RESPONSE TO ARGENTINA'S PROPOSAL FOR AN MOU ON PATAGONIAN

UNCLAS BUENOS AIRES 000886

SIPDIS
SENSITIVE

DEPT FOR OES/OA FOR EVAN BLOOM AND GUSTAVO BISBAL

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON EFIS PTBS PREL SENV AR
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO ARGENTINA'S PROPOSAL FOR AN MOU ON PATAGONIAN
TOOTHFISH DELIVERED TO GOA

REF: A) STATE 78198; B) BUENOS AIRES 0841


1. (SBU) ESTCouns met on July 31 with Ambassador Antonio Trombetta,
the Argentine MFA's Director of North American Affairs, to request
clarifications (per ref A) on Argentina's proposal for an MOU on
Patagonian toothfish (ref B). Trombetta confirmed that the GOA's
reasons for proposing an MOU were purely domestic. He explained
that the GOA is looking for a document that would emphasize
cooperation and provide an umbrella mechanism under which the
information requested by NOAA could be provided.


2. (SBU) Trombetta stressed that the GOA was in no way looking to
change or bypass U.S. regulations and was ready to comply with all
requirements. ESTCouns noted that two Argentine vessels had
recently been reporting real-time positioning data to the
Secretariat of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR),an encouraging demonstration of
Argentine willingness to abide by U.S. regulations. Trombetta
admitted that he was aware of reporting by these two vessels and
agreed that this demonstrated Argentine goodwill.


3. (SBU) ESTCouns discussed with Trombetta several aspects of the
proposed MOU that had prompted USG concerns . On the issue of
mutual exchange of data, Trombetta acknowledged that in practice
there were no U.S.-flagged vessels fishing for toothfish in
Argentina's exclusive economic zone. He insisted, however, that to
include this point provided the perception of symmetrical balance,
an important consideration for domestic purposes. On the mention of
scientific cooperation, Trombetta argued that real-time transmission
of position data could certainly be of interest for scientific
research into the habits and migration patterns of the toothfish.
ESTCouns countered that an MOU was not necessary to foster
scientific cooperation, when such cooperation is already covered by
existing agreements, such as our 1972 Scientific and Technical
Cooperation Agreement.


4. (SBU) ESTCouns finally stressed that to introduce into an MOU the
delicate issue of sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands
would implicitly require the United States to take a position on the
sovereignty issue, which it was not prepared to do. Trombetta
argued that the Falklands/Malvinas posed a practical problem, but he
acknowledged that mention of the sovereignty dispute would be a
deal-breaker. Trombetta said he would relay our points to the
Secretariat of Fisheries and discuss Argentina's next steps. He was
thankful for our quick response to the GOA's proposal and pledged to
come back shortly with a revised proposal.


5. (SBU) Comment: While Trombetta argued the GOA's position to
counter each one of our points, he took careful note of USG
concerns. He clearly understood that the USG may be able to
consider some sort of written exchange to help Argentina
domestically, but that an MOU could not amend or adjust the
requirements of U.S. regulations, and that U.S. acceptance of
Patagonian toothfish requires full compliance with all elements of
our import regulations. Post believes that the GOA may come back
with a revised MOU that includes the introductory paragraphs and the
first two points of its proposed MOU (exchange of satellite
positions and exchange of control systems information),but leaving
out the point about scientific cooperation and the paragraph on the
Malvinas Islands. End Comment.

FEATHERSTONE