Yes I know it doesn’t have one. I’ve been looking at some Bolivia sites and they all seem to blame the lack of the seacoast (taken by Chile) for the countries woes.
Would having a seacoast have made any difference?
Wasn’t there talk awhile back about negotiating to get it back.
They lost their port city of Antofagasta to Chile in the War of the Pacific (1879-84). (The country still has a navy, a relic of the time when they actually had a sea coast.) By a settlement with Chile (1929) they retain some rights to the use of the port of Arica (which was taken by Chile from Peru in the same war). There are a railroads that connect Arica to the major cities of Bolivia.
There is no reason that having a sea port should be necessary for success. Switzerland and Luxembourg come to mind.
Perhaps more important than losing the port was losing the land. Today that part of the Atacama is a rich source of nitrates and copper.
A few corrections:
Antofagasta was built on land belonging to Bolivia, but it was not the most important Bolivian port at the time. A place called Cojiba was, which was renamed Gatico under Chile. I can’t find the place on the map. It has been overtaken as Antofagasta as the major port in the area.
Apparently it wasa 1904 (not 1929) when Boliva got access to the port of Arica. They got access to the port of Antofagasta at the same time. Exactly what privleges they have a the ports I don’t know.
“!Titi for Bolivia, caca for Peru!”