributarios y los procedimientos
para su juzgamiento.
La potestad aduanera es el conjunto de atribuciones que la ley otorga a la Aduana
Nacional, para el cumplimiento de sus funciones y objetivos, y debe ejercerse en estricto
cumplimiento de la presente Ley y del ordenamiento jurídico de la República.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 1, 22 y 26.
ARTÍCULO 2.- Todas las actividades vinculadas directa o indirectamente con el comercio
exterior, ya sean realizadas por entidades estatales o privadas, se rigen por los principios
de la buena fe y transparencia.
La presente Ley no restringe las facilidades de libre tránsito o las de tránsito fronterizo de
mercancías concedidas en favor de Bolivia o las que en el futuro se concedieran por
tratados bilaterales o multilaterales.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 2 y 3.
ARTÍCULO 3.- La Aduana Nacional es la institución encargada de vigilar y fiscalizar el
paso de mercancías por las fronteras, puertos y aeropuertos del país, intervenir en el
tráfico internacional de mercancías para los efectos de la recaudación de los tributos que
gravan las mismas y de generar las estadísticas de ese movimiento, sin perjuicio de otras
atribuciones o funciones que le fijen las leyes.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 5, 22, 24, 26 y 296.
Annex 317
2217
GENERAL LAW ON CUSTOMS
GENERAL LAW ON CUSTOMS
Law No. 1990 of 28 July 1999
UPDATED COMPILATION WITH AMENDMENTS APPROVED UNTIL DECEMBER 2015
TITLE I
PRINCIPLES, PURPOSE, SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND DEFINITIONS
SOLE CHAPTER
PRINCIPLES, PURPOSE, SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND DEFINITIONS
ARTICLE 1.- This Law governs the exercise of customs powers and the legal relationship of the National Customs Office with natural or legal persons who participate in the entry and exit of goods into and from the national customs territory.
In addition, it shall regulate the customs regimes applicable to goods, customs transactions, customs and tax-related misdemeanors and violations, and the procedures to prosecute them.
The scope of authority of the National Customs Office includes all powers vested upon it by law to comply with its goals and responsibilities. It shall be exercised in strict compliance with this Law and the Republic’s legal system.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Articles 1, 22, and 26.
ARTICLE 2.- All activities directly or indirectly related to international trade, whether carried out by public or private entities, shall be governed by the principles of good faith and transparency.
This Law shall not hinder the abilities for the free transit of goods or the transit of goods across the border which Bolivia is presently granted or those to which it may be entitled in the future pursuant to bilateral or multilateral treaties.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Articles 2 and 3.
ARTICLE 3.- The National Customs Office is the institution in charge of monitoring and overseeing the transit of goods through borders, national ports, and airports. It shall also collect all taxes levied on internationally traded goods and prepare statistical reports on international trade, notwithstanding any other powers and responsibilities provided for by law.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Articles 5, 22, 24, 26 and 296.
2218
Annex 317
ADUANA NACIONAL Página 2
ARTÍCULO 4.- El territorio aduanero, sujeto a la potestad aduanera y la legislación
aduanera boliviana, salvo lo dispuesto en Convenios Internacionales o leyes especiales,
es el territorio nacional y las áreas geográficas de territorios extranjeros donde rige la
potestad aduanera boliviana, en virtud a Tratados Internacionales suscritos por el Estado
boliviano.
Para el ejercicio de la potestad aduanera, el territorio aduanero se divide en Zona
Primaria y Zona Secundaria.
La Zona Primaria comprende todos los recintos aduaneros en espacios acuáticos o
terrestres destinados a las operaciones de desembarque, embarque, movilización o
depósito de las mercancías; las oficinas, locales o dependencias destinadas al servicio
directo de la Aduana Nacional, puertos, aeropuertos, caminos y predios autorizados para
que se realicen operaciones aduaneras. También están incluidos en el concepto anterior
los lugares habilitados por la autoridad como recintos de depósito aduanero, donde se
desarrollan las operaciones mencionadas anteriormente.
La Zona Secundaria es el territorio aduanero no comprendido en la zona primaria, y en la
que no se realizarán operaciones aduaneras. Sin embargo, la Aduana Nacional realizará,
cuando corresponda, las funciones de vigilancia y control aduanero a las personas,
establecimientos y depósitos de mercancías de distribución mayorista en ésta zona.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 4.
ARTÍCULO 5.- Para efectos de la presente Ley, se usarán las definiciones incluidas en el
Glosario de Términos Aduaneros y de Comercio Exterior que constan en el Anexo. El
Ministerio de Hacienda incorporará y actualizará las definiciones del Glosario, en función
de los avances registrados en la materia, recomendados por la Organización Mundial de
Comercio (OMC), la Organización Mundial de Aduanas (OMA) y los Acuerdos de
Integración Económica suscritos por Bolivia y ratificados por el Congreso Nacional.
TÍTULO SEGUNDO
RÉGIMEN TRIBUTARIO ADUANERO
CAPÍTULO I
LA OBLIGACIÓN TRIBUTARIA ADUANERA Y
LAS OBLIGACIONES DE PAGO EN ADUANAS
ARTÍCULO 6.- La obligación aduanera es de dos tipos: obligación tributaria aduanera y
obligación de pago en aduanas.
La obligación tributaria aduanera surge entre el Estado y los sujetos pasivos, en cuanto
ocurre el hecho generador de los tributos. Constituye una relación jurídica de carácter
personal y de contenido patrimonial, garantizada mediante la prenda aduanera sobre la
mercancía, con preferencia a cualquier otra garantía u obligación que recaiga sobre ella.
La obligación de pago en aduanas se produce cuando el hecho generador se realiza con
anterioridad, sin haberse efectuado el pago de la obligación tributaria.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 6 y 7.
Annex 317
2219
ARTICLE 4.- Except as otherwise provided in International Conventions or special laws, the customs territory subject to the jurisdiction of the customs authority and Bolivian customs legislation shall be the national territory and the geographical areas in foreign countries that are subject to Bolivia’s customs authority pursuant to International Treaties signed by the Bolivian State.
For the exercise of the customs authority, the customs territory shall be divided into the Primary Zone and the Secondary Zone.
The Primary Zone comprises all customs facilities in sea or land areas where cargo is discharged, loaded, transported or stored; the offices, facilities or agencies directly used by the National Customs Office, and the ports, airports, roads, and facilities authorized to conduct customs operations. The foregoing shall also comprise the places authorized by the National Customs Office as cargo storing facilities, where the above mentioned operations are carried out.
The Secondary Zone is the customs territory not comprised within the Primary Zone, and that in which no customs operations are conducted. However, where appropriate, the National Customs Office shall oversee and perform controls on individuals, facilities, and warehouses storing wholesale goods within the area.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATIONS.- Article 4.
[…]
TITLE TWO
CUSTOMS TAXATION REGIME
CHAPTER I
CUSTOMS TAX OBLIGATION AND
CUSTOMS PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS
ARTICLE 6.- Customs obligations may be classified into two types: customs tax liabilities and customs payment obligations.
Customs tax liabilities arise between the State and the taxpayers upon the occurrence of the triggering event of the tax. It is a personal, patrimonial, legal relationship secured by a pledge on goods, which takes priority over any other security or obligation related to those goods. Customs payment obligations arise when the taxable act occurs prior to the payment of customs taxes.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Articles 6 and 7.
2220
Annex 317
LEY GENERAL DE ADUANAS
ADUANA NACIONAL
Página 3
ARTÍCULO 7.- En la obligación tributaria aduanera el Estado es sujeto activo. Los sujetos
pasivos serán el consignante o el consignatario, el despachante y la agencia despachante
de aduanas cuando éstos hubieran actuado en el despacho.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 6 y 13.
ARTÍCULO 8.- Los hechos generadores de la obligación tributaria aduanera son:
a) La importación de mercancías extranjeras para el consumo u otros regímenes
sujetos al pago de tributos aduaneros bajo la presente Ley.
b) La exportación de mercancías en los casos expresamente establecidos por Ley.
El hecho generador de la obligación tributaria se perfecciona en el momento que se
produce la aceptación por la Aduana de la Declaración de Mercancías.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 6 y 113.
ARTÍCULO 9.- Se genera la obligación de pago en Aduanas, en los siguientes casos:
a) Por incumplimiento de obligaciones a que está sujeta una mercancía extranjera
importada bajo algún régimen suspensivo de tributos.
b) Por modificación o incumplimiento de las condiciones o fines a que está sujeta una
mercancía extranjera importada bajo exención total o parcial de tributos, sobre el
valor residual de las mercancías importadas.
c) El uso, consumo o destino en una zona franca de mercancías extranjeras, en
condiciones distintas a las previstas al efecto.
d) En la internación ilícita de mercancías desde territorio extranjero o zonas francas.
e) En la pérdida o sustracción de mercancías en los medios de transporte y depósitos
aduaneros.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 7.
ARTÍCULO 10.- En los casos de los literales a), b) y c) del Artículo precedente, la
obligación de pago nace en el momento que se produce el incumplimiento de las
obligaciones, condiciones o fines. En los casos d) y e) del mismo Artículo, en el momento
que se constata la internación ilícita, pérdida o sustracción.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 7.
Annex 317
2221
ARTICLE 7.- With respect to customs tax liabilities, the State shall act as creditor. The consignor or the consignee, the customs officer, and the customs clearance agency shall be the debtors, whenever they play a role in the clearance process.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Articles 6 and 13.
ARTICLE 8.- The triggering events to customs tax liabilities shall be those described below:
a)
The import of foreign goods for personal use or under other regimes subject to the payment of customs duties under this Law.
b)
The export of goods in the cases expressly established by Law.
The triggering event for the liability to pay customs taxes shall be deemed to be performed upon the acceptance by the Customs Office of the Declaration of Goods.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Articles 6 and 113.
ARTICLE 9.- The obligation to pay Customs occurs in the following cases:
a)
Non-fulfilment of the obligations to which foreign goods that are imported under a suspension of duties are subject.
b)
Modification or non-fulfillment of the conditions or purposes to which foreign goods imported under a total or partial exemption from taxes, based on the residual value of the imported goods, are subject.
c)
The use, consumption or entry into a free zone of foreign goods other than those provided for this purpose.
d)
Illicit entry of goods from a foreign territory or free zones.
e)
Loss or theft of goods in transport and customs warehouses.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Article 7.
[…]
2222
Annex 317
ADUANA NACIONAL Página 4
ARTÍCULO 11.- El sujeto pasivo de las obligaciones de pago establecidas en el Artículo
9 es:
a) En el caso de los regímenes suspensivos de tributos, el titular de las mercancías
solidariamente con el Despachante y la Agencia Despachante de Aduanas que
intervino en la declaración del régimen suspensivo.
b) En el caso de las importaciones con exenciones parciales o totales de tributos, el
consignatario de las mercancías solidariamente con el Despachante y la Agencia
Despachante de Aduanas que hayan intervenido en la Declaración de mercancías.
c) En el caso de ingresos ilícitos de mercancías, el responsable del ilícito.
d) En los casos de sustracción o pérdida de mercancías, el transportista o el
concesionario de depósito aduanero.
En los casos precedentes, aquél que pague por cuenta del obligado tendrá el derecho de
repetir en contra del autor o responsable.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 7 y 13.
ARTÍCULO 12.- La determinación de la obligación tributaria aduanera se efectúa
mediante:
a) Liquidación realizada por el Despachante de Aduana.
b) Autoliquidación efectuada por el consignante o exportador de la mercancía.
c) Liquidación realizada por la administración aduanera, cuando corresponda.
En los supuestos del Artículo anterior, la deuda aduanera se determinará mediante
liquidación efectuada por la administración aduanera.
Los cargos que surgieran de estas liquidaciones a favor del Estado, en caso de no
cancelarse o ser impugnados por los sujetos pasivos y siempre que no se evidencien
indicios de delito aduanero, constituirán contravención aduanera.
Cuando en dichos cargos emergentes de las liquidaciones, se evidencien la existencia de
indicios de responsabilidad penal por delitos aduaneros, la administración aduanera
formulará denuncia ante el Ministerio Público, de acuerdo con el procedimiento
establecido en esta Ley.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 8.
ARTÍCULO 13.- La obligación tributaria aduanera y la obligación de pago establecidas en
los Artículos 8 y 9, serán exigibles a partir del momento de la aceptación de la
Declaración de Mercancías o desde la notificación de la liquidación efectuada por la
Aduana, según sea el caso.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 6 y 7.
ARTÍCULO 14.- Las mercancías constituyen prenda preferente en favor del Estado, las
cuales garantizan el cumplimiento de las obligaciones tributarias y de pago aduaneras,
las sanciones pecuniarias y otros derechos emergentes.
Annex 317
2223
ARTICLE 13.- The customs taxes and customs payment obligations provided for under Articles 8 and 9 shall become due upon acceptance of the Declaration of Goods or upon notification of the settlement made by the Customs’ authority, as applicable.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Articles 6 and 7.
[…]
2224
Annex 317
LEY GENERAL DE ADUANAS
ADUANA NACIONAL
Página 11
_
LEY N° 062
ARTICULO 19 (TRATAMIENTO DE DONACIONES).
I. La importación de mercancías donadas a entidades públicas directamente desde
el exterior o adquiridas por éstas con recursos provenientes de cooperación
financiera no reembolsable o de donación, ya sean destinadas a su propio uso o
para ser transferidas a o t r a s entidades públicas, organizaciones económico -
productivas y territoriales o beneficiarios finales de proyectos o programas de
carácter social o productivo, estará exenta del pago total de los tributos aduaneros
aplicables. La tramitación de las exenciones será reglamentada mediante Decreto
Supremo.
II. Las mercancías señaladas en el párrafo precedente podrán ser transferidas a título
gratuito a entidades públicas, organizaciones económico-productivas y territoriales,
o a los destinatarios finales de proyectos, con la exención total del pago de tributos
aduaneros de importación y del Impuesto a las Transacciones (IT).
_
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 133.
_
TÍTULO TERCERO
LA FUNCIÓN ADUANERA
CAPÍTULO I
LA ADUANA NACIONAL
ARTÍCULO 29.- La Aduana Nacional se instituye como una entidad de derecho público,
de carácter autárquico, con jurisdicción nacional, de duración indefinida, con personería
jurídica y patrimonio propios.
Su domicilio principal está fijado en la ciudad de La Paz.
Se encuentra bajo la tuición del Ministerio de Hacienda.
La Aduana Nacional se sujetará a las políticas y normas económicas y comerciales del
país, cumpliendo las metas, objetivos y resultados institucionales que le fije su Directorio
en el marco de las políticas económicas y comerciales definidas por el gobierno nacional.
El patrimonio de la Aduana Nacional estará conformado por los bienes muebles e
inmuebles asignados por el Estado para su funcionamiento.
El presupuesto anual de funcionamiento e inversión con recursos del Tesoro General de
la Nación asignado a la Aduana Nacional, no será superior al dos (2%) por ciento de la
recaudación anual de tributos en efectivo.
Asimismo, la Aduana Nacional podrá percibir fondos por donaciones, aportes
extraordinarios y transferencias de otras fuentes públicas o privadas, nacionales o
extranjeras. Estos recursos se administrarán de conformidad a la Ley No. 1178 de 20 de
Annex 317
2225
TITLE THREE
CUSTOMS FUNCTIONS
CHAPTER I
THE NATIONAL CUSTOMS AUTHORITY
ARTICLE 29.- The National Customs Authority is a self-governed organization with national jurisdiction of perpetual duration, and with legal standing and property of its own, which has been created under public law.
Its main office is located in the city of La Paz.
It falls under the supervision of the Ministry of Finance.
The National Customs Authority shall act in keeping with the economic and commercial policies and provisions in force in the country, in compliance with the purpose, objectives and institutional outcomes defined by its Board of Directors within the framework of the economic and commercial policies established by the national government.
The National Customs Authority’s property shall be composed of the personal and real property allocated by the Government for its operations.
The annual budget for operations and investment allocated to the National Customs Authority with resources of the National Treasury shall not exceed two (2%) of the annual tax collections in cash.
Furthermore, the National Customs Authority may receive funds through donations, special contributions and money transfers made by other public or private entities, whether foreign or domestic. These resources shall be allocated pursuant to Law No. 1178 of 20 July 1990 and related laws.
2226
Annex 317
ADUANA NACIONAL Página 12
julio de 1990 y normas conexas.
La Aduana Nacional sólo podrá obtener préstamos de entidades financieras públicas o
privadas, con la previa autorización del Ministerio de Hacienda y la aprobación del
Congreso Nacional, conforme a Ley.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 23, 25, 27 y 29.
ARTÍCULO 30.- La potestad aduanera es ejercida por la Aduana Nacional, con
competencia y estructura de alcance nacional, de acuerdo a las normas de la presente
Ley, su Decreto Reglamentario y disposiciones legales conexas.
Para el ejercicio de sus funciones, se desconcentrará territorialmente en administraciones
aduaneras, de acuerdo con reglamento.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 22, 26 y 30.
ARTÍCULO 31.- (DEROGADO)
CÓDIGO TRIBUTARIO
ARTÍCULO 66° (Facultades Específicas). La Administración Tributaria tiene las
siguientes facultades específicas:
1. Control, comprobación, verificación, fiscalización e investigación;
2. Determinación de tributos;
3. Recaudación;
4. Cálculo de la deuda tributaria;
5. Ejecución de medidas precautorias, previa autorización de la autoridad competente
establecida en este Código;
6. Ejecución tributaria;
7. Concesión de prórrogas y facilidades de pago;
8. Derogado
9. Sanción de contravenciones, que no constituyan delitos;
10. Designación de sustitutos y responsables subsidiarios, en los términos dispuestos por
este Código;
11. Aplicar los montos mínimos establecidos mediante Decreto Supremo a partir de
los cuales las operaciones los pagos por la adquisición y venta de bienes y servicios
deban ser respaldadas por los contribuyentes y/o responsables a través de
documentos reconocidos por el sistema bancario y de intermediación financiera
regulada por la Autoridad de Supervisión Financiera (ASFI). La falta de respaldo
mediante la documentación emitida por las referidas entidades, hará presumir la
inexistencia de la transacción para fines de liquidación de impuestos e implicará que
NOTA.- Éste Artículo fue derogado por la Disposición Final Décima Primera de la
Ley N° 2492 de 02/08/2003, Código Tributario Boliviano. El contenido del citado
Artículo se encuentra regulado en el Artículo 66 de dicho Código.
NOTA.- El párrafo sexto de éste Artículo consigna la modificación prevista en la
Disposición Final Sexta de la Ley N° 2492, Código Tributario Boliviano.
Annex 317
2227
The National Customs Authority may only receive loans granted by public and private financial institutions with the prior authorization of Congress and the Ministry of Economy, as established by the law.
NOTE: Paragraph VI of this Section includes the amendment set forth in the Sixth Final Provision of Law No. 2492, otherwise known as the Bolivian Tax Code.
PROVISIONS RELATIONS TO THE REGULATION.- Articles 23, 25, 27 and 29.
