A tree is known by its fruits (Matthew 7:16 and Luke 6:44); but, of course, Machiavelli said: " I find it impossible to describe contemporary things without offending many ."
When the English invaded Buenos Aires on June 27, 1806, the Plaza surrendered without resistance to General Beresford. The people of Buenos Aires saw the triumphant march of the ruddy-cheeked English, who occupied the city without losing a single man, like a military parade, clarinets, bagpipes and drums playing while the people and the authorities hid in their houses and watched from behind the curtains. In general, there was no joy at the fall of the Spanish kingdom, although many residents were enthusiastic about the promised freedom of trade. The English officers socialized with the leading families of Buenos Aires and stayed in their houses, where they held parties to honor the invaders. It is common to see the Sarrateas, the Marcó del Ponts and the Escaladas strolling down the avenue arm in arm with the English. A gesture that today is made by politicians who are delighted with so much genuflection. Some porteños started the rebellion, among them Martín de Álzaga -who would be hanged in 1812- and Juan Martín de Pueyrredón, together with the Catalans Felipe de Sentenach and Gerardo Esteve y Llach, who made contact with two fellow citizens of Montevideo, Miguel Vilardebó and Cristóbal Salvañach. " Catalan, Catalan, they shall not pass "; the slogan that was the axis on both banks of the River Plate.
The Montevideo Council, governed by Ruiz Huidobro and the principals, agree to reconquer Buenos Aires and the only thing that is talked about in the gatherings and pulperías is to expel the English from Buenos Aires and this happens, indeed, on August 12, 1806 when the city is recovered. But, nothing is clear. The cavalry captain Don Saturnino Rodríguez Peña, maintains a close relationship with the English prisoners Beresford and Pack, with whom he has long conversations and, convinces Liniers -whose aide-de-camp he was and confidant- to facilitate their escape -accompanied by the gold- so as not to earn further anger from the British and, for this, he facilitates their transfer to the Banda Oriental and, from there, to London. This, not only exempted these unworthy people from the gallows when they returned to Britain, but they were received victoriously.
Two hundred years later, the Saturninos continue to influence Argentina and advise all the governments in power; it does not matter if they are Menemists, Macrists, Kirchnerists or Mileists, to whom have also been added the ambassadors of Perfidious Albion who, contrary to the widespread belief that we threw them out in 1806, continue to plunder our natural resources and influence public and private powers.
Saturnino already had relations with the English since the beginning of the 19th century. In 1804 he belonged to the Southern Cross Masonic lodge and, when the English invasion took place, he considered himself "very English in his ideas"; a concept shared by some rulers, legislators and intellectuals today - among them President Milei who has expressed his admiration for the war criminal Margaret Thatcher - and he considered that for political and economic reasons "England's support should be requested for emancipation"; an issue that remains valid in these days of colonized Argentina, where even the government transports gold to London.
At the beginning of 1809, Liniers requested his capture and extradition, but Rodriguez Peña took refuge on an English ship to Rio de Janeiro, where he depended on English and Portuguese support, receiving financial contributions from John Whitelocke and Lord Strangford, and the English embassy paid for his travels. There is no doubt that English interference was and is attractive and Saturnino was a qualified pro-British “patriot”.
With its nuances, in Argentina today, there are diverse specimens that range from maintaining " that the Malvinas are British " (Antón; de Ipola; Filippelli; Gargarella; Iglesias; Kovadloff; Lanata; Noriega; Novaro; Onaindia; Palermo; Sábato; Sabsay; Sarlo; Sebreli; Luis Romero; Sabrina Ajmechet and, Marcelo Kohan, the latter in a belated manner since he promised the islanders " a plebiscite on sovereignty "); through "promoting a joint conservation zone for Argentine fishing resources in the Malvinas; the establishment of baselines facilitating the English demarcation of the islands and the Madrid Agreements" (former Foreign Ministers Domingo Cavallo; Guido Di Tella and Susana Ruiz Cerutti, etc.); maintain that “ they are not a central issue in the relationship with the English; we must cooperate with them and reissue the Foradori-Duncan Pact ” (Foreign Ministers Mondino; Ruiz Cerutti; Faurie and former Vice-Chancellor Foradori, among others); that “the Islands should have been exchanged for vaccines against COVID” (the Candidate for President and Minister of Security Patricia Bullrich); those who “ believe that it is good to be pro-British and act as such ” (“María Belén” Bertie Benegas Linch and several more); those capable of authoring a law and then voting or opposing it (the radical Mariano Campero, among others); those who maintain “that the Malvinas would be a strong additional deficit for Argentina” (former President Mauricio Macri); those who “ jump on the Peronist bandwagon but maintain the status quo of Malvinas ” (the Secretary of Malvinas Guillermo Carmona of the failed government of Alberto Fernández, etc.) and, in general terms, for all those mentioned and others that I omit for administrative reasons, who understand that “ the Malvinas question is of little importance in relation to the maintenance of excellent economic ties and friendly historical ties” that unite us to the British usurpers; omitting; that they arrogantly occupy 1,639,900 km2 of Argentine continental, insular and maritime territories (five times larger than the United Kingdom); They dispute more than 2.4 million km2 of the continental shelf and Antarctica and have illegally extracted 12 million tons of Argentine fishing resources since 1976 through foreign vessels for a FOB value of around 48 billion dollars and have begun the exploitation of hydrocarbon resources whose estimates are worth billions; for which reason and for geopolitical reasons they have the most important military base in the Southwestern Atlantic, despite UN Res. 41/11 (ZPCAS) .
