El Periódico «La Patria» de Oruro publicó esta nota en su edición del 19 de diciembre de 2015:
El ex Presidente de la República de Bolivia (2003-2005), periodista, investigador e historiador, Carlos Diego Mesa Gisbert fue nombrado el personaje del año, por su brillante participación en la defensa de la causa marítima boliviana y por ser el vocero internacional autorizado por el Gobierno de Evo Morales sobre este tema.
Su condición de «letrado» le permitió asumir sobre «sus espaldas» el rol tan difícil de socializar la posición boliviana presentada ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en La Haya-Holanda, donde el 24 de septiembre de este año, el jurado señaló procedente a la demanda presentada por Bolivia. Allí, la Corte afirmó que Chile y Bolivia tienen un tema pendiente en la discusión marítima.
Por otro lado, se aclaró que la demanda no tiene vinculación con el Tratado de Paz y Amistad suscrito en 1904 entre las dos naciones. Mesa se encargó de informar instante a instante cada uno de los episodios de este tema que generó polémica a nivel mundial y más por el apoyo conseguido por Bolivia en el contexto internacional como el pronunciamiento emitido, por ejemplo, por el Papa Francisco o los mandatarios de Europa y Asia.
Mesa fue uno de los hombres más seguidos por los medios tecnológicos, principalmente por el Twitter, en la que con pocas palabras se encargaba de emitir criterios respecto a esta problemática.
Conocedor de la historia, Carlos Mesa mostró una seguridad indescriptible cuando se refería a la temática marítima durante su participación en los medios de comunicación social del país y del
Sin duda alguna, uno de los episodios que quedará marcado en la historia de Bolivia, será su presentación en el programa televisivo «El Informante», transmitido en directo por Televisión Nacional de Chile el 29 de septiembre de este año.
Allí efectuó una magistral exposición y defensa de la posición marítima boliviana, situación que puso en vilo a los asistentes chilenos integrados por personalidades de ese país, que tuvieron que utilizar memorias escritas para corroborar las afirmaciones del vocero boliviano, quien dio una gran lección de sabiduría sobre el problema marítimo de ambos países.
Aquella defensa tuvo repercusión internacional, en las redes sociales fue aplaudida por bolivianos y chilenos que elogiaron el desempeño del historiador y periodista, que incluso llegó a proponerlo como el futuro Presidente de Bolivia.
Esos méritos hacen que Carlos Diego Mesa Gisbert sea el personaje del 2015.
el gobierno del señor Morales se a cansado de mentir a su pueblo
Is Chile trying to revive old sympathies with Great Britain and Germany?
Chile’s new diplomatic strategy, after the ICJ declared itself competent to accept Bolivia’s demand against Chile, includes international propaganda of its position and started with two important countries for Chile, Germany and Great Britain. These countries have a historical significance for Chile and Andres Allamand and Ignacio Walker, Chilean senators, had possibly tried to use old ties with these countries and prepared a story in which they omitted a number of historical facts and therefore distorted reality.
For example and among others, map in hand, they cinically showed that Chile usurped less territory from Bolivia (are they trying to feel less guilty?), compared to other countries, omitting completely that Chile was the only country who usurped ALL bolivian maritime territories, which are of considerable dimensions. The Bolivian territories occupied by Chile have similar dimensions to all England and near half the size of Germany. They also omit that Chile’s main export product is copper which is exploited in the Bolivian occupied territories. Just imagine where Chile would be without this copper which is linked to Chile’s history in most aspects of its existence, “copper is the salary of Chile” said president Allende of Chile, “Chile is what Bolivia gave it” said president Daza of Bolivia.
These omissions also hide the fact that Chile has changed the history of Bolivia, not only once but twice with two wars. These wars were not accidental since Chile had an expasionist plan from the beginning of its history (Diego Portales, 1835), plan whose objective was to move north to take over neighbors territories, plan that was succesful and achieved through criminal and illegal wars.
They have accused Bolivia of trying to «destabilize» borders and set a «dangerous precedent». This Chilean attitude lacks the minimum of ethics and morality as Chile was the one who destabilized the borders that caused the two presentations to the ICJ on behalf of Bolivia and Peru. In fact the real «dangerous precedent» was protagonized by Chile with the illegal occupation of Bolivian territories and acts of agression (atrocities such as genocide) which went unpunished, whereas other countries like Nazi Germany who also invaded and used barbaric methods did not remain in the impunity as Chile.
