Details of the conflict between Chile and Bolivia over the Silala River that is about to be defined in The Hague

In 2016, Bolivian President Evo Morales demanded that Chile “steal” the waters of the Silala River, although according to the Chilean position, there are no documents or facts that prove the accusation. For this reason, the then president, Michelle Bachelet, against sued the highland country at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, appealing to an international course of the Silala River, arguments that remain to date.

Although, the demand materialized six years ago, the controversy arises since the Pacific War in 1879, an armed conflict where Chile faced the Peru-Bolivian confederation. In that conflict Bolivia lost its way to the sea and Antofagasta, a city near the Silala River, became part of the Republic of Chile. At the time it was demarcated that its waters were international.

Over time, concessions were made by both countries for the use of river water. However, to date, only two companies - in Chilean territory - have constituted consumptive rights over the waters of the Silala: the company Ferrocarril from Antofagasta to Bolivia and the mining company Codelco. In the Bolivian case, a trout farm was opened in 2013 that supplies the river.

Due to the absence of an agreement on the use and sovereignty of the Silala River, the Hague was approached and today the oral arguments that will define the ruling ended.

Conflict Timeline

The dispute over the river dates back to the Pacific War in 1879, where Chile faced Peru and Bolivia and won the city of Antofagasta, one of the places where the Silala River passes.

In 1906 Chile granted a concession on the waters of the Silala River to the British company now known as the Antofagasta to Bolivia Railway (FCAB), which delivered drinking water to the city of Antofagasta. Two years later, the Prefect of Potosí gave the same company a concession to power its locomotives.

In 1996, the Government of Bolivia began to reject the concession on the basis that the company would not have honored agreements. A year later, the concession to the railway company expired. Currently, there are two companies in Chilean territory with consumptive rights incorporated in Silala.

In 1999, the Bolivian Government affirmed that the waters of the Silala are exclusive to its sovereignty. In response to these statements, the dispute between the countries intensified and in 2002 Bolivia protested the diversion of the natural cause of the river to the benefit of Chile.

It was not until 2009 at a bilateral meeting between the presidents of that time, Evo Morales and Michelle Bachelet, that a solution to the conflict was sought. However, the efforts were in vain because the Bolivian parliament did not accept the pre-agreement among the executives.

In 2013 Bolivia opened a trout farm that is supplied from the Silala River. Chile's response was that the river was an area of international waters.

Around the commemoration of the day of the sea in 2016, Evo Morales announced that they were evaluating legal action against Chile for the use of Silala waters. A fact that took place that same year in The Hague.

In response to the statements of President Morales, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet filed a counterclaim that has not been resolved to date. Since 2016, countries have presented their arguments and studies at the Court regarding the sovereignty of the Silala River. On Thursday, the allegations were concluded, which means that the Hague must now resolve the issue and countries will have to abide by the conclusion without the possibility of further arguing.

“A singular international watercourse”

The arguments presented during the allegations have been maintained historically. Bolivia accuses that the course has been artificially modified to the benefit of Chile and from the border country they argue that there is a natural course of waters and therefore there is a right of use and that it is an international river.

For the presentation of the allegations, each country had to prepare its reasons to the Hague and then the opposing country submitted its counter-allegations. This instance had its last session this Thursday, where Chile responded to the demand after the presentation by the Bolivian defense.

Bolivian agent Roberto Calzadilla asked that the Court proclaim Bolivian sovereignty over the Silala river flows. “Bolivia respectfully requests the Court to award and declare that: a) Bolivia has sovereignty over the artificial channels and drainage mechanisms in the Silala that are in its territory and has the right to decide whether and how to maintain them,” Calzadilla said.

The US lawyer Gabriel Eckstein also presented to The Hague, stating that “contrary to what Chile claims, the Silala cannot be described purely as a natural international watercourse”. He also added that “Silala is currently, and has been for almost 100 years, a unique international watercourse, with artificially increased surface flows”.

Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs Ximena Fuentes intervened for the Chilean defense, who said that “Bolivia never tried to present to Chile serious scientific studies on the basis of which the two sides could have started a fruitful dialogue.” The undersecretary added that the Bolivian position “confirms what Bolivia had denied for years, in the period between 1999 and September 2018, namely that the Silala River flows naturally along the topographical slope from Bolivia to Chile.”

Before the latest allegations submitted by Chile, President Gabriel Boric met with Foreign Minister Antonia Urrejola to address the conflict. The Secretary of State stated that “we have a set of issues that concern both countries and that we have to work on, such as the issue of migration, security and drug trafficking, shared water resources, the effects of the climate crisis that affect Latin American countries in particular.” “There is a very important agenda in terms of renewable energy and lithium,” the minister commented on the relationship with Bolivia.

In the same vein, he said: “What we want as a Government is precisely for it to happen soon, which has been going on for several years now and we are confident that we will do very well, but the most important thing is not to focus relations with Bolivia on the things that divide us, but on the contrary, on the common agenda that we have to work on.”

There is still no date for the decision to be determined by the Hague Court, which will have to evaluate the respective submissions of each country. This resolution could take months or even years.

KEEP READING