Argentina again manages to delay the dredging of a shared canal with Uruguay
Uruguayan president Jose Mujica said on Monday it “is not useful” for foreign ministries to publicly exchange letters following Argentina’s latest message accusing Uruguay of not collaborating in exposing claims of alleged bribes involving the works planned for the widening and deep-dredging of the River Plate access canal Martin Garcia.
Uruguay wants the Martin Garcia canal, one of two main accesses to the treacherous River Plate, widened from 32 to 39 metres and deep dredged to 34 feet so that bulk carriers operating in the country’s main grains, oilseeds and pulp export port can operate fully loaded, which is not the case currently.
However Nueva Palmira has become a strong competitor of the port of Buenos Aires and other terminals in the heartland of Argentina along the river Parana and Paraguay, and Argentina prefers to have the Mitre canal leading to the Argentine capital well dredged and maintained.
The problem for Uruguay is that the River Plate, rather an estuary is jointly managed with Argentina and all decisions are based on consensus through the River Plate administration committee, CARP, and the Argentine government despite public statements to the contrary has kept to its long established policy of privileging the Mitre canal to the detriment of Martin Garcia which is more exposed to the sedimentation from the Parana-Uruguay rivers basins.
CARP depends directly from the foreign ministries of Argentina and Uruguay.
The latest incident surfaced when after months of negotiations and yielding from Uruguay, both sides agreed to the tender terms for the widening and dredging of the Martin Garcia canal which had a several stages timetable for interested parties with the first up on Monday July 30.
But some time ago the company currently dredging the River Plate and which has been doing so for years by extension of contracts, Riovia, a subsidiary of the Dutch company Boskalis, tried to approach Uruguayan officials saying it was much faster and effective than having a new bidding process to simply make a further extension of the ongoing contract.
Uruguayan delegates who had been invited to a friendly lunch, got up and left when the insinuation of a million dollars bribe and so reported it to the Foreign Ministry, The host and emissary of such a meeting for the ‘fix up’ at a posh restaurant in Buenos Aires was none else than the Argentine delegate at the CARP committee, ambassador Roberto ‘Bobby’ Garcia Moritán.
“Bobby” as he is known by his friends had to resign in 2008 as Deputy Foreign Minister because of his involvement in a scandal over expensive imported cars for diplomats free of tax which were sold to private Argentine citizens. He was later indicted for “illicit enrichment” when it was discovered he had a bank account in Switzerland with half a million dollars which he never had declared. However it seems his Kirchner militancy rewarded him with the job in CARP.
Three Uruguayan officials confirmed the attempt before a secret committee in Parliament but later publicly dismissed such an incident in the hope of having the long awaited and cumbersome tender for the Martin Garcia canal take off.
But Uruguay’s independent Government Audit Office had to give its approval to the documents for the bidding of the canal and reported that in effect there had been “some improper activities” surrounding the whole process although it did not specify names or reference facts but effectively pointed to the contract extension of Riovia (until the final tender is awarded) as a source of “doubts”.
Once the news broke out Argentina immediately said it was banning Riovia from any River Plate tender or bidding process and later demanded Uruguay make public details of the alleged bribe attempts.
Under the heading of “Who’s protecting Ríovia? Argentine Minister Hector Timerman on Sunday night accused Uruguay of not collaborating in the investigation into the alleged bribe attempt to benefit Boskalis to keep dredging Martin Garcia.
“Less than 24 hours before the opening of the bidding process for the upkeep of the Martin Garcia Canal, Argentina has not been able to achieve the collaboration from Uruguay to clear responsibilities about the alleged ‘improper actions’ claimed by the Uruguayan National Audit Office based on secret documents to which Argentina has not been able to access”, says the release.
Further on it recalls that on December 2010 it was Uruguay that demanded to analyze the direct contracting of Riovia for the dredging and deepening of the Martin Garcia canal. The release from Timerman then claims there was a media campaign in Uruguay focused on the alleged bribe attempt to Ambassador Francisco Bustillo (Uruguayan delegate at CARP) and recalls statements from ambassador at large Julio Baraibar who confirmed that Bustillo had told him about the incident as well as to Deputy Minister Ricardo Conde.
“If the Uruguayan government really wants to investigate the facts that involve Ambassador Bustillo and the Riovia company, it could begin by asking why a few days before the final drafting of the document for the international tender for the Martin Garcia canal, a barrage of articles on the alleged bribe attempt, which apparently occurred two years ago to which neither ambassador Bustillo or Minister Luis Almagro ever referred, nor informed the Justice nor did they consider them serious enough to communicate it to the Argentine authorities”.
In the last paragraph the Argentine ministry states that with less that 24 hours for the opening of the bidding process, if the company Riovia presents an interest, Argentina will confirm its objection and requests Uruguay does the same”.
The final Argentine Sunday communiqué was the culmination of a previous public exchange of letters in which Uruguay stated it did not support or favour any specific bidder and only demanded a transparent process, plus recalling that CARP decisions are not unilateral in reference to Argentina’s banning of Riovia.
Nevertheless the Uruguayan foreign ministry said that if the bidding process does not advance it will be the responsibility of Argentina and hoped that the issue could be definitively resolved in coming contacts between the presidents and the foreign affairs ministers.
End of the day, Argentina again managed to delay the bidding process for the widening and deepening of the Martin Garcia canal.
Suggested Stories
-
May 17th 2013
Argentina’s ‘autarkic project’ worsens bilateral relations and multiplies problems
-
May 22nd 2013
Uruguay: Mujica on a most ambitious mission to China after investments for ports and railways
-
May 22nd 2013
Uruguay’s main problem is high inflation but no policy changes planned, says Astori
-
May 21st 2013
Argentines expect inflation to average 34.9% in the next twelve months
50 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.
