The United States' intervention in Latin America on the grounds of illegal fishing, or under the pretext of alleged inadequate management of fishery resources within the jurisdiction of coastal states or with respect to migratory fish, is a true intrusion through direct action mechanisms or sophisticated methods, such as requiring countries to obtain international certifications when exporting their products; at the same time, signing an agreement with the United States that is frankly unfavorable to Argentina ( cesarlerena.com.ar “The Agreement with the United States is an Unconditional Surrender”, Perfil, 11/16/25 ) , opening wide the door to the entry of American products into our territory.   

The “Monroe Doctrine” was announced by US President James Monroe in 1823, based on the premise of ending European colonization in the Americas, which would be seen as an aggression against the United States. In theory, it was a kind of “ America for the Americans ” message; but in practice, it should be read as “ The Americas under the hemispheric rule of the United States .” And although at that time the US did not have sufficient naval power, it had the implicit support of the British Royal Navy, which, as we know, had already been making great efforts to expel Spain from the Americas. Thus, US interventions must be understood as being accompanied by the United Kingdom, and vice versa.   

For its part, the “Drago Doctrine” proposed by Luis María Drago in 1902, is the antithesis, although it was not always applied universally, it set a precedent for non-intervention and respect for sovereignty, influencing international law and the creation of institutions to manage crises.

Argentina likely experienced its first US intervention in 1831 with the naval deployment of the frigate Lexington, which destroyed the Argentine fort in the Malvina Islands, arrested its officials, and "declared the islands free of all government" (And America for the Americans?). This was all motivated by Governor Luis Vernet's capture of three US ships for illegally hunting seals. Two hundred years later, this same illegal action was used as justification to impose conditions on Latin American countries regarding fishing. That action, which at best should have been limited to diplomatic intervention, was disproportionate on the part of the United States, weakening the Argentine presence in the Malvinas and facilitating the invasion of the islands by the United Kingdom in 1833, despite the fact that the UK had signed the Treaty of Peace, Commerce, and Navigation with the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata in 1825. They're two peas in a pod!

When the representative of the Argentine radical government, Lucio García del Solar, negotiated the signing of the Madrid Agreements (1989/90) with the British representative, Sir Crispin Tickell, in 1989, he could not have imagined that fishing—which he considered unimportant—would be the economic mainstay of the British islanders in the Malvinas, according to the British director of fisheries in the islands, John Barton, in 2012.

What initially appears to be a matter of autonomy in the management of natural resources by riparian states has acquired a significance that jeopardizes the political and food sovereignty of their peoples. Therefore, we believe it is essential to recognize the geopolitical importance of this issue.     

The repeated interventions of the United States in the jurisdictional waters of third countries or on the high seas are based on the use of inappropriate nets; uncertified goods or, generically, illegal fishing; and include diplomatic and economic actions, prohibitions, and even the presence of maritime patrols. Furthermore, while many direct actions by the United States are based on observations that fishing practices should be taken into account to avoid incidental catches, discards, overfishing, etc., what is striking is the "leading position" assumed by that country; which, instead of reaching agreements with the international fishing community and multilateral organizations, takes direct, unilateral protection measures without due consensus.

Let us recall the so-called "Tuna Wars" motivated by conflicts over fishing rights and the use of purse seine nets in waters claimed as Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) by Ecuador, Chile, and Peru, which the United States did not recognize as belonging to those coastal states. This led to the capture by these states of some 100 American tuna boats in the 1960s and 70s, which the United States considered an illegal process and, for that reason, protested diplomatically, making cuts in aid.

Since 1980, the United States has also imposed trade restrictions (e.g., import bans) based on the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for not using selective fishing practices, forcing third States to apply standards relating to incidental fishing with legislation whose scope cannot extend beyond the jurisdiction of the United States and which, in any case, should be addressed before the competent United Nations bodies.