We highlight that The colonization of Argentina is not only a task of the British, it is fundamentally the laborious work of a few Argentines with weak nationality and weak character, who occupied and occupy important spaces of domestic power.
There are those who transfigure themselves; those who are skilled at mutating and “borocotizing” themselves; the circus trapeze artists, where it is possible to dress up as a clown and then “bravely” tame old toothless lions to survive the changes, because the public, like the government, is renewed; those who are capable of a legal metamorphosis because this science enables them to represent all parties alternatively; those who cooperate voluntarily in the hope of being compensated; the chameleons; the supporting characters who stand out for the incapacity of the recipients of their services; those who offer themselves as independents and say that “ I am not from here nor from there ”, even when the inalienable interests of the Nation are at stake. Also those who previously consulted their initiatives with the “ friendly British ambassador of the whisky club ” Mark Kent, who, tired of exchanging tweets with thousands of Argentine cholulos, knew how to win -just like with some young ladies of Buenos Aires in 1806- their hearts; The same goes for the ambassador, the “tourism promoter ” Kirsty Hayes, who invites us to “meet our neighbours”, the usurpers; those who “ say that with the same people Peronism will be revitalised and Malvinised ”. Don Saturnino, alongside these people, was a patriot and died in exile, persecuted.
To all these colonized people; figureheads; transformists; transversalists; metamorphists; mutants; seductive sellers of snakes or Winnie the Pooh bears; carnal relations; unilateral cooperators; serial declaimers; joint conservators of Argentine natural resources; trolls, etc. we can respond with sufficient political, economic, legal, geographic, historical, biological and ethical foundations. And, we are willing to have a heated debate of ideas if there is interest.
We could refer to a hundred “characters” who qualify in this group to a greater or lesser extent; but we will refer to a prototype, whom we mentioned in 13 articles (see www.cesarlerena.com.ar) for his inconsistent, changeable, erroneous opinions. He best expresses what is attributed to Groucho Marx: “ these are my principles and if you don’t like them, I have others ” in the “Malvinas Question”.
The Prototype we are analyzing for bringing together most of the “virtues” mentioned above is the lawyer-teacher Marcelo Gustavo Kohen (although we should not forget that “it is not the pig’s fault…”) ; a professor at an obscure Institute of the University of Geneva, whose World University Ranking occupies the 1913th position and, in terms of Excellence, the 2940th; that is, well below the University of Buenos Aires that Milei detests, which occupies the 502nd position and in the QS Global Ranking that evaluates academic reputation, job opportunities and scientific development, it achieved the 71st position.
He has made various and contradictory “contributions” and has the support of different “operators” in governments from Cristina F. de Kirchner to Javier Milei inclusive (those that change are the governments) and was even unsuccessfully proposed by the equally failed government of Alberto Fernández before the International Court of Justice. Recently , he has written two articles in collaboration with his amanuensis Facundo Rodriguez, on July 5 “ Malvinas: fallacies of the United Kingdom ” and on October 6 “ The Chagos Archipelago and Malvinas. An example ”. In the first he refers to “ The story of a parallel reality to justify the last colonial vestiges is the policy that the United Kingdom chooses for Malvinas… In the statement by Minister Rutley before the OAS … (he) mentioned the presence of observers … chosen by the United Kingdom …”. However, it was Kohen himself who in 2018 promoted a referendum in favor of the islanders. Even in this article it refers to the fact that “ The referendum did not have the organization, supervision or endorsement of the UN … ”; as if the case of having had observers from the UN in the plebiscite of some two thousand British islanders, would have modified in any way the Argentine sovereign rights over the archipelagos that have the endorsement of 45 million Argentines, as set out in the First Transitory Provision of the National Constitution.
