CHILE · DIPLOMACY
Key Facts
- —The country Bolivia is a landlocked Andean nation and Chile is its Pacific neighbour, whose ports Bolivian cargo uses under a free-transit regime.
- —Why it matters The Bolivia sea claim is the oldest dispute between the two, and it shapes cargo, fuel and mining deals that US investors watch.
- —Why now Chilean President José Antonio Kast made the first official visit by a Chilean head of state to La Paz since 1955.
- —What happened On Friday 16 October, Bolivia’s Rodrigo Paz called the claim “permanent and irrenounceable”, and Kast said some claims are settled by courts.
- —The numbers The joint declaration has 21 points, and none of them names the sea question.
- —What it means for you The sea dispute does not block trade, transit or mining talks, so cargo and energy plans continue, but a clash over the claim could slow them.
- —Still open Whether the new political consultations will ever take up sea access, and when the free-transit group meets in La Paz.
- —Power Index Chile ranks 3rd of 14 in The Rio Times Latin America Power Index, with 63.6 points (October 2026 edition). Bolivia ranks 12th of 14 in The Rio Times Latin America Power Index, with 28.4 points (October 2026 edition).
Bolivia’s President Rodrigo Paz told Chile’s José Antonio Kast on Friday 16 October that the Bolivia sea claim is a “permanent and irrenounceable” objective, Red Uno reports. Kast answered at a press conference that each nation has its claims and that some are settled by courts.
For US readers, the exchange matters because Bolivian cargo, fuel and minerals move through Chilean Pacific ports, and the two governments are trying to build on that trade. The sea question is the main political risk to that thaw.
What Paz Said on the Bolivia Sea Claim
Paz spoke after meeting Kast and signing the bilateral instruments, Red Uno reports. He said, in our translation, “the maritime claim is a permanent and irrenounceable objective” and “a constitutional mandate”.
He added that “Bolivia does not renounce its history, its rights or dialogue”. Paz said history should not anchor Bolivia’s development, and that the future will be a priority for his government.
He also said that about half a million Bolivians live in or move through Chile, Red Uno reports. Paz called this a “diplomacy of the people” that moves faster than the states.
Paz, Bolivia’s president, is profiled in Rodrigo Paz Pereira Profile: The Bolivian Facing Kast. At home he faces critics such as former president Evo Morales, who said on Thursday 15 October that failing to negotiate the sea at the meeting would be “treason to the homeland”, Opinión reported.
The summary of the accords that Paz posted on his own account did not mention the sea claim, El Deber reported on Friday evening. It ended with the line that Bolivia does not renounce its history or its rights, and that it thinks of its future.
What Kast Answered in La Paz
Kast, Chile’s conservative president, spoke to Chilean media at his country’s consulate in La Paz, Red Uno reports. Asked how the Bolivian claim to a sovereign outlet on the Pacific fits the new rapprochement, he first spoke of legitimate differences.
“Both presidents noted that legitimate differences exist between our countries’ positions, but that cannot stop development, progress and looking after people,” he said, in our translation. Red Uno adds that Kast did not raise any specific negotiation on maritime sovereignty.
Asked a second time about the sea outlet, Kast said, “Legitimately, each nation has its claims.” He added, “Some of them are settled by various courts, which does not prevent a country from holding certain historical milestones in its legislation.”
Red Uno, El Deber and Chile’s Emol carried the same words. El Deber read them as Kast saying that the maritime claim was settled by international tribunals, a reading that his full sentence does not state.
Kast then listed what the differences should not stop, in Red Uno’s account: tourism, trade and joint action against drug trafficking, organised crime and smuggling. In his speech earlier that day he had said Bolivia has its positions and Chile has its own, El Deber reports.
What the Joint Declaration Says and Leaves Out
Chile’s Foreign Ministry published the joint declaration signed by both presidents on 16 October. It has 21 numbered points, and the text does not name the maritime claim or sovereign access to the sea.
Point 4 says that, despite the differences that have marked their history, dialogue, mutual respect and cooperation should guide relations, based on respect for international law. It asks the Political Consultations Mechanism to handle all topics of mutual interest.
El Deber reads that wording as an allusion to the 2018 court ruling, and says it lets the two sides keep talking within international law. The declaration itself does not mention the court, so that reading is the newspaper’s.
Point 3 revives that mechanism, along with the cultural and education commission, the drugs commission, the follow-up body for the ATIT transit agreement and the free-transit working group. Point 13 reaffirms Bolivia’s free transit through Chilean territory and ports under existing agreements.
