The Atacama Corridor Dispute Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

The Atacama Corridor Dispute Explained

Whilst South America’s lithium deposits are future areas of economic growth, given the worldwide electric vehicle transition, the landlocked status of Bolivia is a topic of continuous contention on the continent that owes much to its post-colonial relationship with neighbouring Chile. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By GeoVane, formerly AR Global Security and Base Rate (Global Guessing, and Crowd Money). Visit our website ➡️ https://www.thirdimage.media/ 👍 Support our work here:   / geovanevideo   🐦 Twitter:   / geovanevideo   (formerly @GlobalGuessing) 📷 Instagram:   / geovanevideo   (formerly @ARGlobalSec) 🎥 TikTok:   / geovanevideo   (formerly @ARGlobalSecurity) 📋 LinkedIn:   / thirdimagemedia   (formerly @GlobalGuessing) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RT -    • Видео   Whilst South America’s lithium deposits are future areas of economic growth, given the worldwide electric vehicle transition, the landlocked status of Bolivia is a topic of continuous contention on the continent that owes much to its post-colonial relationship with neighbouring Chile. Bolivia’s nitrates were prized during its time as a Spanish viceroyalty, and in the immediate post-independence period of the mid 1800s. The country recognised the attractions of resources to neighbours and granted Chile various customs and mining concessions in the nitrate-rich Bolivian Atacama, such as paying new taxes. However, when Bolivian President Hilarión Daza demanded a new tax on the companies in 1878 this ultimately triggered occupation, and the War of the Pacific with Chile. Chile’s victory was cemented after the signing of the 1883 Treaty of Ancon with Peru and the 1884 Truce of Valparaiso with Bolivia. Among Chile’s spoils of war, was included 120,000 sq. km area of Bolivia, including valuable coastal lands that result in the landlocked Bolivia of today. In 2013, Bolivia opened a case in the International Court of Justice, stating that Chile had not negotiated with the state for access to the Pacific Ocean. The 1904 Treaty of Peace and Amity is a point of contention between the two nations. This Treaty between Chile and Bolivia cemented the earlier 1884 Treaty and “permanently surrendered all of Bolivia’s coastal territory in exchange for various conditions”. These conditions involved infrastructure investment, financial obligations, and passage for both nations. Bolivia claimed that there was a promise of a return for “the fullest and freest” commercial transit, 2015, which has not happened, and also contends that this promise implied an obligation to negotiate. The 1948 Pact of Bogotá was signed by Chile, amongst a majority of South American nations. Bolivia claimed that the land was subject to an international judiciary because Chile signed the 1948 Pact of Bogotá, which meant it honoured the jurisdiction of the ICJ in dispute settlement. Bolivia also framed its argument around economics, as it has a low GDP per capita and high poverty levels in South America, and Former President Eduardo Rodríguez Veltze said access to the Pacific could equate to a 20% increase in Bolivia’s annual economic growth. Whilst the ICJ case was ongoing, then-Bolivian president Evo Morales dropped a bombshell by stating Chile made a secret offer to Bolivia in 1975, following the declassification of American documents. This secret offer would have granted landlocked Bolivia access to the Pacific Ocean through a 10km corridor. But the reason for this plan not coming to fruition is due to the Treaty of Ancon. Then-Chilean president Augusto Pinochet proposed extending Bolivia southwest from the Bolivian bordertown of Charaña, which would meant Bolivia would have a small sliver of coastal land north of the Chilean port of Arica. However, as it involved transferring sovereignty of former Peruvian lands, this would require Peru’s agreement as per the Treaty of Ancon. This 1883 Treaty stated that Tacna and Arica shall continue to be a Chilean possession and subject to Chilean laws for a period of ten years, after which a plebiscite will decide by popular vote whether the regions shall remain Chilean or become Peruvian territories once again. This vote was not carried out and this issue ran until the 1929 Treaty of Lima, after which Peru reacquired Tacna. Peru was also opposed to Pinochet’s idea but proposed joint Bolivian-Chilean-Peruvian sovereignty over Arica, yet this was opposed by Chile. Peru and Chile eventually came to an agreement in 1999, with Peru gaining access to Arica’s port.Should any Bolivian progress be made in its quest for a pacific coastline, overcoming a Peruvian hurdle could be a possibility.