About Chilean diplomats going to Britain for face-to-face meetings, another «dangerous precedent» comes to mind, which is the worldwide fact known by everyone on the occasion of the war of the Falklands. Do not forget that British aircraft flew the colors of the Chilean flag, providing intelligence about Argentinian air strikes against Britain. While the war was taking place at the Malvinas Islands, Argentina had to maintain elite troops engaged in the Chilean Andes to avoid any invasion. These actions saved many British lives lives which may have been the difference between victory and defeat. This history may be brought up by Chile and the British may recognize that they have a debt to Chile. Would Chile resort to these acts of treason to gain sympathy? it is in the realm of possibilities, Chile already proved that had no scruples before.
Great Britain played a disastrous (for Bolivia) role in another war, which is at the core of the conflict that separates Chile from Bolivia. That role led to the Bolivian loss of its coastal territories known as Litoral. Everything began with a problem of a Chilean company which was operating in Bolivian territories where the British had economic interests. These territories were a source of wealth for Britain to such an extent that one of the subjects of the Gibbs House was considered the richest man among those who were not nobles and was hugely profiting from the exploitation of saltpeter. It is also known that Chile left the administration of the Bolivian and Peruvian nitrates industry to another British subject by the name of North who also enriched himself and took advantage of the Pacific War. It seems that Britain was always on the side of the oppressor in this case Chile, will history repeat itself?
Moreover, Chile and Britain have a «perpetual» treaty of peace and friendship that dates back to 1854 which may be invoked by Chile, secretly, as this would not be permitted by the OAS or worse the TIAR (Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance), but due to the fact that Chile’s foreign policy is the “respect” for treaties, they are perpetually tied to the British. It must be noted that Chile only respects treaties that are convenient for Chile, but has ignored treaties in complete defiance and non-compliance like the treaty of Ancon and the TIAR. Chile also run away from a treaty of perpetual peace with Bolivia (Paucarpata) after signing it, and has also ignored treaties with the Mapuches.
History is proving that nothing is perpetual, and a good example of it is the treaty of Nanking between China and the UK, which was recently abrogated when Hong Kong returned to China. About Hong Kong and a British subject the Chilean senators visited, Hugo Swire, his family founded the Swire group which is known as one of the last remnants of British colonialism in Hong Kong. Swire is part of a center-right conservative party, as is Allamand converging in an ideological affinity that Chile through Allamand may want to take advantage. Swire is from a family of millionaires who made his fortune in the textile trade with Asia and Hong Kong is one of the main ports for this purpose . He is an official of the British Foreign Office in charge of Latin America and the Falkland Islands (Malvinas no less) among others. Because of all this previous history and profit from South America with allied countries like Chile, there could be an inclination to favor Chile.
Moreover, these senators met with members of the German Parliament (Bundestag) with the same story. In this case they may also appeal to the history of «support» of Germany from Chile, at the time of the Second World War, which prevented a unanimous declaration of American countries against Nazi Germany when Chile was turning a blind eye to German Nazi espionage that occurred in its territory.
However, the Germany of today is very different and Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany at present, is recognized as a good leader, a symbol of what Germany should be after World War II, “person of the year” by Time magazine. She suggested the Pope’s mediation referring to the Bolivian maritime problem with Chile. But another German, Beatrix Von Storch, member of the UE parliament, voiced a defense for Chile and “apologized” for Merkel’s words. It is interesting that Von Storch political stance is on the far right, even considered as Neo-Nazi, which would be consistent with the sympathy fom Chile to nazi Germany and Heraldo Munoz, the socialist, was happy to meet her.
Von Storch is part of a new political group called “Alternative for Germany” who has extreme views and want to get rid of the Southern countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal from the EU, wants to eliminate the Euro and favor harsh immigrant policies. This far right movement which seems too close, in historical terms to the end of facism in Germany and has already been repudiated and already caused some acts of violence on both sides, and other groups at the other end burned Von Storch’s car and painted a svastika on her office’s building. Is Chile happy with her support? Maybe, since it has been demonstrated over and over that Chile’s Machiavelism lives inside the bubble where right is wrong and viceversa. It has been demonstrated that the nazi invasions, as any invasion, were acts of agression, acts against the peace and Germany paid for it, and they need to recognize that they were wrong as Chile will have to do the same as its invasion of foreign lands remains in the impunity.
Returning to the Chilean senators, they have tried to fool their British and German partners by saying: «Chile has been negotiating in good faith for about 70 or 80 years and has always been prepared to do so”. True, there was good faith from Chile and that is precisely one of the basic ideas of the Bolivian demand, but they don’t mention that all these negotiations were abandned and they didn’t arrive to a solution and it was not complete because it did not lead to results and this is precisely why Bolivia filed its lawsuit in the ICJ. This is a misrepresentation on the part of Chile.
