Nearly a hundred Argentine intellectuals, jurists, historians and politicians have signed a declaration rejecting the transformation of the Falklands dispute into a “national cause” that “admits no dissent”, and criticising Javier Milei’s government for acting with “flagrant opportunism” amid escalating tensions with the United Kingdom over the Sea Lion oil project.
The declaration, entitled “Malvinas and dissent” and published in early October in the newspaper Perfil, is signed by, among others, jurist Roberto Gargarella, constitutional lawyer Daniel Sabsay, former justice minister Ricardo Gil Lavedra, former minister Graciela Fernández Meijide, economist Pablo Gerchunoff, writer Santiago Kovadloff and historians Luis Alberto Romero, Hilda Sabato and Federico Lorenz.
The signatories do not deny the dispute. They accept “the existence of this international disagreement”, with its “diplomatic and legal” dimensions, and acknowledge differing views among themselves, for example on whether the islanders should take part in any negotiations. But they warn that the issue “long ago ceased to be essentially a dispute and became a supposed national cause” that “admits no relevant dissent” and brands anyone who strays from it a “bad Argentine”. “The national cause is, in short, an abuse of state, political, social and cultural authority,” they argue. They particularly criticise Article 111 of the sovereignty defence bill, which in their view established “a vague criminal offence and the criminalisation of dissent”; the government acknowledged in mid-October that it would have to be removed. “On Malvinas, this is all we ask: that unanimity stop speaking in our name,” they conclude.
One of the signatories, Alejandro Cowes, who describes himself as a lawyer, went further in a text posted on Saturday in English and Spanish in a public Facebook group about the islands. Cowes accuses the government of using the “sacred national cause” as “a tool for internal state coercion and domestic political consumption” and revives Argentine political scientist Carlos Escudé’s thesis of the “malignant lie”: the idea that a tough policy will raise Britain’s costs, when to do so Argentina would have to multiply its own against a power with far greater resources. He criticises the sanctions on companies linked to hydrocarbon exploitation and the purchase of F-16 fighters, and concludes that the islands are British and that their inhabitants have “the inalienable right to self-determination”, a position not reflected in the collective declaration.
The dissenting voices come at a time of maximum tension. The sovereignty defence bill secured committee approval on October 27, after sanctions were narrowed in response to US objections, and the ruling party plans to debate it in the Chamber of Deputies on November 12. Two days earlier, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea will hold the hearing in Hamburg on Argentina’s request to halt Sea Lion. Milei has reiterated that “the Malvinas are Argentine”, while ruling out “military solutions”.
The claim to sovereignty over the islands is enshrined in a transitional provision of Argentina’s Constitution and enjoys broad public support, as the declaration itself acknowledges.
'The claim to sovereignty over the islands is enshrined in a transitional provision of Argentina’s Constitution and enjoys broad public support...'
A claim based on inheritance - that does not apply to the Falklands and even if it did Argentina could not use UPJ without the UK's consent; Argentina's supposed continental shelf/proximity which is laughable and 'usurpation' which is also meaningless drivel.