Kohen is preparing the field for his second note and refers that “there was no “self-determination” when (the United Kingdom) expelled two thousand Mauritians from Chagos, nor was there a “self-determination referendum” when Thatcher returned Hong Kong to China, its legitimate owner” and expands “ if any Argentine government is willing to use all the tools that International Law, sooner rather than later, will show that the United Kingdom must comply with its international obligations ”. Position that contradicts other previous opinions that he has been recommending to all governments. To finally indicate that, “in Malvinas, the victim of British colonial action is the Argentine people, deprived of freely determining a part of its territory” and, “expelling the (Argentine) authorities and part of its population, to then populate it with settlers brought from the metropolis and control the migration policy”, this last issue, which Kohen himself - as we will see - promoted to the islanders in 2018.
In the second article, Kohen refers that on October 3, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius issued a joint statement in which the former recognizes Mauritius' sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, which is why this teacher intends to compare this controversy with Argentina, despite observing differences between the two on the issue relating to the negotiation of sovereignty, where Mauritius "went to the UN General Assembly in 2017 and managed to get it to request - against the will of the United Kingdom and the United States - an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice and, this indicated that the United Kingdom should end its illegal colonial presence in the archipelago, based on which the General Assembly requested the restitution of the territory", which is why the United Kingdom accepted a sort of "colonial Mauritian sovereignty", since this Kingdom will continue to have rights on Diego Garcia Island for a period of 99 years to guarantee the operation of the North American and British military bases on the islands. Kohen acknowledges that “There are no identical situations, despite similarities between the two cases, such as dealing with an overbearing occupation and the implantation of British in the islands; demographic manipulation and, breach of the territorial integrity of both countries.”
Although we understand that there are substantial differences; among them, that the United Kingdom in Chagos limited its actions to renting and establishing military bases; that is, it did not have any significant British-island population affection and, contrary to Mauritius, Argentina agreed to leave its territorial rights and the impositions of the Madrid Agreements under an “umbrella” and without any expiration, and tried in every possible way to establish a dialogue on the dispute with the United Kingdom, when it should have claimed “the full exercise of sovereignty” in the Malvinas, Georgias, South Sandwich and their corresponding seas, and admitted the exploitation of all Argentine natural resources in the Malvinas, despite the UN Resolution 31/49 promoted by our government in 1975, without subsequent governments rejecting this illegal appropriation; even accepting joint fishing investigations and without sanctioning foreign companies that illegally extract fishing resources, despite the existence of sufficient legislation (laws 24.922; 26.386; 27.564, etc.) to penalize these practices and, the absurdity is that the Argentine government has not urged Spain - who recognizes Argentine rights - to cease illegal fishing by its Galician-British vessels in the Malvinas.
In this article, Kohen states that “ since 1983, the various Argentine strategies to restart negotiations on sovereignty have always met with the same result: the refusal of the United Kingdom. This is not surprising. What may be surprising is continuing to try the same recipes, believing that different results can be obtained and abstaining from seeking new available paths .” His opinion is equally surprising, because as a member of the Malvinas National Council, a position he still holds, he has limited himself to promoting “ unilateral cooperation ” with the islanders, accepting the Foradori-Duncan Pact and now the “Mondino-Lammy” pacts; pacts that do nothing other than “ remove all obstacles that hinder the development of the islands ” in exchange for absolutely nothing in favor of Argentina. Despite Kohen's understanding that "merely declamatory strategies or free concessions should not be carried out", he supports the aforementioned Pacts that - among other things - open the Islands to the most important market in Latin America and access to the world, such as the State of São Paulo in Brazil. Unusually, he limits the negative strategies to the democratic period; considering ( Profile, 6/29/21) the agreements of "unilateral collaboration" with the United Kingdom by the de facto government of the so-called "Argentine Revolution" of 1971 and never rejected the aforementioned Pacts, despite stating that " history shows that the United Kingdom has never changed its position simply because of the passage of time or because of a good relationship with the counterparty ".