SECTION 30.- The customs’ power is exercised by the National Customs Authority, with national competence and structure, pursuant to the rules of this Law, their Regulatory Decree and related provisions.
In keeping with the rules and regulations, in the exercise of its functions, the National Customs Authority shall be territorially divided into self-governed customs administrations.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Articles 22, 26, and 30.
ARTICLE 31.- (REPEALED)
NOTE: This Article was repealed by the Eleventh Final Provision of Law No. 2492 of 02/08/2003, otherwise known as the Bolivian Tax Code. The subject-matter of the referenced Article is regulated under Article 66 of said Code.
TAX CODE
ARTICLE 66 (Special Powers). The Tax Administration shall have the following special powers:
1.
Control, verification, oversight and investigation:
2.
Tax calculations;
3.
Collection activities;
4.
Tax debt calculation;
5.
Enforcement of precautionary measures upon prior authorization by the competent authority specified in this Code;
6.
Tax enforcement actions;
7.
Granting of time extensions and payment arrangements;
8.
Repealed
9.
Penalization of violations not amounting to misdemeanors;
10.
Appointment of fiduciary and subsidiary taxpayers pursuant to the provisions of this Code;
11.
Application of the minimum amounts set forth through Supreme Decrees on the basis of which the transactions and the purchase and sale of goods and services shall be supported by taxpayers by means of documents acknowledged by the banking system and the financial intermediation system, controlled by the Financial Supervision Authority (ASFI). Failure to support the transaction with the documents issued by the above mentioned institutions shall prevent
2228
Annex 317
LEY GENERAL DE ADUANAS
ADUANA NACIONAL
Página 13
el comprador no tendrá derecho al cómputo del crédito fiscal, así como la obligación
del vendedor de liquidar el impuesto sin deducción de crédito fiscal alguno;
12. Prevenir y reprimir los ilícitos tributarios dentro del ámbito de su competencia,
asimismo constituirse en el órgano técnico de investigación de delitos tributarios y
promover como víctima los procesos penales tributarios;
13. Otras facultades asignadas por las disposiciones legales especiales.
Sin perjuicio de lo expresado en los numerales anteriores, en materia aduanera, la
Administración Tributaria tiene las siguientes facultades:
1. Controlar, vigilar y fiscalizar el paso de mercancías por las fronteras, puertos y
aeropuertos del país, con facultades de inspección, revisión y control de mercancías,
medios y unidades de transporte;
2. Intervenir en el tráfico internacional para la recaudación de los tributos aduaneros y
otros que determinen las leyes;
3. Administrar los regímenes y operaciones aduaneras.
ARTÍCULO 32.- Algunas actividades y servicios de la Aduana Nacional, podrán ser
otorgados en concesión a personas jurídicas públicas o privadas, priorizando la
adjudicación a las empresas públicas, en conformidad a los principios establecidos en la
Constitución Política del Estado, siempre que no vulneren su función fiscalizadora.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 26.
ARTÍCULO 33.- (DEROGADO)
CÓDIGO TRIBUTARIO BOLIVIANO
ARTÍCULO 100 (Ejercicio de la Facultad). La Administración Tributaria dispondrá
indistintamente de amplias facultades de control, verificación, fiscalización e
investigación, a través de las cuales, en especial, podrá:
NOTA.- El numeral 8 de éste Artículo fue declarado inconstitucional por la Sentencia
Constitucional N° 0009/2004 de 28/01/2004. Asimismo, el numeral 11 del presente
artículo contiene la modificación dispuesta por el Artículo 20 de la Ley N° 062 de
28/11/2010.
NOTA.- Éste Artículo consigna la modificación dispuesta por la Disposición Adicional
Segunda de la Ley N° 455 de 11/12/2013, Ley de Presupuesto General del Estado –
Gestión 2014.
NOTA.- Éste Artículo fue derogado por la Disposición Final Décima Primera de la Ley
N° 2492, Código Tributario Boliviano. El contenido de éste Artículo se encuentra
regulado y ampliado en el Artículo 100 del citado Código.
Annex 317
2229
the buyer from calculating their tax credit, and the seller shall be under an obligation to calculate taxes without any deductions;
12.
Prevention and suppression of illegal tax activities within its competence. Moreover, it shall act as the technical body in the investigation of tax-related crimes and act as complainant in criminal tax proceedings;
13.
Other powers established by special legal provisions.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Tax Administration shall be vested with the following powers with respect to customs-related matters:
1.
Control, monitor, and oversee the transport of goods across Bolivian borders, through Bolivian ports and airports, with powers to inspect, supervise, and control goods, along with means and units of transport;
2.
Act as an agent in international trade operations for the purposes of collecting customs taxes and other taxes prescribed by law;
3.
Administer customs systems and operations.
NOTE: Subsection 8 of this Article was found to be unconstitutional in Constitutional Judgment No. 0009/2004 of 28/01/2004. Moreover, subsection 11 of this Article includes the amendment set forth in Section 20 of Law No. 062 of 28/11/2010.
[…]
2230
Annex 317
LEY GENERAL DE ADUANAS
ADUANA NACIONAL
Página 27
deberá reunir similares condiciones a las del inicialmente utilizado.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 147.
CAPÍTULO II
LA ENTREGA DE MERCANCÍAS ANTE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN ADUANERA
ARTÍCULO 63.- Toda mercancía que ingrese a territorio aduanero debe ser entregada a
la administración aduanera o a depósitos aduaneros autorizados. Las mercancías serán
recibidas según marcas y números registrados en sus embalajes, debiéndose verificar su
peso y cantidad en el momento y lugar de recepción.
Las mercancías serán entregadas a los almacenes de zonas francas nacionales, sólo en
el caso de que en el Manifiesto Internacional de Carga y Declaración de Tránsito
Aduanero, estén destinadas a dichas zonas francas y consignadas a un usuario de las
mismas.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 84, 94 y 160.
ARTÍCULO 64.- Las mercancías con señales de avería, merma o deterioro, serán
recibidas bajo inventario, con las observaciones del caso y separadas para su examen y
comprobación inmediatos, en presencia del importador o de sus representantes y, en su
caso, del asegurador.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 160.
ARTÍCULO 65.- Las mercancías que no pudieran ser reconocidas en el momento de
descarga en la aduana de destino y que para dicho reconocimiento sean necesarios
medios especiales o, cuya entrega a la administración aduanera sea peligrosa, podrán
entregarse y reconocerse fuera de las instalaciones aduaneras, previa autorización de la
administración aduanera.
ARTÍCULO 66.-
I. Se entiende que la mercancía no fue declarada en el Manifiesto Internacional de
Carga, en los siguientes casos:
a) Cuando la cantidad existente sea superior a la declarada.
b) Cuando se hubiera omitido la descripción de la mercancía.
c) Cuando dicha mercancía no se relaciona con el Manifiesto Internacional de
Carga.
II. Se entiende que la mercancía no fue entregada a la administración aduanera en
los siguientes casos:
Annex 317
2231
CHAPTER II
DELIVERY OF GOODS TO THE CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE 63.- All goods that enter the customs territory must be submitted to the customs administration or to authorized customs warehouses. Goods shall be received pursuant to their brand and the numbers recorded in their packaging. The weight and quantity of goods shall be verified at the time and place of delivery.
Goods shall be delivered at the warehouses in national duty-free zones only if the International Cargo Manifest and the Customs Transit Declaration state that the goods are to be delivered in such duty-free zones and include the name of a user in such zones.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Articles 84, 94, and 160.
[…]
2232
Annex 317
LEY GENERAL DE ADUANAS
ADUANA NACIONAL
Página 31
regímenes aduaneros que sean procedentes.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 121 y 123 al 127.
ARTÍCULO 78.- Antes de la formalización del despacho aduanero, se permitirá al
consignatario, a través de su despachante de aduana y a funcionarios de la empresa de
seguros, examinar las mercancías para determinar su naturaleza, origen, estado,
cantidad y calidad. Esta verificación se realizará en las instalaciones de la administración
aduanera o en los lugares de almacenamiento legalmente autorizados.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 100.
ARTÍCULO 79.- Todo despacho aduanero de mercancías estará sujeto al control físico
selectivo o aleatorio, el cual se determinará por procedimientos informáticos. La Aduana
Nacional determinará los porcentajes de reconocimiento físico de mercancías importadas
para el consumo, en forma selectiva o aleatoria, hasta un máximo del veinte por ciento
(20%) de las declaraciones de mercancías presentadas en el mes.
El porcentaje para el reconocimiento físico en forma selectiva o aleatoria, en cada
administración aduanera, será determinado por la Aduana Nacional.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 105, 106 y 139.
ARTÍCULO 80.- Cuando corresponda el reconocimiento físico de las mercancías,
mediante el procedimiento selectivo o aleatorio, el pago de los tributos aduaneros se
efectuará con anterioridad a dicho reconocimiento físico.
En caso de descubrirse irregularidades que constituyan delitos o contravenciones, la
administración aduanera retendrá la mercancía como garantía prendaria, y se iniciará el
proceso legal correspondiente.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículos 106 y 108.
ARTÍCULO 81.- El procedimiento del despacho de mercancías se establecerá en
Reglamento.
TÍTULO QUINTO
LOS REGÍMENES ADUANEROS
CAPÍTULO I
LA IMPORTACIÓN
ARTÍCULO 82.- La Importación es el ingreso legal de cualquier mercancía procedente de
territorio extranjero a territorio aduanero nacional.
Annex 317
2233
TITLE V
CUSTOMS SYSTEMS
CHAPTER I
IMPORTS
ARTICLE 82.- Import is the legal entry of any good into the national customs territory from abroad.
2234
Annex 317
ADUANA NACIONAL Página 32
A los efectos de los regímenes aduaneros se considera iniciada la operación de
importación con el embarque de la mercancía en el país de origen o de procedencia,
acreditada mediante el correspondiente documento de transporte.
La importación de mercancías podrá efectuarse en cualquier medio de transporte
habilitado de uso comercial, incluyendo cables o ductos, pudiendo estas mercancías estar
sometidas a características técnicas especiales, como ser congeladas o envasadas a
presión.
ARTÍCULO 83.- Las mercancías importadas al amparo de los documentos exigidos por
ley, podrán ser objeto de despachos parciales. Las mercancías pendientes de despacho
serán sometidas a la aplicación del régimen aduanero que adopte el consignatario de la
mercancía.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 121.
ARTÍCULO 84.- Los procedimientos para asegurar y verificar el cumplimiento de las
medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias y la aplicación del Código Alimentario (CODEX)
establecido por la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC), deberán limitarse a lo
estrictamente razonable y necesario, de acuerdo con el Reglamento.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 119.
ARTÍCULO 85.- No se permitirá la importación o ingreso a territorio aduanero nacional de
mercancías nocivas para el medio ambiente, la salud y vida humanas, animal o contra la
preservación vegetal, así como las que atenten contra la seguridad del Estado y el
sistema económico financiero de la nación y otras determinadas por Ley expresa.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 117.
ARTÍCULO 86.- La importación de mercancías protegidas por el Acuerdo relativo a los
Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el comercio, establecidos por la
Organización Mundial de Comercio (OMC), se ajustará a las disposiciones generales y
principios básicos señalados en dicho Acuerdo.
La administración aduanera, a solicitud del órgano nacional competente relacionado con
la propiedad intelectual, podrá suspender el desaduanamiento de la mercancía que
presuntamente viole derechos de propiedad intelectual, obtenidos en el país o que
deriven de acuerdos internacionales suscritos por Bolivia, ratificados por el Parlamento.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 120.
ARTÍCULO 87.- El importador mediante Despachante o Agencia Despachante de
Aduana, está obligado a presentar, junto a la Declaración de Mercancías de Importación,
el formulario de la Declaración Jurada del Valor en Aduanas o, en su caso, el formulario
de la Declaración Andina del Valor adoptado por la Decisión 379 de la Comunidad Andina
o los que las sustituyan, además de la documentación exigible según Reglamento.
Annex 317
2235
For the purposes of the customs system, the import process begins when the cargo is loaded in the country of origin or provenance, as evidenced by the relevant transport document.
The import of goods may be performed by any means of transportation authorized for commercial use, including cables or pipelines, and such goods may have been subjected to special technical processes, such as freezing or packaging under pressure.
[…]
2236
Annex 317
ADUANA NACIONAL Página 36
CAPÍTULO IV
REIMPORTACIÓN EN EL MISMO ESTADO
ARTÍCULO 96.- Reimportación de mercancías en el mismo estado es el régimen
aduanero que permite la importación para el consumo, con exoneración de tributos
aduaneros de importación, de mercancías que hubieran sido exportadas temporalmente y
se encontraban en libre circulación o constituían productos compensadores, siempre que
éstos o las mercancías no hayan sufrido en el extranjero ninguna transformación,
elaboración o reparación.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 135.
ARTÍCULO 97.- Si la exportación temporal se realizara con motivo de un contrato de
prestación de servicios en el exterior del país, las mercancías deberán reimportarse
dentro de los cinco (5) años siguientes y en el término de un año en los demás casos.
Para acogerse al beneficio de este régimen, el declarante deberá demostrar:
a) Que la mercancía se encontraba en libre circulación en el territorio nacional, a
tiempo de su exportación temporal.
b) Que la mercancía es la misma que se exportó y se encuentra en similar estado.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 135.
CAPITULO V
EXPORTACION DEFINITIVA
ARTÍCULO 98.- Exportación Definitiva es el régimen aduanero aplicable a las mercancías
en libre circulación que salen del territorio aduanero y que están destinadas a permanecer
definitivamente fuera del país, sin el pago de los tributos aduaneros, salvo casos
establecidos por Ley.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 136.
ARTÍCULO 99.- El Estado garantiza la libre exportación de mercancías, con excepción de
aquellas que están sujetas a prohibición expresa y de las que afectan a la salud pública,
la seguridad del Estado, la preservación de la fauna y flora y del patrimonio cultural,
histórico y arqueológico de la Nación.
Cuando las mercancías tengan que ser exportadas por aduana distinta a aquella donde
se presentó la Declaración de Mercancías de exportación, serán transportadas bajo el
Régimen de Tránsito Aduanero hasta la aduana de salida.
NOTA.- Éste Artículo se encuentra complementado por el Artículo 3 de la Ley N°
3998, de 12/01/2009, donde se Declara Gema Emblemática y de Identidad Boliviana
en el Mundo a la "Bolivianita”.
Annex 317
2237
CHAPTER V
FINAL EXPORTS
ARTICLE 98.- Final Export is the customs regime applied to goods in free circulation that exit the customs area and are destined to remain abroad, without payment of customs taxes, except as otherwise provided by law.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Article 136.
[…]
2238
Annex 317
LEY GENERAL DE ADUANAS
ADUANA NACIONAL
Página 37
LEY N° 3998:
Artículo 3. Se prohíbe por el lapso de diez años la exportación de la "Bolivianita", ya sea
en bruto, martillada, aserrada y/o preformada, pudiendo exportarse la misma solamente
como gema tallada.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 137.
ARTÍCULO 100.- El despacho de las mercancías de exportación se formaliza y tramita
por intermedio de un Despachante de Aduana ante la administración aduanera, en los
lugares donde no existe el sistema de Ventanilla Única de Exportación (SIVEX).
ARTÍCULO 101.- Las mercancías de producción nacional, exportadas al extranjero que
no hubieran sido aceptadas por el país de destino, no hubieran arribado al país de
destino, no tuvieran la calidad pactada, estuviera prohibida su importación en el país de
destino, o hubieran sufrido daño durante su transporte, una vez embarcadas, podrán
reimportarse en el mismo estado, sin el pago de tributos aduaneros, debiendo el
exportador, cuando corresponda, restituir los tributos devueltos por el Estado en la
operación inicial de exportación definitiva.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 143.
TÍTULO SEXTO
REGÍMENES ADUANEROS ESPECIALES
CAPÍTULO I
TRÁNSITO ADUANERO
ARTÍCULO 102.- El tránsito aduanero comprenderá tanto el nacional como el
internacional. Las operaciones en el Régimen de Tránsito Aduanero Internacional se
regirán por las normas y procedimientos establecidos en los Acuerdos o Convenios
Internacionales suscritos por Bolivia y ratificados por el Congreso Nacional.
Tránsito Aduanero Internacional, es el régimen aduanero que permite el transporte de
mercancías, bajo control aduanero, desde una Aduana de Partida hasta una Aduana de
Destino, en una misma operación en el curso de la cual se cruzan una o más fronteras
internacionales.
El tránsito aduanero nacional es el transporte de mercancías de los depósitos de una
aduana interior a los de otra aduana interior, dentro del territorio nacional, bajo control y
autorización aduanera.
Las mercancías transportadas bajo el Régimen de Tránsito Aduanero Internacional,
podrán circular en el territorio aduanero, con suspensión del pago de los tributos
aduaneros de importación o exportación.
Annex 317
2239
TITLE VI
SPECIAL CUSTOMS SYSTEMS
CHAPTER I
CUSTOMS TRANSIT
ARTICLE 102.- Customs transit shall comprise both national and international customs transit. The transactions conducted within the framework of the International Customs Transit Regime shall be governed by the laws and procedures set forth in the relevant International Agreements and Conventions executed by Bolivia and acknowledged by the National Congress.
International Customs Transit is the customs regime allowing the transport of goods, under customs’ control, from a Customs of Origin to a Customs of Destination in a single operation and in the process of which one or more international borders are crossed.
National customs transit is the transport of goods from the warehouses of a national customs agency to those of another national customs agency, within the national territory, with the authorization of and under the supervision of the customs authority.
The goods transported under the International Customs Transit Regime may be transported within the customs territory with a suspension on the payment of import or export customs taxes.
2240
Annex 317
ADUANA NACIONAL Página 38
Para efectos del control aduanero, la aduana de partida o la aduana de paso por frontera
señalará la ruta que debe seguir el transportador en cada operación de tránsito aduanero
internacional por el territorio nacional.
El Régimen de Tránsito Aduanero Internacional será solicitado por el declarante o su
representante legal. Las autoridades aduaneras designarán las Administraciones
Aduaneras habilitadas para ejercer las funciones de control, relativas a la s operaciones
de tránsito aduanero internacional, así como los horarios de atención de las mismas.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 144.
ARTÍCULO 103.- El transportador o declarante consignados en el Manifiesto
Internacional de Carga/Declaración de Tránsito Aduanero (MIC/DTA) o en el documento
de Transporte Internacional Ferroviario/Declaración de Tránsito Aduanero (TIF/DTA), o
documento de embarque correspondiente, es responsable ante la Aduana Nacional por la
entrega de las mercancías a la administración aduanera de destino, en las mismas
condiciones que las recibieron en la administración aduanera de partid a y con el
cumplimiento de las normas inherentes al tránsito aduanero internacional, conservando
los sellos y los precintos de seguridad.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 81.
