Argentina wants to stall Montevideo port as the efficient regional hub
In spite of the good relations between the governments of Uruguay and Argentina following the agreement reached on pulp mills, pending and new issues are creeping into the bilateral agenda that could threaten the good chemistry between presidents Jose Mujica and Cristina Kirchner.
According to Montevideo port operators the Argentine government is drafting a bill to interfere with Uruguay’s main sea terminal and support the port of Buenos Aires.
“Argentina is readying measures that are geared against the port of Montevideo, which basically will ban Argentine cargoes from transiting through Montevideo” said Mario Baubeta, president of the Navigation Centre, Cennave.
Buenos Aires port authorities are concerned because cargoes from the south of Argentina are in great volume attracted to Montevideo.
Argentina’s Under Secretary for Ports and Navigable Courses Ricardo Lujan has informed Buenos Aires port operators that “in the coming days a bill will be approved banning Argentine cargoes from passing through ports in countries which do not have a bilateral transport agreement with Argentina”, which automatically leaves Uruguayan terminals out.
“Lujan told Buenos Aires operators that the bill will be implemented in a fortnight at the most; once we heard the news last August 27, we immediately reported it to the Foreign Affairs Ministry”, said Baubeta, who added that the report was left on the desk of Foreign Affairs Minister Luis Almagro 24 hours before he met with his Argentine counterpart Hector Timerman.
So far Cennave is not aware Minister Almagro read the report or if it was considered during the bilateral meeting. Nevertheless Cennave also informed the Uruguayan Ports Administration, ANP, president Alberto Díaz, whom so far has not called back.
Baubeta said that if the bill announced by Lujan is finally implemented by Argentina “activity in the port of Montevideo could suffer since a great percentage of cargoes operating through Uruguay’s main sea terminal come from Argentina”.
At least 75% of cargoes in transit originate in Argentina, mainly from the south.
The situation is not new. The port rivalry between Montevideo and Buenos Aires dates back to colonial times, but the Uruguayan capital has always had the geo-political and geographical edge. No wonder that Buenos Aires has sustainedly tried to downgrade whenever possible Montevideo.
If the announced ruling is implemented Buenos Aires then becomes the hub for all Argentine cargo from the south to the detriment of Montevideo. Private operators in Buenos Aires and along the River Parana, from where most Argentine soy is shipped, have long been on that crusade, according to Uruguayan sources.
According to Baubeta the measure is targeted to press Uruguay to vote favourably the Multilateral Maritime Transport Agreement in the framework of Mercosur which already has the support from Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina.
Uruguay refuses to accompany the initiative precisely because of the port of Montevideo’s activities as a regional hub. The agreement limits Mercosur cargo to vessels flagged in member countries which would limit all cargoes in transit, to and from Mercosur, which make use of Uruguayan ports.
Uruguay apparently would not object if the project excludes coastal trade which is what most influences its transit activities.
“Uruguay does not support the initiative because it includes all feeder cargoes and trans-shipments to third countries. It’s geared in the same direction that the Lujan proposed bill”, underlines Baubeta.
Related to this issue is the dredging of the Martin Garcia canal in the River Plate, which must be done jointly with Argentina. Martin García is crucial for Uruguay since it leads to the port of Nueva Palmira that has become an important trans-shipment terminal with several hundreds of millions of annual turnover, included all the pulp production from the UPM/Botnia mill at the heart of the long dispute with Argentina.
The other main canal, Mitre which opens the way directly to the port of Buenos Aires has a reasonable maintenance with the purpose of keeping the Argentine options open.
Uruguayan president Jose Mujica has repeatedly stated that reaching an agreement with Argentina on dredging the Martin Garcia canal is more important than liberating the Fray Bentos Gualeguaychú bridge that was under pickets’ control since 2006 until a couple of months ago.
“IF we manage to liberate the bridge, great; but if we can’t convince the Argentines to dredge Martin Garcia, the bilateral talks will have been a failure”, President Mujica was quoted at the time of negotiations to end the pulp mills dispute and to environmentally monitor the River Uruguay course.
Suggested Stories
-
Feb 09th 2012
Mujica says Mercosur is “a chewing gum”; promises trade deals with third countries
-
Feb 06th 2012
Uruguayan president downplays the impact of Argentine imports’ restrictions
-
Feb 10th 2012
Prince Harry named best co-pilot gunner of the Apache helicopter training course
-
Feb 10th 2012
Royal Navy patrol issues record fine to Dutch fishing vessel
19 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
They never respect their words, aren´t reliables and ever are pushing through the neighbors...
