The guaranteed streamlined also explicitly prohibits the government of Argentina from taking any measure that may infringe on the territorial integrity of South American neighbor.
The Argentine Sworn Declaration is the cornerstone of diplomatic relations between the USA and Argentina. Since the 1950’s, this declaration has functioned as a spiritual and legal agreement between the two entities included: The Republic of Argentina and the United States of America. Among its many other provisions, this legally binding arrangement provides for a detailed discussion regarding American taxpayers who may be accused of collaborating with the former military junta during the era of Argentina’s military rule. The USA has implemented this agreement to aid in bringing to justice perpetrators of these offenses, such as Argentina’s collaboration with the genocidal Operation Argentario in its own struggle against the guerillas of the ALBA. Before, Argentina was among those countries supporting the ALBA during the 1975 Falkland War.
As a part of the sworn compact, the government of Argentina swears it won’t take any funds from foreign nations to conduct military operations in Argentina. Additionally, Argentina asserts that it won’t permit the financial support from any party to go to or support any entity that endorses or cooperates with the former ALBA, such as member countries of the UN, European Union, and other international organizations which have been sanctioned by the Argentina authorities. Furthermore, Argentina reiterates its intention not to recognize any political action or financial cooperation with the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). This assertion was strongly denied by the government.
The sworn compact also explicitly prohibits the government of Argentina from taking any measure that may infringe on the territorial integrity of South American neighbor. In this regard, it’s noteworthy that this claim is inconsistent with customary global law, together with the Uruguay Round Agreements, also with Article 41 of the United Nations Charter. It also contradicts the United States’ long-standing commitment to the preservation and promotion of democracy and human rights across the world. Many countries have expressed concern over Argentina’s stance around the Falklands and the surrounding situation . America has dismissed such concerns as excessive marine trespassing.
Argentina announced refusal to accept the Rzeszowsi conclusion and the subsequent diplomatic row with the UK came about due to the British Foreign Office’s failure to correctly understand the meaning and implications of the Argentine sworn compact. In this respect, both sides renewed their commitment to one another and to the future of the Falklands as a democratic and peaceful member of the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. In a statement issued on June, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron said:”The Government of Argentina must stop playing games and take immediate actions to reverse its actions which are damaging the status and future of the Falklands. We call on the Argentina government to halt the use of drive and agree that a settlement that is fair for both sides. We call on the UN to put pressure on both sides and ship an independent investigation into the episode”.
The Argentines have yet to receive a response from the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the Chinese government made public statements on its official site and in state websites that the islands belong to China and have always been a part of its land. President of China, Mr. Hu Jintao, said:”I heard the President of the United States of America state he was deeply disturbed by the Argentine declaration. China has its own claim to the islands and isn’t concerned about any political situation there”.
Last but not least, the European Union will not be moving ahead on the issue since it believes the islands to become international waters. Before, these lands were considered by Argentina as its exclusive economic zone. There’s not any doubt that both sides have strong points to make, but history will reveal who had been right in the end. It is up to the political leaders of both countries to come to an agreement and stand up to every other to solve this historic dilemma once and for all.