[Local-chapters] Arbitration of conflicts

[Julio Costa Zambelli]

Dear Erik,

The Bolivian case is different even though related.

They want the sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean that they lost in the
Pacific War in 1879, and the relation with the current Peruvian claim is
that the only possible, even though quite remote, option of the Chilean
government giving full sovereign access (they already have tax/tariff free
and preferential access to customs, ports, trains and roads) to the sea to
the Bolivians is in our north frontier. A corridor following our current
terrestrial frontier with Peru.

That land used to be Peruvian territory (before the war), and according to
the post war treaties they have to agree to any modification of the border
(i.e. Bolivian Corridor). All the "experts" say that if the maritime
boundary is modified with a southwest diagonal, the chances of Bolivians
getting access to the sea tend to zero (Where will the EEZ of that narrow
corridor be projected? To the southwest almost closing the harbour of
Arica?). I guess that this is the explanation of why the Bolivians have
acted so neutral not to say "pro-Chilean" in this matter.

About including the diagonal line, at first I had no problem, but since
Ivanovici deleted the parallel one, I started to give second thoughts to it
and researching about the claim, realizing later that the line on the
parallel thesis is supported by the 1952 and 1954 conventions (signed by
both countries). On the other side, the diagonal line has no consensual
support.

If anyone wants to draw it I can not stop him/her, but both lines are not in
the same legal ground (add to the previous bilateral background the Peruvian
government unilateral acceptance of the parallel line boundary in their
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Supreme Decree number 781, point 3 from 1947:
http://www.rree.gob.pe/portal/pexterior.nsf/0/02f5aa371fd1d0f405256e3c0057e14b?OpenDocument).


Cheers,

Julio Costa


On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Erik Johansson <erjohan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Julio Costa <juliocostaz at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > In late January I had a meeting with Chiles Ministry of Foreign
> > Affairs Department of Frontiers and Boundaries, and among other topics
> > of discussion, they made a formal claim about that boundary (I think
> > mostly because the OSMF and CloudMade mapnik renders still showed only
> > the peruvian claim at most zoom levels).
> >
> > Since that meeting I started thinking about how to solved this (any
> > way to block edition on specific ways or nodes?). The renders did not
> > updated and this week I decided to apply a reciprocity policy deleting
> > the diagonal line (the minute I did that all except one zoom level of
> > the OSMF render started showing the parallel line again, I have no
> > explanation for that), at least till the ICJ says different.
>
> Then you say:
> > Also the people from the Boundaries and Frontiers Direction (I made
> > a mistake with their name in my last message), made their position very
> > clear, even though I explained them that the international OSM community
> > will not like to get in the middle of a bilateral dispute, no matter how
> good
> > or fair the Chilean position is, or if we did not took part on starting
> this dispute.
>
> In my opinion it's not the business of OSMF or the editors of OSM to
> solve/censor border conflicts, To be fair to Peru I think you should
> add the conflict area to Peruvian/Chilean border.
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-18.339&lon=-70.38"experts" in4&zoom=11<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-18.339&lon=-70.384&zoom=11>
>
> Similar to the Slovenia and Croatia border conflict, last time I heard
> they were in court.
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.497&lon=13"experts" in.464&zoom=11<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.497&lon=13.464&zoom=11>
>
> For the record I've lived in Bolivia and I know they want the same
> area, and this claim still effects the internal politics of Bolivia,
> but that's an 130 year old conflict.. So I understand adding all
> border conflicts into OSM would be ridiculous
>
>
> --
> /emj
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/local-chapters/attachments/20100215/2868c9b0/attachment.html>