The 14th meeting of that working group is to take place in La Paz, the text says, with cargo to and from overseas through Chilean ports on its agenda. The declaration gives no date for it.
The declaration also welcomes progress on the Sica Sica to Arica oil pipeline reversal and a fibre-optic corridor between the two countries. It closes with Kast’s invitation for Paz to make an official visit to Chile in 2027, which Paz accepted.
The five instruments signed that day are set out in Kast and Paz Sign Five Chile Bolivia Accords. The earlier build-up is covered in Kast Meets Rodrigo Paz in Bolivia Friday.
The Court Ruling Behind the Wording
Bolivia lost its coastline to Chile in the War of the Pacific in the late 19th century, and the claim to regain a route to the sea has lasted since. The background is explained in Chile Bolivia Relations: Kast Visit Explained.
The International Court of Justice, the UN’s highest court, heard Bolivia’s case on the obligation to negotiate access to the Pacific Ocean. It delivered its judgment on the merits on 1 October 2018, according to the court’s website.
The court concluded that none of the legal bases Bolivia invoked established an obligation for Chile to negotiate sovereign access to the Pacific, its case page says. Kast’s remark about disputes “settled by various courts” fits that history, though he did not name the case.
Jaime Aparicio, a former diplomat, told El Deber that the 2018 ruling means no pending maritime issue remains in legal terms. He blamed Morales for taking the case to The Hague, which is his opinion and not a finding.
What It Means for You
Chile is a Pacific export hub for Bolivian cargo, so the free-transit talks and port logistics in the declaration affect importers, miners and fuel traders. US firms with Andean supply chains should watch whether the La Paz transit meeting is scheduled.
The two presidents showed that a dispute about territory need not block practical deals on trade, minerals and energy. A flare-up over the claim, for example at a Bolivian political rally, would be a risk to that pace, though no such move has been announced.
Travellers face no change from these statements, and entry and border rules were not altered in the texts reviewed. For wider context on how power is organised in Santiago, see Chile Politics Explained, Who Holds Power in 2026.
What Is Not Known
It is not known whether the Political Consultations Mechanism will ever take up sea access, because the declaration gives it “all topics of mutual interest” without naming one. Neither government has said that the topic is closed or open for talks.
The sources reviewed do not show whether Kast meant any particular court ruling, since he named none. Chile’s government has not published its own text of the press conference, so the quotes come from Bolivian outlets and from Emol, in our translation.
No date has been published for the free-transit meeting in La Paz, or for Paz’s visit to Chile in 2027. The declaration does not say whether ambassadors will return, although Kast said in his speech that the political consultations will work step by step toward restoring relations at the highest diplomatic level, La Tercera reports.
Reaction from Chilean lawmakers and from Morales to Kast’s answer had not been found when this was written. Paz’s office has not said whether he will answer Aparicio’s criticism or Morales’s earlier warning.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Paz say about the Bolivia sea claim?
Paz said on 16 October that the maritime claim is a permanent and irrenounceable objective and a constitutional mandate. He added that Bolivia does not renounce its history, its rights or dialogue.
What did Kast answer on the sea claim?
Kast said each nation legitimately has its claims and that some are settled by various courts. Red Uno says he did not raise any specific negotiation on maritime sovereignty.
Does the Chile Bolivia declaration mention the sea?
The 21-point declaration published by Chile’s Foreign Ministry does not name the maritime claim. Point 4 refers to dialogue and respect for international law, and gives the political consultations body all topics of mutual interest.
What did the ICJ decide in 2018?
The International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on Bolivia’s case against Chile on 1 October 2018. It found that none of the legal bases Bolivia invoked created an obligation for Chile to negotiate sovereign access to the Pacific, and said the two countries may continue their dialogue.
When will Paz visit Chile?
Kast invited Paz to make an official visit to Chile in 2027, and the declaration says Paz accepted. No date has been published.
Sources: Red Uno, 16 October 2026; Red Uno, 16 October 2026; El Deber, 16 October 2026; El Deber, 16 October 2026; El Deber, 16 October 2026; Chile Foreign Ministry joint declaration, 16 October 2026; Emol, 16 October 2026; La Tercera, 16 October 2026; Opinión, 15 October 2026; The Clinic, 16 October 2026; International Court of Justice, case 153
This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error · Editorial responsibility: Matthias Camenzind, Editor-in-Chief