ARTÍCULO 104.- Las autoridades aduaneras son las únicas autorizadas para colocar
precintos aduaneros. Los precintos aduaneros son de uso obligatorio en los medios de
transporte habilitados de uso comercial, en las unidades de transporte y en las
mercancías susceptibles de ser precintadas.
ARTÍCULO 105.- Cada Declaración de Tránsito Aduanero Internacional sólo ampara las
mercancías de un único declarante, acondicionadas en una o varias unidade s de carga
de uso comercial o propio, por ser transportadas desde una aduana de partida hasta una
aduana de destino.
ARTÍCULO 106.- Siempre que se cumplan las condiciones establecidas en el Régimen
de Tránsito Aduanero Internacional, las mercancías en tránsito por Bolivia con destino a
otro país, no serán sometidas a reconocimiento, salvo en casos excepcionales, fundados
en norma legal expresa o cuando se trate del cumplimiento de una orden de autoridad
jurisdiccional, diferente a la aduanera, la que se cumplirá, previa autorización de la
administración aduanera.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 91.
ARTÍCULO 107.- Solamente en los casos que sea necesario el transbordo de las
mercancías como consecuencia de un accidente o daño del medio de transporte de uso
comercial, el transportador o representante legal tomará las medidas que estime
oportunas, comunicando este hecho a la administración aduanera más próxima.
NORMAS CONEXAS DEL REGLAMENTO.- Artículo 147.
Annex 317
2241
For the purposes of customs control, the customs of origin or the border customs authority shall indicate the route to be followed by the carrier in each international customs transit operation within the national territory.
The International Customs Transit Regime shall be requested by the declarant or their legal representative. The customs authorities shall appoint the Customs Administrations authorized to conduct control activities with respect to international customs transit operations, as well as their hours of operation.
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION.- Article 144.
[…]
2242
Annex 318
Joint Press Release issued by Bolivia and Chile, 22 February 2000
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2243
2244
Annex 318
Annex 318
2245
PRESS RELEASE
1. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia and Chile, Javier Murillo and Juan Gabriel Valdés, respectively, met in the Algarve, Portugal, on 22 February 2000, to continue the dialogue they initiated in Rio de Janeiro and Havana, in June and November 1999. They were accompanied by senior officials from their Offices.
2. The Foreign Ministers resolved to prepare a work agenda, which will be formalized in the subsequent stages of the dialogue, that incorporates, without any exclusion, the essential issues of the bilateral relationship, in the spirit of contributing to the establishment of a climate of trust that must preside over this dialogue. The progress achieved will be brought to the attention of the new authorities of the Government of Chile for the further pursuit of the talks aimed at establishing the agenda.
3. On this occasion they addressed, with a clear constructive will and for the purpose stated above, all themes of fundamental interest for both States, without exclusions.
4. The development of this dialogue will be geared towards overcoming the differences that have prevented full integration between Bolivia and Chile, with the firm intention to seek and reach solutions for the issues that affect their political and economic relations.
5. The Foreign Ministers record the frank and friendly manner in which these meetings have been conducted, as well as the good disposition of the parties, which reaffirmed their willingness for the dialogue that has been launched.
Algarve, Portugal, 22 February 2000.
2246
Annex 319
Chilean Ministry of National Defence, Undersecretary of the Navy, Decree No 009, 29 February 2000
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2247
2248
Annex 319
Annex 319
2249
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
UNDERSECRETARY OF THE NAVY
GRANTS SECOND RENEWAL OF MARITIME CONCESSION OVER A SECTOR OF BEACHFRONT LANDS, BEACH, SEA-BEDS AND WATER PORTIONS, IN ARICA, TO YACIMIENTOS PETROLÍFEROS FISCALES BOLIVIANOS (Y.P.F.B.).
[Signature], [Seal:] Noticed by order of the Comptroller General of the Republic, 13 June 2000, María Argentina Guevara Weber, Chief of Subdivision, Public Credits and National Assets.
DECREE No. 009
SANTIAGO, 29 FEBRUARY 2000
WITNESSETH:
1. Whereas, through Supreme Decree No. 923, of 26 November 1979, YACIMIENTOS PETROLÍFEROS FISCALES BOLIVIANOS (Y.P.F.B.) was granted a first renewal of a maritime concession over a sector of beachfront lands, beach, sea-beds and water portions, in a place called “El Chinchorro”, in the port of Arica, district of Arica, effective until 31 December 1999.
2. Whereas, prior to the termination of the said period, the concessionaire had requested the renewal of the said concession, and having duly complied with the purpose thereof, there are no objections in admitting the said request.
3. Reports from the General Directorate of Maritime Territory and Merchant Navy, as provided under Ordinary Memorandum No. 12210/27/1073 dated 15 December 1999, and the National Directorate of Frontiers and Limits of the State, pursuant to Ordinary Official Letter No. F-984 of 10 May 2000.
4. The provisions included in:
a) Law Ranking Decree No. 340 of 1960. Law on Maritime Concessions.
b) Supreme Decree No. 660 of 1988. Regulations on Maritime Concessions.
c) Supreme Decree No. 1340 bis of 1941. General Regulations on the Order, Security and Discipline of Vessels and Coastal Areas of the Republic.
d) Supreme Decree No. 654 of 1994 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
e) Supreme Decree No. 1 of 1992. Regulations for the Control of Aquatic Pollution.
f) Decree-Law No. 2.222 of 1978, Law on Navigation.
2250
Annex 319
Annex 319
2251
DECREE:
1. TO GRANT TO YACIMIENTOS PETROLIFEROS FISCALES BOLIVIANOS (Y.P.F.B.), Public Company of the Bolivian State created through Decree-Law of 21 December 1936 issued in La Paz, Bolivia, domiciled in Arica, street 21 de mayo No. 575, A SECOND RENEWAL of the maritime concession over a sector of BEACHFRONT LANDS, BEACH, SEA-BEDS AND WATER PORTIONS to which it was entitled under Supreme Decree No. 923 of 26 November 1979, in the place mentioned “El Chinchorro” in the port of Arica, within the district and province of the same name, 1st Region of Tarapacá, individualized in the location which is pointed out in drawing No. 30/60, stamped by the Maritime Authority of Arica.
2. The beachfront land sector is registered in the name of the Treasury, in a bigger extension, on page 25 (reverse side) of Arica’s Real Estate Registry Office No. 60 of the Real Estate Registry of 1935. It has a surface of 700 m2. Its boundaries and sizes are the following: to the North and South, with beachfront lands (35 m each boundary); to the East, with beachfront lands (20 m), and to the West, with the beach (35 m).
3. The beach sector has a surface of 1,400 m2. Its boundaries and sizes are the following: to the North and South, with the beach (70 m each boundary); to the East: with beachfront lands (20 m), and to the West, with sea-beds (20 m).
4. The sea-bed sector has a surface of 26,580 m2 and is a strip of
20 m front and 1,329 m deep, which extends next to the beach sector under concession.
5. The water portion is enough to secure three (3) buoys for the docking of vessels of over 30,000 to 50,000 Gross Tons and three (3) permanent small buoys for signalization.
6. The purpose of this concession is to protect an underground and undersea pipe of the Sica Sica – Arica Oil Pipeline terminal, oil pipeline signaling devices, docking elements for the vessels, and a pipe used for discharging into the sea purified water for the de-ballasting of tanker ships, all of them existing.
7. This concession shall be valid from the effective date of this decree, understood as the date on which the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic becomes noticed hereof, and shall expire on 31 December 2019.
8. This concession is granted on FREE OF CHARGE, as set forth in item “D” of the agreement on the oil pipeline of Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos (Y.P.F:B.) from Sica Sica to Arica, executed on 24 April 1957.
2252
Annex 319
Annex 319
2253
9. The concessionaire shall comply with the following obligations:
a) Not to allow access to the sea, whether directly or indirectly, of any energy, or harmful substances/materials, coming from the concessionaire’s installations, pursuant to the provisions set forth in Decree-Law No. 2,222 of 21 May 1978 and Supreme Decree No. 1 of 6 January 1992.
b) To allow the free access of the entire population to the beach sector under concession, without imposing any limitations of any kind, since these may only be set by the Maritime Authority.
10. The concessionaire, as far as Order, Security and Discipline is concerned, shall be subject to the provisions of Supreme Decree No. 1340 bis of 1941 on the referred matter.
11. This decree shall be recorded in a notarial instrument by the concessionaire within a term of 30 days from the date on which the Maritime Authority officially transcribes this decree to the interested party, allowing the Provincial Treasurer of Arica to sign on behalf of the Treasury; failure to comply with this obligation shall become a sufficient ground for revocation hereof. The expenses incurred in registering the notarial document shall be borne by the concessionaire.
This decree shall be recorded, noticed, communicated and kept with the Ministry of National Assets.
BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
[Signed]
EDMUNDO PEREZ YOMA
MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
2254
Annex 320
Minutes of the Meeting of Experts from Chile and Bolivia on Issues of Integration and Development, 10 November 2000
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2255
2256
Annex 320
Annex 320
2257
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF EXPERTS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA ON ISSUES OF INTEGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT
The Meeting of Experts from the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia on issues of integration and development was held on 10 November 2000 in Santiago, Chile.
The Delegation of Chile was led by the National Director of Boundaries and Limits of the State of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Ambassador María Teresa Infante. The Delegation of Bolivia was led by the Consul General of the Republic of Bolivia to Chile, Ambassador Gustavo Fernández. The list of members of both Delegations has been attached as an Annex to these Minutes.
Ambassador Fernández gave a presentation, highlighting the importance of jointly addressing any issues concerning integration and development between the border regions of Chile and Bolivia, including the south of Peru.
Ambassador Infante highlighted the importance that should be given to the issues that would be discussed at this meeting, recalling the marked pro-integration direction of Chilean foreign policy and the need to continue to make efforts to harmonize and strengthen the viability of existing and potential new initiatives.
Both delegations presented the most relevant technical aspects in the area of infrastructure and development and discussed the following issues:
1. Infrastructure:
The Chilean delegation mentioned the consolidation of road access to Portezuelo Tambo Quemado, currently sealed from Arica to La Paz. Likewise, it provided an account of the progress made on the route between Iquique and the Colchane and Hito 55 border passes, and from Calama to Hito Cajón. As to the access ways to the port terminals, the projects to create direct connections to the ports without going across urban areas were highlighted.
The Bolivian delegation offered a discussion of the issue of road, railway, river, and lake infrastructure, stressing integration corridors for the different modes of transportation, most importantly those that would connect it to the Republic of Chile. For instance, regarding railway-related matters, the Bolivian delegation mentioned the 3800 km Central Transcontinental Corridor, the incomplete section of which is covered by the 388 km Aiquile Santa Cruz project, for which an economic feasibility and environmental impact study is currently underway, which is then to be put up for bidding under the Concessions Law. Moreover, they made reference to the need to set up joint border centers which, in addition to providing border control services, implement axle weight controls for international transportation.
Both delegations agreed to form a bilateral technical team to handle the guidelines for a working agenda geared towards an integrated, shared master plan for infrastructure.
2258
Annex 320
Annex 320
2259
2. Transportation Associated with Infrastructure Projects
Both delegations agreed on the need to jointly address the most important factors to facilitate international land transportation, particularly the regulatory and procedural aspects that bear on the streamlining of cross-border transit. Likewise, the concept of multimodal transportation as a guiding principle for the development of transportation infrastructure was highlighted.
Both delegations stressed the importance of interconnections by air and the desire to intensify them.
3. Energy
As regards the energy area, Bolivia notified members of the quantified gas reserves available in its territory, and the possibilities for complementation with projects from neighboring countries, as well as possibilities for export through Chile. The relevant agencies in each country, it was noted, have been studying a possible framework for energy connection, which could be adopted in the context of ACE 22 [Agreement on Economic Complementation No. 22].
In the same vein, ideas were exchanged regarding the prospects for electric interconnection and mutual exports, as well as local services at border passes. It was considered appropriate to encourage such general or specific agreements as part of a process of bilateral economic cooperation.
4. Mining
As regards mining, the promising potential that geology and geographical proximity carry for implementing active cooperation, making metallurgical and energy business ventures viable, was verified. In particular, the potential for prospecting and setting up mining operations in the context of mining projects in border areas or projects that supplement each other and support national mining operations was stressed. Moreover, they reiterated the importance of those projects which are currently underway with the involvement of the Geology Services from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Peru, aimed at geological integration, the drawing of a shared metallogenic map, and the performance of an airborne geophysical survey.
The important role of the national technical agencies in the areas of geology and mining, through which initiatives in this sector can be channeled, was highlighted.
5. Double Taxation
It was noted that a process of development in this context of neighboring countries should take into consideration modern double taxation agreements.
2260
Annex 320
Annex 320
2261
6. Water Resources
The Bolivian delegation noted the existence of major potential close to the border between Chile and Bolivia, where several river basins have been identified that might contain significant underground water reserves. In this context, a study is being carried out to assess the extent of such potential.
Both delegations agreed on the possibilities that water resources near the border may hold for development projects in both countries.
7. Tourism
The importance of tourism was stressed as a means to develop local and regional economic activities. In this regard, both parties are aware of the effort to promote the Altiplano integration route and integrated tourist circuits, for which intense work will be required in the areas of tourism and transportation.
8. Agribusiness Development
Agribusiness development was considered to offer great prospects for both countries, and progressive cooperation in phytosanitary and zoosanitary issues, with adequate technical and financial support, should firmly promote Bolivia’s exporting potential.
The Group agreed to meet again in Santa Cruz de la Sierra in the next sixty days. Each delegation will submit these Minutes to their national authorities for follow-up purposes and for the preparation of guidelines which, this coming March, will allow the Ministers to prepare a consolidated report for the Heads of State, taking possible financing sources into consideration.
[Signed]
FOR CHILE’S DELEGATION
[Signed]
FOR BOLIVIA’S DELEGATION
2262
Annex 320
Annex 321
Minutes of the Ministerial Meeting on Physical Integration and Development between Chile and Bolivia, 30 January 2001
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2263
2264
Annex 321
Annex 321
2265
GOVERNMENT OF CHILE
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ministerial Meeting Chile-Bolivia on Physical Integration and Development
Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 29 and 30 January 2001
Statement
•
The Ministers of Economy and Public Works of the Republic of Chile, Messrs. José De Gregorio and Carlos Cruz, and the Minister of Economic Development of the Republic of Bolivia, Mr. Carlos Saavedra Bruno, together with their respective technical teams, met in the city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra on Monday and Tuesday, 29th and 30th of this January, in order to implement the guidelines set by the Presidents of both countries at their meeting of 1 September 2000 in Brasilia.
•
The Ministers reiterated their governments’ interest in implementing a program for integration and cooperation between the north of Chile and the west of Bolivia, as ordered by the Presidents and confirmed at their meeting of 17 November 2000 in Panama.
•
At the meeting, five working commissions took on issues of regional development, mining, energy, infrastructure and water resources and transportation, verifying the existence of actual potential to implement binational projects at both the regional and local levels. The Ministers agreed to move forward with initiatives for energy connection, the design of an overall framework for water resources, and the creation of a mixed technical group for priority projects for transportation infrastructure, in harmony with the regional framework that is being worked on at the level of the main lines of integration.
•
The governments of Bolivia and Chile will promote the participation of other countries from the region, to strengthen and facilitate any integration projects resulting from this work, in the spirit of expanding the fora for regional cooperation.
•
The Ministers also decided to seek the cooperation of regional financial and technical aid organizations to develop these projects.
•
The Ministers will meet in the first half of April to prepare their report and recommendations to the Presidents, which will be presented later that month in Quebec, Canada.
Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 30 January 2001
2266
Annex 321
Annex 321
2267
WORKING GROUP ON INFRASTRUCTURE
1. The group proposed the creation of a Bilateral Mixed Technical Group to meet in Santiago, Chile, in the first half of this year, to address the following issues:
- Current physical infrastructure, considering future demand in the macro-region.
- Transportation services.
- Regulations.
- The 1993 Air Convention.
2. The group proposed holding a meeting of the respective Ministries of Public Works and Transportation of each country in the first quarter of the current year to continue the discussions with the Minera San Cristóbal company for the improvement of the road network in the Ollague – Chiu Chiu section, considering the discussions that had already been initiated and placing special emphasis on the definition of an adequate funding mechanism.
Also at the meeting, the work agenda for the Mixed Technical Group shall be set.
3. Exchange of technical information on road infrastructure and regulations between the transportation authorities of Bolivia and Chile.
4. The group stressed the importance of the Agreement on the Recognition of Drivers’ Licenses coming into force this year for small vehicular transit in connection with tourist activities.
5. The Bolivian Delegation requested that the Chilean Delegation analyze the incorporation of the Tocopilla – Calama – Ollague road into its main network as part of the Bioceanic Corridors.
2268
Annex 321
Annex 321
2269
Energy Group
Considering the increasing interest of both countries in facilitating the implementation of significant energy-related projects, both in the area of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, including their by-products, and in the area of electricity, the group agreed to recommend the execution of an energy integration agreement between the Parties. In this regard, the group agreed to resume conversations for the approval of an additional protocol to ACE 22 [Agreement on Economic Complementation No. 22].
Similarly, intensifying cooperation activities between the two countries was considered relevant, particularly via the exchange of technical information, joint training activities, and the consideration of potential joint programs, among others.
In this context, the group exchanged ideas regarding the possibility of building a gas pipeline for the transportation of natural gas, as well as a pipeline for liquid hydrocarbons between Bolivia and Chile towards the Pacific, with their relevant maritime terminals for storage and transformation into liquefied natural gas, on the northern coast of Chile, subject to appropriate regulations within the framework of the bilateral agreements currently in force and the applicable legislation. These ventures will be carried out by the private sector.
Bolivia proposed establishing a zero duty for diesel oil imports between both countries. The Group agreed to analyze this possibility in the context of ACE 22.
It was agreed that, to deal with the above-listed goals, the relevant authorities from both countries will be meeting as soon as possible to agree on a draft Additional Protocol on Energy Integration.
2270
Annex 321
Annex 321
2271
MINING
The mining working group agreed on the following ideas of mutual interest:
1. Both countries confirmed the importance of the technical cooperation and professional integration that is taking place in the framework of the Inter-Institutional Cooperation Agreement between the Office of the Vice-Minister of Mining and Metallurgy of Bolivia and the National Mining and Geology Service of Chile.
2. In the context of the Multinational Andean Project, the geological mining services of both countries are working on the creation of a common metallogenic map that is expected to be completed by 2002. To supplement this project, a proposal was made that, in the same working context, proposals be submitted for an airborne geophysical survey of the common area of the Chile-Bolivia border located between approximately 19 and 23 degrees latitude South, to detect mineralogical resources. To develop this project, the most favorable financing sources will be used.
3. Moreover, the group proposed that both countries’ geological mining services prepare a metallogenic geological map, at a more detailed scale, of the mineralogical resources in the Chile-Bolivia border area, and work on formulas to secure international cooperation as relevant.
4. Likewise, a proposal was made to set up a joint working group to identify mining-related issues of common interest and explore terms for agreements to develop future actions.
