According to article 18 of Law 22,520, the Argentine Foreign Ministry is responsible for assisting the President of the Nation in everything related to the Foreign Relations of the Nation with foreign governments, the Holy See and international entities and, among other things, "to understand from the point of view of foreign policy in the elaboration and interpretation of treaties, pacts, conventions, protocols, agreements, arrangements or any other instrument of an international nature..." and, according to article 1 of Law 20,957 of the Organic Charter of the Foreign Service of the Nation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Worship has the function of executing the national foreign policy, preserving, defending and safeguarding the sovereignty, dignity and interest of the Republic in the continental and global sphere and, according to its article 24, it prohibits officials of the foreign service of the Nation from "assuming the representation or protection of the interests of a third State or its nationals" and "making statements that compromise the internal or external policy of the Argentine Foreign Ministry." of the Republic” and, in the event that officials do not remain loyal to the Nation and the National Constitution, they are subject to exoneration (Art. 43). It seems clear that subordinating Argentine international policy to that established by the United States or Israel or another country does not conform to the provisions of these laws. One thing is to support certain policies and another is to blindly accept foreign policies.
I agree with Diego Guelar, who was “more surprised by the appointment than by Mondino’s departure.” It sounds funny, but we Argentines are fed up with the fact that a large part of the officials - administrators of our National Consortium - are inept. Although I do not usually "make firewood from a fallen tree", Mrs. Diana Mondino considered "that all Chinese are equal"; she declared that "the islanders have rights"; she agreed to "the Mondino-Lammy Pact" that reissues the Foradori-Duncan Pact that promotes eliminating all obstacles to developing Malvinas; and "called Malvinas instead of Malvinas"; a policy more appropriate to the "Total Boluda" character of comedian Fabio Alberti than responsible actions of a Foreign Ministry. And that, despite bathing (we do not know) and knowing English, it is clear that she was not sufficiently qualified to handle such a responsibility that requires her - above all - to know the problems of the country and to be "a man" of the world.
For his part, President Javier Milei, who said that “when people went to my events there were many Israeli flags”, in an obvious disregard for the national flag - since according to Law 23.208 there is only one national flag for all Argentines - not only fired Foreign Minister Diana Mondino for “an unforgivable error that cost her her job in thirty minutes” but also called those diplomats imbeciles, arrogant and traitors to the country for opposing the boycott of Cuba, supporting the traditional Argentine vote in the United Nations, as did everyone else and, very particularly, those countries that support Argentina in its demand for full sovereignty of the Malvinas. Argentina's position, for which it considered that the diplomats “voted for anything”, threatening to summarily and throw them out.
The threatening Milei seems to ignore the validity -among others- of Law 24.871 promulgated by his admired Carlos Menem, which states in its articles 1 and 2: "Foreign laws that, directly or indirectly, have the objective of restricting or impeding the free exercise of trade and the free circulation of capital, goods or people to the detriment of any country or group of countries... Foreign laws that attempt to generate extraterritorial effects through the imposition of an economic blockade, the limitation of investments in a certain country, or the restriction on the circulation of people, goods, services or capital, with the aim of causing a change in the form of government of a country, or to affect its right to free self-determination, will also be absolutely inapplicable and lacking legal effect. No person, physical or of ideal existence, can invoke rights, execute or demand the execution of acts, or be forced to obey or observe, whether actively or passively, measures, directives, instructions or indications that are a consequence of the extraterritorial application of foreign laws indicated in the previous article" and, of course, no formal sanction may be imposed on diplomats; although, in practice, it is known that it could seriously affect the career of those under investigation, their promotions and destinations, with the well-known freezer. The House is not the best shelter for diplomats who prepared and revalidated their titles to represent the country outside Argentina.
Diplomats are in a state of deliberation due to these threats; but I understand that, beyond the moral damage and the professional career that each of them may suffer, the damage caused by the paralysis in the diplomatic corps will be much more important, when a greater strategy is needed to face the great challenges of the world and the complete interpretation of Argentina's potential and capabilities.
In the best of cases, the Foreign Ministry will depend on an enlightened President and Minister without having the entire trained and experienced structure that - for survival - will avoid the debate of ideas and the issuance of internal reports contrary to the single way of thinking. The scribes, the errand boys, the genuflexes and idiots who will be of little service to the Nation will flourish.
By the way, those who try to sanction diplomats for their ideas will be found violating -among others- Law 23,592, which adopts measures for those who arbitrarily prevent the full exercise of the fundamental rights and guarantees recognized in the National Constitution, who may be punished with imprisonment for encouraging or inciting persecution or hatred against a person or group of people because of their political ideas.
While this is happening, the British ship Sir David Attenborough, flagged “Malvinas”, enters the River Plate within the area of the Treaty of the River Plate signed by Argentina and Uruguay in 1973/74 without Argentina being informed in accordance with Decree 256/10 and violating the Declaration of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) of 2011 on Argentine rights in the Malvinas, which prohibited all logistics to ships with the “Malvinas” flag, without there even being a declaration of repudiation from the Foreign Ministry. Has the effect of “due obedience” to the President’s single thought begun to work?
Let the Corsican Continue, as Francisco García Jiménez wrote.
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
November 7, 202
