Recently, we have seen alarming reports published by environmental NGOs regarding illegal Chinese fishing in the South Pacific and South Atlantic. These reports often cite a few repeated examples that represent less than 0.2% of the total number of vessels fishing at long range in both oceans. They fail to mention—among other things—that, in addition to the Chinese vessels, a significant number of Taiwanese, Spanish, and Korean ships are also fishing on the high seas for migratory resources within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of South American coastal states. And what is worse still, they never denounce the foreign fishing of 250,000 tons annually (from 1989 to date a total of 10 million tons for an estimated FOB sum of 27 billion US dollars) that takes place in the Argentine waters of the Malvinas with illegal licenses from the British islanders and where the Spanish or the latter associated with the British islanders, are the first appropriators with the illegal flag “Malvinas”, then commercializing the raw materials in Vigo (Spain) and, from there, to the European Union and the world, in open competition with the companies authorized in Argentina and, producing the greatest imbalance recorded in the Argentine ecosystem of the southern region of the South Atlantic.

Let us begin by stating that the Argentine authorities seem to ignore the illegal fishing that occurs in the Argentine EEZ by national vessels; the fishing carried out by foreign vessels on migratory resources originating from the EEZ on the high seas and in the waters of the Malvina Islands, which we have been referring to since 1989 ( see: cesarlerena.com.ar ); but, even though the issue concerns us greatly, we do not justify the intervention of third-party powers in our maritime or continental territory and, in that sense, we adhere to the recent statements of the President of the Republic of Brazil, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, that “ We do not want to choose between China and the United States ”; a statement that is none other than the “third position” of General Juan Domingo Perón from 1947.

However, these NGOs—it would seem—either through the media they use to promote their ideas or through their obsession and/or biased view that attributes all evils to China, indirectly or stupidly support the idea that the natural resources of emerging states—like oil in Venezuela—should be cared for by third countries “better suited” to manage them properly.

Although they don't say so—and it would be good if they did—they seem to base their argument on the fact that the responsible officials—the Undersecretary of Fisheries; the Federal Fisheries Council; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and the Attorney General's Office—have not taken any action—of the many possible ones—against the illegal fishing of Argentine migratory fish stocks, nor have they sanctioned the vessels fishing in the waters of the Malvina Islands, including the Spanish ones (the Kingdom of Spain recognized Argentine independence in 1863 and with it all Argentine sovereign rights in the Malvinas). But it is also necessary to ask whether this inaction is not in line with the declamatory role of these environmental organizations that reduce their actions to pointing to a single culprit: China, as if the issue were merely biological and not geopolitical.

And, the equation of installing the state of necessity is inevitable: Absent State + “Chinese Boogeyman” + partial denunciation by “non-profit” NGOs: foreign intervention and/or privatization of control.

This is not a fantasy or a fabrication . Using the same logic, the NGO WCS promoted the need for a Benthic Protected Area in the "Blue Hole" under the argument of protecting the marine environment, but in reality, it was intended to close the Blue Belt of the Malvina Islands, ensuring the arrival of migratory resources to the illegal administration of the archipelagos. Some say it also justified the need for a new, multi-million dollar research vessel.

Additionally, some NGOs promoted Argentina's ratification of the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty (HSBT), which would allow the United Kingdom to participate in the management of fisheries resources in the Southwest Atlantic as if it were a coastal state or a flag state. All of this was done under the pretext of ensuring the sustainability of the marine environment.        

It is noteworthy that when a group of NGOs analyzed some Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for the seismic explorations of Equinor and Shell to determine the presence of hydrocarbons, they only referred to the protection of large mammals, birds and turtles and omitted to emphasize the fish species that are food for these and the support of the entire Argentine fishing industry; in addition, many of them are particularly sensitive to seismic explorations.

Incidentally, what has been said above leads us to ask some questions to give coherence to this legitimate and necessary concern to eradicate illegal fishing:       

Why did these NGOs not question the Framework Law designed by the Minister of Deregulation Federico Sturzenegger, which sought to open the Argentine sea to the entire foreign fleet that plunders the South Atlantic, including the British-licensed vessels in the Malvinas; without the need to disembark in Argentine ports or prohibit landings at sea (one of the most common ways to hide illegal fishing).

Why do these NGOs not question the discarding on board in the EEZ in Argentina, which national and international organizations estimate to be 30% of the declared catches landed?    

Why haven't these NGOs questioned the agreements between the European Union and MERCOSUR without Spain first ending fishing in the South Atlantic, including its fishing in partnership with the British Crown in the Malvina Islands ( cesarlerena.com.ar, “Lights and Shadows of the Mercosur-European Union Agreement on Fishing”, Perfil 12/19/2025 )? Furthermore, this could lead to the entry of new Spanish vessels into the Argentine EEZ, and Law 24.184 would open the doors to the United Kingdom (the main fishing and oil predator in the South Atlantic) for the best deal Argentina has ever made with third countries, similar to the agreement with the United States.

Why haven't these NGOs questioned this latest agreement, which, as we have said, will affect Argentina's autonomy, economy, development, and health ( cesarlerena.com.ar “The Agreement with the United States is an Unconditional Surrender” Perfil , 11/16/2025 )? Why should it be assumed that, under the pretext of “National Security,” the actions applied by the United States to third countries will not then be applied to Argentine catches and/or its exports and/or trade with the BRICS member countries, especially considering that Argentina's main trading partner is China?

These NGOs omit the fact that one of the internationally recognized ways to facilitate illegal fishing “is through the application of fishing subsidies, and the United States, with $3.9 billion, ranks 3rd in the world in fishing subsidies, behind China (1st) and the European Union (2nd), and in subsidies considered harmful, it ranks 6th, behind China, Japan, the EU, South Korea, and Russia. It seems absurd that the polluter should impose conditions on the polluted” ( cesarlerena.com.ar Op.cit, 11/16/2025 ).

It seems unacceptable and disproportionate that, in order to resolve the illegal fishing affecting Argentina, the country has accepted patrols in Argentine waters by the United States Coast Guard; its intervention in the Paraná-Paraguay waterway; the control of its ports; and the eventual installation of an integrated Argentine-American naval base (April 2024) in Tierra del Fuego. This is not an alarmist hypothesis; President Trump himself has made explicit references to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing in his foreign policy, particularly regarding Chinese distant-water fleets, promoting economic sanctions; trade restrictions ( US House Foreign Affairs Committee, December 2025 ); and even restricting access for US producers to foreign markets. He has also pursued a "Trump rhetoric against communists in fishing (China, Russia)," along with criticism of countries that do not combat illegal fishing, while the US does. While -we reiterate- it is necessary to eradicate illegal fishing, this must be carried out through the corresponding coastal States (in the Southwest Atlantic FAO 41, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay), with the cooperation of multilateral organizations and not from a hegemonic position of a particular country.

It is said that Argentina has difficulty resolving China's illegal fishing because it is one of the main countries involved in its bilateral trade; however, giving a third state free rein in the management of its sovereign issues is not only inadmissible from the point of view of its political autonomy, but Argentina would also become subject to the eventual and foreseeable agreements between the United States and China, where fishing is a mere bargaining chip; as already happened with the agreements with the USSR in 1986 or with the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1994. 

“A pile of stones is not a house” (Henry Poincaré)        

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