5. This Working Group will hold its first meeting before April, in the city of Arica, Chile.
2272
Annex 321
Annex 321
2273
Rev. 3
WORKING GROUP ON WATER RESOURCES
1. The Delegation of Bolivia reported that, through state agencies, prospecting surveys are being carried out for water resources in the Western Cordillera region of the country.
2. They agreed on the appropriateness of carrying out the necessary work to develop an overall legal framework for the use of both countries’ ground and underground water courses.
Moreover, such framework may contain provisions on certain aspects of the use of national water resources located in the border area for exportation to the neighboring country.
This overall framework should offer the necessary legal certainty for any water utilization activities that might be carried out.
3. They agreed that said framework contemplates, among other things, environmental concerns, taking the laws of both countries into consideration.
Furthermore, it should provide for a joint technical coordination mechanism to facilitate the enforcement of the provisions of the overall legal framework.
4. It was agreed that the national authorities of both countries in charge of regulating the use of water will exchange information, as soon as practicable, regarding their respective laws and practices in this area.
2274
Annex 321
Annex 321
2275
Working Group on Local Development
•
The meeting started off with an exchange of information between both delegations regarding each country’s territorial and administrative organization.
•
Once the briefing on that organizational structure was completed, they agreed to seek the joint development of the north of Chile and the west of Bolivia.
•
Sectors, Objectives, and Actors were identified for joint work in the coming months in order to complete an integrated overview of the region and its continental potential.
•
With a view to having an itemized plan before the meeting of the Presidents to be held in April, the suggestion was made to hold prior technical meetings between the actors involved.
•
The sectors, objectives, and actors are as follows:
1. Sector: Tourism
Goal: Promotion, development and facilitation of this sector’s activities
Actors: National Tourism Service (SERNATUR), Regional Governments (Chile)
Office of the Vice-Minister of Tourism, Provincial Governments (Bolivia)
2. Sector: SMEs (all sectors)
Goal: Cooperation and coordination for the development of the sector, with emphasis on employment with technical support, training and certification.
Actors: Ministry of Economy (Chile)
Office of the Vice-Minister for Microbusinesses (Bolivia)
3. Sector: Agribusiness
Note: Work in connection with this sector will be based on the minutes presented by the Chilean delegation, which should be assessed by the relevant Ministry of Bolivia. A meeting of both countries’ Ministers of Agriculture is expected to be held in the coming weeks.
4. Sector: Local Trade
Goal: Facilitation and development of local markets
2276
Annex 321
Annex 321
2277
Actors: Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Economy (Chile)
Foreign Ministry, MDE [Ministry of Economic Development], MCEI [Ministry of International Trade and Investment] (Bolivia)
5. Sector: Services in Border Areas
Goal: Facilitating the provision of cross-border services, including financial services and public services.
Actors: Various institutions, depending on the specific type of services.
6. Sector: Culture
General Goal: Promoting the integrated development of the region
6.1. Universities, Intellectuals
Actors: Ministry of Education, Council of University Presidents (Chile)
Ministry of Education, CEUB [Executive Committee of Bolivian Universities] (Bolivia)
6.2. Ethnic Issues
Actors: CONADI [National Commission for the Right to Identity] (Chile)
MACPIO [Ministry of Rural Issues, First Nations and Indigenous Peoples] (Bolivia)
6.3. Sports
Actors: DIGEDER [General Sports Office] (Chile)
Ministry of Education, Office of the Secretary of Sports (Bolivia)
7. Institutional Cooperation
Goal: Exchanging institutional experience and reaching agreements for joint coordination
Actors: Regional Governments, Provincial Governments, Municipal Governments, Office of the Undersecretary for Regional Development (Chile)
Provincial Governments, Municipal Governments, Office of the Vice-Minister for People’s Participation (Bolivia)
2278
Annex 322
Report of René Peña Castellon, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Consultant, to the Meeting of Governmental Experts from Landlocked and Transit Developing Countries and Representatives of Donor Countries and Financial and Development Institutions, 16 July 2001,
UN Doc UNCTAD/LDC/113 (extract)
(Original in English)
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G01/520/12/PDF/G0152012.p…;, pp 1 and 8-11
2279
2280
Annex 322
-8 -I.OVERVIEW OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRANSPORTATIONFACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR BOLIVIAA.Basic transit transport issues1. Overall economic situation11.The Republic of Bolivia is located in the centre of the South American continent, with aterritory of 1,098,581 square metres and a population of approximately 7 million people.Bolivia’s economy has always been dependent on the mining industry, and this dependence hastranslated into an economy that prospers or collapses with the fluctuations of market prices.Economic instability is caused by Bolivia’s dependence on the export of raw materials,landlocked status, isolation and mountainous terrain. For the last 12 years Bolivia has hadencouraging macroeconomic indicators, although acute poverty still persists. The country is nowin the middle of a serious economic and social crisis which will have unpredictable results giventhe general economic downturn in all the South American economies. Bolivia's economic growthrate declined from 4 per cent in 1996 to 2 per cent in 2000.2. International conventions governing transit trade12.In October 1904, Chile and Bolivia signed a Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Commerce.This treaty gave Chile permanent possession of the Bolivian littoral. In exchange the treatyrequired Chile to build a railway from Arica to La Paz and grant it to Bolivia in perpetuity, giving it“the fullest and most unrestricted rights to commercial transit through Chilean territory and theports of the Pacific”. Furthermore, the treaty granted Bolivia the right to maintain customsagencies inArica,Antofagasta and other ports as might be agreed on later. Under theCommercial Traffic Convention of 1912 Bolivia's free transit rights were further specified, trafficwas regulated and more authority was given to Bolivian customs agents in Chilean ports. Bolivia'stransit rights were reinforced by the Convention of 16 August 1937, which specifically guaranteedfull and free transit for all types of goods. It also stipulated the procedures for reception, dispatchand conveyance, with only minor variations to those that were already in place.13.TheCartagena Accord or Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela)created a common market of 98 million inhabitants renamed ComunidadAndina de Naciones(CAN). It included market benefits for Bolivia, including its non-traditional exports. These resultswere achieved after member countries granted exceptional treatment to Bolivia by acceptingnational customs tariffs of 10 per cent and 5 per cent as external common tariffs, and removing allinternal trade barriers. Bolivia has surplus trade with CAN member countries but has a negativetrade balance with MERCOSUR member countries.14.Bolivian trade with MERCOSUR member countries reached $450 million in 1995, and isexpected to double as a result of sales of natural gas to Brazil. The MERCOSUR countries makeDistr.GENERALUNCTAD/LDC/11316 July 2001ENGLISH ONLYTRADE AND DEVELOPMENT BOARDMeeting of Governmental Experts from Landlocked and Transit Developing Countries and Representatives of Donor Countriesand Financial and Development InstitutionsNew York, 30 July - 3 August 2001REVIEW OF RECENT PROGRESS IN THE DEVELOPMENTOF TRANSIT TRANSPORT SYSTEMSIN LATIN AMERICAReport prepared by Mr. René PeñaCastellónUNCTAD consultant ∗ /∗ /The views expressed in this study are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the UNCTAD secretariat or of any official administration. The designations employed andthe presentation of material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part ofthe Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city orarea, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.Advance Copy
Annex 322
2281
-9 -up a market of 220 million inhabitants with a gross product income of $8.35 billion, and such apotential market represents a huge opportunity for Bolivia's economy. The Government should becreating favourable conditions for industrial development in order to maintain and increase exportsto MERCOSUR and third countries. MERCOSUR negotiations have not been favourable toBolivia, resulting in a large trade deficit. Under ALADI, Bolivia has signed bilateral tradeagreements with other South American countries, eliminating or reducing tariffs on limited lists ofproducts.15.Bolivia is also a signatory to the Treaty of the Rio de La Plata Basin. At the Extraordinaryin Brasilia Conference held on 22 and 23 April, 1969, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay andUruguay agreed to combine efforts to promote the harmonious development and physicalintegration of the La Plata River Basin and territories under its direct influence. Other agreementswhich Bolivia has signed include a Free Trade Treaty with Mexico, an Accord on a Free TradeZone with Peru and the Acuerdo de ComplementaciónEconómica (ACE) with Chile. It has alsosigned a General System of Preferences (GSP), a basis for Andean trade to receive preferentialtreatment from the United States, the European Union and Japan. For instance, the United Statesallows some Bolivian exports to enter its market at duty-free or reduced rates under GSPschemes. In 1999, Bolivian exports stood at $1.4 billion and imports at $1.85 billion. Bolivia’smain trading partners are the European Union, Colombia, Uruguay, Argentina, Peru, Ecuador,Brazil, Japan, Chile and Spain.16.Bolivia now has the largest natural gas reserves in the region. It is expected that within 10years 80 per cent of regional trade could be passing through Bolivia’s Tax Free Zone, making thiscountry a potential regional centre of energy and trade. As a result of Bolivia’s signing theCartagena Accord, the Rio de La Plata Basin Treaty, ALADI and MERCOSUR and itsparticipation in the technical committees of these institutions, the Government has had to introducelegislation on advanced international norms. Some of the resolutions adopted at the forum ofConoSur Countries have been introduced into Bolivia’s domestic legislation. For instance, theAxle Load Law was drafted in 1997 and approved in 2000. Common rules adopted under theaegis of MERCOSUR, such as rules related to the transport of dangerous goods and multimodaltransport, have been adopted in Bolivia.17.Bolivia’s participation in the Latin American Conferences of Ministers of Transport hasfacilitated the modernization of its transportation procedures and regulations. Bolivia adheres tothe important resolutions of this body in the areas of multimodal transport, harmonization of roadtransport regulations, and rules and regulations relating to commercial air policies, maritimetransport, road security, communications and trade facilitation.18.A comprehensive Transport Code which took two years to elaborate, was submitted toCongress for approval in 2000. This Code, which prescribes norms for the transport sector and,protection of users of transport services, and sets out regulations to ensure public safety, has notyet been approved.
2282
Annex 322
-10 -19.Transporters are among the interest groups that have raised objections, contending that theproposed draft gives too much power to the public sector regulatory body, and that transporterswere not consulted by the Government during the preparation of the Code. With the main utilities(railways, telecommunications, airlines) privatized, the role of the public sector regulatory bodywould be to protect the public from abuse of monopoly power by the new private sectormonopolies and to ensure that activities operate efficiently.20.In efforts to facilitate trade, measures have been taken to simplify and rationalize the taxstructure. A single import custom duty tax of 10 per cent (5 per cent for approved capital goods),called theGravamenAduaneroConsolidado (GAC), was established and all existingdepartmental and municipal taxes, fines, charges, benefits for unions etc. were abolished and allrestrictive measures and the consular visa were eliminated. The Government hired twointernational inspection companies – the SGS and Inspectorate – for Customs Inspection.21.Under a reform process which began in 1989, all the custom agency’s warehouses andborder posts were privatized. The results of this privatization are mixed. The services providedare more efficient, the existing custom offices have been refurbished and new facilities were builtat the borders. However, one of the warehouses in Cochabamba has had serious problems withfraud and the owners and operators are now being prosecuted.22.Other positive developments include the introduction of ASYCUDA++ (an automatedcomputer program developed by UNCTAD) the creation of the technical Unit of Inspection(UTISA) and the creation of a customs police (COA).23.One of the main tasks of the customs authority is to fight corruption and smuggling.Research by the National Chamber of Commerce estimates that during the past 10 yearssmugglers have managed to illegally import an estimated $6 billion of foreign goods. The newcustoms law makes smuggling a criminal offence, with imprisonment as the penalty. Whencustoms officers are caught red-handed they face the legal system, but unfortunately enforcementis weak and many offenders.24.In 1969 Law 7230 was passed creating the Administraci nAutonoma de AlmacenesAduaneros (AADAA), a State-owned institution with economic autonomy. AADAA's originaltask as a customs warehouse administrator within Bolivia was to receive, store, protect anddeliver all imported and exported goods, and to cooperate with Bolivian Customs in theclassification, inspection and clearance of imports and exports. Supreme Decrees 8866 and 8968passed on 28 July and 27 October 1969, respectively, expanded the role of AADAA toadminister transit at the foreign ports of transit. In 1975AADAA’s role was once againexpanded, by an agreement between Bolivia and Chile. This agreement implemented theIntegrated Transit System (ITS) in the port of Arica in August 1975, and Antofagasta in April1978. It was regarded as the most successful attempt to rationalize and streamline procedures inthe ports of transit. The ITS is basically a set of carefully devised procedures for handling thedocumentation associated with the unloading, temporary storage, reloading and dispatching of
Annex 322
2283
-11 -goods in transit to and from Bolivia, and for managing these operations in a systematic fashionwithout the intervention of a private customs agent.25.AADAA cleared consignments with Chilean Customs, paid port and rail charges, andinvoiced the consignee for these charges as well as its own services. These arrangementsfacilitated cargo clearance for Bolivia. However, AADAA had several internal and externalproblems despite its auspicious beginning. These problems were mainly due to party politics,notably the appointments to key positions based on political considerations rather than meritwhich negatively affected the AADAA’s efficient operation. Port charges were inflated to anaverage of $20 per ton. The ITS operational and documentary procedures were distorted andneglected, failing to satisfy the expectations of all parties involved in the system.26.On 12 December 1996 a new institution was created by Supreme Decree 24434 toreplace the AADAA. The Administration of Bolivian Port Services (ASP-B) is a public, non-profit, decentralized entity, with autonomy in technical, financial and administrative matters. It isunder the control of the Ministry of Economic Development. It has legal standing and its ownassets. There was hope that ASP-B would perform better than AADAA, but most of the usersare not happy with the customer fees and delays. Many importers seek special exemptions tobypass ASP-B or devert cargo to other ports where ASP-B has no powers. Arica’s portauthorities are also complaining, saying that ASP-B practices have rendered the Chilean portuncompetitive. With the institutional changes taking place in Chile and Bolivia a revision of theITS is deemed necessary and the existence of ASP-B is no longer essential for the transit ofimports and exports.27.Before 1995, the provision of transport services was dominated by the governmentagencies or the Regional Development Corporation (RDC). Following decentralization, thesefunctions have been entrusted to the Prefectures (regional Governments). The institution whichwas responsible for building and maintaining roads, ServicioNacional de Caminos (SNC), wasalso decentralized, with all its functions, assets and obligations transferred to regionalGovernments. This has proved to be a major mistake, because regional Governments lacksufficient funds and the ability to coordinate projects, which has resulted in a poor record of roadmaintenance throughout the country.3. National transit and transport regulations28.The programme of legislative reform under the Ministry of Economic Development hasapproved the following national laws and norms:•SupremeDecree No. l185: BolivianAeronauticalCode;•SupremeDecree No. 25134: national system of roads composed of national,departmental and municipal networks; determines the hierarchical structure of theNational Roads Service;• General Law of Transport Public Work Concessions;
2284
Annex 323
Joint Press Release issued by Bolivia and Chile, 12 April 2002
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2285
2286
Annex 323
Annex 323
2287
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
Press and Media Division
JOINT PRESS RELEASE
PRESS AND MEDIA DIVISION. Friday, 12 April 2002.
In the context of the 16th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Rio Group, a meeting was held in San José de Costa Rica this evening between the President of the Republic of Bolivia, Mr. Jorge Quiroga Ramírez, and the President of the Republic of Chile, Mr. Ricardo Lagos Escobar.
At said bilateral meeting, the leaders were joined by their respective Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Consuls General accredited to La Paz and Santiago.
Presidents Quiroga and Lagos resolved to examine the measures necessary to grant better facilities to enable the export of Bolivian gas and its derivatives to third countries, through a port on the coast of Chile. For this purpose, their technical teams will be meeting shortly.
Moreover, they agreed to firmly drive forward the negotiation process leading to a Free-Trade agreement, a Mining complementation and integration agreement, and a Treaty on the Conservation, Administration and Exploitation of Shared Water Resources.
They also took this opportunity to assess the status of bilateral relations and discuss the need to substantially improve such relations through serious efforts aimed at identifying and strengthening our points of agreement for our mutual benefit.
2288
Annex 324
Minutes of the Fourth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 4 June 2002
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Thirty-Second Regular Session, 2002, Proceedings, Vol. II, OEA/Ser.P/XXXII-O (2002), pp 149-150 and 195-199
2289
2290
Annex 324
[p 149]
MINUTES OF THE FOURTH PLENARY MEETING
Date: 4 June 2002
Time: 2:50 p.m.
Venue: Sherbourne Center
President: Mrs. Billie A. Miller, M.P.
Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of Barbados
In attendance: Blasco Peñaherrera (Ecuador)
Margarita Escobar (El Salvador)
Roger F. Noriega (United States of America)
Denis G. Antoine (Grenada)
Ramiro Ordóñez Jonama (Guatemala)
S. R. Insanally (Guyana)
M. Raymond Valcin (Haiti)
Aníbal Quiñónez (Honduras)
Peter Black (Jamaica)
Gustav o Iruegas (Mexico)
Norman Caldera Cardenal (Nicaragua)
Nivia Rossana Castrellón (Panama)
José Antonio Moreno Ruffinelli (Paraguay)
Diego García Sayán (Peru)
Marino Villanueva Callot (Dominican Republic)
Izben C. Williams (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
Julian R. Hunte (Saint Lucia)
Conrad Sayers (Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines)
María Levens (Suriname)
Knowlson W. Gift (Trinidad and Tobago)
Didier Opertti Badán (Uruguay)
Roy Chaderton Matos (Venezuela)
Gaston Browne (Antigua and Barbuda)
Carlos Federico Ruckauf (Argentina)
Joshua Sears (The Bahamas)
Reginald Farley, J.P., M.P. (Barbados)
Lisa Shoman (Belize)
Gustavo Fernández Saavedra (Bolivia)
Osmar Chohfi (Brazil)
Paul D. Durand (Canada)
María Soledad Alvear (Chile)
Humberto de la Calle Lombana (Colombia)
Hernán R. Castro H. (Costa Rica)
Annex 324
2291
[p 150]
César Gaviria
(OAS Secretary General)
Luigi R. Einaudi
(Assistant Secretary General)
[...]
[p 195]
4. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia
The PRESIDENT: We now go to item 4 on our order of business, the report on the maritime
problem of Bolivia, and I give the floor to the Foreign Minister of Bolivia.
The HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OF BOLIVIA: Madam President, Mr. Secretary General, distinguished delegates:
Twenty-three years ago I had the honor to preside over the ninth regular meeting of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in La Paz, as the first Foreign Minister of the nascent Bolivian democracy. On the last day of the month of October 1979, a resolution was approved declaring that it is of permanent hemispheric interest that an equitable solution be found whereby Bolivia will obtain sovereign and useful access to the Pacific Ocean and recommending that the States directly concerned initiate negotiations for that purpose.
Much has changed since then. Democracy has been restored throughout the Continent, and the free market economy has become widespread; the old hypotheses of war have been closed; Ecuador and Peru signed a peace agreement in Brasilia, showing that it was possible to use dialogue to find a way to resolve their historical differences.