Similarly, Mexico took its dispute to the GATT/WTO in 1991, where the panel ruled against the United States, although the matter was later resolved bilaterally. The WTO also ruled against the United States in 1998, adjusting the rules. Meanwhile, countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru, and Venezuela have been affected since 1989. The United States will restrict the import of mahi-mahi and other species from Peru caught with gillnets starting in 2026. All of this was done under pressure, not through compensatory policies to facilitate changes in developing countries.

In maritime operations (US Coast Guard, 2020), the United States deploys ships and aircraft for anti-illegal fishing (IUU) patrols targeting foreign fleets, especially Chinese ones. Why doesn't it do the same with Spanish, Taiwanese, and Korean vessels on the high seas and around the Malvina Islands, applying the Monroe Doctrine? Obviously, because the Monroe Doctrine and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) don't apply when it comes to the United Kingdom.

In October 1858, the United States sent its largest naval fleet to date (19 ships) to the Paraguay River in the well-known "Paraguay Expedition," with the objective of forcing the opening of river navigation and resolving the dispute, among other reasons, stemming from the 1855 incident with the USS Water Witch. The intervention culminated in a treaty that guaranteed navigation rights for the US, establishing a historical precedent for free navigation on the Paraná-Paraguay River. This precedent allegedly facilitated Javier Milei's government's signing of an agreement with the US Army Corps of Engineers (Argentine Ministry of Security Resolution 1307/2025) to conduct various studies on the Paraná-Paraguay River. In practice, this agreement appears to be an attempt to limit Chinese influence in the agricultural export sector and sounds like a "relinquishment of sovereignty," as it allows the United States greater control over the waterway, aligning with its US National Security Strategy and including cooperation with the DEA.

In 2024, the United States Coast Guard cutter James (WMSL 754), in an initiative supported by the State Department and the Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) of this country and as part of Operation Southern Cross to combat illegal fishing, sailed in Argentine waters and on the high seas; that, with a “deterrent character, sovereignty was outsourced” by carrying out patrols on the high seas, in whose waters Argentine fishing resources migrate.

The capabilities and objectives of these cutters in the South Atlantic far exceed any fisheries control measures. What is striking is not the joint training exercises that Argentine naval forces could receive with these ocean-going vessels on the high seas, but rather the fact that the United States' primary objective is to discourage Chinese fishing on the high seas, leaving the national government in a clear position of subordination to the dispute between the United States and China; to the point of participating in military actions against fishing vessels of our main trading partner.

The position of the Argentine authorities is blatantly contradictory, since they erroneously maintain that fishing on the high seas is legal, contrary to what we have established ( cesarlerena.com.ar “Illegal Fishing Impoverishes Argentina”, Perfil, 12/12/2025 ). Get your facts straight: If fishing on the high seas were legal     As some officials say, why is the Argentine Coast Guard using American vessels to combat Chinese fishing on the high seas? And if it's illegal, why is it colluding with the United States instead of taking independent national action to allow this fishing of our resources to be carried out by Chinese and other vessels? They also don't seem to understand that, since these are migratory resources originating in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), it is Argentina, not the United States, that must intervene; Argentina cannot lose control of its resources simply because they cross the imaginary 200-mile line. 

While the Argentine government delegates part of the administration of our maritime resources to the United States, the British Armed Forces are conducting Operation “Southern Sovereignty,” a joint military exercise of naval (patrol ship HMS-P222), land, and air forces in the Malvina Islands and from South Georgia to Ascension Island, with “the objective of evaluating the British capacity to project simultaneous forces in the maritime, land, and air domains ” ( Zona Militar, 12/19/2025 ); in total contradiction with what was agreed upon by the African and South American countries in the Treaty of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic ( 1986, UN Res. 41/11 ); but, above all, relinquishing territorial and political sovereignty, in open violation of the Declaration of Independence of 1816 and especially the First Transitory Provision of the National Constitution.