Allamand and Walker point out that Bolivia is not cloistered and can use Chilean ports in better ways than many other countries and companies, but what they omit is that this is an obligation of the 1904 treaty, not a favor, and Bolivia should clarify here that it can’t be compared with other countries who didn’t lose territory to Chile, and that the comparison with companies is a complete confusion at the top of the Chilean government, a country can’t be compared to a company. They also omit that Bolivia lost several sovereign ports by the treaty of 1904 as well as the possibility of having full use and sovereignty to complement the activity of ports to normal human settlement around it which may include related industries as well as use of beaches for spa amenities, residential areas, etc. And they ommit the Bolivian loss of 400 kilometers of sea, and its corresponding 200 nautical miles. How can this be compared with other countries that have nos lost access to the sea to Chile?
When these senators indicate that most Chileans do not support the maritime claim, they omit what Bolivians think which is overwhelmingly in favor of regaining access to the Pacific Ocean. They also make omission of the Bolivian people who were not consulted when the treaty of 1904 was signed. Incidentally, Chile should be neither mentioning the support count for or against because they did not comply with the plebiscite that was agreed in the Treaty of Ancon, because of ethics and morality a count of people should not be part of the Chilean rhetoric.
In brief, the messages Allamand and Walker tried to convey to Germany and Britain
were full of omissions and gaps and do not tell the whole story or the true meaning. Bolivia must take note and complete these stories and put an eye to the political implications that go to certain countries who in the past were «allies» of Chile, at a time when you can not fall into the innocence though one wants to believe in an idealistic justice.
Mar para Bolivia!
Allamand and Walker have told nobody that in the same war, Chile conquered the inmense Peruvian territories of Tarapacá and also the port of Aica and the neighboring city of Tacna,Chile returns Tacna to Peru according to the Treaty of 1929 fixing a new border between the two countries,But now Chile does not recognize the point where the border begins in the sea coast,This means , despite Mr Allamand and Mr Walker’s international campaign, reality is different,Chile is not a reliable countrt on grounds of International Law.
Felicitaciones y muy merecido. Un abrazo desde BsAs. Cacho
Enviado desde mi iPad
EL gobierno en su conjunto mienten descaradamente al pobre pueblo boliviano, ahora el señor Arce, le da esperanza a su pueblo y dice que el fallo es favorable a bolivia, y que el equipo perdedor de Chile tiene que ajustar cambios, lo ridiculo de esto es que el señor Arce como jurista, debe de saber que el fallo no les fue favorable y que la demanda, no llegara a nada.-
El interés del gobierno de tener a su pueblo engañado, no es otro que el eternizar la presidencia, que mezquinos y cobardes son estos mugrosos populistas.
A sabienda que están dejando la embarrada, estos populistas sin el mas mínimo respeto, le dan consejos a Chile, » que cambien a Insulsa » » deben hacer cambios en su equipo de la Haya» ., lo terrible de esta noticia es que el gobierno Boliviano, sabe que Chile le dio una tremenda paliza, a bolivia,con el fallo de la Haya. Creo que un estudiante de primer año de derecho, que lea el fallo se dará cuenta, que el fallo no fue para nada favorable a bolivia, que la demanda fue mutilada y transformada en una simple negociación.
¿A cual categoría pertenece ud. señor Ciro?, si por un lado están los «mugrosos», que vendría a ser ud? ¿Porque se oculta señor Ciro?… que denominativo recibe aquella persona que se oculta y destila todo su veneno detrás las cortinas?
¿porque está tan enojado señor Ciro?, que es lo que no le salio bien?
Don Rodolfo, por un lado están los demócratas, que creo somos la inmensa mayoría en este espacio (blog ) y por otro lado están los anti-demócratas, los amantes de las dictaduras.
En este caso, en bolivia se está imponiendo una dictadura populistas, es por eso mi enojo y exabrupto.Tomemos como ejemplo Venezuela, manejada por una dictadura populista a cargo del inepto Maduro. Venezuela el país mas corrupto del mundo, el mas peligroso, con la inflacion mas grande del mundo, el pobre pueblo Venezolano, ahora no tienen ni que comer y como broche de oro, mostraron un reportaje en donde la hija de Chávez, es la persona mas adinerada de Venezuela. Que vergüenza.
Bolivia tiene amistad con los países que nadie quiere saber nada, como Venezuela, Cuba , Nicaragua, Irak, países donde la democracia es muy débil y la corrupción es algo normal.
Cuando hablo de no saber nada de esos países, me refiero a los gobiernos no a los pueblos. Personalmente estoy muy preocupado por el pueblo Venezolano.