For years Bolivia has repeated in this forum that its forced landlocked situation was a singular impediment to its economic development. It cited figures, presented technical reports, and cited the work of such well-known economists as Jeffrey Sachs. I recall now the conclusions of a paper prepared long ago by the United Nations, in July 1985, which stated that “the problem of being landlocked is also fundamentally a development issue. Only five of the landlocked countries in the world are developed countries. The remaining 21 are in the lowest income categories, and 15 of them are the most backward in the world.” So said the report.
If security was the reason invoked by American countries in 1979 to urge the nations directly involved to solve Bolivia’s demand, today it is the urgency of
2292
Annex 324
[p 196]
integration. This call is in the common interest, with the certainty that it will benefit everyone.
It does not make sense, nor is it logical, to reproduce the patterns of confrontation of the 19th century, when our countries came into being. The main idea today is the affirmation of unity and integration. The world no longer ends at our borders or in our regional space. The real space is global, and we can participate in it only insofar as we are one.
This was the path chosen by my country when it invited Chile to a dialogue without exclusions, one that would break the status quo, that would force us to look at old problems with fresh eyes and to dare to explore new paths and to look ahead, to try to reconcile the legacy of the past with the demands of the present and the challenges of the future.
First, in the Algarve, Portugal, in early 2000, Foreign Ministers Murillo and Valdés, and later in Brasilia in September of the same year, Presidents Lagos and Banzer, launched “a working agenda that incorporated without any exception the essential issues of the bilateral relationship, with the firm intention to seek and reach solutions for the issues that affect their political and economic relations,” and reiterated “the decision to create a climate of mutual trust that enables the deepening of mutual relations on the basis of the framework and the positions held by each country.”
Within days of taking office, President Jorge Quiroga met with President Lagos at the Rio Group Summit in Santiago, Chile, and confirmed my country’s decision to keep that option of dialogue as a State policy. There have now been several occasions when the two Heads of State discussed common problems.
In his report to the thirty-first regular meeting of the General Assembly of the Organization, in San José last year, the Bolivian Foreign Minister listed some of these areas of concerted action.
The first relates to the plan to export Bolivian natural gas to the California market using Pacific ports. Another involves highways and railroads that link the Pacific ports with markets in the Atlantic Basin through Bolivia. The idea is to build on the comparative advantages of the two countries in mining and water resources and to build an integration space for the regional economies of northern Chile and western Bolivia, which in my country’s opinion should be joined by southern Peru, and which should connect with the economies of Brazil and Argentina.
Indeed, the enterprise of selling liquefied natural gas to the East Coast of the United States, involving a further investment of almost $6 billion and an effort to harness the vast reserves of this energy source in my country, challenges the logic
Annex 324
2293
of integration to which I have referred.
This giant initiative is unworkable, and cannot be competitive if you must cross several national tax and regulatory jurisdictions, if the preparation process on the coast is not performed under appropriate technical conditions and if there is no access to a port terminal. If these limitations are not corrected, Bolivia cannot sell a resource of exceptional value, and the region
[p 197]
cannot benefit from supplying a product whose strategic importance has increased several times since 11 September 2001.
The intense debate over the location of the port, which occurred simultaneously in Bolivia, Chile and Peru, also tested the complementarity of the economies of that area. If Bolivia requires these ports to go to international markets, these ports need Bolivia for their own development. They all need each other. That is the truth of the present day.
Indeed, international agreements for the performance and implementation of these projects will not mean that Bolivia must renounce its position on Bolivia’s maritime reintegration and sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.
As we all are aware, we have initiated discussions with Peru and Chile to find the basis for an agreement to return to Bolivia the economic component of its maritime quality. I am confident that ultimately an agreement will be reached that reconciles the complex technical, financial and political demands of this project. Due to its size and its extraordinary impact on the future development of Bolivia, it is indispensable that its execution guarantees the consistent application of a State policy in which the principal social and political institutions of my country will participate. President Quiroga will most assuredly promote this internal agreement if the basic terms of an understanding on the outgoing port are found during his term of office.
On the day when this agreement is reached, the idea of regional integration will take on concrete significance for my country. It will begin to walk in a different direction, in the direction of history. Thank you very much, Madam President.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Minister of Bolivia, and give the floor to the Minister of Chile.
The HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OF CHILE: Thank you, Madam President.
We have closely followed the presentation of the Bolivian Foreign Minister on the “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia.”
2294
Annex 324
Chile wishes to reiterate its willingness to analyze, at a strictly bilateral level, all the issues of mutual interest to our countries.
This is fully consistent with our belief that the Charter of the Organization does not grant jurisdiction or a mandate to consider issues concerning the sovereignty of its members and that affect the validity of international treaties, whose inviolability is one of the pillars on which relations between States are based.
We reiterate that there is no territorial dispute between Chile and Bolivia and that the Treaty of Peace, Amity and Commerce of 1904 is in full force and effect, and the border between the two countries has been fully and definitively demarcated.
[p 198]
The Government led by President Lagos has sought at the regional level to promote those common interests that allow us to better face the current challenges. We have been generating spaces of mutual trust, particularly with our neighbors, making progress in overcoming the obstacles encountered and promoting effective integration. With our neighbor Bolivia this has been no exception. Quite the contrary, we have worked in the spirit that I expressed before the General Assembly in Windsor two years ago.
Bilateral meetings between the Presidents of Chile and Bolivia have been held recently. The maintenance of a frank and cordial dialogue, aimed at actions to ensure that the bilateral relationship is enriched by new contributions, has allowed progress to be made in the process of physical and economic integration. In this framework, we are carrying out projects in different fields and are creating the right environment to ensure that understandings between our countries are progressive and long-lasting.
On this occasion I would especially highlight the meetings in Santiago, Chile, in August 2001, during the Rio Group Summit; in October of the same year, in Lima, on the occasion of the Ibero-American Summit, and recently in San José, Costa Rica, as part of a new meeting of the Rio Group. At these meetings, Presidents Ricardo Lagos and Jorge Quiroga had the opportunity to keep moving forward in the search for areas of mutual trust that has made it possible to consolidate a truly constructive bilateral dialogue.
I would like to dwell briefly on the last of these meetings, which was held just a few weeks ago in San José, Costa Rica, on 12 April.
On that occasion, the two leaders resolved to consider measures to provide the best facilities to enable the export of Bolivian gas and its derivatives to third countries through a port on the Chilean coast.
Annex 324
2295
At the same time they agreed to promote the process of negotiations aimed at signing a free trade agreement; a mining integration and complementation treaty, and a treaty concerning the concession, management and exploitation of shared water resources.
Trade, mining, water resources, gas with export facilities, among others, are issues that are being incorporated, with increasing force, in our bilateral agenda. We have perfected aspects related to our physical integration, infrastructure, communications, energy interconnections, among other significant areas.
Madam President, esteemed Foreign Ministers and Heads of Delegation, practice has shown us that through imaginative, modern and realistic formulas we can move ahead with structuring and strengthening our cooperation on issues of common interest and of great importance for the development of our economies and ultimately for the welfare and progress of our people. On a bilateral level, we remain open to considering creative, realistic formulas to improve Bolivia’s facilities for access to the sea.
That is why I want to end by expressing the conviction that Chile and Bolivia can face the challenges of the 21st century in close association, in the framework of progressive regional
[p 199]
integration. This is our hope, this is the mandate of President Ricardo Lagos, and here we are pledging much of our energies.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
[...]
2296
Annex 325
Draft agreement between Chile and Bolivia, 22 August 2002
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2297
2298
Annex 325
Annex 325
2299
TEXT OF 08.22.02 6:00 PM
1.
In compliance with the free transit regime set forth in the treaties currently in force, Chile and Bolivia will agree on the necessary facilitations for oil, gas, and their derivatives and by-products to receive in their entirety the same treatment as Bolivian exports, as well as on the tax and tariff exemptions necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of gas and multi-purpose pipelines by any company the Bolivian government authorizes.
2.
The Chilean State will grant the Bolivian State a concession for a period of 50 years, which may be extended on the basis of the technical requirements of the project, over an area of approximately 600 hectares, which may be expanded by mutual agreement depending on project needs, in order to establish a tax-free area—called “Special Economic Zone”—for the receipt, processing, industrialization and trade of oil, natural gas, their derivatives and by-products, as well as petrochemical activities and other industrial activities and related services. The Chilean State will grant the Bolivian State a concession over the tax-free areas available in the abovementioned zone. The Bolivian State will be in charge of selecting the companies that will carry out the construction and operation of the project, including the company operating the maritime terminal.
3.
In conformity with Chilean laws, the property shall be registered with Chile’s Real Estate Registry under the name of the Republic of Bolivia.
4.
A single, stable legal framework, consistent with project requirements, will be created for all related activities. Such framework will provide stability for the concession.
5.
In compliance with the broad free transit regime, the project will not at any stage be subject to taxes or customs duties of the Chilean State. The project may develop other activities with the Chilean market, under the general regime.
6.
For the purpose of full compliance with tax and customs duties exemptions, Bolivia will have the right to supervise and audit the companies chosen to operate in the tax-free area.
7.
In the operation of the project, including the port terminal and the pipelines for the transportation of gas, the provisions related to health and environmental protection and the [technical and] safety provisions normally applicable to this type of projects shall apply, in a non-discriminatory manner, in conformity with Chilean law and international norms in force for both countries.
8.
The Bolivian State will select a company to manage the special economic zone, which will be registered and will develop its activities pursuant to Chilean
2300
Annex 325
Annex 325
2301
laws and will be associated with the competent Chilean authorities to ensure compliance with the applicable laws.
9.
The company in charge of operating the maritime terminal will have direct contact with Chile’s maritime authorities.
10.
The treaty to be signed will set forth the means for the competent Chilean authority and the company managing the special economic zone to engage in consultations before making any significant decisions on the continuity of the functioning of the project. Further, the treaty will establish technical arbitration mechanisms to resolve the disputes that may arise in connection with it.
11.
As regards employment and social security issues, Bolivian laws will apply to employees and technicians, except for those of Chilean nationality, in order to facilitate the projects to be developed in the region. To achieve this, the Chilean Government will grant the necessary facilitations, including those related to migration and residency, as applicable.
12.
To foster reciprocal cooperation in the energy, mining and economic sectors, including the supply of natural gas to Chile by the interested companies, within the next (three) months, negotiations aimed at signing a free trade agreement, a mining agreement and an agreement on the exploitation and preservation of shared water resources will be initiated. Moreover, negotiations will be held to allow investment projects of Chilean companies to be established and developed in Bolivia. Likewise, the parties will agree on an energy integration protocol on the basis of the ongoing negotiations.
13.
Both countries will guarantee the export and supply of energy resources in line with market conditions, granting the corresponding border facilitations.
14.
Together with all other interested countries, Bolivia and Chile will advance the construction and operation of interoceanic corridors to link the production sites and markets in the Atlantic with the Pacific ports.
15.
By means of a special agreement, Chile and Bolivia will grant tax and customs duties exemptions in order to foster the development of a coastal tourist area.
16.
Within the next 90 days, both governments will agree on international agreements essential for the commencement of the LNG project. The agreements will be submitted for consideration by the competent authorities, for approval and ratification as soon as practicable.
2302
Annex 326
Operating Manual, Integrated Transit System for the Ports of Arica and Antofagasta, 2003, pp 3-15 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2303
2304
Annex 326
Annex 326
2305
OPERATING MANUAL
INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR THE PORTS OF ARICA AND ANTOFAGASTA
2003OPERATING MANUAL OF THE INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEM
PORTS OF ARICA AND ANTOFAGASTA
Respecting the spirit of the 1904 Treaty, conventions and subsequent agreements, and the result of the meetings held by the Political Consultations Mechanisms of the Foreign Ministries of the Republics of Chile and Bolivia, the purpose of which is to enhance the services that the Integrated Transit System provides to both countries, and following the recommendations of the system’s member organizations, this Amended Operating Manual is approved, which supersedes the manual approved on 13 and 14 October 1993, and is adjusted to the changes decided by the Governments of both countries in connection with the treatment of goods in transit from and to Bolivia.
CHAPTER I
PURPOSES OF THE INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEM
The Integrated Transit System established by the Governments of Chile and Bolivia is the organization that groups together and involves the institutions directly and indirectly related to the transit of Bolivian goods using the Chilean ports of Arica and Antofagasta, in pursuit of the following objectives:
1. - To fully comply with the spirit and the letter of the 1904 Treaty and subsequent regulatory conventions so the port can be an expedited free transit point for goods in transit to Bolivia.
2. - To reduce the transit time of goods to Bolivia as regards the transportation
chain.
3. - To find and establish adequate mechanisms to reduce damage to and shortfalls of Bolivian goods.
4. - To promote the optimal use of the physical resources employed in the transit system.
5. - To take advantage of the port’s storage capacity to rationalize the cargo transfer between the different means of transportation and the regulation of individual importers’ supply flow in Bolivia.
6. - To clearly establish the liability to be assumed by the ships, port and modes of ground transportation for cargo losses and shortfalls in order to reduce the cost of insurance thereon, pursuant to international rules.
INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEM 3
2306
Annex 326
Annex 326
2307
7. - To contribute to the fulfilment of international bilateral agreements in all matters relating to international cargo transportation, customs rules, environmental and plant protection, the quality of life of communities involved, etc.
8. - To ensure that the cargo entering through the ports chosen by Bolivia really does leave the country.
INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEM 4
2308
Annex 326
Annex 326
2309
CHAPTER II
MAIN CHARACTERISTICS
1. - Conception of a global transit system that precisely defines the functions and duties of each body within the overall process, based on the coordination of different units at each stage. Furthermore, it is clearly established what type of information is required for a proper evaluation of the system and its components, as well as the necessary controls to correct operating deficiencies.
2. - Direct or indirect transfer of goods from the port by railway or other means of transportation, without the need to wait for the arrival of the original Bill of Lading endorsed by the consignee or any other document that may alter or obstruct the fluidity of the clearance of goods.
3. - Centralization of decisions related to the clearance of goods, which allows port and transportation resources to be used more efficiently, ensuring the different units can make their decisions in a coordinated manner. However, the consignee shall have the power to decide, in its sole discretion, on the final destination of goods and means of transportation, even though it shall notify its decision in due time to its legal representative so as not to negatively affect the normal performance of its duties.
4. - Simplification of Customs – Port documentation protecting the goods in transit to Bolivia.
INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEM 5
2310
Annex 326
Annex 326
2311
CHAPTER III
INTERNAL REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEM
TITLE I
PURPOSES
Article No 1: The Board of Directors of the Integrated Transit System shall have the following purposes:
To watch over the strict fulfilment of 1904 Treaty, subsequent conventions approved by both countries and bilateral agreements made during the transportation technical meetings and political consultations mechanism of the governments of Chile and Bolivia.
To watch over the faithful fulfilment of the purposes of the Integrated Transit System.
TITLE II
COMPOSITION AND REPRESENTATION
Article No 2: The Board of Directors of the Integrated Transit System shall be formed by the following institutions of the member states:
CHILE
Ministry of Public
Works and Transport
Empresa Portuaria Arica
Empresa Portuaria Antofagasta
National Customs Office
BOLIVIA
Ministry of
Transport, Communication and Civil Aviation
Port Services
Administration of Bolivia (ASP-B)
National Chamber
of Industry
National Chamber
of Commerce
[…]
INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEM 6
2312
Annex 326
Annex 326
2313
2314
Annex 326
Annex 326
2315
2316
Annex 326
Annex 326
2317
CHAPTER VCOMPOSITION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE INFORMATION AND COORDINATION CENTER (CIC)
The CIC is a multi-institutional body created to coordinate the action of the services directly involved in the flow of operations and documentation of the Integrated Transit System.
COMPOSITION
Given that the CIC is clearly an operative body that functions in accordance with the particular characteristics of the maritime terminal, each port shall define its composition with strict adherence to the ITS, which are an integral part of this manual.
The regulation that each port details for the operation of the CIC shall be approved by the Board of Directors of the ITS.
COMPOSITION OF THE CIC IN THE PORT OF ANTOFAGASTA
Empresa Portuaria Antofagasta (Presiding)
Administration of Port Services of Bolivia – Antofagasta
Railways of Antofagasta
Customs of Chile – Regional Management
National Chambers of Industry and Commerce of Bolivia
COMPOSITION OF THE CIC IN THE PORT OF ARICA
Empresa Portuaria Arica (Presiding)
Administration of Port Services of Bolivia – Arica
Customs of Chile – Arica Administration
National Chambers of Industry of Bolivia
National Chambers of Commerce of Bolivia
Arica-La Paz Railway Company
National Customs of Bolivia – Arica Agency
Bolivian Transport Chamber
[…]
INTEGRATED TRANSIT SYSTEM 12
2318
Annex 326
Annex 326
2319
2320
Annex 326
Annex 327
E. Pérez Yoma, One Mission: The Traps in the Chile-Bolivia Relationship (2004), pp 86-106 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
2321
2322
Annex 327
Annex 327
2323
2324
Annex 327
Annex 327
2325
2326
Annex 327
Annex 327
2327
2328
Annex 327
Annex 327
2329
[…]
THE GREAT AGREEMENT
It is ironic that, precisely in an atmosphere of media coverage increasingly adverse to the opportunities Chile was offering – which set the tone for the following months – we were able to agree with the Bolivian authorities on a protocol for a preliminary agreement that came close to being signed by both countries before the whole thing fell to pieces. What kept both them and ourselves at the
2330
Annex 327
Annex 327
2331
negotiating table in the meetings we managed to hold in Buenos Aires and other cities was neither blind obstinacy nor tenacity. It was the most absolute, serious and responsible conviction on the part of both delegations that there was no better option to make Bolivian natural gas exports to North America a reality than going through Chile under the generous conditions offered by President Lagos’ administration.
That is why that fervor and that climate of nationalistic hypersensitivity was not an obstacle to the Consulate General in La Paz and the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs actually making their best efforts to conclude their deal. What did this mean? Basically, facilitations for the installation of the gas pipeline, favorable conditions for its operation both from the technical standpoint and as regards staff residency, and granting the State of Bolivia a piece of land in Chile’s coastal area to house the required facilities for natural gas reception, processing and industrialization.
We managed to carry out the negotiations in a period which, in hindsight, is much shorter than it seemed at the time. I think both parties managed to work quite well, despite the fact that rumors and the increasingly heated public discussion in Bolivia were of little help when it came to building trust and cooperation networks.
Both delegations boasted important members. On their side, in addition to the Consul General in Chile, Fernando Messmer, their delegation consisted of two former Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Carlos Iturralde and Edgar Camacho. Our team, which was quite small, consisted of the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs,
2332
Annex 327
Annex 327
2333
Cristián Barros, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Director General of Foreign Policy, Carlos Portales, said Ministry’s Director of Legal Affairs, Claudio Troncoso, and myself.
We must have held about ten meetings, total, and, shortly before President Quiroga inaugurated his successor, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, there were no pending issues to negotiate. Simple, straightforward, clear, the final draft that was agreed upon by both delegations at 4:30 p.m. on 14 June 2002 is a tribute to balance and sound judgment.