Comparing these two actions—the delegation to the United States of control over illegal fishing of Argentine migratory resources and the United Kingdom safeguarding “southern sovereignty”—we cannot help but lament the government's inaction. However, if we add to this the illegal fishing on the high seas by 350-500 foreign vessels and the British military presence in the Malvina Islands, guaranteeing the granting of illegal fishing licenses with NATO support, and considering the proven ineffectiveness of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR), already announced by Perón during the Rio de Janeiro Conference (Bramuglia, 1947) with a critical stance towards the United States, advocating non-alignment with this country or the USSR, since he considered this instrument ineffective for the defense of Latin America and subordinate to North American hegemony. This issue would later be demonstrated in the Malvinas War of 1982, where the United States and Chile –at least– supported the United Kingdom.

We could conclude that Argentina is not safeguarding its maritime sovereignty and, consequently, its resources. Furthermore, to our objective information, we add that the defense budget for 2026, at 0.28% of GDP, will be the lowest in four years ( Zona Militar, December 25, 2025 ), and the average salaries of military personnel in dollars have been reduced from US$900-1300 in 2015 to US$500-700 in 2025. This also contributes to the operational "acceptance" within the armed forces of the colonization of the defense sector and the already colonized foreign relations. As was the case with Foreign Minister Domingo Cavallo: "thinking differently is a petty problem," even if Trump thinks quite the opposite.

Argentina's obligation to guarantee its sovereignty has become so distorted that, in December 2023, the governor of Chubut Province, Ignacio Torres, met with Ambassador Marc Stanley to explore possible cooperation for US vessels to patrol the Patagonian coast to control illegal fishing, primarily by Chinese vessels. This demonstrates the governor's ignorance of his own powers and those of the National Congress. It also highlights that there is no illegal Chinese fishing within his 12-mile jurisdiction and that, in any case, his obligation is to control illegal Argentine catches in this area, during landings, etc., or to coordinate with the national government the control of catches of migratory species, such as shrimp, within the Exclusive Economic Zone. Perhaps he has been blinded by the allure of Washington.

And so it culminated in the unrestricted alignment of the national government with the United States, through Decree 697/2025 of September 29, 2025, in which President Milei approved "Operation Trident." This was an exercise between the Argentine and United States Armed Forces, conducted between October 20 and November 15, 2025, without the approval of the National Congress ( Article 75 of the National Constitution ), at the naval bases of Mar del Plata, Bahía Blanca, and Ushuaia. Meanwhile, whatever one's opinion of Nicolás Maduro's government, the invasion of Venezuelan airspace and subsequent capture of the Venezuelan president by the United States under the flimsy pretext of "drug trafficking" grossly violates the original intent of the Monroe Doctrine and weakens the sovereignty of all Latin American countries. Under any pretext, a powerful nation could intervene in an independent country, and this is the case with the United States, which, in addition to capturing a president, has reaffirmed "its decision to expand its military presence and influence in the region..." ( Ayelen Oliva, BBC News, 3/1/26 ). Tomorrow, under the pretext that illegal fishing by China, Taiwan, South Korea, Spain, and the United Kingdom in the South Atlantic violates its "National Security Strategy," it could invade Argentina to remedy this illegal situation, given the lack of concrete action from the national government. And, for his part, President Milei, first by promoting intervention in the Argentine economy and now by endorsing US action against Venezuela, is opening the door for it.   

As if anything else were needed, Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno announced ( Infobae, December 20, 2025 ) that the agreement with the United States “ is practically finalized … it will bring many benefits to everyone .” We think quite the opposite ( Op. Cit. cesarlerena.com.ar ), since actions related to sustainable fishing and non-commercial practices by third countries, implicitly directed at China, are being repeated, forgetting the phrase attributed to General José de San Martín: “Sovereignty is not negotiated, it is defended.” We hope that Congress will react; it cannot remain silent in the face of the missteps of Trump and Milei. 

Published in PERFIL, on January 5, 2026

Dr. César Augusto Lerena

South Atlantic and Fisheries Expert – Former Secretary of State.

President of the Center for Latin American Fisheries Studies

cesarlerena.com.ar