How did Castillo’s sayings about access to the sea for his country fall in Bolivia?

The demand for an outlet to the sea is one of the most sensitive issues in the recent history of Bolivia. In 2018, the Andean country suffered a severe setback at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which determined that the Government of Chile has no obligation to negotiate sovereign access to the sea for the highland nation. For this reason, when the President of the Republic, peter castle, revived the issue before the international press, it was evident that the reactions would not only come from Peru.

In an interview with CNN broadcast on Tuesday the 25th, Castillo acknowledged that before exercising the position of head of state he had been in favor of granting Bolivia access to the sea and affirmed that, now, he is willing to “consult the people ” if Peru grants an outlet to the sea to the highland country.

“[Lo dije] at an event, it never even crossed my mind to be a candidate. But that’s a cry Bolivia. yes i said it […] I didn’t say it as president. It’s an idea. But now we will consult the people. For that, the people need to manifest themselves. If Peru agrees… it would never do things that the people do not want”, the president told journalist Fernando del Rincón.

Castillo emphasized, however, that his intention is not to give access to the sea to Bolivia. “my intention is not [darle mar a Bolivia]. When we went to Bolivia, there was a proposal to bring gas from Bolivia to the south of the country. Tell me, are you against the country?”, he concluded.

From Bolivia, the statements of the Peruvian president did not go unnoticed, especially due to the affinity between the governments of Castillo and the Bolivian president, Luis Arce, political heir of Evo Morales, who has shown his support for the Peruvian president on more than one occasion.

The president of the Chamber of Deputies, Freddy Mamani Laura, from the ruling Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), greeted the “predisposition of brother Pedro Castillo to consult the Peruvian people about an outlet to the sea for Bolivia”. “Without a doubt, it shows its democratic spirit and will to strengthen the brotherhood between peoples”, added the Bolivian official on his Twitter account.

Bolivian journalist Juan Carlos Arana points out that although the president’s statements peter castle on the maritime theme can generate an initial euphoria within the Bolivian territory, the citizens of their country “they are clear that after the Hague ruling it will be very difficult to review a sentence that has already been completely explicit in determining that there are no pending issues between Bolivia and Chile”.

“Hence, it seems like a third party to try to give Bolivia a sea to the detriment of Peru’s own territory, I see it as impossible. Castillo’s statements are unfortunate and are taken as a political statement that definitely will not have any forward action in Peru itself.”, he tells El Comercio.

For his part, Rafael Archondo, a Bolivian journalist and political analyst, points out that, in general, there is an opportune silence on the part of the main authorities of his country, since the Peruvian president was not really firm in his position on the sea to Bolivia, but left the decision in the hands of the Peruvians.

“Unlike what happens in Peru, I feel that in Bolivia there is a cautious silence because the conclusion that one draws when listening to the declarations of the president of Peru, is that in reality he has changed his mind and that now he is turning his back on that opinion he had. It almost seems to discard what it adhered to long ago and leaves this possibility in the hands of the Peruvian people, which means that giving Bolivia access to the sea is something very remote. I believe that Bolivia is cautiously silent because Bolivians somehow realize that this change of opinion is bad news. It is a new setback to the Bolivian vindication”, he points out to this newspaper.

Since the loss of its access to the Pacific Ocean in a war with Chile at the end of the 19th century, Bolivia has sought alternatives to have a maritime presence that, among other things, facilitates its foreign trade.

Sensitive subject

Both analysts agree that these types of statements are not usual for a head of state because they compromise the international relations of his country and involve other nations in a debate that is not necessarily current.

“This topic demonstrates the care that authorities or public figures have to take. At the time they raise something they are not speaking in a personal capacity, they are not speaking in a stadium, they are speaking as authorities and as leaders, which generates expectations. But here in Bolivia, the issue is absolutely clear”, considers Arana.

Archondo is pronounced along the same lines. “What has happened shows the reality: when you are president you can no longer say the same things as when you were a citizen”.

He adds that although the issue of access to the sea for Bolivia is sensitive in his country, it has lost a lot of weight and strength since the International Court of Justice ruled out the Bolivian lawsuit against Chile.

“From that moment on, all the expectation that had grown to maximum levels due to the same impulse that Morales gave to the lawsuit, since it completely deflated and somehow the fact that the case has ended so badly in The Hague has made almost nobody want comment and comment on the matter. Although at some point it was said that relations with Chile could be relaunched and a new strategy could be established, that new strategy does not exist in fact. Bolivia is still perplexed by the result in The Hague and that has meant that the Bolivian vindication has lost a lot of strength”, point.

Blow to the relationship with Arce and Morales?

The closeness that peter castle has shown to have louis arce Y Evo Morales has made Bolivia pay special attention to the actions of the Peruvian Government.

Archondo considers that in Bolivia there is a certain expectation around CastilloIn addition, due to the strong relationship between the south of Peru and Bolivia. “And in some way, for many Bolivians, Pedro Castillo is the expansion of what has already happened in Bolivia since 2005, when Morales won.”. For this reason, the analyst considers it inevitable to evaluate the impact of the Peruvian president’s words in his relationship with the MAS.

“I believe that this harms the Bolivian Government. That peter castle due to journalistic pressure or for any reason has decided to discard or even go back on what he said when he was a teacher’s leader is bad news for the Government of Bolivia and for the MAS because they counted on Castillo as a very firm ally and in general the policy in Bolivia has been based on seeking allies for the Bolivian cause. if not even now peter castle, so close to Evo Morales, is firm on that side, it seems to me that it is a very strong setback in that alliance that exists and has been active”, he points.

“I think that this statement in some way a distancing, although it has not been a deliberate or express distancing, in any case, being an interview with so much rebound, it puts a cold cloth on the relationship“, Add.

Arana points out that, despite Castillo’s tepid position on the issue, the MAS will try to capitalize on his words before the population.

“Of course, here this will try to be used politically to say ‘you see, we are right, all is not lost’. All this in order not to recognize the international political defeat of Evo Morales, who was, after 100 years of struggle, to put a lock on Bolivian landlockedness. Bolivia is clear that with Chile talking about the maritime issue or at least sovereign Bolivian maritime quality in the Pacific is impossible”, he concludes.