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