MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

Punta Arenas/Falklands maritime links are based on history, economics and geography

El Tratado de Límites de 1881 estableció un régimen excepcional para el paso marítimo bioceánico, que el Tratado de Paz y Amistad de 1984 reafirmó de manera específica

The announced maritime and trade link between Punta Arenas in Chile and the Falkland Islands has been strongly argued and supported by the main newspaper from the Chilean austral city on the Magellan Strait and capital of the Magallanes Region.

In its editorial La Prensa Austral argues that the recent transversal support from Chilean Senators during their trip to Punta Arenas transcends Argentine warnings in the event of the establishment of a trade link of the Chilean city with the Falklands/Malvinas.

“For Magallanes it is essential, given the freedom to develop its economic links from Chilean territory in accordance with Chilean and international law, no matter what third countries pretend or wish to condition activities of companies and/or individuals from the region”.

In the event of a resumption of a maritime exchange with the Islands, this must not be scrambled with the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the UK over that territory.

“They are different issues, one is the position of a State regarding a conflict and the other very different, pretending that such a controversy should limit the capacity of established operators in Chile to develop licit commercial activities”.

The daily adds that Punta Arenas is not planning an artificial relation or lacking background. During most of its history Punta Arenas has had close trade and maritime contacts with the Islands, and as it has been repeatedly pointed out by businesses involved it is precisely to recover that relation which existed for over a century.

But the debate acquires a larger dimension when it is linked to the Magellan Strait.

The Boundaries treaty of 1881 established an exceptional ruling for the maritime bi-ocean passage and which the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship reaffirmed specifically, ‘the Strait has been neutralized to perpetuity and its navigation ensured for the flags of all nations”. The 1984 treaty adds that Argentina must maintain “at any time and circumstances” the right for all ships to navigate expeditiously and without obstacles through its jurisdictional waters, from and towards the Strait.

This is a historic ruling that can’t be made relative in light of current controversies. It was conceived precisely to avoid that one of the strategic maritime corridors in the extreme continental austral could be subject to restrictions as a result of conflicts between States. Its fortress resides in the fact that the rules have been established before circumstantial differences.

That is why we also need to separate concepts. Strait treaties guarantee freedom of navigation and do not constitute a commercial authorization for each operation done from Punta Arenas. But this distinction does not weaken the fundamental argument. Chile exercises jurisdiction over its territory and ports, and companies operating legally from them develop their activities subject to Chilean legal system. The free crossing of the Strait also impedes converting the maritime passage in an indirect pressure mechanism on routes or destinations that may result politically uncomfortable for third parties.

This is why the Senators’ declaration is so relevant, precisely because it transfers discussions from rhetoric to the Treaties and permanent rules.

In a region whose history and development are indissolubly linked to the sea, these facts are particularly significant. Punta Arenas emerged and grew as an open port to the world, connected with diverse routes, markets and territories, this condition does not constitute any provocation at all, but simply are part of its own economic and geographic nature.