Bolivia-Chile Maritime Conflict Resurfaces at UN General Assembly

The Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs, Heraldo Muñoz, announced that he will send a formal complaint to the United Nations in response to Bolivian President Evo Morales’ speech before the seventy-first general assembly in New York on September 16. Bolivia and Chile have grappled over the issue of Chile’s northern shoreline, territory that it wrested from Bolivia during the War of the Pacific in the late 1800s, creating a rivalry that has lasted for over a century. Despite the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, the Chilean government continuously limited Bolivian access to Chilean ports.

Reviving tensions between the traditionally rival countries, Morales accused Chile of violating these free passage treaties by restricting access to Bolivians passing through Chilean ports. He specifically cited Bolivia’s sentiments over the long-standing issue of Bolivia’s access to the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, Morales also noted the blatant human rights violations that accompanied the “racist and discriminatory practices.”

Muñoz exacerbated the conflict by denying any human rights violations on the part of the Chilean government and referred to such incidences as “existing only in [Morales’] ideological imagination.” Additionally, he claimed that Morales’ accusations “insulted the Chilean people and their firm commitment to human rights.” The Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs also rejected Morales’ speech for inappropriate use of the General Assembly.

Reacting to these claims, the Bolivian President of the House of Senators, Jose Alberto Gonzalez, appealed for the global recognition of the plight of the Bolivian people, citing the UN as the only means for aid.

Recently, the neighboring countries began a litigation process in the International Court of Justice to resolve the conflict. However, division between the countries permeates the dialogue as the Chileans perceive the case as unnecessary. For now, the future of the dispute remains unclear as it rests largely on the decision of the court and the ability of both nations to enter negotiations successfully and diplomatically.