“Silala’s demand is a contradiction in itself”

Bolivian former president Eduardo Rodríguez Veltzé answered a questionnaire at the request of EL DEBER and in his introduction he issued some comments in relation to the lawsuit initiated by Chile against Bolivia for the waters of the Silala: “The treatment of the information on the Silala deserved greater transparency to generate a broad debate on the scope of the lawsuit introduced by Chile before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the positions adopted by the parties, the possibilities of an out-of-court settlement and its prospects if the dispute was kept in court. Even before the pronouncement of the ICJ, an opening of information by the Foreign Minister is missed before and after the appearance of the States in the final hearings at the ICJ. This absence generates journalistic chronicles that also do not contribute to a complete and accurate understanding of the subject, they seem to be more focused on the partisan political struggle of the moment and the benefits that they can contribute to it.

Is there a technical report from Bolivia on the lawsuit filed by Chile before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the Silala?
Yes, there are dozens of them, from different times and authorships. In my judgement, the most important is the one that Bolivia ordered the Danish Hydrological Institute and a group of professionals and national entities to carry out, which allowed knowing with scientific and objective precision the nature of the waters of the Silala, its origins and courses. These studies, unlike the previous ones, were supported by field evidence, dozens of wells were drilled, water age studies at various points and other complementary ones that allow contrasting with those that Chile presented with its demand.

Is there scientific and technical evidence prior to 2016, when former President Evo Morales announced that he would sue Chile?
We must remember -regardless of the statements made by former President Evo Morales- that the plaintiff State is Chile, not Bolivia. In my opinion, these statements do not constitute the main reason why Chile initiates the lawsuit nor why the ICJ will make a decision that is rather scientific. Many of the studies that Chile presents before the ICJ are even prior to these declarations. Chile also did not exhaust a diplomatic approximation management to carry out joint studies; on the contrary, he sought a judicial counterweight against the maritime lawsuit that managed to overcome his preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Silala’s demand is a contradiction in itself due to the history of joint cooperation, the principles of international water law and the possibilities of settling disputes without costly and lengthy contention. An out-of-court settlement that includes the updated treatment of the various transboundary watercourses would have been more constructive. There are several explanations and lessons that can emerge at its conclusion.

When will the ICJ ruling be known?

When the International Court of Justice announces it.

Could the ruling be compromised by the statements of former President Evo Morales, who said that the Silala was an international river with a successive course?
No, the statements of Evo Morales and other previous authorities were consistent with available studies, not all complete or reliable.