The masista government of Luis Arce decided to close the Strategic Directorate for Maritime Reclamation, Silala, and International Water Resources (Diremar), an institution created in 2011. The institution was supposed to lead Bolivia's claims before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The measure was announced during the commemoration of the Defense of Calama, where the president stated that this decision marks the beginning of a new stage in the relationship with Chile. The closure of Diremar has caused reactions in public opinion, some consider it was an inefficient entity, others warn about the need to maintain a maritime strategy.
President Arce justified the closure of Diremar by stating that its cycle had concluded. He also noted that it is necessary to review the judicial processes carried out in The Hague. In his speech, he emphasized that Bolivia's aspiration to regain a sovereign outlet to the sea remains non-negotiable.
Masismo lost the maritime claim | La Derecha Diario
However, he clarified that his masista government will prioritize dialogue and diplomacy with Chile instead of continuing with international litigation. In this regard, he indicated that an evaluation of the results obtained at the ICJ will be conducted to rethink the country's strategy.
Since its creation, the masista institution managed the claims before the ICJ, the case of the sovereign outlet to the sea, and the dispute over the Silala waters. In 2018, the Court determined that Chile was not obligated to negotiate with Bolivia a sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. Subsequently, in 2022, the ICJ ruled that the Silala waters are of international course, which meant another setback for the country.
Did masismo also squander the resources of this institution?
The institution caused million-dollar expenses | La Derecha Diario
The operational costs of Diremar have also been questioned by analysts and politicians. In 14 years of operation, the institution received at least 346.7 million bolivianos from the General State Budget. The lack of positive results in international litigation has led opposition sectors to demand an audit on the use of these funds.
Economist Gonzalo Chávez described Diremar's management as a failure, the institution spent fortunes without obtaining concrete benefits for the country. According to him, the strategy adopted by Diremar further distanced the possibility of regaining a sovereign outlet to the sea. He also criticized the lack of a clear vision in Bolivian foreign policy and suggested rethinking its approach to relations with Chile.
Economist Julio Alvarado also questioned the existence of Diremar and argued that its creation was unnecessary. According to him, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs already had a directorate in charge of relations with Chile. He also insisted that those responsible for the strategic decisions that led to Bolivia's defeat in The Hague should be investigated.
Former dictator Evo Morales, promoter of the maritime claim before the ICJ, criticized the closure of Diremar and accused Arce's government of abandoning the maritime cause. He asserted that the ICJ recognized that Bolivia was born with a sea and that dialogue with Chile must continue. He also noted that international policy has not been a priority in the current administration.
From the officialdom, some voices defended the dissolution of Diremar as a necessary measure to optimize resources in the face of the crisis. The government maintains that the closure of the institution doesn't mean abandoning the maritime claim, but rather adapting to a new geopolitical reality. According to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bolivia's foreign policy should be based on dialogue and cooperation with its neighbors.
Political analyst Marcelo Arequipa considered that the disappearance of Diremar should not imply the abandonment of the investigation into relations with Chile. For him, the country needs an instance that deeply studies the history and bilateral negotiations. He also recalled that the ICJ ruling did not completely close the possibility of an agreement with Chile.
The closure of Diremar marks the end of an entity that, far from achieving concrete results, ended up becoming a symbol of inefficiency and waste. For more than a decade, this institution consumed hundreds of millions of bolivianos without making progress in the maritime cause. Its existence only served to sustain a costly and ineffective bureaucracy, reflecting the poor administration of the masista governments.
La Derecha Diario 