Exception was the Menem term when it was the contrary.
R.I.P. Argentina, unfortunately...
Just look at gassy, an immigrant, frothing at both ends like that psychopath, gorge.
But then gassy has always been an imperialist, colonialist, war-mongering psychotic.
An what's this “RIP Argentina” crap?? you retard
All I said is that we're getting half the story in this article.
Why you can do what you want in your country and Uruguayan can´t do it in their country?
And, please be smart...Argentina never grew up mora than in the Menem term and was a respectable member of the LA community......lost condition today...May be soon it can change with other Gvt.
Request In Pace Argentina !!! Unfortunately, because Argentines and Argentina deserve a better future as soon as possible !!!
As far as I can see this particular issue refers to sea ports, cargo from the south of Argentina going up the coast. I suspect this has more to do with Argentina controlling what goes to Malvinas, and less with interfering with Uruguay's operations.
No. This is one of a series of moves Argentina is making on Uruguay. On this site, we have seen the closing of an international bridge by a bunch of local residents that Argentina first encouraged and has since done nothing to stop. We have seen a forced agreement for ”Argentine scientists“ to enter Uruguayan territory and Uruguayan property to test for so-called pollution when it must be clear to the meanest intellect that it would only be necessary to test at the point where the mill outflow joins the river and, perhaps, a hundred yards downstream. And now this attack on the Port of Montevideo.
It is clear that Argentina is moving to weaken Uruguay by interfering with its development and infrastructure until the point is reached where it feels that it can renege on the 1828 Treaty of Montevideo and claim all the territory of Uruguay for itself. Weakening an ”opponent” and then reneging on agreements and treaties is, after all, a process popular with Argentines.
They're talking about Uruguay not adhering to the rules of Mercosur, in all likelihood that's what this is all about.
It just occurred to me that the people on MALVINAS could somehow try to circumvent the blockade. It's just a theory, but I know Argentina is sure as hell not trying to weaken Uruguay and much less claim it for itself. That's just your British colonial-mindset vomiting nonsense.
Whatever the reason, the bill will give us more control over what goes to Malvinas. You're gonna end up drinking crude oil for breakfast instead of Earl Grey, enjoy it.
Of course, the bill only relates to Argentine cargoes. So it would have no effect on any potential FALKLAND ISLANDS cargoes.
We note that F_A is not as bright as Twinky, who carefully avoids use of the word “blockade” knowing that such action would be illegal. F_A openly describes Argentina's actions as a “blockade” making it clear that Argentines KNOW that their “country” is acting illegally.
Uruguayans should note the differences in attitude. It is OK for Argentina to complain about a party of Chilean schoolchildren visiting the Falkland Islands. It is OK for Argentina to interfere in trade between Chile and the Falkland Islands. It is OK for Argentina to interfere in Uruguay's economic development. It is OK when Argentina wants to interfere in Montevideo's port activities. But when Brazil engages in military exercises with Britain, all is quiet.
“Whatever the reason, the bill will give us more control over what goes to Malvinas. You're gonna end up drinking crude oil for breakfast instead of Earl Grey, enjoy it.”
Where are you getting this from? You don't have any controll over what goes to and from the islands, you never will.
The islands can be supplied by air if needs be.
Air shipping is a pretty expensive operation if you were to rely solely on it, good luck.
Argentina can be left to ship its own cargoes around its own coast without any meaningful effect on Uruguay.
You are an idiot. I said they COULD. Not that they ARE.
The day after your blockade started a british ship left from BA and sailed to the falklands, with no checks or permission granted or even asked for.
Ships come to and from the islands with no hinderance from argentina.
A REAL blockade would involve your navy stopping ships and turning them around. It's not a real blockade, just on paper.
If there was to be an effective blockade, Argentina would need to prevent shipping reaching the Falklands on the High Seas. Which would be an illegal act. In practical terms, the Argentine navy is nowehere near big enough to maintain such a blockade. Even if it tried, the fact that the British navy is 5 times the size of the Argentine navy and that its ships and submarines are far more technically-advanced than anything that Argentina has would make any attempt to mantain and effective “blockade” futile.
There is no blockade and the decree issued by Argentina has had very little effect.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!