In the official statement issued yesterday for the Day of Affirmation of Argentine Rights over the Malvinas , the San Martín Palace grossly misnamed the law that gives rise to the commemoration, mutilated the mention of the Antarctic Sector and used terms unrelated to the constitutional mandate.

This stems from the official document issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on June 10, 2026 - commemorating the 197th anniversary of the creation of the Political and Military Command of the Malvina Islands and appointing Luis Vernet as the first governor of the islands and those adjacent to Cape Horn - which exposes a true State policy aimed at making invisible the consequences of the British colonial advance on the riches and natural resources of the Argentine Republic.

The first and most glaring misstep by the San Martín Palace on this national holiday was its inability to correctly name the event it intends to commemorate. By titling the document "Day of Affirmation of Argentine Rights over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the Surrounding Maritime Spaces," the state bureaucracy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs grossly contradicts Law No. 20,561 , which explicitly establishes the "Day of Affirmation of Argentine Rights over the Malvinas, Islands and Antarctic Sector."

This official "oversight" is not innocent: it erases the Antarctic Sector in one fell swoop, mutilating the reason for being, the objective and the geopolitical scope of the date, which was created to ratify the continental and insular projection of Argentine sovereignty in the South Atlantic .

Instead, they introduced the concept of "surrounding maritime spaces," directly contradicting and violating the First Transitory Provision of the National Constitution , which precisely defines the term "corresponding." While "surrounding" is a purely geometric category of physical proximity (what surrounds the coast), "corresponding" constitutes a geographical, geological, maritime, biological, historical, and political concept of continental integration, endorsed by international law through the UN. Modifying the constitutional text is the first major discursive concession of the sovereign claim.

The Grammar of Paralysis

However, the core of this discursive capitulation lies in their statement regarding the imminent "Final Investment Decision" by the illegitimate licensees Rockhopper Exploration PLC (British) and Navitas Petroleum (Israeli) in the Sea Lion field. There, Milei's Foreign Ministry casually asserts that "Argentina will act decisively against unilateral and illegitimate activities that seek to encroach upon resources belonging to Argentinians."

The use of verb tense says it all . Speaking in the conditional tense and promising that "action will be taken" means that the government is stating it will do something in a timeless future that it isn't doing today. There is no diplomatic, economic, criminal, or financial action underway today, June 11, nor yesterday, June 10. This verb is complemented by the same line of discourse of submission when it states: " Argentina will act decisively against unilateral and illegitimate activities that seek to encroach upon resources belonging to Argentinians . " As if all the components of the great 10-year evolutionary process of Sea Lion—developed by Rockhopper since its announcement in January 2016 to date—were a mere "pretense" and not the direct consequence of the unilateral, illegal, and illegitimate decisions of Great Britain and its colony, which in 2010 auctioned off the offshore exploration of three blocks (north, east, and south) around the islands.

Great Britain, the implanted colony, Rockhopper, Navitas and the elite of global investors revealed by the Simply Wall St stock exchange platform have no “pretensions” : they are currently executing the final stage of a monumental robbery.

The bureaucratic shield of inaction

The official statement attempts to invoke the historic United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/49 as a bureaucratic shield to justify its inaction. However, the Foreign Ministry deliberately omits the fact that this resolution—which urges the parties to refrain from unilaterally altering the disputed situation—does not, under any circumstances, constitute a legal constraint or a diplomatic impediment preventing the Argentine Republic from fully exercising its jurisdictional sovereignty. On the contrary, the resolution emphasizes the peaceful nature of Argentina's claim, which grants the State absolute legitimacy to resort to international tribunals and activate criminal, commercial, and financial sanctions, denouncing, by name, surname, and stock market balance sheet, the plundering companies and their transnational network of financiers.

Far from facing isolation or legal obstacles, Argentina has repeatedly received diplomatic support from powerful multilateral blocs, such as the Group of 77 plus China (G77+China) and other forums in the Global South. These organizations not only systematically condemn British colonialism in the South Atlantic, but have also explicitly expressed their willingness to support the country in an international legal counteroffensive against corporations like the British Rockhopper and the Israeli Navitas Petroleum .

Multilateral support to dismantle the Sea Lion project framework is available on the Foreign Ministry's desk; what is lacking are not tools of international law, but the political will of a national government subservient to the interests of the powers and global markets that dictate the dispossession.

Ten years of condescension and ideological submission

What we are experiencing is the continuation of ten years of national and provincial governments totally accommodating to the invader: Mauricio Macri, Rosana Bertone, Alberto Fernández, Gustavo Melella, Javier Milei and Gustavo Melella again .

What Javier Milei said at the April 2nd event is now repeated in the statement. But nothing that was said, or is being said, corresponds to any direct action to counter the gangland theft that Great Britain has set in motion.

How could anyone believe that a head of state like Javier Milei , who publicly defines himself as "the most Zionist president in the world," could go against the interests of Israeli investors from Navitas Petroleum , Noked Capital, Exodus Management , or Banco Leumi , who finance and control more than 21% of Rockhopper ?

How will it act against Great Britain, with whom its foreign minister, Pablo Quirno , has just signed the integration agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership , where the United Kingdom operates as one of the supremacist countries?  

How will Milei or the Foreign Ministry confront the usurper, given that Great Britain is one of the main countries of origin of the capital that this government desperately seeks to attract in the energy, oil, and mining sectors under the protection of the RIGI?