Marcelo Gustavo quickly contradicts himself again when he states that a "balanced international policy is necessary, in accordance with the traditional positions assumed by governments of the most varied political hues ", in which this lawyer has given his opinion without the slightest success; even to officials of the Foreign Ministry who participated during the Military Process; so one should doubt his position of copying the path taken by the Republic of Mauritius; even more so, when his opinions are truly changeable, typical of defector behavior.
Kohen's "intramural" view is limited to legal sketches that ignore any national and international political strategy. Perhaps he does not make a precise design -FODA included- for them to be summoned; but, at no time does he evaluate Argentina's position in the world; the alignment with the United States-Israel axis of the "Liberty Advances" government (in mirror to the deceived Galtieri who estimated that at the time of recovering Malvinas he would have the support of the former); the lack of incorporation into BRICS and the qualification of communists and corrupt by President Milei to the majority of the support blocks that Argentina has had in the UN; the absence of agreements with the European Union from Brexit and the beggarly aspiration of entering NATO while one of its members occupies Malvinas; the low intensity of Argentine claims in international forums and the tension that the government experiences with the neighbors of the region, such as Brazil, Chile and Uruguay that facilitate operations and transports with Malvinas; the withdrawal of the Spanish ambassador from Buenos Aires; the insults of the Argentine president to his Colombian counterpart; the maintenance of meager defense budgets for the control of the South Atlantic and its administration; the elimination of the Malvinas Islands from a map displayed at the meeting with foreign diplomats, etc.
He does not propose a concrete strategy other than to beg on his knees to the Assembly where Argentina has lost its leadership. A path to suicide, just as when his candidacy to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was discarded. An infanticide, which does not even have the probability of the “heads and tails” to choose the goal in a soccer match and, without saying, how he is going to get the votes in the face of such a leap into the void. The excessive personal ambitions of a technocrat can lead him to the “dead end”; but Argentina cannot accept a rejection by the ICJ from which there is no return.
In this regard, the diplomat Guillermo Rossi, who was Director of Malvinas, says that “about a hundred years ago the United Kingdom adhered to the Statute of the International Court of Justice with reservations on article 36, where it did not accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ for the Malvinas case.” On the other hand, he continues: “requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ results in the implicit recognition of sovereignty to the United Kingdom” and, he expands: “supposing that we get the 192 votes (with Milei’s policy it is very likely that those in favor of Argentina will decrease) , control will be totally lost and…the cultural and doctrinal weight that the British and their allies have on the judges is something that Argentina cannot control (and) the judges will not necessarily adhere to the consultation formulated by Argentina…the country has already said everything in Res. 2065, what will the ICJ say that we do not know?” “We must be attentive to the sale of mailboxes to politicians.”
In our fallible opinion, Kohen does not have sufficient attributes. His four years in the last government (and still) as a member of the National Council of Malvinas have been inconsequential and as a teacher he lacks the necessary political knowledge and does not have to have it, since he never held a relevant political position. It is one thing to be a free thinker in front of students and another to be a negotiator of such an irrevocable decision. The legal discussion in a negotiation is not central but supportive, unless the issue is intended to be directed towards the courts and, it is known, that litigating in these is not a guarantee of a good Agreement. It is not a question of presenting "proposals" but formulating them in the appropriate way and time, so that they can be adjusted without losing the objective sought and, taking advantage of the synergy of the counterpart. The restitution of Malvinas will be a political fact, not a legal one, although this tool serves to support the policy. Paraphrasing Bill Clinton (1992): "It's politics, stupid."
We understand that Kohan is personally overly ambitious, but in light of the facts, what is serious is that his proposals are inconsistent, erratic and unreliable. Let's look at some examples:
1) First of all, it is remarkable that Kohan, as a member of the Malvinas National Council, disseminates through public media and in public conferences the strategies that Argentina should carry out, contrary to what was stated in 2000 by a well-known and controversial Undersecretary of the State Intelligence Secretariat (SIDE): “when he was asked about the fate of the documentation produced by the Secretariat, he replied: Since it is secret, it is destroyed” (Braslavsky, G, Clarín, 16/4/2002). The British sat in the front row of Kohan’s kind recommendations.
