Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:19:20.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chilean-Bolivian Lauca River Dispute and the O.A.S.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Robert D. Tomasek
Robert D. Tomasek*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Lauca River dispute between Chile and Bolivia may seem insignificant when compared to many of the major controversies of the postwar period. The Lauca is a 140-mile long narrow river that has its origin in the Andes of northern Chile and then meanders across the border into the Bolivian altiplano, where, after serving as a water supply to small Bolivian towns, it disappears in salty Lake Coipasa. The potential of the river is minor when compared to that of the Nile, Jordan, Indus, Mekong, Colorado, and many other rivers. Yet, Chile's action in April 1962, of diverting some of the waters to irrigate the small Sobraya and Azapa valleys of her northern desert, which provide food for the port of Arica, has proved to be of serious import.

The dispute has not yet been resolved and has gravely strained relations between Chile and Bolivia. The effectiveness of the Organization of American States has been brought into question, for while the Organization has settled many other disputes since 1948, it has been unsuccessful in this one, and Bolivia has shown its dissatisfaction by withdrawing from the Council several times.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Inter-American Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , July 1967 , pp. 351 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a geographic description of the Lauca's potentiality, accompanied with photographs, see Chile, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, La cuestión del río Lauca (Santiago: Instituto Geográfico Militar, 1963), pp. 1-28.

2 O.A.S., Document Series B/II/C-a-441, La Sesión Extraordinaria celebrada el 20 de abril de 1962 (Washington, D.C., 1962).

3 O.A.S., Document Series G/II/C-a-448, Acta de la Sesión Extraordinaria celebrada el 24 de mayo de 1962 (Washington, D.C., 1962).

4 O.A.S., Document Series G/V/C-d-994, Nota del Señor Embajador al Consejo, el 28 de mayo de 1962 (Washington, D.C., 1962).

5 O.A.S., Document Series G/V/C-d-1000, Nota del Señor Embajador al Consejo, el 28 de junio de 1962 (Washington, D.C., 1962).

6 O.A.S., Document Series G/V/C-d-1006, el 5 de julio de 1962, and G/V/C-d- 1011, el 1 de agosto de 1962 (Washington, D.C., 1962).

7 O.A.S., Document Series G/V/C-d-1018, Nota del Señor Embajador al Consejo, el 4 de septiembre de 1962 (Washington, D.C., 1962).

8 Chile, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Speeches and Documents, 1, Relations Between Chile and Bolivia (Santiago, Ministry of Foreign Relations, 1963), pp. 13-16.

9 For the explanation of Gonzalo Fació in removing himself from the case see O.A.S., Document Series G/VI/C/INF-269, el 12 de junio de 1963 (Washington, D.C., 1963), and for the Bolivian note of withdrawal from the Council see O.A.S., Document Series G/V/C-d-1107, el 18 de junio de 1963 (Washington, D.C., 1963).

10 Chile, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Speeches, op. cit., pp. 18-19.

11 In the last few years Chile has had boundary problems with Argentina, and Chilean authors suspect Argentina of giving Bolivia an unusual amount of favorable attention. For example, see Oscar Espinosa Moraga, Bolivia y el mar, 1810-1964 (Santiago: Editorial Nascimento, 1965), pp. 484–488.Google Scholar

12 O.A.S., Document Series G/V/C-d-1006, el 5 de julio de 1962, p. 3.

13 For Bolivia's most extensive review of the international law on the diversion of waters, see O.A.S., Document Series G/II/C-a-444, La Sesión Extraordinaria celebrada el 3 de mayo de 1962 (Washington, D.C., 1962), pp. 4-26.

14 Declaration on Industrial and Agricultural Use of International Rivers, Seventh International Conference of American States, 1933, 28 American Journal of International Law Supplement 59 (1934), pp. 113-115.

15 The Bolivian case is exhaustively presented in the government's white book, Bolivia, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, La desviado del río Lauca; antecedentes y documentos (La Paz, 1962), pp. 21-160, and the Chilean case is covered just as thoroughly in its white book, Chile, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, La cuestión del río Lauca, pp. 30-186.

16 For example, Berber, F. J., Rivers in International Law (London: Stevens and Sons, 1959)Google Scholar, after covering the sources of law such as treaties, custom, general principles and court cases, denies that there is general international law on the use of rivers, and on page 150 is emphatic that there is no regional law in Latin America on the subject. However, another author, after exhaustively examining the sources, affirms the existence of general international law. See Griffin, William L., “The Use of Waters of International Drainage Basins Under Customary International Law,” American Journal of International Law (January 1959), pp. 50–80.Google Scholar

17 The importance of the Lauca River seems small compared to the multipurpose uses of these other rivers. See Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, Panel II, “Current Legal Problems Connected with International Traversing River Systems—Columbia, Indus, Nile” (April 1960), pp. 120-152. Also Peretz, Don, “Development of the Jordan Valley Waters” Middle East Journal (Autumn 1955), pp. 397–412.Google Scholar And Batstone, R. K., “The Utilization of the Nile Waters,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly (July 1959), pp. 523–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 A reporter, James Nelson Goodsell, was told this while in Bolivia. See Christian Science Monitor, April 23, 1965, p. 11.

