MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Criminal complaint filed against Mondino for Lammy deal
Carreras argued that the joint communiqué between Lammy and Mondino was instead an Agreement that should have gone through Congress Lawyer Valeria Carreras has filed a criminal complaint against Foreign Minister Diana Mondino for alleged “breach of official duties” and “abuse of authority” after the understanding she signed with the United Kingdom to renew the monthly flight between Córdoba and Mount Pleasant, which had been suspended under former President Alberto Fernández when the Foradori-Duncan agreement was denounced.
Mondino and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy agreed last week to soften up the two countries' differences regarding the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and adopt a more practical approach. This position on behalf of the Argentine government was criticized by several opposition lawmakers, but -most significantly- by Vice President Victoria Villarruel, whose father participated as an Army officer in the 1982 conflict.
Carreras argued that Mondino failed to comply with Article 75 of the National Constitution by dodging Congress' involvement in the understanding. The lawyer also claimed that the Sept. document between Mondino and Lammy was based on the Foradori-Duncan one, which Argentine had denounced, and therefore the flights from Sao Paulo to Mount Pleasant making a stopover in Córdoba would be “illegal.”
“The tenor of the ”announced - agreed - communiqué“ is not a minor issue either, since it deals with issues related to our sovereignty, it deals with another Nation with which the conflict and the claim are still in force; and it deals with our territory in dispute for continuing to be usurped, MALVINAS,” Carreras wrote in her case filed before Federal Judge Sebastián Ramos.
The plaintiff maintained that the Mondino-Lammy communiqué launched by both foreign secretariats “under the guise of a 'press release or joint communiqué'” sought to hide the fact that it was, in fact, an Agreement, which, as such, “should have been dealt with by the National Congress.”
Villarruel last week said on X that “the proposed agreement announced with the United Kingdom is contrary to the interests of our Nation” because it would “provide continental logistical support to the occupation” in exchange for “crumbs” which “weaken our possibility of negotiation ... with the power that usurps our territory.”
Top Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules-
-
-
Read all commentsThis new deal is going to cause a lot more political unrest inside Argentina this time around. Argentina still refuses to drop its illegal and mythical claim.
Oct 01st, 2024 - 11:23 am +1I personally think we should not be negotiating any deals that include Argentina anyway.
We need to by pass them and go direct to other Latin American countries for direct flights.
Trouble is they are all scared of Argentina the south American dictating bully. That attitude needs to change.
No Malvi, the claim is not legal in any way shape or form, not remotely fair and the so called historical proof has been destroyed over and over again, but if repeating the same old nonsense floats your boat, then carry on,
Oct 01st, 2024 - 03:12 pm +1so you dont want a direct flight to the from Argentina to the Falklands ?
so you dont want to work together to preserve fish stocks ?
logic and Malvinista talk are so far apart it is unbelievable. it must be wonderfull living in your world of make believe,
Malvi
Oct 01st, 2024 - 03:38 pm +1It has been demonstrated to you countless times that the Argentine claim is so fundamentally flawed they have had to make up an eviction myth as its fundamental foundation. The logs of the Sarandi comprehensively prove that no eviction took place and the handful of inhabitants on the Falklands in 1833 were either desperate to leave or perfectly content with British sovereignty.
Whether the Vernet community could have thrived and turned into an Argentine community had it not been for the Lexington raid is a hypothetical red herring.
The geographic proximity argument forgets conveniently that in the 1830s Patagonia was not part of Argentina.
The argument that somehow an uninhabited island group as the Falklands were in 1811 can choose to become part of a successor state over 1000 miles away, because one of those islands once was colonised by Spain is fanciful.
Thank goodness your current President can see through Peronist propaganda even if you can’t.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!