MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

No end to the Uruguay/Argentina pulp mills controversy

The Arbitration Tribunal of Mercosur partially accepted Uruguay's demand and ruled that Argentina did not take necessary action to guarantee free circulation of goods and services into Uruguay as contemplated in the block's charter.

The ruling faulted Buenos Aires for not preventing Argentines from blockading bridges into Uruguay in an attempt to prevent the construction of pulp mills that Argentina claims will pollute both sides of the fluvial border.

However the ruling does not outline "a future due conduct" for Argentina in the matter (no more blockades) nor did it contemplate Uruguay's demand for compensations arising from losses caused by the protests which lasted 72 days and allegedly cost the Uruguayan economy "400 million US dollars".

According to the Tribunal there was "no discriminatory intentionality to damage commercial traffic" from the Argentine government and "good faith must be presumed" since evidence does not show the "defendant promoted or encouraged the residents of Gualeguaychú attitude".

For several months residents from Gualeguaychú blocked at different intervals three main routes connecting with international bridges leading to Uruguay, preventing normal traffic including trucks with equipment for the pulp mill under construction on the Uruguayan side and which Argentina claims will pollute the air and water of a shared and jointly managed water course. This was particularly damaging for Uruguay's tourism since it coincided with the summer season when Argentines flock to Uruguayan beaches on the Atlantic.

Uruguay's Foreign Affairs minister Reynaldo Gargano described the ruling as a victory for Uruguay given the implicit "moral and political force" and which Argentina must abide. However he was cautious as to the next steps regarding compensation demands, "it's the President who has to decide where and how to proceed from now on".

"Anyhow we accept the ruling as happened with the previous one before The Hague which also favoured Uruguay, but we will not adopt a triumphalism attitude", he underlined.

However Argentina's delegate Nora Capello argued the ruling favoured Argentina, "there was no condemnation or compensation demand accepted, or a future obligation in case route blockades are resumed".

The Tribunal did not question the "Argentine government's strategy or its reaction to the route cuts or its dissuasive tactics against protestors", she added. "What was questioned was the diligence to act, that it the time taken, which could have been less".

Ms Capello insisted that "the ruling never mentions Argentina was neglectful rather on the contrary it highlights the good intentions in all its actions".

The president of the Arbitration Tribunal Magistrate Luis Marti Mingarro from Spain said the ruling hopes blockades as those which happened between Uruguay and Argentina will not be repeated.

"What the people and this Tribunal expect is that in the future both sides closely monitor these assumptions so as to avoid the degradation of the situation such as was the case under consideration".

Basically, "the Tribunal unanimously considers with great respect the reasons for the protest but also understands it's not enough to justify that the umbilical corridors between two neighbours of Mercosur should remain blocked" indicated Judge Mingarro.

Uruguay' member in the Tribunal Jose Maria Gamio said the ruling satisfied both countries, but added that the solution to the conflict "must come from both governments".

"We hope that as soon as possible negotiations are again on track so that this ruling and the one from the International Court in The Hague are left behind and we can see a return to the atmosphere that should have never been lost", he added.

However the feeling in Fray Bentos, the Uruguayan city at the head of one of the bridges and which most suffered with the blockade was not of satisfaction.

"We expected the ruling to consider the blockades illegal, and that they should not be resumed, because our life goes in trade and traffic across the bridge", said a local businessman.