.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; }p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial; }span.MsoFootnoteReference { vertical-align: super; }span.FootnoteTextChar { }.MsoChpDefault { font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; }.MsoPapDefault { margin-bottom: 10pt; line-height: 115%; }div.WordSection1 { page: WordSection1; }
Present Situation
At present, ocean access is an issue that governs
the Bolivian political and social agenda. The Bolivians keep awake their longing
to regain what they lost with several different manifestations. They celebrate
the “Sea Day” once a year with a great military parade and long lasting
speeches. It is not strange to find murals in cities with violent motives
against Chileans, and the Bolivian Navy still exists as a branch of the armed
forces, preparing to operate in their lost coasts. But on contrary of what one
could think, their demand is not that much of recovering their lost territories,
but more about recovering their access to the ocean so they can have a port
that could give Bolivia a better trade position.
The Chilean government on the other hand has
showed open to discuss a possible solution to this problem, but in practice,
has no possibility to offer Bolivia what they are asking for. Bolivia is asking
for sovereign access to the sea, which translates into a land strip cession that
would either dissect the Chilean territory in two or involve ceding formerly
Peruvian territories. Chile cannot do any of these without severely
disconnecting its national territory or violating the Chile-Peru peace treaty
of 1883.
The discussion has become more relevant in the
last years, due to the potential exploitation of big natural gas deposits in
southern Bolivia. To materialize the export of the gas, Bolivia has to build a
gas duct to a seaport were the gas can be liquefied and shipped. The logic path
for such gas duct would be through Chilean territories, but Bolivia refuses to
benefit Chile with such an investment if the maritime issue is not yet resolved.
Because of this, Bolivia has to consider constructing the gas duct through Peru,
or even through Brazil on the east. But these alternatives increase the cost of
the project so much, that turn it unviable.
Analysis of the Negotiation Environment:
I believe that the main obstacle for meeting an
agreement in this negotiation is the Principal-Agent conflict and the many sources
of intervention, like public opinion, that apply pressure to the agents. The presidents
of both countries are the agents, and the nations they are governing are the
principals. Presidents, as any politician, are heavily influenced by the impact
on public opinion of their actions. This impact is greatly magnified by the
public nature of this negotiation, which is permanently been covered by public
media. An example of this is the utilization of the conflict by many recent
Bolivian governments as an escape goat to justify Bolivia’s poor economic performance
and not assuming their own share of responsibility.
This Principal-Agent conflict is magnified by the
constant change in the persons negotiating. Although at any given point, the
negotiating parties appear to be monolithically represented by their Presidents
and Ministers of Foreign Affairs, in the last decades many governments have
represented both sides. This constant change in governments, which is natural
to a democracy, disincentives the presidents from looking for a long-term
solution, because it carries high political costs and it would be another
president’s government the one that would enjoy the benefits of such an
agreement. Maybe that’s the reason why the only time when the two countries
were close to an agreement was in the 70’s when both, Chile and Bolivia, were
under the power of long lasting dictators, Pinochet and Stroessner. In that
time negotiations were very advanced, but nothing materialized.
In this negotiation there are two parties directly
involved: Bolivia and Chile. But there is a strong linkage with Peru who would
be greatly affected by the outcome of any agreement between Bolivia and Chile,
and has the power to veto it if the agreement involves any land formerly owned
by Peru. For Peru it is strategic to maintain a border with Chile. Therefore Peruvians
will reject, and they have done so in the past[1],
any Chilean cession of land in their northern border. On the other hand Peru is
benefited by the conflict because Bolivia is currently conducting their exports
through Peruvian territory. This carries important externalities for Peru’s
southern provinces. Peru is hence benefited by a delay in an agreement, while
Chile is mostly unaffected. Bolivia on the other hand sees its economy affected
by every year that this conflict extends, not only because they don’t have
access to the sea, but also because they refrain to use Chilean ports as a
protest, even though using other routes is less efficient.
[1] In 1925
Chile and Bolivia reached an Agreement were Chile ceased the northern port of
Arica to Bolivia, but Peru vetoed the agreement.
