A TREATY FOR THE SOUTH ATLANTIC?

What could be the solution to regularise the presence of the British and NATO in the South Atlantic? Will Donald get his way?

 

By Sir Charlattam

If there is anyone who truly embodies the fable of the frog that willingly ends up boiled alive, it is the Argentinians. While geopolitical events unfold at breakneck speed and many bizarre situations occur right under their noses, the establishment in Buenos Aires is gradually accepting the suggestions of the US State Department and the British Foreign Office for the Falkland Islands and the South Atlantic archipelago.

The timing for this could not be better. While Argentines continue to navel-gaze, subjected to an economy that refuses to take off and a chain of fires in Patagonia that are clearly deliberate, the Milei brothers' senior staff are clearing the way for Anglo-American interests to do as they please, the interests of a country that we could already describe as “a service company”.

We know that since 1982, the British have been strengthening their military forces on the islands and that they even maintain, with the Pentagon's knowledge (unofficially), an electronic intelligence section (Echelon) that is part of the global operational network of NATO's ‘Five Eyes’ agency. As can be seen, there are no operational obstacles (and in fact there have been none since the end of the war) to intercepting, collecting, processing, receiving and sending information on communications in the Western and Eastern hemispheres; in a nutshell: producing intelligence. It should not be forgotten that the US (a member of NATO) secretly provided satellite intelligence, logistical cooperation and material (from Ascension Island) to the British Task Force, which (as they say) was already a bad idea.

Although it may seem stupid to an Argentine, the problem with whitewashing NATO's operations in the South Atlantic would be, at first glance, a question of terminology. The Brussels-based organisation is legally intended to operate by and for the states that are part of the ‘North Atlantic’ – including, of course, the US – which means that if it were caught operating in the South Atlantic, it would represent a problem of international jurisdiction. In reality, this has been going on for more than forty years and could continue in the same way without Argentina being able to do anything to change it, despite denouncing it, but there is plans to regularise this.

But there is a legal argument that limits this presence and, even more so, NATO's operations in the South Atlantic, namely the organisation's own charter, which limits its jurisdiction to North America and Europe.

At this point, we find this concern for legality quite comical, given the long and horrific record of atrocities against other states, enclaves and populations, committed or clearly tolerated by key members, partners and collaborators of this organisation. But as we already know, in Realpolitik, interests come before everything else.

The United States is most interested in this plan, while the British are certainly not very enthusiastic about it, although they have very little chance of opposing it. The new geopolitical circumstances marked by the supremacist interests of the White House are pushing for a new, clear and well-defined legal framework that puts everyone in their place (according to Trump). Thus, based on the well-articulated idea of ‘America for Americans’ (and that means from Alaska to Antarctica), Trump (who already intends to create his own UN) seeks —without caring about anyone else's opinion— to organise an administration of the South Atlantic that ultimately responds to the geostrategic interests of the United States.

This plan for a possible South Atlantic Treaty Organisation (SATO) devised by the Pentagon on the instructions of the Trump administration would seek to legalise and, to some extent, complement NATO's reduced operations on the continent under the strategic and operational control of USSOUTHCOM, leading us to assume that a military and administrative infrastructure would need to be set up and operated in the heart of Buenos Aires.

Like its northern counterpart, it should have members (even if only as decoration) that we presume will include Argentina and Chile as minor but necessary participants for its operation. Even though the Argentines have begun negotiations to join NATO, this would not hinder their participation in such a plan.

Obviously, this is music to the ears of Anglophiles in Buenos Aires, especially within La Casa Rosada, but not to Keir Starmer's administration or his Foreign Office, who see this as a forced imposition by the Americans on their own geopolitical plans for the islands and insular waters...Who knows, don´t cha?