On May 28, 2008, Law 26,386 was sanctioned, which was incorporated as article 27 bis to the Federal Fisheries Law 24,922, which, in general terms, limited fishing operations within the waters under the jurisdiction of Argentina to those who did not have a permit. of fishing granted by the Enforcement Authority and/or had some type of legal, economic or direct or indirect beneficial relationship with those who carry out exploitations without this permit, applicable to all types of nationality of the vessels; but, very particularly to those who fished and fish with illegal licenses granted by the British islanders of the Malvinas who, on average, take, according to statistics published by the illegal government of the islands, some 250,000 tons of fishing products per year, damaging the Argentine economy. ; affecting the entire fishing ecosystem of the Argentine Exclusive Economic Zone; causing a deterioration of the marine environment and attacking national sovereignty. Vessels with an illegal Malvinas license could fish in the rest of the waters under Argentine control and vice versa, causing the most serious appropriation of Argentine resources by foreigners and the most absolute disorder in the fisheries administration of the Southwest Atlantic.
The repeal or replacement of Article 27 bis by Article 215 (ex 247) of the Omnibus Law, in addition and, centrally, violates the First Transitory Provision of the Constitution.
A renowned jurist, expert in international law stated: “ Taking into account the contents of article 27 bis, it is observed that Argentina is authorized to apply sanctions to companies that have a corporate relationship with companies that fish illegally in Argentine jurisdictional waters, for For example, companies with illegal licenses from British islanders in the Malvinas. Article 27 bis was a very positive step for Argentina, because it is in line with what is established in the First Transitional Provision of the National Constitution, which is to try to recover the exercise full sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding marine spaces. Repealing these powers implies a serious setback, therefore, it is incompatible with the content of the aforementioned Transitional Provision, because it will facilitate the illegal British exercise of granting fishing licenses” (1/24/2024).
We understand that this is a plan aimed at weakening Argentine rights over the Malvinas; even taking into account that there are no economic reasons nor would there be any that could justify such a mistake, which, on the contrary, would harm Argentine economic and social interests, including those of national companies with foreign capital located in the Argentine continental territory.
With honorable exceptions, the policies of the governments in the last 50 years regarding the recovery of the Malvinas have been ruinous for Argentina. One of these exceptions was the approval in 1994 of the First Transitory Provision of the National Constitution, which reads: «The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular spaces, as they are an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty ", respecting the way of life of its inhabitants, and in accordance with the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and inalienable objective of the Argentine people ."
The United Kingdom of Great Britain (RUGB) always considered this Provision an insurmountable obstacle and thus made it clear in the Foradori-Duncan Pact of 2016 in which the main objective was established " to remove all obstacles that limit economic growth." and the sustainable development of the Malvinas Islands »; Meanwhile, successive governments, by action or omission, passively or with mere inconducive claims, allowed the systematic territorial advances and exploitation of resources by the British and, even the outgoing government, made the mise en scene “that it seems that we take care of.”The actions distorted the letter and spirit of the aforementioned Provision: The “ legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty ” and the “ permanent and inalienable objective of the Argentine people ” and should not have been limited to declamation and claims; to the request for support from third parties and to unilateral cooperation in favor of the invaders.It is clear: the constitutional clause that emerged from the majority of Argentines was emptied of its content.
We do not want to refer to the past, but rather to the opprobrious present of the “Malvinas Question”; But, we wish to tell those responsible for the frustrating stage that has ended, that instead of sending “Foreign Policy Situation Reports”, typical of today's defeated and responsible people, who write odes of senselessness and shamelessness from their desks. It would be It is good that they are called to silence and live in the darkness assigned to them by failure, not only of defeat, but of the inability to design a strategy and carry out a policy that allows progress towards the Argentine recovery of the invaded maritime spaces and archipelagos. by the British who cause so much despair to the Argentines.
They issued a law for the creation of a Council that did not miss a single idea; another, to increase the penalty for vessels that fish illegally and did not apply a single penalty to vessels that fish in the Argentine maritime territory of the Malvinas; They did not repeal the Madrid Agreements and “worked” with many of the intellectual authors of these ignominious agreements. As Montesquieu refers “ When in the reign, there are more facilities to make court than, to fulfill one's duty, all is lost ” and , remembering Ithacar Jalí: “ In bullfighting there are three warnings, on the fourth they take the bull to the corral ” would be fair, a well-deserved and timely retirement, before the disenchanted demand a reasonable accountability.
On the contrary, those who arrived at the Palace these days know what they are doing, they do not pretend.
They are drawn from those 17 Argentines who 12 years ago demanded a review of the government's policy on "the conflict" in the Malvinas and, where, "one of the central axes of the proposal was for the government to adopt a position that takes into account the principle of self-determination of the islanders ” ( La Nación, 2/23/2012 ) and they also sought adhesions at [email protected] ; That is , they invited us to ignore United Nations Resolutions 1514 (XV), 2065 (XX), 31/49, 37/9 and the National Constitution itself. These opinion members despised issues related to national sovereignty and understood that " the obsessive affirmation of the principle "the Malvinas are Argentine" and the ignorance or contempt for the subjugation that this entails weaken the just and peaceful demand for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom and its military base, and make it impossible to move towards a management of natural resources negotiated between Argentines and islanders . "That is, they do not respect recognized national and international legislation and are more concerned about the peaceful withdrawal of the British military and the issues mercantilists to negotiate with the British islanders the use of the Malvinas resources that are Argentine. The disqualification of “ patriotism ” to those of us who have the position of supporting Argentine rights over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich, supported by the precepts of The National Constitution and the applicable international law speak for themselves and, we understand, that these types of opinions, from influential people, are largely the reason for the failures of our country. However, it is very interesting to know who , within Argentina, have a distant view of the majority of Argentines.These types of characters were present in all the great deeds of independence and in the different stages of the country's political life.
