Arjantin devlet başkanı
Argentina’s Milei threatens to sue UK over Falkland Islands oil project
Argentine President Javier Milei on Monday threatened to sue the UK over the Sea Lion oil project near the disputed Falkland Islands. Argentina claims sovereignty over the British-administered territory, where a 1982 war killed 255 British and 649 Argentine troops. Developers Navitas and Rockhopper say they hold valid British-issued exploration licences.
Falkland Adaları gerilimi yeniden alevlendi: Arjantin’den İngiltere’ye iki haftalık süre
Arjantin Devlet Başkanı Javier Milei, Falkland Adaları açıklarındaki yaklaşık 1,7 milyar varillik Sea Lion petrol sahasında yürütülen çalışmaların durdurulması için İngiltere’ye iki hafta süre verdi. Londra’nın geri adım atmaması halinde uluslararası tahkim ve Deniz Hukuku Mahkemesi sürecini devreye sokacaklarını açıklayan Milei’nin çıkışı, iki ülke arasındaki tarihi egemenlik anlaşmazlığını yeniden alevlendirdi.
Argentina's Milei threatens arbitration over Falklands
Argentina's President Javier Milei threatened Monday to sue the United Kingdom over an oil project near the Falkland Islands, the British-administered territory over which Buenos Aires claims sovereignty. Britain and Argentina fought a brief but bitter 10-week war in 1982 over the South Atlantic islands, known to Argentines as Las Malvinas, with 255 British troops and 649 Argentines killed during the conflict. The companies developing a major oil field off the Falklands, Israel's Navitas and Bri
Brazil’s presidential election is more than just another polarized contest
Brazil’s presidential election is more than just another polarized contest Expert comment jon.wallace 28 September 2026 A Bolsonaro victory would mean Trump-aligned governments dominate South America. The first round of Brazil’s presidential election is scheduled for 4 October, with 13 candidates competing to occupy the Brazilian presidential palace, Planalto. For now, the contest is dominated by two men. Only a few percentage points (depending on the poll) separate 80-year-old President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of the Workers’ Party (PT) – running for his fourth term – and 45-year-old Flávio Bolsonaro of the right-wing Liberal Party (PL). Flávio is the son of the man Lula defeated in 2022, former president Jair Bolsonaro (2019–23), sometimes referred to as the ‘Trump of the tropics’. Lula squeaked out a narrow victory in the 2022 contest, of 50.9 to 49.1 percent in the second round, after public opinion surveys had seriously undercounted the support of his right-wing rival. Jair Bolsonaro is currently serving time for plotting a coup, after his supporters rioted in Brasilia in 2023 in an effort to overturn the 2022 results. This year’s contest is more than a familial grudge match. For one, it looks a lot like recent presidential elections in the region. In June, elections in both Peru and Colombia went to a second round. Each resulted in a narrow victory for conservative candidates who, like the Bolsonaros, are aligned with the regional diplomatic agenda of US President Donald Trump. Another tight contest now looms in Brazil, the most populous country and largest democracy in Latin America, the tenth largest economy in the world, and for decades an international champion of the Global South, through blocs like BRICS. Both Lula and the younger Bolsonaro face high levels of voter rejection. More than 54 per cent of Brazilian voters disapprove of Flavio according to one poll. Lula does little better in the same survey, with 52 per cent against the president running for a fourth term. The issues Brazilian voters are divided over a number of issues relating to Brazil’s political system and its place in the world. According to a Pew survey conducted in Brazil in early 2026, only 37 per cent of Brazilian voters were satisfied with their democracy, down from 66 per cent in 2013. And Brazilians are ideologically split on favourable views of China versus the US. 57 per cent of Brazilians who identify as leftist have favourable views of China, compared to 40 per cent of those on the right. Those opinions flip on attitudes towards the US: 58 per cent of self-identified right-leaning voters have favourable views of the US, while only 30 per cent on the other side of the ideological spectrum do. Division on these issues indicates that this election could have major implications for the direction of Brazil’s foreign policy, its global influence, and the PT foreign policy agenda since 2003. Flávio Bolsonaro’s presidency…would trigger, if not a pulling out, then a significantly reduced role in the BRICS group. Brazil’s situation is not unique. Distrust in democratic electoral systems has increased around the world – a sentiment that outsider political entrepreneurs have exploited. Their ability to do so stems from political polarization, discontent with the political class – and the simple fact that casting a ballot and accepting the aggregate macro tabulations of all voters requires a certain commitment of faith. As political tribes have become more separated and disconnected from alternative views and media, it becomes easier to feed on distrust, suspicion and resentment. According to a recent Chatham House/ Convergent Opinion survey, distrust in the electoral