By Windsor Hernani, El Deber:

Foreign Minister Huanca: Reuniting with Chile or Defending Bolivia?

On the occasion of Chile’s National Day celebrations, Foreign Minister Héctor Huanca published an opinion column in La Tercera titled “Bolivia and Chile: The Responsibility of Meeting Again.”

The article is politically cordial and diplomatically understandable. In my view, however, it is excessively accommodating.

I do not know exactly what he means by “meeting again.” A reunion is the act and result of coming together once more; and, honestly, I struggle to find a more or less lasting period of harmony in the bilateral relationship. On the contrary, its defining characteristic has always been disagreement.

Historically, Chilean authorities have focused not on negotiating with Bolivia, but on imposing their interests. It was almost always done more through force than through reason. It is the style established by König. As a result, Bolivia was left with no other form of protest than breaking diplomatic relations with Chile.

That, of course, does not invalidate the noble intention the Bolivian authorities may have in seeking a constructive relationship with Chile. It is true—we are neighbors, and there is no way to change neighborhoods.

The problem is not wanting to improve the relationship. The problem is confusing that objective with the purpose of foreign policy. The preservation and advancement of national interests are the true essence, purpose, and guiding principle of every foreign policy action.

In that sense, foreign policy is not measured by the quality and frequency of its gestures, by friendly phrases, nods, embraces, or smiles exchanged between officials of both countries. It is measured by something far less photogenic: the ability to secure, preserve, and defend national interests.

In this context, I regret having to say it, but the Foreign Ministry has lost its way. It confuses foreign policy with a popularity contest among nations. Its purpose, dedication, and effort seem focused on producing a voluminous album of photographs, expressions of friendship, and promises of eternal affection between officials. It is devoted to social diplomacy, which generates grand headlines the next day—but little else. It is diplomacy without impact, devoid of results.

Moreover, there is nothing new about it, because we already have plenty of historic photographs of Bolivian and Chilean authorities together. At the presidential level, one image immediately comes to mind: the widely publicized embrace between the socialist leaders Michelle Bachelet and Evo Morales, who, accompanied by a charango, announced that they had discovered the definitive formula for bilateral understanding. The final result was exactly that: one more photograph of a presidential embrace.

At the foreign ministers’ level, there is the recent image of Francisco Pérez Mackenna and Fernando Aramayo embracing in the Chungará–Tambo Quemado area, on the freezing border highlands at more than 4,800 meters above sea level and, judging by the image, with smiles frozen by the cold.

I very much fear that the announced visit of President José Antonio Kast to Bolivia will become just another photograph, even though, as has become customary, it will be presented with grandiose rhetoric, clichés such as a “powerful political signal” and a “major step forward.” It will certainly be a major step for Chile in its goal of restoring diplomatic relations without offering anything in return, thereby putting an end to Bolivia’s claims.

For Bolivia, it will also be a signal—one that its diplomacy is disoriented. A visit acquires real significance only when it allows agreements to be finalized, pending problems to be resolved, verifiable commitments to be established, or negotiations to begin that respond to national priorities. I repeat and emphasize: national priorities, not agreements that fail to address Bolivia’s immediate needs and amount to little more than another piece of candy to keep a child happy.

For that reason, the foreign minister’s article leaves me with an unavoidable and fundamental question: is Foreign Minister Huanca fully aware of what his responsibility toward Bolivia actually is? Reuniting with Chile, or defending national interests?

The answer should be unequivocal. Bolivia’s foreign minister has the responsibility to represent us before Chile and defend our interests; and if, in the course of that interaction, a reunion is achieved, then the reunion is welcome. If not, so be it—he must continue fulfilling the duties and responsibilities entrusted to him. One should not put the cart before the horse.

The foreign minister’s article also lists the extensive agenda currently on the table: ACE-22, trade, investment, digital connectivity, energy, mining, health, water resources, logistics, highways, railways, and security. It includes everything, and precisely for that reason, it ends up meaning nothing.

Foreign policy cannot be confused with a list of topics. Bolivia needs to know what its priorities are, what it intends to obtain, what it is willing to negotiate, what commitments it expects from Chile, and within what time frame those commitments should be fulfilled.

Because while we recite an endless list of issues, the truly important problems—the national interests—are left sleeping undisturbed.

For example, the 1904 Treaty recognizes Bolivia’s broadest and freest right of transit through Chilean territory and ports. Consequently, the national interest is to ensure that this right functions efficiently, predictably, and at costs compatible with the competitiveness of Bolivian trade. In short, that the agreement be honored.

The same applies to the Sica Sica oil pipeline. It stems from an international agreement and must be respected. Discussions about reversing its flow have already been taking place for six years, and the Foreign Ministry itself reported that the project could reduce current costs by 35 percent. Therefore, the question is not how much our governments like one another. The question is: when will the reverse-flow system be operating?

In trade, the government itself speaks of pursuing a “more balanced” commercial relationship. Publications by the IBCE show that Bolivia’s trade relationship with Chile has historically been in deficit. Therefore, do not promise to modernize something that does not work for Bolivia. What we need are non-reciprocal market openings for Bolivian products with export potential—and we need them now.

In the end, Bolivia does indeed need a new relationship with Chile. But not one based simply on the idea of “meeting again.” What we need is for the Foreign Ministry to represent national interests and solve the problems that affect us.

If just one of those three priority issues mentioned above were resolved… then prepare the medal of honor!

Windsor Hernani Limarino is a diplomat, economist, and educator.