That draft provided that Chile and Bolivia would agree on the necessary facilitations in order for oil, gas and their derivatives and by-products to receive the treatment given to Bolivian exports, in its entirety, for which purpose the free-transit regime would apply pursuant to the treaties in force, as well as the necessary tax and customs exemptions for the construction, maintenance and operation of gas and oil pipelines by any company authorized by the Government of Bolivia.
For this purpose, the State of Chile was granting the State of Bolivia a 50-year concession, extendable for equal periods, over an area of about 600 hectares, which could be expanded upon the parties’ mutual agreement based on the project’s needs, to set up a tax-free area – the Special Economic Zone – intended for the reception, processing, industrialization and trading of oil, natural gas and their derivatives and by-products, as well as other industrial activities and related services. Authorization for companies to carry out the project, including the operator of the sea terminal, would be issued by the
2334
Annex 327
Annex 327
2335
State of Bolivia, and the State of Chile would grant the necessary authorization and concessions.
The concession would be stable, as a unified legal framework that was compatible with the project’s requirements would be put in place for all activities. At no stage would it be subject to levies on account of custom tariffs or taxes charged by the State of Chile, and Bolivia would have the right to control and audit the designated companies that would operate in the tax-free area as necessary to ensure full compliance with all tax and customs exemptions.
As to labor and social security issues, Bolivian laws would apply to a roster of workers and technicians, except for Chilean nationals, in order to facilitate any project that would be established in the zone. For such purposes, the Government of Chile would grant the necessary facilitations, including regarding immigration and residency.
Lastly, Chile and Bolivia stated their willingness to expand the cooperation between both countries in energy, mining and economic matters, including natural gas supply to Chile, by interested companies, and the establishment and development of Chilean investment projects in Bolivia. For this, there would be negotiations to sign a free-trade agreement, a mining agreement and an agreement for the conservation and use of shared water resources. Moreover, both countries would sign an Energy Integration Protocol.
This work was done very thoroughly and provided a solid foundation for Bolivia to fully develop its natural gas business. The day we reached the agreement with
2336
Annex 327
Annex 327
2337
Fernando Messmer and former Ministers of Foreign Affairs Carlos Iturralde and Edgar Camacho, there were no loose ends that would come in the way of the cooperation horizon we had plotted. Everything was worked out and ready for both governments to sign it and for the consortiums involved to get to work in a race against time to adequately satisfy the Californian market’s natural gas demand.
Working quickly and well at those meetings was not difficult, particularly considering that the negotiations had the blessing of La Moneda and Palacio Quemado thanks to a public agreement reached by Presidents Lagos and Quiroga.
2338
Annex 327
Annex 327
2339
2340
Annex 327
Annex 327
2341
2342
Annex 327
Annex 327
2343
2344
Annex 327
Annex 327
2345
2346
Annex 327
Annex 327
2347
2348
Annex 328
A. Violand Alcázar, Sovereign Return to the Sea: A Frustrated Negotiation (2004), pp 97-114, 161, 184 and 211 (extract)
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
2349
2350
Annex 328
Annex 328
2351
Sovereign Return
to the Sea
A Frustrated Negotiation
ADALBERTO VIOLAND ALCÁZAR
2004
[…]
CHAPTER VI
WHAT IS CHILE GIVING?
2352
Annex 328
Annex 328
2353
[…]
FIRST MEETING WITH CARVAJAL
2354
Annex 328
Annex 328
2355
2356
Annex 328
Annex 328
2357
[…]
The Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed his concern for the delay of Bolivia in responding to his request to “authorize a Chilean inspection on the potential territories for exchange”. He also recalled that we had not replied to a Diplomatic Note in which he proposed to authorize the “Mixed Boundary Commission to carry out the reconnaissance of these areas” and that he had only received an invitation to re-establish the works of border demarcation, pending since 1962. I pointed out that the members of the Mixed Commission were, in fact, carrying out the reconnaissance at the border area while visiting it for the purposes of their work.
Carvajal insisted that, “concerning the matter of the exchange, the territory to be granted was the definitive argument, the philosophy to justify to his people the grant of the corridor”. He added that this was an arduous task since there were sectors of opinion that were reluctant, insisting anew on the necessity of knowing which territories were to be exchanged. I replied that, notwithstanding that it is a matter that depends on the result of the Chile-Peru conversations, in Bolivia there are commissions that are studying the alternatives to be proposed to Chile in due course.
2358
Annex 328
Annex 328
2359
The Admiral strongly replied “we will not accept any old thing”, to which I responded “that is why this is a negotiation”, pointing out to the Foreign Minister that all these aspects could be solved more easily if the government of Bolivia could present to its people a sovereign coastline larger than 8.2 kilometres, to which the Foreign Minister replied that he was not authorized by his government to accept modifications to the points contained in the document of 19 December 1975.
In order to pave the way, it was agreed that these aspects were postponed to the meeting on 2 June, between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of both countries, agreeing to prepare a schedule of work. I proposed to create specific commissions aimed at studying the technical and economic aspects, which could enter into operation simultaneously with the resumption of the Chile-Peru conversations.
The Foreign Minister expressed his agreement.
[…]
2360
Annex 328
[…]
THE CARVAJAL - ADRIÁZOLA MEETING
Annex 328
2361
[…]
As agreed, on 2 June at 10:30 am, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Admiral Patricio Carvajal, received his Bolivian counterpart, General Oscar Adriázola….
2362
Annex 328
Annex 328
2363
2364
Annex 328
Annex 328
2365
2366
Annex 328
Annex 328
2367
[…]
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile then referred to the need to carry out joint studies over the territory of the
2368
Annex 328
Annex 328
2369
potential areas to be exchanged. In this regard, he said that an exchange had already taken place in 1907. He expressed his country’s position with overwhelming sincerity. By ceding Bolivia a strip of land, Chile did not only wish to lose its border with its dangerous enemy, Peru,; it also wanted to obtain advantages. “Nor would Chile be interested in receiving rocks,” he said verbatim. While listening to the intense dialogue, I remembered the phrase by Diego Portales, “Chile’s interest is above any other consideration.”
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia answered, elusively, that he would take note of the views of his Chilean counterpart and that everything would depend on future negotiations. Then he changed the scenario asking Minister Carvajal about the Peruvian reaction to Chilean consultation.
2370
Annex 328
Annex 328
2371
[…]
… As the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile continued with his speculations, describing the characteristics of the creeks located at the north of the Concordia Line, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia interrupted his comments to categorically state that all those possibilities would depend on the efforts made by Chile in its current talks with Peru and that the Government of Bolivia assigned a decisive importance to the results of the meeting to be held on June 29.
The Minister of Chile replied that it was also essential that Bolivia and Chile move forward in the search for common grounds on the issues which initially seemed to cause difficulties. He proposed, as a way to make progress in this regard, to carry out joint technical studies contemplated in the comprehensive arrangement, through a bilateral committee to which special tasks could be assigned, such as the designation of areas that could be exchanged; fair value of the Arica-Visviri railway; Chacalluta airport, and the Minister also proposed exchanging diplomatic notes to reach a formal agreement.
2372
Annex 328
Annex 328
2373
[…]
CHAPTER VIII
NEGOTIATING THE EXCHANGE
2374
Annex 328
Annex 328
2375
[…]
AMUNÁTEGUI WITH BANZER
On 25 September, the special delegate of President Augusto Pinochet, Gregorio Amunátegui Pra, was received in the Quemado Palace by President Hugo Banzer. The message, back and forth, was precise: the negotiation must succeed, Chile and Bolivia will concentrate their political willingness to make it happen. The government of Chile was willing to demonstrate the courage to withdraw certain conditions. The Bolivian government was going to risk everything to achieve its outlet to the sea under the formula of a territorial exchange.
[…]
2376
Annex 328
Annex 328
2377
CHAPTER X
PERU’S RESPONSE
On 18 November, in a solemn ceremony held in the Red Hall of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Chile, located at the back of Moneda Palace, the Bolivian-Chilean Permanent Mixed Commission was created, through the exchange of Diplomatic Notes. On the occasion, speeches and good wishes were delivered. In the short term, this commission was expected to identify the area that Bolivia would transfer to Chile in exchange for the corridor at the north of Arica.
Unexpectedly, a few hours later, the government of Peru replied to the consultation made by Chile on 19 December 1975, through the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru, Ambassador Luis Marchand Stens, who submitted such response directly to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Admiral Patricio Carvajal.
It was a verbal response, which confused the Admiral. Therefore, he requested to have the response formalized in an Aide Memoire that was delivered the next day.
[…]
2378
Annex 329
Minutes of the Twelfth Meeting of the Political Consultations Mechanism, 17 February 2004
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2379
2380
Annex 329
Annex 329
2381
Final Minutes of the 12th Meeting
of the Chile-Bolivia Political Consultation Mechanism
The Delegations of Chile and Bolivia, led by the Chilean Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Ambassador Cristian Barros Melet, and the Bolivian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Ambassador Jorge Gumucio Granier, met in the city of Santiago, Republic of Chile, on 16 and 17 February 2004, in order to examine several aspects of the bilateral relationship.
A list of the Delegations of both countries is attached to these minutes.
After exchanging greetings, the Delegations approved the following agenda for the Meeting:
1. Free transit. Modernization and Bidding Process for Chilean Ports.
•
Port of Arica.
•
Port of Antofagasta.
2. Warehouses.
Length of stay and storage of Bolivian cargo.
3. Integrated Transit System (SIT).
4. Authorization of new Ports.
5. Situation of former AADAA employees.
6. ACE - 22. [Agreement on Economic Complementation No. 22.]
7. Technical Cooperation.
8. Agreements signed:
•
Integrated Border Control Agreements (CIF).
•
Customs Cooperation Agreement.
9. Agreements to negotiate or being discussed:
•
Treaty on transfer of convicts.
•
Agreement allowing work of consular administrative and technical staff relatives.
•
Agreement on Cultural Heritage.
•
Social Security Agreement.
10. Other Business.
2382
Annex 329
Annex 329
2383
As a result of the analysis of this Agenda, the Delegations agreed to record the following:
1. Free Transit. Modernization and Bidding Process for Chilean ports
•
Port of Arica.
•
Port of Antofagasta.
Both Delegations analyzed the various free transit issues raised by the Bolivian Delegation, particularly aspects related to the immediate consequences of the bidding process for the Ports of Arica and Antofagasta, and especially the costs derived from rates and other services, as well as characteristics of the single operator system.
The Bolivian Delegation stated their concern about the bidding process for the Port of Arica and reiterated their request for all the relevant information about the process so that they could provide their final opinion on this matter.
They also pointed out that pursuant to the bilateral treaties, Bolivia is entitled to a non-reciprocal free transit regime in perpetuity, through Chilean territories and ports on the Pacific for people and all types of cargo, and at all times and under any circumstances, without any exception. In this context, they emphasized that the rights derived from the Free Transit Regime are commitments assumed by the States, and, in their opinion, cannot be delegated to private enterprises.
The Bolivian Delegation stated that they reserve the right to consider other options which will allow them to develop their trade extensively and favorably to their interests.
The Bolivian Delegation emphasized that under the current treaties Bolivia has jurisdiction over the management, inspection and administration of cargo in transit to and from Bolivia, which is a power vested in the Bolivian customs authorities.
In this respect, the Chilean Delegation indicated that the bidding process being held by the Government of Chile is in full accordance with the bilateral agreements signed with Bolivia. They explained that in their opinion, the terms established in the bidding process for the use of the port infrastructure and services not only provide the necessary guarantees that Bolivia’s free transit rights will be respected (as they are included in the concession contract for each port), but this process is also an important modernization factor for facilitating international transport and trade.
2384
Annex 329
Annex 329
2385
Furthermore, the Chilean Delegation reiterated its recognition of the Bolivian customs officials’ authority over cargo in free transit, without prejudice to the exercise of the authority possessed by Chilean officials.
The Representatives of the System of State-Owned Companies and the Antofagasta Port Company discussed the terms established for the process of awarding a port concession and the primary aspects of the single operator and free transit system, explaining the economic advantages and the better service involved in such system.
The Bolivian Delegation proposed the establishment of a technical Working Group to analyze the various situations related to the transit of Bolivian cargo through Chilean ports and territories. In this context, they pointed out that an efficient dispute resolution mechanism should be established.
In order to analyze the topics set above, both Delegations agreed to hold a meeting in the first half of March, in La Paz.
2. Warehouses
The Bolivian Delegation discussed various issues related to the transport costs for cargo subject to warehousing, the time that it is required to be stored in those warehouses and the desirability of having the two countries coordinate any transfer from the warehouses.
With respect to the period of free storage for exports, the Bolivian Delegation requested that it be extended from 60 to 365 days.
The Chilean Delegation gave a presentation on the operations of the storage system for Bolivian cargo in transit and the costs assumed by the Government of Chile in order to authorize the necessary infrastructure in Portezuelo and took note of the statements made by the Bolivian Delegation.
3. Integrated Transit System (SIT)
With respect to the Integrated Transit System, and even though they acknowledged that it would be appropriate to modernize the current procedure, the Bolivian Delegation stated that this process should fully reflect the terms of the Treaty of 1904 and the clauses of supplementary conventions that discuss Free Transit.
The Chilean Delegation indicated that there is currently a proposed Operations Manual for the Integrated Transit System, which includes all the rules and procedures that have been added pursuant to the Treaty of 1904.
2386
Annex 329
Annex 329
2387
In this regard, the Bolivian Delegation indicated that they are analyzing this proposal and will announce their opinion in due course.
Both Delegations agreed to complete the review of the new proposed Operations Manual for the Integrated Transit System within the first half of this year.
4. Authorization of new Ports
The Bolivian Delegation stated its interest in facilitating the study of the authorization of Mooring Site No. 1 (multi-operated terminal) in the Port of lquique, while at the same time expressing its decision to temporarily suspend its request that the Port of Mejillones be authorized for free transit.
Both Delegations agreed that the authorization of new ports will be discussed at a technical meeting to be held in the first half of March, in La Paz.
5. Situation of former AADAA employees
The Chilean Delegation suggested that a prompt solution needed to be found to the humanitarian question of the former AADAA employees, and the Bolivian Delegation took due note of this, agreeing the idea that the topic should be analyzed at the level of the Legal Departments of the two Foreign Ministries.
6. ACE – 22 [Economic Complementation Agreement No. 22]
With respect to trade, the Chilean Delegation reiterated their intention to maintain the agreed principles to establish a broad Agreement that addresses the entire customs universe, which is asymmetric in favor of Bolivia, and without cancellation of the current concessions in force for both parties. Along these lines, they proposed either negotiating a Free Trade Agreement, or strengthening and perfecting the Agreement on Economic Complementation No. 22, which is currently in force. Within this context, they stated that they were willing to maintain the offers for duty-free contingents for sensitive products protected by the Price Banding System, particularly sugar.
The Bolivian Delegation expressed their decision to continue their efforts to strengthen the Agreement on Economic Complementation – ACE No. 22, in order to reach a fair commercial exchange and reduce the existing asymmetries.
2388
Annex 329
Annex 329
2389
7. Technical Cooperation
The Chilean Delegation made a presentation of the progress reached in the bilateral cooperation, agreeing on the need to continue working on the various issues and on new projects of mutual interest.
For its part, the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture offered to share the export experience that it has obtained from its agreements with the European Union and the United States. In particular, the Agriculture and Livestock Service will provide technical assistance to SENASAG in matters of interest to it.
To this end, a bilateral technical meeting will be held between the authorities of the Chilean Agriculture and Livestock Service and the National Agricultural Health and Food Safety Service (SENASAG) in April of this year in order to draw up a health agenda, particularly with respect to the health of cattle.
8. Agreements signed
Both Delegations expressed their satisfaction with their agreements to establish Integrated Controls and Customs Cooperation, which resulted in the signing of an Integrated Border Control Agreement and a Customs Cooperation Agreement at this meeting. These instruments will result in better service for users at the border crossings and more efficient joint action in the fight against smuggling and other crimes.
9. Agreements to negotiate or being discussed
Both Delegations stated their interest in moving forward with the following Agreements being studied:
•
Treaty on transfer of convicts.
This Treaty, signed between Chile and Bolivia on 22 February 2001, was approved by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies and is now being reviewed by the Chilean Senate for a new report. The Chilean Delegation agreed to take the necessary actions for it to take effect promptly.
•
Agreement permitting the relatives of consular, administrative and technical staff to work.
Both Delegations agreed to exchange information through their respective Consulates to move forward with the negotiation of the Agreement referred to. There is a text which is greatly improving.
2390
Annex 329
Annex 329
2391
•
Agreement on Cultural Heritage.
The Bolivian Delegation expressed their interest in having rules that would prevent the export of cultural assets and mechanisms for the return of cultural assets that are unlawfully removed. It was proposed to move forward with this topic and to hold a meeting in La Paz between the Ministries of Culture, coordinated by the Foreign Ministries of the two countries, on a date to be agreed.
•
Social Security Agreement
The Chilean Delegation presented a draft Agreement for review and analysis by the Bolivian Delegation, and both Parties agreed to continue discussions through their Consulates. It was proposed to hold a First Meeting of the technical bodies in La Paz as well.
10. Other business
•
Silala
With regard to the Silala River, both Delegations agreed to continue their analysis in order to find a positive solution as soon as possible.
•
Issues of Physical Integration
The Chilean Delegation reported on the status of the progress made with the work initiated at the Bilateral Meeting of Ministers of Economy, Public Works and Economic Development, held in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia in January 2001, on mining, energy, water resources and infrastructure, which may constitute factors of integration and cooperation between the two countries.
They pointed out that with regard to energy, it has been agreed to create a Working Group that will study a draft agreement in connection with ACE No. 22, and with respect to water resources, they mentioned the Bilateral Meeting held in December 2002. With regard to mining cooperation, a Working Group will be established to examine issues of mutual interest in fields such as geology, technology and mining legislation.
In infrastructure, the Chilean Delegation expressed their interest in continuing to move forward with the Joint Technical Group created in May 2002, especially to promote the development of priority connections, adding that Chile’s plans to invest in public works provide for very significant investments in highway connections between the two countries, especially the roads from Arica to Tambo Quemado and from Huara to Colchane.
2392
Annex 329
Annex 329
2393
With respect to all these issues, the Chilean Delegation reiterated their willingness to continue with the work begun.
The Bolivian Delegation stated that they are still studying the internal regulations on the use of Water Resources. They also stated that the Deputy Minister of Mining in their country would travel to Chile in March to attend the upcoming Expomin, which would be a propitious occasion for discussing issues of integration in these areas. They also pointed to the triangular cooperation that both countries are engaged in with Canada, in matters related to geology and mining.
Bolivia stated that it would organize the 3rd South American Summit in the second half of this year, where the progress with the URSA initiative will be analyzed.
