Gualeguaychú is all about expectations these days. Final words, resolutions and decisions are approaching: the International Court of Justice in The Hague is to announce its final ruling on the Argentina-Uruguay controversy on April 20th. Activists and city Assembly members bare two main concerns in mind: whether pollution will be noticed and whether the Uruguay River Treaty will be confirmed as violated. Different views on one single issue.

Final arrangements are not the only items on the spotlight for Gualeguaychú neighbours. President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's meeting with Uruguayan President José Mujica sparked hard opinions and raised several voices. Gualeguaychú activist José Pouler qualifies the talks as being "not that transparent." He says: "The presidents are ‘cooking' other things indoors; this is as if it were a smoke-filled room talk, both Cristina and Mujica are not saying what they have really spoke on."

So, hasn't the message delivered after the meeting cooled down the tempest of expectations? Apparently, it has not. Assembly member José Gómez assures that "nobody knows what both administrations are thinking, there are several versions being talked on and each of them contradicts the other." According to Gómez view, "some say Mujica and Cristina did not talk about Botnia, some others say they agreed to make a move after the announcement is made." He depicts himself as the head of group of uncertain people dealing with the ups and downs of a situation.

Uruguay and Argentina may have boosted options after the out-of-the-view meeting, but what is actually concerning those living in Gualeguaychú has little to do with President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's administration. Chanting their "No a las papeleras" motto, they post two main issues as the ones gaining more and more ground as the days pass by: pollution and the "proof which supports it" and the River Uruguay Treaty and "the attempt for the violation to be acknowledged internationally."

What are the main topics concerning the activists? As Assembly member Paola Robles puts it, the people in Gualeguaychú "divide the situation into two views." Robles adds: "We know for certain that the Uruguay River Treaty has been violated, for Botnia is operating illegally." As many believe, Botnia has been polluting the area since it started functioning in November 2007, and "it is located along the Uruguay River, completely violating the Treaty and its articles," Robles points out. Botnia's construction amounted for Uruguay's biggest investment, estimated at 1.8 billion dollars.

So, pollution would be one main issue. But, is the International Court of Justice to rule in favour of lifting Botnia's facilities and leaving its workers unemployed?

The "far-away and not involved" international court, as activist Robles describes it, does not seem to frighten other assembly members, such as Gómez, who feels confident "the Court will determine Botnia has been polluting." He goes deeper in the matter and explains that, according to the way the activists see it, "for the foreign institution to turn its back on the fact that the Uruguayan paper mill has been violating the Treaty would represent a break down in its international confidence, it would be a scandal."

But Gómez does not leave out another main issue to be posted: will the proofs the people from Gualeguaychú collected be enough for the Court to confirm the pollution, will they be sufficient for Botnia to be banned from functioning?

Likewise and as a part of their "proofs-are-out-there" confidence, every assembly members agrees on one fact: Uruguay's authorization to let Botnia operate is based on an illegal view of the Treaty. For Robles, "no matter what the decision is, things will change for Botnia after the announcement."

Entre Ríos neighbour Pouler digs deeper and even wonders about the International Court asking for the Treaty to be improved. "They may ask for the statute to be updated, but they will never ask for a new Treaty, we feel sure about that," he assures. Gómez supports the same idea and expresses: "When the article determines a paper mill cannot be settled along the river for it would be causing pollution and harming the environment, it's being clear: there's no need to change those lines, but there may exist the need to drag this case and use it as an example to improve the rules."

All in all, activists are increasing their expectations for April 20th to come. That night, they plan to gather in Arroyo Verde and watch the announcement live in big TV screens and to have an interpreter with them, since the announcement is to be read in English and in French. The fact that it will be broadcast at 3:00am local time does not seem to be an obstacle for them all, since several activities are scheduled before and after the meeting takes place.

What is to happen next? Pouler explains: "We are planning to summon the people, everyone, every actor involved in this issue, every neighbour and assembly member to discuss altogether and debate how to go on." This idea comes as a response for whatever happens on April 20th: after listening announcement, the activists plan to "analyze it, to interpret it and to then resume the talks" so as to decide what move to tackle next.

An already-planned annual march is to take place on April 25th, a rally which appears to be the scenario for further talking and debating.

"There's a really good environment among the activists. We believe the International Court will think of us," Pouler sums up.

Both Argentine and Uruguayan administrations have said they are to respect the Court's decision. Lately, José Mujica's administration has invited the opposition leaders in his country to be a part of the delegation expected to be in Court the day of the announcement. So far, two opposition parties have responded in a positive way.

As for Argentina's activists' force, April 20th's announcement will be awaited in Arroyo Verde. As a consequence, the "popular and cultural struggle place" will serve as the venue for the people in Gualeguaychú to gather around and wait. What happens next is still a question mark, but some hints have already been disclosed: debating, roadblocking and "continue fighting" are the main options.

(By Natalia Bocassi, BuenosAiresHerald, 13/04/2010)