There is 1 message in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: OT: Language in the 2009 Constitution of Bolivia.
From: Roger Mills
Message
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: OT: Language in the 2009 Constitution of Bolivia.
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:09 am ((PDT))
As you probably know, Bolivia used to have at least a small chunk of what is
now northern Chile, giving them the port (IIRC) of Antofagasta. Bolivia and
Chile has a little war over this in the 19th C, which Bolivia lost, and is the
source of the bad feelings between the two countries,as you mention. Nowadays,
Chile is loath to give up any of the Atacama Desert in the north, as it is rich
in minerals. I'm not sure whether the more northerly area (the Peru/Chile
border) is feasible-- it's possible the intervening mountains would be quite a
challenge (as they are in the more southern area too). Also, there doesn't seem
to be a seaport on the coast up in that area.
But that's no reason why a road or rail connection to a sea port couldn't be
built, and maybe managed under international supervision, or with a customs
agreement etc.
________________________________
From: Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Language in the 2009 Constitution of Bolivia.
2013/8/19 George Corley <[email protected]>:
>
>> BTW, Bolivia has been requiring new access to the sea. As many point
>> out, the more natural way would be along the Peru-Chile border. So, I
>> wonder why similar solutions can't be used for all landlocked
>> countries. Has UN never considered considering some countries' borders
>> as international territory and building roads there to provide access
>> to the sea to landlocked countries?
>>
>
> Um, I don't think that they ever have or ever would. First of all, other
> than a few unusual circumstances (like the Korean DMZ) a border has zero
> land area -- it's nothing more than a line, it has zero width. You can't
> build anything touching a boarder that's not in one or the other country
> (or both). River borders might be a little looser, but I don't see any way
> that land borders could work that way.
Naturally, but the territory required to build roads is ridiculously
small. If it depended on me, I would not think twice about ceding
Brazilian territory to provide Paraguay with a 1-km-wide corridor
along Brazil-Argentina and Brazil-Uruguay borders to have access to
the Ocean. But it's maybe easier for Paraguay to keep using Paraná
River in spite of it not having sovereignty over the whole path.
(Search for "-29.59848,-59.605616" on Google Maps an zoom in.)
I guess the reason why a country doesn't cede such a small corridor to
other, as in the Chile-Bolivia case, is much more about polytics than
about real disadvantage. Chile's government just don't want to show
weakness to its population that is majoritarily against giving Bolivia
access to the sea, mainly because of historical rivalry. When the
population is not strongly against something, the State easily
expropriate properties to build whatever they want (including roads).
The case of Ethiopia is more complicated because the access to a
corridor along any border of Eritrea would be probably be seen as a
higher threat of invasion, because these countries are deadly enemies.
But if this corridor is controlled by UN, maybe the involved countries
would fear each other less (although they could fear UN interference
more).
>
> Given that, the UN would basically have to convince Peru and Chile to cede
> some of their land to some nebulous entity to build a road and a port, and
> what UN nation would want to set that precedent?
Because we people of the world have agreed that this is the best way
of finishing the unjust disadvantage of landlocked countries.
> Exactly why would Peru
> and Chile want to do that, when it would be far more advantageous for them
> to control Bolivia's access to the sea?
Curiously, the best concession to Bolivia came from Peruvian president
Alan García...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/20/peru-gives-bolivia-pacific-shore
http://archive.peruthisweek.com/news/13364
...who had already traded insults with Morales
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIcky8etkqs
> I'm sure that both countries would
> much prefer to make trade agreements with Bolivia for access? Now, I don't
> know the politics of the region all that well, so I have no idea what
> agreements exist or can exist, but that seems the most likely thing.
Messages in this topic (7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
