Severo Cruz writes for El Diario:
Bolivia was never a Mediterranean country
One of so many tests in this regard is what El Mercurio, Santiago de Chile, on June 27, 1969, stated “Bolivia is a Mediterranean country”.
“It is not to satisfy the longings of Bolivia to have sovereign sea and direct access, but the problems arising from their condition of Mediterranean country”, added later.
At the end of this quote, as we can read, El Mercurio underlines, in a repetitive way the term “Mediterranean”. Consequently Chile, by the influential newspaper, has insisted that Bolivia had never owned access and sovereignty to the Ocean Pacific. It meant that our Homeland founded by the Liberator Bolivar emerged to life free and independent, in 1825, without any coast. Therein lies the falsehood and bad faith of the neighboring country.
Chile with attitudes of this nature has tried to distort the historical truth, in 130 years of Bolivian geographical closure. With spurious overtones it has sought to justify the unjustifiable. And continue, apparently, driving the lie and slander to consolidate their interests in a territory that was wrested from Bolivia through an invasion military in 1879. But regional and global public opinion is fully informed of the facts that led the Bolivian locked. Not even like this, will Chile go far, now more than ever.
As a result the aggressor wanted to prevail the infused that Bolivia is a Mediterranean country without any perspective. Nothing could be more false! That statement is no more than an excuse to undermine our maritime demand. Countries that emerged to public life without access to the sea are Mediterranean, as Paraguay, but Bolivia, from the time of the Inca Empire, had its coast on the Pacific and thus confirms it history.
[I here insert an old map and the link of the original article]
This newspaper also mentions “the yearnings of Bolivia to have a shortcut and sovereign sea”, however Bolivia not longs, but requires the restoration of its sovereignty over the Pacific. It mobilizes to retrieve their maritime access that rightfully belongs to Bolivia. By consequent there is no proposal, little honest, of a possible exchange or territorial Exchange, nor the idea of a port without sovereignty. These insinuations configured a mockery to the Bolivian maritime demand, a distraction trick in the eyes of Latin America and the world.
Bolivia from 1879 to date has been object of contempt and rejection, by its maritime demand, by the aggressor who walks without scruple, in forums and international meetings, trying to hide its crime.
In short: Bolivia is not a mediterranean [land-locked] country but cloistered by the trans-Andean neighbor and consequently demands the return of its sea with sovereignty, in keeping with the spirit of Justice and solidarity.
And lets not forget, it is not only the seacoast Bolivia lost, but all the wealth from guano, saltpeter that were the “excuse” for the invasion, to appropriate of that wealth and in turn to steal our access to the Pacific. Also we lost the huge copper wealth that exists to date in Atacama, that belonged to us!