Rear Admiral Carlos Sardiello of the US Naval Forces Southern Command and US Fourth Fleet and Admiral Juan Carlos Romay of the Argentine Navy signed a Letter of Intent that, according to official US information, would have as its main objective "strengthening maritime security in the South Atlantic; combating the threats of illegal fishing, drug trafficking and other illicit activities; improving joint surveillance, patrolling and monitoring and providing advanced equipment; patrolling; elite training and interoperability for 5 years."

It is unclear whether this involves the transfer of knowledge, technology, and equipment, or whether the United States fleet will have an active role within or outside the Argentine Exclusive Economic Zone. This should be clarified immediately by the Argentine Navy, because depending on this, the institution may or may not be violating Article 75 of the National Constitution.   

This Letter of Intent appears to be part of the Protecting Global Commons Program, prompting an analysis of its scope, as there are no publicly available details. So far, it seems to acknowledge the Argentine government's inability to control the Southwest Atlantic and represents a step forward for the United States in the region.

We must clarify, first of all, that such objectives cannot be entrusted to the Chief of the Argentine Navy, and in any case, he should limit himself to implementing the policy of the National Executive Branch and, depending on the scope and area of intervention of the US fleet, that of the National Congress. It is striking that the Ministry of Defense has also failed to issue any statement, especially given that the Minister is an active-duty officer and the matter falls within his purview; particularly since a subordinate force is signing this letter; which violates—at the very least—one of the two fundamental principles: “Subordination and Valor.” 

 “Strengthening maritime security in the South Atlantic” is such an ambiguous definition that we must clarify it. There are no “Global Commons” in territorial waters or in any Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), since these are maritime spaces under the jurisdiction and control of the coastal State, and therefore no such “global commons” exist; territory and resources for which Argentina is exclusively responsible.

Thus, we understand that the aim would be to control—among other things—illegal fishing on the high seas. This would be a novelty: recognizing that fishing—as it is currently practiced on the high seas—is illegal. This is something we have been demanding for years, and we consider ourselves the originators of this principle. This is in stark contrast to the opinion of various government authorities and their naval forces, who have been misinterpreting the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), particularly regarding the exploitation of migratory fish stocks within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) on the high seas. What happened? Uncle Sam says it's illegal, and our armed forces rush to sign a Letter of Intent to control it?  

However, we cannot be so naive as to believe that the presence of the US fleet in the South Atlantic is intended to help us eliminate illegal fishing; which, incidentally, the various Federal Fisheries Councils haven't even attempted to do since the Federal Fisheries Law was enacted. It is obvious that their mere presence in Argentine ports and waters sends a clear message to third countries, especially China.

The objective of the United States is clear, when its embassy in Argentina, intended to represent the interests of that country in ours, is the one that announces -without details- this intention and the Argentine Foreign Ministry does not inform ( See MRECIyC portal, 5/25/26 ) the Argentine citizens and the National Congress.  

The members of the Argentine Navy and Coast Guard are not lacking in the skills to carry out effective action; what they lack is the political will, resources, and a suitable plan. The first is beyond their control, and the second could mean a transfer of technology from the United States; never, should the US fleet perform the tasks that are Argentina's responsibility ( we are not Venezuela ). Even that is insufficient, because the solution is not solely technological or military; it is fundamentally methodological and also goes beyond the exclusive participation of the naval forces, which can provide operational advice. The actions should be centered on political strategies and international agreements to end this scourge and its related effects (trade, subsidies, slave labor, drug trafficking, etc.).

As we have stated repeatedly: “This is supported by Law 24,543, by which Argentina ratified UNCLOS, which highlights in Article 2, paragraph c) that “ The Argentine Republic accepts the provisions on the management and conservation of living resources on the high seas but considers them insufficient, particularly those relating to straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, and that it is necessary to complement them with an effective and binding multilateral regime that, among other things, facilitates cooperation to prevent and avoid overfishing, and allows for the control of fishing vessel activities on the high seas as well as the use of fishing methods and gear,” and the Argentine government bears in mind “its priority interest in the conservation of resources found in its exclusive economic zone and in the high seas area adjacent to it, and considers that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, when the same stock or stocks of associated species are found in the EEZ and in the high seas area adjacent to it, the Argentine Republic, as a State coastal States, and States fishing those stocks in the area adjacent to their EEZ must agree on the necessary measures for the conservation of those stocks or associated species on the high seas” and that for this purpose “...it is empowered to adopt, in accordance with international law, all measures it considers necessary for this purpose” which UNCLOS then sets out in its articles and, “the freedom of fishing” referred to in article 87° e) does not imply that it can be predatory and unsustainable, a matter that occurs: first , when ships are not controlled by their flag States or countries of origin (articles 87, 92, 94 of UNCLOS); Second , when research studies are not carried out to determine the “Maximum Sustainable Catch” (articles 117 and 119 of UNCLOS) and, third , if migratory species originating from the EEZ are caught on the high seas without agreement with the coastal State affecting its interests (articles 63, 64, 116 to 119 of UNCLOS)» ( César Lerena “Fishing on the high seas is illegal”, 29/5/2026 ).  

Argentina could not consider the capture on the high seas of its migratory resources originating from its territorial sea and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and associated species involved in the food chain, to be legal, in principle, because it would disregard the rights it claims as its own in all its current legislation: Article 5 of Law 23,968; Article 2, section c) cited above of Law 24,543; and Articles 4, 5d, 21e, 22, and 23b of Law 24,922, the Fisheries Law. Furthermore, there are more than 40 reasons to consider this capture on the high seas as “Illegal Fishing.” Of course, this also includes bottom trawling when fishing on the Argentine extended continental shelf beyond 200 miles without national authorization, and classifying as "piracy" the illegal fishing that breaks the biological cycle of species on the high seas, according to Article 101 a) ii) of UNCLOS: " Against a ship or aircraft, persons or property in a place not subject to the jurisdiction of any State" ( César Lerena "Fishing on the high seas is illegal", 29/5/2026 ).  

Finally, we ask ourselves how the US fleet should act within the 1,639,900 km² of Argentine sea invaded by the United Kingdom around the Malvina Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; areas that could not be omitted from a Letter of Intent such as the one signed because it would violate the First Transitory Provision of the National Constitution and given the proven illegal fishing of 250,000 tons annually in those territories by Korean, Taiwanese, Spanish vessels and the latter associated with the British Malvina Islanders, through illegal fishing permits, which in addition to violating all the aforementioned legislation, contravene UN Resolution 31/49.

Sovereignty is inalienable and direct. “It is not delegated, it is exercised” ( Jean-Jacques Rousseau).

* Article published in the Perfil newspaper, on June 1, 2026.

Dr. César Augusto Lerena

South Atlantic and Fisheries Expert – Former Secretary of State

President of the Center for Latin American Fisheries Studies (CESPEL)

cesarlerena.com.ar