system is greater among those who voted for then-president Jair Bolsonaro in 2022 than those who voted for Lula that year. Only 45 per cent of 2022 Bolsonaro voters expressed very much or some confidence that elections would be free from political interference this year, compared to 78 per cent of 2022 Lula voters. That is concerning, but not necessarily surprising. Jair Bolsonaro cast doubt on the integrity of Brazil’s electoral system before the 2022 elections. (Flávio has promised to respect this year’s election outcome. But he has also vowed to grant amnesties to those who took part in the 2023 riots). Fuelling this division is an escalating diplomatic row with the administration of US President Donald Trump. In July, the US imposed new 25 per cent tariffs on some Brazilian goods. The same month, the Brazilian government denied visas to two US envoys, accusing them of planning to meddle in elections – a charge the US State Department called a ‘baseless lie’. The diplomatic dispute has escalated further, with the White House revoking the visa of Brazil’s ambassador to the US, and Lula’s office accusing the US of ‘a deliberate escalation of hostile measures against Brazil, motivated by ideological reasons’. In his speech at the UN General Assembly on 22 September, Lula warned against foreign interference in the election. The potential foreign policy about-face A Bolsonaro victory this year would create another friendly South American government for the Trump administration, adding to the White House’s growing list of aligned leaders (either for transactional or ideological reasons) in Colombia, Venezuela, Paraguay, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Dominican Republic, and Ecuador. Related work Trump’s ‘Shield of the Americas’ coalition is destined to fail Indeed, a Bolsonaro government would probably adhere to Trump’s approach on various issues, including a more martial approach to narcotics trafficking and transnational criminal networks operating in or from Brazil. It will likely see Brazil joining Trump’s Shield of the Americas initiative. Flávio Bolsonaro’s presidency would also bring a U-turn to PT-focused foreign policy agendas. It would trigger, if not a pulling out, then a significantly reduced role in the BRICS group, which Trump has criticized for ‘anti-American policies’. And Brazil might well draw back from other global forums, such as the UN, the G20, and COP where Brasilia has staked its claim as a representative of the Global South. In reality, under the PT, Brazil’s track record in supporting multilateralism has been spotty. Often it has been partisan in defending human rights and democracy even in its own neighbourhood. Equally, it is not clear that a new Bolsonaro government would represent a triumph for Trump’s so-called ‘Donroe Doctrine’, which seeks to establish American supremacy in the Western Hemisphere. While a Bolsonaro-led Brazil would return Brasilia to his father’s anti-woke cultural battles, it would not necessarily fall into line with the Trump White House, particularly on trade. Bolsonaro distanced himself from Trump’s heavy tariffs. And, as was true for his father and neighbour Argentine president Javier Milei – who both had campaigned on reducing Chinese influence – a new Bolsonaro administration would balk at reducing trade with China, Brazil’s largest trading partner since 2009. China, though, may seek to reduce its Brazilian imports, if Bolsonaro strays too far in challenging Beijing. Regardless, Brazilians face a stark choice in October. Brazil’s commitment to international law and multilateralism hangs in the balance, as does the Global South’s voice in the global order.
Brazil’s presidential election is more than just another polarized contestArgentinian president calls UN ‘useless organisation’ of ‘arrogant parasites’
UNITED NATIONS, Sept 24 — Argentine President Javier Milei attacked the UN in a speech to the world body yesterday...
UN’s ‘sacred covenant has been broken’, Argentina’s Milei tells General Assembly
Argentine President Javier Milei told the General Assembly on Wednesday that the UN has broken the “sacred covenant” on which it was founded, failing at what it was meant to do – while excelling at things beyond its remit.
Argentina president attacks UN over inaction on Falkland Islands sovereignty
Javier Milei says organisation is filled with ‘arrogant parasites’ and threatens to take ‘matters into our own hands’ Javier Milei has condemned the UN as he warned that Argentina would take “matters into our own hands” in its dispute with Britain over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. In a caustic speech at the general assembly in New York, the Argentinian president criticised the UN for being ineffective when it comes to the long-running tensions over the British overseas territory in the south Atlantic known in Argentina as the Malvinas. Continue reading...
Argentina's Milei addresses UN as tensions rise over Falkland Islands
Sept 23 - Argentina's President Javier Milei on Wednesday will address world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly amid escalating tensions with Britain over oil exploration around the Falkland Islands, a largely self-governing British overseas territory whose sovereignty Argentina has long disputed.
