On Bolivia’s intervention in the OAS and the intervention of Russian ships in Arica

Part 1: About Venezuela

In an unsurprising speech at the Extraordinary Session of the Organization of American States on July 31 this year, the Ambassador of the Plurinational State of Bolivia expressed the reasons why his Government rejected the resolution that was supposed to be adopted in relation to the Venezuelan elections.

In addition to the logical arguments for Venezuela’s non-admission to the OAS over the years, there are several aspects that have attracted attention in international politics that cannot be ignored.

The first question is related to the situation in Venezuela itself, which, according to our understanding, is interpreted by the diplomatic authorities as if it were or happened in the sky rather than on land. But to be honest, the speech of the Bolivian ambassador leaves a huge gap for the nearly 8 million Venezuelans who are on the move in the region, and the OAS member states must take responsibility for this because Venezuela has not done so.

Ambassador Arce Sacconeta then replied to the members of the Extraordinary Assembly that the call to vote against Venezuela was taken out of context and did not take into account that six Argentine asylum seekers had been waiting for months for safe passage from the Caracas government. This was strongly mentioned by the Argentine Foreign Minister, Mrs. Diana Mondino. Bolivia’s position was therefore presented in a Cabinet speech and did not respond to the Argentine Prime Minister, who insisted in the most correct way that there are still uncertainties and dangers in not complying with international asylum legislation. In this sense, twice already this year this legislation was not applicable at all. First in Ecuador and now in Venezuela. But returning to the Venezuelan case, the fact that six asylum seekers are still stranded in the Argentine Embassy in Caracas, defenseless, seems to be an invisible fact for the foreign policy of the multinational country.

The most reprehensible thing about his intervention was that he did not call for or express solidarity with the absolute need for transparency in the elections, as required by the Pact of Bogotá, the United Nations Charter and the Democratic Charter that Bolivia was promoting at the time.

In fact, the support of the Bolivian government for the at least questionable electoral process in Venezuela is based on a legalistic belief that is inconsistent with the view of the situation in the countries of the continent due to the pressure of migration from a specific country and unrestrained respect for the human rights of the people of that country. In fact, the ambassador’s statement detailed the most regrettable electoral event in our memory with the political alliance with the Nicolás Maduro regime, which for the second time affects a country that prides itself on living in poverty in 21 century socialism.

Part 2. About Chile

There is a popular saying in Chile: “Without the first, there is no second”. Well, in parallel with the Washington meeting, Bolivian President Luis Arce Catacora called his counterpart Gabriel Boric to ask for support to speed up the unloading of fuel in Arica.

This topic would have been irrelevant to the events described if the President of Bolivia had not spoken to his brother, the President of Chile, or had not made a request for cooperation in the matter of care and risk for the mobility of ships along the coast of the oil pipeline Sicasica. The statement, published through a new information channel on Bolivian foreign policy, ends with “X” saying in the presidential account: “We appreciate and value your good character, since you have provided us with all the necessary cooperation without hesitation.” There is no doubt that the goodwill of the President of Chile could well not be seen by the brother President of Bolivia. But no. President Borik immediately agreed and granted the Governor of the Port a special permit to operate at the Sicasica terminal and allow the Bolivian people to get fuel, since they also could not transport it through the waterways, in order to lower the water level.

The Bolivian government would do well to examine its priorities and alliances in international affairs. This is due to political and logistical issues. It would also be helpful to revisit the concept of balance with the region and its neighbors. The same request Arce made to Venezuela would certainly delay the discharge of Arica hydrocarbons if Chile applied it to the bunker ship. The message is therefore loud and clear: Chile seeks peace and prosperity for all countries in the region and will make the necessary efforts for all of them. This applies to Prime Minister Van Klaveren’s speech at the Extraordinary Conference, as well as President Borick’s offer; the Chilean Navy is certainly working today to help the ZEYNEP ship to anchor so as not to cause an accident. Bolivia had better rethink both issues and stop being dogmatic in Washington and complaining in La Paz. So much for one day.