I think its OK if Argentina is concerned only with itself and no one else, not her neighbors, and much less countries in Europe or North America. We are not concerned about their well being.
..........and that kind of attitude is exactly why no one in the Falkland Islands wants anything to do with Argentina. Then... now or ever.
By the way, If you and SussieUS want to go on and keep f**king yourselves in public like this then please go right ahead.... I have always been a fan of those live S&M shows.
That's fine, the only ones in denial about their geography between them and us is not us. :)
First Argentina,
Second Argentina,
Third Argentina,
No fourth.
Why should we envy your land. For God's sake, it's full of Argentinians Imagine, a country populated with people like you - it doesn't bear thinking about.
In no case and under no circumstances may any regulations cause significant damage to the navigation interests of either of the Parties. Anybody think this convenient regulatory issue from the argies might “cause significant damage to the navigation interests of either of the Parties.”? Is that the argies in breach, again? Argies just can't abide by any law, agreement or treaty, can they?
Then they should dredge the Martin Garcia channel themselves, and deposit the sediment into Mitre channel. That'll learn 'em.
Then tell the Argies to feck off again. All Argentina will do is shout, threaten and then cry when they realise that they are completely impotent.
Uruguay (canal),
Chile (industrial plant),
Paraguay (restrictions) and
Brazil (restrictions),
Falklands (drilling near their waters?)?” (TTT #1)
Is Mercopress being partial?
Or is this just the reality of the situation?
I think the latter.
I am persuaded that there is a 'fogging campaign' designed to further delay the dredging, and that the non-innocent party is Argentina.
Conq. quotes Art. 8, 10, & 14.
These are pertinent and directive. They are superior to (fogging) allegations of 'corruption' that 'need investigating'.
ICJ sounds applicable, but only if both parties agree to arbitration. This will not happen because it is not in one party's interests to achieve resolution (Funny, I seem to have heard this before.).
Don't agree;
see 3.1 'Contentious issues' in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice.
G.
Leaving CARP is not an option if you look at the channels and the boundary between the two countries.
1) To fully dredge the Uruguay channel involves entering Argentine waters and if Uruguay were 'on their own' can you imagine the hassle they would get from you know who;
2) Splitting the cost should have made sense but the cost of the backhanders (which Uruguay was unwittingly saddled with) made that irrelevant but there are those in government who are 'concerned' about taking the thing on alone. I thought this was an excuse but the debacle with Pluna (an Astori 'triumph) has made me think again.
I would even support moving the capital from Buenos Aires to Montevideo, and going back to the name “Provinces of the South”, but instead of “united” use “ federated”.
Federated Provinces of the South, capital city Montevideo, largest city Buenos Aires, most liveable city Mendoza.
Good job you will never be in charge of the thing you call a country then, isn't it?
Nice idea.
Chris,
Are Argies and Uruguayos so different?
I find it hard to tell them apart, they have very similar accents, common history, similar ethnic background and so on.
Are the Scots and English so different? You were all the same people until the Romans built the wall.
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace...
Is it nearly Friday?
Are you saying nice idea for the Argies to invade Uruguay like they did the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas)? Only you addressed it to 33.
I wasn’t meaning Argentina should invade.
I was referring to political integration of the two countries?
If you put aside sporting rivalries and exaggerated idiosyncratic differences are Argies and Uruguayos not very similar?
Would it not be in their mutual benefit to be one country?
I imagine that the vast majority of Uruguayos surely cherish their national identity and would never entertain the idea, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have its merits.
Honestly I don't think its likely at all, but it could make good economic sense, as does the further (and more likely) integration of the whole continent
What a preposterous suggestion!
Don't like the thought of having The Mad Bitch Of Argentina in charge of your country? I don't blame you.
With the exception of Guzz, the rest of us would form a guerrilla movement to shoot anyone involved in taking over Uruguay. And to continue shooting them until thet left. Being the abject cowards that they are should mean it wouldn't be too long.
Pepe did this against the military. I think he must be in an advanced stage of senile decay with what he is doing at the moment with regard to TMBOA.
I was asking a cock-eyed question rather than making a cock-eyed suggestion.
But seriously, if you put aside sporting rivalries and exaggerated idiosyncratic differences are Argies and Uruguayos not very similar?
I have only met middle class Argentineans so I cannot speak for the 40M of them.
The people I met were fine and my next door neighbour and his family are great. However, the 'gang' factor is real.
By this I mean when these people convened their meeting their attitude changed somewhat. Far more macho, far less willing to concede well made points.
My next door neighbour is clear about his countrymen: never trust them in business (he runs a medium sized family business in BsAs), never stop on the highway from the ferry unless it is at a formal break point AND NEVER walk alone ANYWHERE in the centre of BsAs.
I never have to think about any of this in Uruguay. This is changing though because of the drug dealers from Argentina are causing real grief with teenagers and committing many drug related gang murders.
So no, we are not similar at all. Let me ask you a question: are Chileans not similar to Argentinians, you are, after all, next door neighbours just like us?
There also increasing complaints of the truck drivers transporting exports to Chile of the delays in clearing customs on their route through Argentina
Thanks for clarifying that for me. I was interested to hear about some of the differences.
And Chris, the Chileans are not very similar to the Argies. Yes, we live next door, but we may as well be on an island. As you know we are separated from our neighbours by the second highest mountains on earth and the driest desert in the world. Chile’s has evolved separately from Argentina, while Uruguay is much more entwined with Argentina.
Don’t get offended, I am just saying that you seem to have very much in common with Argentina, but I am happy to accept that that is down to my own lack of knowledge.
Thank you for your concern, but I was not offended.
I just wanted to put you in the same position as you put me (I am British).
Perhaps Chilians have more in common with the British as I know quite a few work on the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas). :o)
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!