2) On 3/22/2018 (Infobae) Kohen recklessly violates the First Transitory Provision of the CN by proposing to the Malvinas islanders -among other things- to maintain the immigration regime, where Argentines would continue to be unable to settle or invest in Malvinas and, proposing to the islanders «to organize a referendum to decide whether the agreed situation is maintained or whether the islanders can assume full sovereignty». This despite the fact that Kohen himself, in an interview on Public TV, understands that «the most negative formula is self-determination» and facilitating a referendum is nothing other than granting self-determination to these British islanders. This Plan was then ratified on March 20, 2018 before a qualified audience of the Argentine Council of Foreign Relations (CARI); where, who also pretends to put on the wig of a judge of the International Court of Justice, states: « The Argentine lack of a concrete proposal means that the void is filled with the most recalcitrant ideas »; although his previous idea could be qualified as treason to the homeland , since this concession of self-determination to the islanders could not have any other result than the continuity of the relationship of these with the British Crown or their independence and incorporation into the British Commonwealth of Nations ( Commonwealth) . It is not surprising that Kohen presented the proposal during the same government that finalized the Foradori-Duncan Pact, where it was agreed to "adopt appropriate measures to remove all obstacles that limit the economic growth and sustainable development of the Malvinas Islands, including fishing, navigation and hydrocarbons...", which among other things aspired to the repeal of the aforementioned DTP from the Constitution, and did not pronounce itself on the Mondino-Lammy Pact.
Kohan says that his proposal is to " break the deadlock, to break the inertia of inviting the United Kingdom to dialogue every year, so that they tell us that they will accept what the islanders say " (sic) ; but the one he favors is the British proposal, only that it postpones the self-determination of the islanders for 30 years, favoring in the meantime, with the Argentine contribution, their development.
3) His proposal to split Tierra del Fuego, which he puts forward on the same occasion to create a new province for the islanders, contrary to the provisions of articles 6 and 13 of the National Constitution and articles 1, 2, 81 and 87 of the Provincial Constitution, its Twelfth Transitory Provision and article 14 of Law 23,775 without consulting the will of the people of Tierra del Fuego, ignores provincial autonomy, is at least illegal; undemocratic; breaks with the principle of territorial integrity and makes no reference to Argentine rights over Argentine waters and Antarctica. This proposal is not new since in 2017 the Tierra del Fuego Legislature " categorically rejected the Malvinas Province, Province 24 project" proposed by journalists from the UNLP.
In this sense, UN Res. 1514 itself, in its 6th paragraph, established the framework for sovereignty disputes: "Any attempt aimed at totally or partially undermining the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations," and it can be understood that what is applicable in relation to third countries is also applicable to internal integrity.
4) Kohen supports the idea that the authorities of the new Province should be the ones to authorize or not to reside in the Islands and states that “ it is a way of preserving the way of life of its inhabitants ”; but, this cannot prevent the right of Argentines to travel, settle, invest, etc. in Malvinas; otherwise, it would be a chimerical sovereignty. Regarding culture, Malvinas is in the culture of Argentines. The British have occupied our territory, but they have not removed Malvinas from our culture.
5) In CARI, Kohen promoted Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) that would facilitate the United Kingdom to deepen the appropriation of Argentine resources; in addition, he promoted "co-participation with the islanders in the resources of the Malvinas EEZ" , both measures would consolidate the British occupation of the Malvinas, in open collision with the rest of the provinces of the maritime coast. What kind of sovereignty does Kohen promote? He does not refer to the South Georgia or South Sandwich Islands that have an independent administration or to the Antarctic projection; he gives them the fishing and hydrocarbon resources. What referendum could favor Argentina in these conditions? Kohan's slogan of " Argentine sovereignty, island autonomy " is just a sophism.
6) He also indicated that "one could consider a similar way to the resolution of the dispute between New Caledonia and France" which was unfavorable to the French; but now he is leaving such a decision to third parties.
7) In his presentation at CARI, Kohen states that "Argentina (attributes to itself a power that it does not have) does not rule out going to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in advance"; however, This lawyer, in making this statement, had already stated seven years earlier his position against going to the ICJ in the report given to Telma Luzzani (Visión 7 of Public TV, 1/12/2011) : «…for an International Court to deal with the issue, the consent of the State is needed (…) In the Malvinas case, the United Kingdom made a Declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICJ, but it is made in such a way that it is impossible to take the case through contentious means. That is to say, if one day Argentina decides to take the Malvinas case to the ICJ, the United Kingdom would have arguments to oppose it.» What would they be, Telma asks? «the fact that by accepting the jurisdiction of the ICJ, it excluded all controversy prior to 1974. We know that the controversy over the Malvinas is much more than a century and a half old…» Now Kohan is making fragile and changing proposals, as he had told journalist Natasha ( Clarín ) on 12/19/21: “ I have advised the governments of Néstor and Cristina Kirchner to take the British to the ICJ, which I later advised against based on my own experience .” We should remind Kohan that what is at stake is resolving the full sovereignty of the Malvinas, not what suit the presidents should wear at a gala party at the Colón. For this, the advice of former Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie would have been enough.