Finally, both Delegations agreed that the various meetings provided for in these Minutes will be coordinated by their Foreign Ministries, and the Political Consultation Mechanism will be informed of the holding and conclusions of such meetings.
•
Next Meeting.
Both Delegations agreed to hold the 13th Meeting of the Political Consultation Mechanism in the city of La Paz, in July of this year.
At the end of the meeting, the Bolivian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship thanked the Chilean Delegation for their courtesy and hospitality.
Signed in the city of Santiago, Republic of Chile, on 17 February 2004.
[Signed}
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE
[Signed]
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
2394
Annex 329
Annex 329
2395
2396
Annex 329
Annex 330
Agreement on Customs Cooperation and Information Exchange between Bolivia and Chile, signed at Santiago on
17 February 2004
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2397
2398
Annex 330
Annex 330
2399
AGREEMENT ON CUSTOMS COOPERATION AND
INFORMATION EXCHANGE
BETWEEN
THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
AND
THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE
The Governments of the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, hereinafter the “Parties”,
Whereas,
The information concerning international transit operations between both countries, under the cargo document entitled International Cargo Manifest / Customs Transit Declaration or MIC/DTA and within the mutual cooperation under Chapter XII of Annex I of the Agreement on International Land Transportation, should foster coordinated action between the relevant institutions so as to secure timely information on international land transportation operations.
Under Section 16 of the Agreement on International Land Transportation, adopted on 1 January 1990, the Parties should assess such agreement and its annexes on an ongoing basis.
Article 30 No. 2 of Annex 1 to the Agreement on International Land Transportation provides that the parties shall use electronic means to exchange information between the Parties’ Customs Offices to reinforce mutual cooperation, among other activities.
Economic Complementation Agreement No. 22 signed between Bolivia and Chile on 6 April 1993.
The cooperation agreement between the Bolivian General Customs Office and the Chilean Customs Service signed on 29 July 1996; and
It is of interest to the Customs Offices of Bolivia and Chile to prevent the illegal entry and exit of goods through their borders.
Now, therefore, it is hereby agreed as follows:
Article One
The Parties, through their Customs Administrations and pursuant to their specific objectives and duties, hereby agree to mutually provide each other the fullest institutional, administrative, and technical cooperation concerning the international transit operations under the International Cargo Manifest / Customs Transit Declaration (MIC/DTA), reshipment and export customs destinations between both countries.
2400
Annex 330
Annex 330
2401
Article Two
For the purposes of Article 1, both Customs Administrations shall:
a) Provide the information contained in the registries defined in Annex I “Information to be Exchanged about the International Cargo Manifest (MIC/DTA or TIF/DTA)”, resulting from the operations of international transit between both countries and with transit through the territory of one of the Parties for which the destination is a third country, under the International Cargo Manifest (MIC/DTA or TIF/DTA).
b) Provide the information contained in the registries defined in Annex II “Information to be Exchanged Concerning Re-shipment Customs Destination” and in Annex III “Information to be Exchanged Concerning the Export Document” generated at reshipment or export customs destinations, respectively.
c) Implement information technology tools that allow for the simultaneous exchange of electronic information online.
d) Respond in a timely manner to the consultations and requests for clarifications submitted by the other Customs Administration about the information being exchanged.
e) At the well-founded request of one of the Customs Administrations concerning an ongoing investigation, provide a certified copy of the International Cargo Manifest (MIC/DTA or TIF/DTA). In addition, as regards the documents referred to in b) above, a copy of such documents may be provided whenever the request is made by a superior national customs authority and operations equal to or above 10,000 (ten thousand) dollars per manifest are involved.
f) Create a set of mechanisms to perform coordinated surveillance and risk profile selection operations.
g) Exchange technical opinions concerning tariff classification, the origin, and the determination of the customs value.
h) Appoint the Liaison Officers responsible for the exchange of information, according to Article Five, as well as the customs offices entrusted with the support and follow-up of the application of this agreement, pursuant to Article Eight.
i) Each Customs Administration may request or submit to the other Customs Administration for information purposes, the state of progress concerning agreed technological issues, as well as give or request technical cooperation to implement electronic exchange channels.
2402
Annex 330
Annex 330
2403
Article Three
The exchange of information under this agreement shall be subject to the following modalities:
a) online and simultaneously, through communication protocols between IT systems, as provided in Annex IV;
b) using magnetic media or e-mail; or
c) at the written request of the other Customs Administration, through the liaison officers appointed at the national and regional levels.
Article Four
Both Customs Administrations shall hold periodic meetings to follow up and assess compliance with this Agreement. Such meetings shall be held at alternate venues in each country, at least once a year.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Customs Administrations may request in writing, at any time, that operational meetings be held between the relevant Liaison Offices or Customs Administrations.
Article Five
In order for the operational implementation of this Agreement, the Parties hereby appoint the following as Liaison Officials of their respective Customs Administrations for the exchange of information:
BOLIVIA: National Systems Manager
Regional Manager of Oruro
CHILE: IT Deputy Director of the National Office
Regional Director of Customs of Iquique
Article Six
Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) and (b) in Article 2 hereof, the Customs Administration from which information is requested shall provide such information taking into account its own legislation, the competence of its customs administration offices and the availability of resources.
Article Seven
The information received may only be used for the purposes specified in the request, it shall be treated as confidential and enjoy the degree of protection and confidentiality ascribed to the same type of information by the domestic laws of the Customs Administration that receives it.
2404
Annex 330
Annex 330
2405
Article Eight
The Parties hereby appoint the following offices of their respective customs administrations as customs offices entrusted with the surveillance of the application and enforcement of this Agreement:
BOLIVIA: National Tax Compliance Office
National Systems Office
National Regulations Office
Regional Office of Oruro
CHILE: Office of the Deputy Director of Tax Compliance
Office of the Deputy Director of Informatics
Office of the Deputy Director of Technical Matters
Regional Director of Customs of Iquique
Regional Director of Customs of Antofagasta
Customs Administration of Arica
Article Nine
1. This Agreement, which shall be registered with the Latin American Integration Association as an additional protocol to Economic Complementation Agreement No. 22 between Bolivia and Chile, shall enter into force on the date of the last notice given by one of the Parties to notify the other that it has complied with the formalities required for the protocol to become effective under its domestic legal system. The Parties shall notify the effective date to the General Secretariat of the Latin American Integration Association. The General Secretariat shall retain this document.
2. This Agreement shall remain effective for an indefinite period; however, either Party may terminate it at any time, provided it gives notice in writing at least 6 months in advance.
3. Any ongoing procedure upon termination of the Agreement shall be completed under the above provisions and any request made within such 6-month period shall be answered.
Article Ten
The Parties may modify this Agreement and its Annexes through supplementary protocols.
2406
Annex 330
Annex 330
2407
Provisional Article
Insofar as the implementation of joint border controls is completed, the operational customs offices of the Customs Administrations shall hold periodic meetings at the border to reinforce the cooperation process.
In witness whereof, the undersigned execute this Agreement in the city of Santiago de Chile, on 17 February 2004, in two copies, both of which constitute one and the same agreement.
[Signed]
For the Republic of Bolivia.
[Signed]
For the Republic of Chile
2408
Annex 330
Annex 330
2409
2410
Annex 330
Annex 330
2411
2412
Annex 331
Convention between Chile and Bolivia on Integrated Border Controls, signed at Santiago on 17 February 2004
(Original in Spanish, English translation)
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
2413
2414
Annex 331
Annex 331
2415
CONVENTION
BETWEEN
THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE
AND
THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
ON INTEGRATED BORDER CONTROLS
The Republic of Chile and the Republic of Bolivia (hereinafter, the Parties);
Encouraged by the desire to further develop the framework of physical integration between both States and to create more favorable conditions for the border transit of individuals, vehicles and goods;
Acknowledging that border facilitation requires prompt, reliable and efficient procedures;
HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
CHAPTER I
DEFINITIONS
SECTION 1: The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this Agreement:
a) Control: The application of every legal, regulatory and administrative provision effective in both States with regard to the border crossing of individuals, as well as to the entrance, exit and transit of luggage, goods, cargo, vehicles and other property through the border crossing points authorized by both countries.
2416
Annex 331
Annex 331
2417
b) Integrated control: Activities conducted in one or more places by the officers of the different authorities of both States involved in the control, applying compatible and similar administrative and operating procedures on a sequential and continuous basis.
c) Authorized border crossing point: Point of connection between both States, legally authorized by both countries for the entrance and exit of individuals, goods, and passengers and cargo transportation, in accordance with the customs operations regime governing the crossing in question.
[…]
f) Integrated control area: The portion of the territory of the host country, including the route and the facilities where integrated controls are conducted. Officers of the neighboring country are authorized to conduct controls pursuant to their jurisdiction over this Area, in accordance with the provisions set forth herein.
[…]
j) Clearance: Act whereby the officers appointed to conduct integrated controls authorize the interested parties to take their documents, vehicles, goods or any other object subject to such control, and continue on their way, notwithstanding the pertaining customs clearance of the goods or phytosanitary or zoosanitary inspections to be conducted at a different crossing point or facility.
[…]
2418
Annex 331
Annex 331
2419
CHAPTER II
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 2: For the purpose of simplifying and expediting the formalities concerning control activities at the common border, the Parties may create integrated control facilities within the framework of this Agreement, whether on one side of the border line only, on the international border, or on both sides of the border.
The creation, relocation, modification or elimination of facilities shall be agreed by means of an Exchange of Diplomatic Notes between both States, which shall delimit integrated control areas.
SECTION 3: Within each integrated control area, the officers of each country shall exercise the control powers specified in Section 1(a).
The legal, regulatory and administrative provisions on customs, migration, sanitation and transportation effective in the neighboring country with regard to border control shall apply and have full force and effect in the integrated control area, in the understanding that the jurisdiction of the authorities and officers of the neighboring country shall be deemed extended over such area.
The host country undertakes to cooperate in furtherance of the proper exercise of all legal, regulatory and administrative powers conferred to the officers of the neighboring country, particularly those related to the immediate and expedited transportation, if possible, of individuals and goods to the international border, for the purpose of submitting them to the competent authorities and courts of the latter State, where applicable.
2420
Annex 331
Annex 331
2421
The officers of both States shall provide their assistance for the exercise of their respective powers in the area, for the purpose of preventing and investigating any violations of the provisions applicable to border control then in force, to which end they shall disclose to each other, on their own initiative or at the request of the other party, any relevant information.
SECTION 4: Controls by the exit country within the integrated control area shall be fully completed before controls by the entrance country are conducted.
From the moment the officers of the entrance country commence their operations, all legal, regulatory and administrative provisions effective in that country with regard to border control shall apply and, in turn, the officers of the exit country shall not resume any control activities over such individuals or goods as may have been cleared or dispatched.
SECTION 5: Any goods that originated in one of the two countries that are rejected or fail to obtain the relevant authorization from the officers of the other country during the appropriate controls, or that, after this, are returned to their country of origin at the request of the party responsible for them, shall not be subject to the rules on exports or to any control by the other country, notwithstanding such documents or records as the competent authorities may have to provide in the event of return to the country of origin at the request of the party responsible for them or at the initiative of the appropriate authority.
Any individuals or goods that are rejected or fail to obtain the relevant authorization from the officers of the entrance country or that were authorized to exit the neighboring country by the officers of this country may not be prevented from returning to the exit country.
SECTION 6: National border control authorities may propose the execution of agreements to their respective Ministries of Foreign Affairs in furtherance of the application of this Agreement, without prejudice to the specific agreements on operating or safety issues that they may have entered within the purview of their respective powers,
2422
Annex 331
Annex 331
2423
which shall be previously discussed with the appropriate authorities.
[…]
2424
Annex 331
Annex 331
2425
2426
Annex 331
Annex 331
2427
2428
Annex 331
Annex 331
2429
CHAPTER VIII
OPERATION OF COORDINATORS WITHIN THE
INTEGRATED CONTROL AREA
SECTION 24: The activities conducted by the control services of the Parties acting within the integrated control area shall be jointly coordinated as to operating and administrative matters, with the exception of the exclusive powers they may be granted, by the coordinators appointed to such end by the respective Parties, for the purpose of attaining efficient and functional control within the referred area.
SECTION 25: For the purposes of this Agreement, the coordinators shall be as follows:
On behalf of the Republic of Chile:
- Ministry of Internal Affairs
On behalf of the Republic of Bolivia:
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship (Office of the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and Religion)
- Ministry of Government (Bolivian Immigration Office, SENAMIG)
- Ministry of Public Works and Services (Office of the Vice Minister of Transport)
- Ministry of Farming, Indigenous and Agricultural Affairs (Bolivian Office of Agricultural Health and Food Safety, SENASAG)
2430
Annex 331
Annex 331
2431
- National Customs Office
- National Police
[…]
2432
Annex 331
The Parties hereby execute two identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, in Santiago, Chile, on 17 February 2004.
ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE
ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA
[Signed]
[Signed]
Annex 332
Minutes of the Fourth Plenary Meeting of the Organization of American States General Assembly, 8 June 2004
(English translation only)
Organization of American States, General Assembly, Thirty-Fourth Regular Session, 2004, Proceedings, Vol. II, OEA/Ser.P/XXXIV-O.2 (2004), pp 143-144 and 159-171
2433
2434
Annex 332
[p 143]
MINUTES OF THE FOURTH PLENARY MEETING
Date: 8 June 2004
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Venue: Swissôtel Quito
President: Envoy Patricio Zuquilanda Duque
Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Ecuador
In attendance: John F. Maisto (United States of America)
Denis G. Antoine (Grenada)
Marta Beatriz Altolaguirre Larraondo (Guatemala)
Bayney R. Karran (Guyana)
Yvon Siméon (Haiti)
Mario Alberto Fortín Midence (Honduras)
Peter Black (Jamaica)
Miguel Hakim Simón (Mexico)
Carmen Marina Gutiérrez Salazar (Nicaragua)
Juan Manuel Castulovich (Panama)
Leila Rachid (Paraguay)
Manuel Rodríguez Cuadros (Peru)
Francisco Guerrero Prats (Dominican Republic)
Izben C. Williams (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
Sonia M. Johnny (Saint Lucia)
Ellsworth I. A. John (Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines)
Henry L. Illes (Suriname)
Knowlson W. Gift (Trinidad and Tobago)
Didier Opertti Badán (Uruguay)
Jesús Arnaldo Pérez (Venezuela)
Harold Lovell (Antigua and Barbuda)
Jorge Taiana (Argentina)
Eugene F. Torchon-Newry (The Bahamas)
Billie A. Miller, M.P. (Barbados)
Lisa M. Shoman (Belize)
María Tamayo (Bolivia)
Luiz Filipe de Macedo Soares Guimarães (Brazil)
Daniel Hays (Canada)
María Soledad Alvear Valenzuela (Chile)
Carolina Barco (Colombia)
Roberto Tovar Faja (Costa Rica)
F. Osborne Riviere (Dominica)
Edwin Johnson (Ecuador)
Abigail Castro de Pérez (El Salvador)
Annex 332
2435
[p 144]
César Gaviria (OAS Secretary General)
Luigi R. Einaudi (Assistant Secretary General)
[...]
[p 159]
3. Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia
The PRESIDENT: We will now move on to discuss the next item on the agenda, the “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia.”
As the Delegations are well aware, Resolution AG/RES. 989 (XIX-O/89) provided that this matter would be addressed during any of the forthcoming regular periods of meetings of the General Assembly, if any of the parties involved required so. In this regard, it should be noted that the Government of Bolivia did so in due time and manner.
For the purposes of the relevant presentation, it is with great pleasure that I now give the floor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Bolivia, Juan Ignacio Siles del Valle. Please come forward, Minister.
The HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OF BOLIVIA: Thank you, Mr. President and distinguished friend.
[p 160]
I want to start by joining everyone in expressing their appreciation and gratitude to the Secretary General. You know, Mr. Secretary General, the immense affection that my people, my government and my country have for you.
Mr. President, many leaders in the region have read about the tragic events of October 2003 in my country and openly and unequivocally proposed that solutions must be found that recognize the legitimate demands of the Bolivian people. It was not merely a question of hearing the deep voice of popular lament, but of understanding that confinement is a major obstacle (although not the only one, of course) to the development of Bolivia.
Bolivia unquestionably influences the Atlantic region through the Amazon Basin and the Rio de la Plata Basin. Four cornerstones of URSA communication pass through Bolivia, facilitating transport from the western States of Brazil and from Paraguay to the Pacific, and also the passage of goods from Peru and Chile to the Atlantic through the Panama-Paraguay waterway. It also particularly impacts northern Chile and southern Peru. La Paz, El Alto Oruro and Potosí naturally project towards the Pacific through the cities of Arica, Iquique and Antofagasta in Chile, which benefit from the influx of people from my country, and also through
2436
Annex 332
the ports of Ilo and Matarani in Peru. Western Bolivia converges over all this space, commercially, but also humanly and culturally-speaking.
While Bolivia is the heart of the region, and without it we cannot talk about integration, it is also true that along with Argentina we have the largest reserves of natural gas in the region after those of Venezuela. Therefore, Bolivia has entered a new stage in its economic history, marked by our energy resources, which may become the factor that lays the foundation for the equitable development of the country, while at the same time serving as the integrating axis of this part of the Continent.
Along with water resources, natural gas can be the factor that determines the creation of a growth area, in the region consisting of western Bolivia, northern Chile and southern Peru. That is where our economies and our cultures best complement each other. That is where we could build a common area of peace and enduring social welfare. That is where we are destined--or if you prefer--condemned to seek joint solutions to our problems, overcoming once and for all the obstacles that have prevented a true encounter of our peoples.
On these grounds, Bolivia and Peru are already working on this vision of complementarity. On the 4th of August, in Ilo, we will sign a Treaty of Integration, Cooperation and Common Market, in the presence of our Heads of State, which will mark a milestone in the process of economic and social bonding between our countries.
But the greatest obstacle to this future integration, no doubt, is the confinement that Bolivia has experienced since the Pacific War, at which time we lost not only 400 miles of coastline and 120,000 square kilometers of land, four ports and seven bays, but also our maritime quality—and this is the most important, our maritime quality—which had allowed us
[p 161]
to connect with the world and be seafaring citizens of the world. Our claim today is to recover that maritime quality.
The referendum that President Mesa has convened, to be held in Bolivia on 18 July, is related to the use and ownership of hydrocarbons and includes a question about the possible use of natural gas as a strategic resource, i.e., as a bargaining tool to obtain a useful and sovereign outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
Because if we do not find an imaginative response that opens our doors to the world, the area to which we have referred above will lack the determining factor that redefines its growth and its progress. Only then will we overcome the resentment, distrust and stereotyping that still beset us today.
We do not reject, I repeat, we do not reject partial solutions such as those mentioned in Monterrey by the President of Chile, because they could be an interesting initial negotiating element that would allow the establishment of an exclusive economic zone, but these proposals do not include a definitive answer to the issue of a port through which we could export and import freely and sovereignly, nor do they allow us to use a territorial sea of our own.
