Stella Calloni: Ruling against Bolivia Was Made for Imperial Interests.

October 4, 2018

Stella Calloni

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled against Bolivia in its maritime lawsuit for imperial interests,” Argentine political scientist Stella Calloni said today.

In an interview with the Bolivian radio station Patria Nueva, the journalist and writer pointed out that the verdict was wrong and was the product of ‘foreign pressure with other imperial situations and interests’.

Last Monday the ICJ established that Chile has no obligation to negotiate with Bolivia on the request for a sovereign exit to the sea that was lost in 1879 after a Chilean invasion.

In this regard, the author of The Years of the Condor considered that a decision of this magnitude cannot be made when there are political pressures and interests in a context in which the United States is intending to attack and re-colonize Latin America.

Chile’s President Sebastián Piñera himself revealed that the Bolivian maritime lawsuit was a topic of conversation with his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump, at a meeting at the White House just days after the ICJ ruling became known.

We must demand that international organizations do not allow themselves to be put under pressure in these situations, Calloni said.

The Argentine activist described the United Nations tribunal’s ruling as ‘irrational and mean’ because it did not resolve the century old dispute that resulted in the usurpation of the Bolivian coastline.

She called on Bolivia to continue pushing its claim and right to recover an exit to the Pacific Ocean coasts, as it has done for more than 139 years with international support for this just cause.

The ruling concluded after a five-year process in which La Paz appealed to article 31 of the American Treaty on Peaceful Solutions (Pact of Bogotá, in force since 1948) and cited written commitments made by senior Chilean representatives from 1920 to 2010 tonegotiate that request.

Since 1879 Chile has occupied with troops the 120,000 square kilometers on 400 kilometers of coastline in question. This, they said, is based on a 1904 treaty that has nothing to do with the pending issue.

Source: Resumen Latinoamericano, translation North America bureau