There are people who believe they are predestined and they tend to put their personal issues above national ones. Marcelo Kohen made it clear when he nominated himself and was nominated by the Fernández government to be a judge of the International Court of Justice that he was one of them. When choosing the profile of the Argentine candidates to the Court, it is very interesting to note that, while José María Ruda had a clear position as a representative of national political interests and translated them into clear and committed legal and diplomatic actions, Kohen's position seems to be that of a technician at the service of technique. Kohan's statements are revealing regarding his commitment to the Argentine State. When asked by the Perfil journalist : How did your candidacy come about? He answered: " It was a proposal from prominent colleagues and friends from around the world who consider that my presence as a judge would be a positive contribution to the work of the Court... I am a professor, not a diplomat or a politician, and I think independently... I am not "pro this state or that" but pro international law... My commitment as a candidate is with the independence of all states, pressure or interests; putting respect for international law above all else… ». Read: “self-promotion”; zero commitment to the Malvinas cause that he claims to defend and the oppressive shadow of the United Kingdom’s veto over his strategy to reach office (The end justifies the means).
Even with regard to the suitability to become a Judge of the International Court of Justice, it is truly absurd that while candidates for a position as a First Instance Judge must pass a competition of background and opposition, then, be approved by the Councils of Magistrates and the respective Senates, and finally, from among a shortlist, be appointed by Decree of the Executive Power; to apply to this Court, a Decree is sufficient. This does not even occur to aspire to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, where in addition to the filter of the Senate, the candidate is exposed to public opinion. And this lawyer, with no experience in justice, had already been unsuccessfully promoted by the government of President Macri to join the Commission of International Law of the General Assembly of the UN, an opportunity in which he stated that he “works and resides” in Switzerland, being discarded from among the 34 selected, being categorically surpassed by the votes of the candidates from Colombia, Chile, Nicaragua, Mexico, Brazil, Peru and Ecuador.
Life within the walls of international bodies can make those who rest in the tranquility of monthly salaries and lack passion for issues relating to national sovereignty lose touch with reality. With his way of thinking and his excessive ambition, he has a vocation in the Malvinas Question -at best- with an expiration date. He does not understand what General Simon Bolivar said: "When the trumpet of the country calls, even the mother's tears are silent."
There is sufficient evidence to qualify this path proposed by Dom Kohen as an adventure that, like wars, cannot be put in the hands of a few - supposedly enlightened theorists - who lack experience outside of law or teaching. Argentine policy, at this stage, should be to " put the broom behind the door " to make the occupation of Malvinas more difficult, carrying out direct actions, some of which we have already very modestly explained.
To learn more about the topics discussed in this article, we suggest reading the following at www.cesarlerena.com.ar:
1) The strategy of the Malvinas National Council – part 1 - 2/9/2021.
2) From intramural teacher to manager of the islanders' wishes in Malvinas - 2/21/2022.
3) Access to the International Court of Justice outside the national interest – 1/5/2022
4) Argentina's cooperation policy on the Malvinas. When policies are designed within the walls – 1/7/2021 .
5) The strategy of the Malvinas National Council - final (for now) - 5/3/2021.
6) The transversal politics of Argentine colonization from Thomas Bridge to Daniel Filmus. The continuity of carnal relations – 6/26/2021.
7) The Malvinas Secretariat does not take a single ball in the face of British political action in Argentina – 12/9/2022.
8) Malvinas today further from Argentina than in 1982, closer to the United Kingdom than in 2003 - 10/6/2022.
9) Argentine monologue and British preview – 10/22/2021
10) No Plan for the Malvinas - 8/23/2021
11) Who do some theorists support on the Malvinas issue? 10/6/2021
12) The Malvinas National Council does not design a State Policy – 1/2/2022
13) The International Court of Justice or national interests – 12/28/2021.
Dr. Cesar Augusto Lerena
South Atlantic and Fisheries expert - former Secretary of State.
President of the Center for Latin American Fisheries Studies (CESPEL).
Web: cesarlerena.com.ar
October 14, 2024