19 El Diario, La Paz, September 30, 1962, p. 5.

20 ibid., April 25, 1962, p. 5.

21 In 1965 a treaty was formulated and opened for ratification among 62 countries, guaranteeing the 21 landlocked states transport right through coastal states, free storage of goods in transit, free zones at ports, and simplified customs procedures. See The New York Times, July 9, 1965, p. 7.

22 For an elaboration of these arguments, see Eyzaguirre, Jaime, Bolivia—An Isolated Country? (Santiago: Empresa Editora Zig-Zag, 1963), pp. 18–25.Google Scholar

23 Bolivia would have an extremely difficult time proving duress in international law, although this is not to say that Chile's foreign policy and negotiations on the problems of the War of the Pacific were always beyond reproach. For a detailed account of the diplomacy of those years and an indictment of Chilean foreign policy as pertains both to Peru and Bolivia, see Arbitration Between Peru and Chile; Question of the Pacific Before the President of the United States (Washington, D.C.: National Capital Press, Inc., 1923), especially pp. 27-50, 123-128, and 176-186. A more favorable interpretation of Chilean diplomacy is found in Borgoño, Luis Barros, The Problem of the Pacific and the New Policies of Bolivia (Baltimore: The Sun Job Printing Office, 1924)Google Scholar, and Gallardo, Conrado Ríos, Chile y Bolivia definen sus fronteras 1842-1904 (Santiago: Editorial Andrés Bello, 1963).Google Scholar

24 Personal interviews with Mario Artaza, Chilean Embassy, and Sergio Labarca, member of Chilean Delegation to the Organization of American States, in Washington. D.C., July 28, 1966.

25 The New York Times, October 13, 1963, p. 39.

26 See El Diario, La Paz, April 17, 1962, pp. 6 and 8; April 18, 1962, pp. 1 and 7; April 19, 1962, p. 6.

27 The statements of governmental officials and press notices can be found in Bolivia y la OJE.A.: Opina la prensa continental (La Paz: Empresa Industrial Gráfica E. Burillo, 1963), and Montenegro, Mario A., La idea y el mar: opiniones sobre el derecho de Bolivia (La Paz: Talleres Gráficos Bolivianos, 1964).Google Scholar

28 Chile, Ministry of Foreign Relations, Speeches, pp. 23-27. Chile was by no means remiss in getting its viewpoint across to other governments. Chile made use of its ambassadors, sent prominent politicians on special explanatory trips and, most effectively, gave the Latin American ambassadors to Chile a specially conducted tour of the Lauca River and the irrigation projects, from which it was able to receive favorable comments. See El Mercurio, Santiago, August IS, 1962, p. 1.

29 EI Diario, La Paz, April 17, 1962, p. 7; April 23, 1962, p. 4.

30 Ibid., April 23, 1962, p. 4.

31 Ibid., April 19, 1962, p. 7.

32 Observations partially derived from personal interview with Guillermo Favala of the Bolivian Embassy in Washington, D.C., July 29, 1966.

33 El Mercurio, Santiago, April 12, 1962, p. 21; April 17, 1962, p. 1.

34 Ibid., April 18, 1962, p. 1.

35 Personal interviews with officials of the Organization of American States. Also, see El Diario, La Paz, May 3, 1962, p. 1; May 16, 1962, p. 6; May 19, 1962, p. 7 for accounts of these efforts.

36 Personal interview with Charles Fenwick, retired former head of the Legal Division of the Organization of American States, still serving the Organization in an advisory capacity, July 29, 1966. Mr. Fenwick emphasized that this was his personal interpretation, and mentioned that the Legal Division in 1962 was not asked for a ruling on the matter.

37 The Bolivian desire to tie the Lauca River issue with the problem of its outlet to the sea was known by Council members before May 24, 1962. After Bolivia and Chile each chose a procedure, the motive for selecting one over the other was sarcastically commented upon by the other country, putting each government into an even more intransigent position.

38 The Brazilian proposal criticized the Montevideo Declaration of 1933 as being out of date, and declared that the hemispheric conference should cover not only the problems of river diversion for irrigation, but also the problems of hydroelectricity, transportation, and flood control. The proposal called for the utilization of studies made by the Organization of American States and the United Nations. See O.A.S., Document Series G/VI/C/INF-231, el 4 de Abril de 1963, Traducción de la Nota No. 16 de la Delegación del Brazil (Washington, D.C., 1963). In preparation for a conference the Organization has published an extremely useful compilation of treaties covering the diversion of international rivers throughout the world. See Secretaría General de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, Ríos Internacionales (Washington, D.C.: Pan American Union, 1964).