I would like to point out that I have not come here to create controversy. I
Annex 332
2437
am not seeking confrontation. Rather, I have come in a spirit of reunion, a reunion that makes real what is stated in Article 1 of the 1904 Treaty between Bolivia and Chile, the 100th anniversary of which will be commemorated in October. We have no intention today of creating a controversy surrounding a treaty which, incidentally, was revised four times between 1907 and 1908 at Chile’s request. No. What we want is to establish the conditions for a discussion between the countries involved in order to find a solution to our confinement.
The evolution of international law presents us with new challenges and opens up new options for discussion. Let us seek solutions that satisfy everyone.
Yes, I have said this very clearly, because Bolivia is facing the challenge of having to make proposals responding to our public opinion, that satisfy Chile and its public opinion and that, why not say it, do not put aside our brothers in Peru.
The solution must necessarily be beneficial for all three countries, and if it is, it will be favorable for the entire region. It is not a question of subtracting but of adding. The further development of western Bolivia will also benefit southern Peru and northern Chile and so on. Nothing could be more attractive for the whole region and the Hemisphere, because under the present circumstances no one adds anything.
Certain media are trying to depict the treatment of item 5 [sic] on the agenda of the Assembly as a battle in which there will necessarily be winners and losers. Nothing could be more mistaken. If there is dialogue, there is integration, and if there is integration, we all win. Otherwise, it will be the entire region that loses.
The current situation harms our economy, affects the development and welfare of Bolivians and affects our possibilities for international inclusion . In fact, lack of
[p 162]
access to the sea seriously impairs the normal development of many of the developing countries that are landlocked just as we are. It is “the tragedy of being landlocked,” as President Duarte of Paraguay wisely pointed out a few weeks ago during the visit paid to him by Chilean President Lagos, although we Bolivians have no reason to view ourselves as landlocked, since we originally had an independent life without being landlocked. That is perhaps our greatest tragedy.
I must say, in any event, and I do so with gentlemanliness and recognition, that many Chileans have expressed solidarity with the need to seek and find solutions to the problem. I will quote, to start off, two writers for whom I have a deep literary admiration. The great Chilean poet Vicente Huidobro stated in 1938: “It’s funny how people will get upset over anything. Bolivia asks for a port, and what could be more logical? We Chileans... if we were in Bolivia’s position, wouldn’t we want an outlet to the sea?”
In January of this year another Chilean, the novelist Jorge Edwards, winner of the Cervantes Prize for Literature, stated:
The Latin-American Southern Cone could be a forum for exemplary relations, development of regional solidarity, stability, but it does not manage to be so. To reduce this to a question of treaties, formulas, old
2438
Annex 332
diplomatic practices is a ruse or an irremediable limitation. We have here, at our borders, in the sight of everyone, a problem that jumps out at you and cannot be legal, but political, human, historical, cultural.
I could name many other prominent people whose patriotism no one could doubt. To begin with, I would point to President Domingo Santamaría, who created a real pro-Bolivian wave in Chile, his son Ignacio or, more recently, Oscar Pinochet de la Barra, Carlos Bustos, Leonardo Jeff, Pedro Godoy and many others who have become aware of the urgent need to find solutions that make sense for both countries.
It is essential to make progress in the search for imaginative solutions, but the word imaginative cannot mean renouncing sovereignty. Improving the free transit regime is not enough. We therefore demand a part of the coast, that is useful, sovereign, and has territorial continuity with our present territory, that is not subject to the supervision of any other country—and let me make this clear—that does not cut the territorial continuity of Chile. If our imagination were to restrict the depth of our claim, then it would lose the creative essence of its reason for being. The concept of sovereignty has been expanding in recent times and this should facilitate the negotiation process.
Chile has also stressed in recent months that the only way to restart a dialogue between the two countries is by reopening diplomatic relations. That is also our goal - I repeat - that is also our goal. However, Bolivians are expecting a prior, clear demonstration by the Chilean authorities that this dialogue will lead to a solution to our confinement. For now, the absence of diplomatic relations should be understood as an example of the existence of an issue to be resolved in the Hemisphere.
[p 163]
To initiate any discussion we must first be willing to do this. We need to have the political will to resolve the issues that divide us. Only then can we establish a favorable environment for joint growth and to extend the conditions to strengthen trade agreements, mutual investments, in order to integrate peacefully.
Although we believe that the matter is ultimately a bilateral one, no one can deny the profound consequences of our confinement for the integration of the entire region, not only because of the effects it has on our development, but also because of the difficulties it causes for regional intercommunication.
In any event, there are eleven resolutions of the General Assembly that recognize that solving this issue is a topic of hemispheric interest, as established by the resolution of 1979 adopted in La Paz. Not surprisingly, in 1983 the resolution was even co-sponsored by the Chilean State. New resolutions are obviously not required, and that is why this time we have not proposed any. Nor should it be overlooked that subsection (c) of Article 2 of the Charter of the Organization of American States indicates as one of the essential purposes of our Organization: “To prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among the Member States.”
Moreover, the OAS is where we less developed countries can raise our concerns when we cannot find responses bilaterally.
It is therefore necessary to make the effort, for once, to put ourselves in
Annex 332
2439
another person’s position. Today we need decisions, openness to the common regional interest, calling for peace and good understanding between nations.
The time has come to hold a meeting between the Presidents of Bolivia and Chile, so that they can agree and order the commencement of serious, open negotiations without exclusions, allowing the two countries to find formulas to solve one of the few historical problems that remain pending in the Hemisphere.
We cannot ignore what has already been achieved in the past and therefore we think that the negotiations of 1950, 1975 and 1987 should be considered a starting point, without forgetting that on those occasions obstacles and misunderstandings arose that threw the entire process off course, whereas today those obstacles may be faced with a broader vision if there is the political will to do so.
Nor should we put aside the conversations held over recent years to study the possibility of establishing a special economic zone. Our only requirement is that we find a solution that would facilitate the exercise of maritime sovereignty for my country.
Despite the marked differences that have emerged in recent months, the Bolivian government believes that it is still possible to find and continue the thread of previous negotiations. This must not be a new “missed opportunity”, a term used almost twenty years ago by the illustrious Bolivian Walter Montenegro to refer to all the failed attempts at negotiation.
[p 164]
I accordingly ask Soledad Alvear, the distinguished Foreign Minister of Chile, that we be the ones who give continuity to the constructive meeting we held last Sunday, a meeting which, upon recognition of our differences, can be the start of this process of reunion of two countries that should and must be reconciled, because they face the option of jointly building a common destiny, and I invite the other Foreign Ministers of the Hemisphere to join us in this unavoidable challenge.
Thank you, Mr. President. [Applause.]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia. The Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Soledad Alvear, has asked the floor. Please come forward, Minister.
The HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OF CHILE: Mr. President, esteemed colleagues, Heads of Delegation, we have followed with particular interest the Bolivia Foreign Minister’s presentation of his “Report on the maritime problem of Bolivia.” It makes a number of findings regarding the relations with my country, with regard to which my delegation wishes to state their point of view.
Without prejudice to our belief, as expressed at previous General Assemblies, that these issues, given their nature, impact and consequences must be addressed through bilateral channels, I would like to reiterate the willingness of the Chilean Government to dialogue with the Government of Bolivia on the issues of common interest, in a comprehensive, constructive and future-oriented spirit.
Mr. President, when the administration of President Lagos began in March 2000, it was agreed to start a dialogue incorporating the essential themes of the relationship between the two countries. Since then and for more than three years,
2440
Annex 332
the relationship was intense and very active. The dialogue and contacts were fluid, ongoing and very broad, allowing discussion of all issues in the bilateral relationship.
The cornerstones of this dialogue have been improving the conditions and facilities for Bolivia’s access to the sea and liberalization of bilateral trade, with large asymmetric advantages for Bolivia.
The agenda addressed by the two countries has been consistent with these purposes and has included the topics of road infrastructure, transportation, agriculture, mining, water resources, local and human development, border facilitation, physical integration, scientific and technical cooperation, cultural affairs, the fight against drug trafficking, cooperation with the police, customs and immigration officials, economic complementarity and trade, among other issues.
The idea that moves my country in this direction is our full commitment to building a relationship with Bolivia for the future, to look constructively to the 21st century from the perspective of integration and fulfillment of common interests. We are convinced that in a globalized world, the prosperity of Bolivia can only bring benefits to Chile. The increasing demands of our people require that we act in unity and solidarity.
[p 165]
To achieve these objectives, Chilean President Ricardo Lagos met formally on thirteen occasions with Presidents Hugo Banzer, Jorge Quiroga, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and Carlos Mesa, and spoke with them at each of the presidential summits they attended from 2000 to January 2003.
I have met eight times officially and many other times informally, at each of the South American Summits, the Rio Group, MERCOSUR, the Summit of the Americas in Quebec and the Ibero-American Summits, with Foreign Ministers Javier Murillo, Gustavo Fernández, Carlos Saavedra and Juan Ignacio Siles. I have also met with them during the General Assemblies of the United Nations and of the Organization of American States and in other multilateral fora in which we participate with Bolivia. During this same period there have been three meetings of the Political Consultation Mechanism chaired by the Vice- Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries.
Mr. President, more than fifty meetings in the past three years shows that we have sought diligently to create a dynamic integration of bilateral and reciprocal efforts every day, incorporating factors that balance the asymmetry resulting from the difference in levels of development and consider the special needs of our border area.
Chile’s committed participation in the integration process shows the clear will of my country. The development of trade, investment and cooperation has been encouraged by Chile, with the understanding that they are vital to the prosperity of both nations.
My country’s policy is consistent. In recent years, Chile has committed will and resources in regional integration projects. The recent implementation of the grant of a free warehouse for Paraguay at the port of Antofagasta and the investments in infrastructure projects that contribute to the development of bi-
Annex 332
2441
oceanic corridors between Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay are concrete examples of a desire for integration that is very much in keeping with the 21st century.
Unfortunately, this auspicious path taken by Bolivia and Chile together ended as of January 2004. Bolivia rejected a statute to give an outlet for Bolivian natural gas through Chilean territory through a free grant of land with total exemption from taxes, in a free trade zone and for a period of fifty years, renewable as necessary for the export of gas. Bolivia’s interest in a free trade agreement ceased, even though its terms had been practically agreed and these terms provided for access by all Bolivian products from day one, from day one--I repeat--from the signing and entry into force of that treaty, and Chilean products were not going to be duty free until the fifth year.
Chile is a country that has negotiated many free trade agreements with developed countries. How I would have liked, as a country, to have the asymmetry of these features considered when negotiating other agreements. To propose this was a clear decision by our country to consider the special difficulties that Bolivia was experiencing and that merited a special willingness by our country. Unfortunately,
[p 166]
statements and gestures by the Bolivian authorities altered the fundamental assumptions of that dialogue begun in 2000.
Despite this unfavorable climate, President Ricardo Lagos offered the immediate restoration of diplomatic relations so that both countries could deal more easily with a positive agenda and the Government of Chile maintained and maintains a positive willingness to strengthen the Economic Complementation Agreement with Bolivia.
None of these efforts were successful. Moreover, last April a Bolivian decree prohibited re-exports from a third country to Chile.
Despite this environment, which was neither created nor desired by Chile, we have persisted in our effort to keep communication channels open and refine those aspects that have interested Bolivia. Last February a new meeting of the Political Consultation Mechanism, chaired by our vice-ministers, was held in Santiago. In March of this year, a Customs Cooperation Agreement was signed. On 6 May in La Paz, meetings were held on specific topics that occupy a very important place in our agenda, such as free transit and the enabling of ports.
Mr. President, from this perspective, which seeks to look to the future, I want to reiterate what I said the first time that I, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, chaired the Chilean Delegation to the OAS General Assembly held in 2000, in Windsor, Canada. I said on that occasion: “Chile is open to considering imaginative, modern, practical and realistic formulae that allow the improvement of Bolivia’s facilities of access to the sea.”
What I said in June 2000, I now repeat today in June 2004.
With the same willingness, transparency, accountability and respect, I wish to reaffirm the views expressed on the previous occasions when these matters have been discussed within the OAS.
2442
Annex 332
As my country sees it, bilateral dialogue is the only way to approach a process that is primarily up to Bolivia and Chile. It is not the Organization’s responsibility to consider matters concerning the sovereignty of its Member States and affecting the validity of international treaties, whose inviolability is one of the pillars on which relations between states are based.
The Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1904 put an end to any dispute or situation between our countries and is a fundamental basis for their bilateral relations.
This Treaty is fully in force, its provisions are met on an ongoing basis, free transit is a concrete reality, a very important part of Bolivia’s foreign trade goes through unhindered by Chile, and the border has been fully and definitively demarcated.
Under this legal instrument, the two countries have developed the integration initiatives that unite them, and we are confident that they will continue to refine these facilities in a manner consistent with the 21st century.
[p 167]
My country is ready to restart this task, as soon as possible, with the best will. To advance this process, I reiterate the offer to restore our diplomatic relations, which will facilitate understanding between our two countries. Those of us who are here know very well that the way to conduct dialogue between two countries is through their Foreign Ministries, through diplomatic relations.
Mr. President, the reality of this global world tells us that only through cooperation and integration will we be able to meet the demands of economic prosperity and social inclusion, strengthening the democracy that our governments have an obligation to promote and defend. This requires learning the lessons of the past, without letting the past become an obstacle to our growth.
Ten days ago, in Guadalajara, we saw how a Europe that was torn by conflict half a century ago is now committed to expanding its dynamic and successful process of integration. This confirms that countries can achieve their goals when there is a will and an actual willingness to focus their relations in a pragmatic, constructive and forward-looking manner. We know that in the 20th century, there were two world wars in Europe, and recently in May, the European Union has grown into a group of 25 countries, where the issues of today are viewed in 21st century terms, with regard to their integration processes, the single currency or the dialogue they are currently engaged in for a constitution for the European Union.
I think, and have said many times, that we, especially in Latin America, have much to learn from that solid block of forward-looking countries.
In this spirit, we insist that we are fully open to considering creative and realistic formulae to perfect Bolivia’s access to the Pacific, as well as progress at all levels of our bilateral relations.
Mr. President, calmly, but very firmly, I would like to point out that Chile is available today to resume dialogue and, in fact, on Sunday we talked with Foreign Minister Siles with the same goal we set for ourselves, which is to advance a relationship that looks to the 21st century, not to the past. Chile does not need to be
Annex 332
2443
called to dialogue. The more than fifty meetings we have had over the years reflect our clear decision to talk bilaterally. We have done it before, we have continued to do so during this time and we want to continue on this path.
Chile always has its doors open for a forward-looking bilateral dialogue. We propose bilateral dialogue to Bolivia as a basis for building a future of understanding and shared prosperity. Let’s work on what unites us, not what divides us. The path of integration that Chile proposes to Bolivia is the road to the future. Chile is a country that looks to the future, a future of integration and prosperity for the peoples and nations of Latin America. Chile will always be available to resume the bilateral dialogue with Bolivia on the basis of mutual respect and forward thinking. With the same clarity that we have stated in advance, and as President Lagos stated in Monterrey in January of this year, we are willing – and I repeat – to fully resume bilateral relations, because that would be a clear signal of our willingness to work together.
[p 168]
Mr. President, my Government hopes that we can recover this bilateral climate conducive to the strengthening of bilateral relations with Bolivia and is confident your Government will welcome this message.
We know that it is up to Chile and Bolivia to work faithfully for understanding and the prosperity of our nations, so that the future our people deserve will be better than what we inherited.
Thank you very much. [Applause.]
[...]
[p 169]
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Representative.
There being no further requests for the floor, the President proposes to take due note of all speeches, which, as is required in this Organization, shall be duly recorded in the minutes, with the best wishes of this General Assembly.
I call on the Foreign Minister of Bolivia.
The HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OF BOLIVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.
I cannot fail to mention the words of my fellow Foreign Ministers from Peru and Venezuela and of Argentina’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, but I also want to refer to the words of the Foreign Minister of Chile.
I was deeply struck by the number of places where my speech is consistent with the one by the Foreign Minister of Chile. I would point out some of the words that were used by both of us. First, the idea of an unequivocal will to dialogue; second, the idea of integration; third, the idea that this dialogue that we have commenced will proceed on a constructive and positive basis.
With regard to access to the sea for Bolivia, I want to emphasize the word used by the Chilean Foreign Minister in terms of “creative” or “imaginative”
2444
Annex 332
formulas, as it was pointed out. She also reiterated that both countries are more than willing to dialogue. I therefore wish to emphasize, as strongly as possible, these points of agreement, which I believe are also the starting points for a dialogue between us.
However, there were also some points of disagreement, and if there weren’t, we would not be sitting here discussing Bolivia’s maritime problem. We will have to work on these points, but I would like to mention two of them, because I believe it is important to explain them.
[p 170]
In the first place, with regard to the opening of diplomatic relations, I have clearly indicated that this is an objective of the Bolivian Government. However, what we do not agree on is that the Chilean Foreign Minister says that it should be the beginning of the process, whereas we believe that it should be the culmination of the process. I hope that this can reach its culmination and we can reopen diplomatic relations.
In second place, the Chilean Foreign Minister has referred to the Treaty of 1904. In my speech I mentioned three of the negotiations that were carried out: those of 1950, those of 1975 and those of 1978 [sic]. I want to point out that on those three occasions, the Treaty of 1904 was not mentioned, because the territory discussed on those three occasions is not subject to the Treaty of 1904. Therefore, when we talk about the inviolability of treaties, I want to make it very clear that I did not mention the Treaty of 1904, much less have I requested on this occasion that it be revised.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Foreign Minister. The Chilean Foreign Minister has asked to take the floor.
The HEAD OF THE DELEGATION OF CHILE: Thank you, Mr. President.
I am going to be very brief, but I cannot fail to mention some of the arguments made by my counterpart, the Bolivian Foreign Minister, who discussed several issues about which my Delegation was clear in the previous speech.
On this occasion, Mr. President, I want to express that Chile has repeatedly demonstrated, in its deeds and in its political actions, that it is in favor of dialogue and bilateral understanding, in accordance with the fundamental principles that bind the two nations.
I think that debating issues such as the ones presented in this forum, which affect or are related to international treaties in force, surely does not contribute to both countries making progress bilaterally through constructive efforts and a view to the future.
My country is very clear in its complete willingness to dialogue with Bolivia. This process, of course, is part of the goals of integration and development that the countries in our region share. We have emphasized our participation in the Initiative for Integration of Infrastructure in the South American Region (URSA), we are associate members of MERCOSUR, we participate in ALADI, and we are sure that free trade will only inure to the benefit of our peoples. We are willing to strengthen
Annex 332
2445
our relations with Bolivia with a view towards integration.
Finally, Mr. President, dear colleagues, we hope that the desire for bilateral dialogue will be born again and that the conditions of trust that are indispensable for fruitful dialogue will be reestablished, so that our nations can advance progressively towards cooperation and integration. That is why we desire to resume diplomatic relations and reiterate our offer to do so.
[p 171]
Thank you, Mr. President.
2446