SMOKERS’ CORNER: ESCAPING THE CULT
In the last decade or so, global politics began moving towards highly emotive, personality-driven territory. American scholars such as Steven Hassan, in his research on authoritarian control and cult dynamics, and Ruth Ben-Ghiat, in her work on ‘strongman’ politics, have described this form of governance using terminology traditionally reserved for fringe cults. This comparison serves as an analytical framework for understanding how certain modern political groups operate. In a recent piece for The Guardian, the American journalist Rachel Leingang highlighted the emergence of support networks, such as ‘Leaving Maga’, which assist disillusioned members in leaving the populist Maga (Make America Great Again) movement. Leingang wrote that walking away from contemporary populist movements often resembles breaking an addiction or escaping a high-control cult. The dynamics that define such movements include total devotion to a messianic figure, deep social enclosure and an all-encompassing identity. Donald Trump’s Maga movement in the United States, Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India and Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) are prominent examples, along with similar movements across the globe, such as Javier Milei’s La Libertad Avanza in Argentina and Bolsonarismo [political movement tied to Jair Bolsonaro] in Brazil. At the core of any movement described as ‘cult-like’ is a charismatic leader. As the early 20th century German sociologist Max Weber observed, charismatic authority relies on followers projecting extraordinary, almost supernatural qualities on to a figurehead. Charismatic leaders, digital echo chambers and the politics of absolute loyalty are defining features of contemporary populist movements, walking away from which often resembles breaking an addiction or escaping a high-control cult Chilean political scientist Cristóbal R. Kaltwasser and German historian Jan-Werner Müller posit that modern populism and/or ‘political cults’ inherently rely on a central trope: a supposedly pure, virtuous populace pitted against a ‘corrupt’, entrenched establishment. Modern political cults position their top leader as the sole saviour capable of defeating this establishment. In the American context, Trump presented himself as an outsider who alone could “drain the swamp.” In India, Modi carefully cultivated an image of an incorruptible chowkidar [watchman] and spiritual ascetic who alone could restore national pride, contrasting his humble origins as a chai-wala [tea boy] with the entrenched dynastic elite of the Congress Party. In Pakistan, Khan built PTI around a powerful cult of personality, capitalising on his status as a cricket hero and national philanthropist to present himself not merely as a politician but as a morally superior saviour, sadiq [truthful] and ameen [trustworthy], standing against a corrupt political order. Illustration by Abro In all three cases, the movement/party became inseparable from the leader. In such cases, the party platform matters far less than absolute personal loyalty to the leader. This singular focus gives rise to a binary worldview, rooted in moral and religious language rather than pragmatic political disagreement. Political rivals are no longer viewed as fellow citizens with differing opinions but as existential threats or moral enemies. As documented by the American sociologist and cult recovery specialist Janja Lalich, former Maga members describe falling into a state of heightened fear and rage when confronted by any opposition against the leader. This is often perceived as a malicious plot by ‘deep state’ forces. In India, Modi’s supporters and party apparatus frequently equate criticism of their leader with anti-nationalism or treason, framing Modi’s authority as synonymous with the nation itself. PTI frames its ‘struggle’ to force Khan’s release from prison as a sacred duty. Khan himself frequently framed his political career as an eternal cosmic battle between haq [truth] and baatil [falsehood]. With this framing of political participation in spiritual and existential terms, criticism of the leader becomes equivalent to moral betrayal. When Khan was ousted via a vote of no-confidence in 2022, his followers readily adopted his narrative of a foreign-backed conspiracy, rejecting official legal processes and nuanced economic explanations in favour of complete loyalty to the leader’s account. What truly cements the ‘cult’ designation of these largely right-wing populist movements is the social enclosure and intense sense of belonging they provide. According to Canadian political theorist Laura K. Field, the community-building aspect of modern populist movements is frequently underestimated. She posits that members find purpose, validation and a pre-packaged social identity within the group. However, this total integration comes at a price: isolation from the outside world. Traditional cults achieve this through physical isolation, but as American social scientists Shoshana Zuboff and C. Thi Nguyen point out, modern digital platforms achieve the exact same result, virtually through personalised content algorithms. Machine-learning models designed to optimise engagement inevitably prioritise moral outrage, anger and conspiracy theories. Over time, these algorithms construct ‘filter bubbles’, a concept coined by the American activist and author Eli Pariser. These bubbles confine members to an alternative reality, shielding them from dissenting facts, while feeding them a steady diet of radicalising content. This psychological enclosure is further reinforced by what American legal scholar and cognitive scientist Dan Kahan describes as “identity-protective cognition.” When individuals tie their self-worth directly to a group’s ideology, accepting factual corrections feels like a threat to their personal survival. To guard against this discomfort, followers engage in motivated reasoning, dismissing objective evidence while clinging to comforting, convoluted narratives that protect their leader’s infallibility. This is why critics often lament that reasoning with fervent supporters of populist parties feels like speaking to a brick wall. As the American philosopher Jason Stanley emphasises in his analysis of fascist and authoritarian propaganda, cult-like political movements methodically destroy shared public reality by replacing truth with loyalty tests. Expressing doubt or nuance leads to social penalisation by fellow members. Populist leaders leverage social platforms to bypass traditional checks, broadcasting unfiltered directives directly to millions. This fosters decentralised online armies that aggressively police discourse, launch targeted campaigns against critics and enforce group conformity. According to American scholars Jonathan Haidt and Jon Askonas, social interactions in digital spaces are “gamified” through likes, retweets and shares, which function as instant dopamine rewards for blind loyalty and hostility toward ‘enemies’. Describing modern populist groups as cults reflects the psychological toll they exert on their followers. When politics ceases to be a rational debate or pragmatic negotiation over governance and transforms into an algorithmically enforced system of identity, leaving it needs an exit strategy rather than a simple ballot choice. Initiatives such as Leaving Maga demonstrate that recovering from these movements requires addressing the psychological trauma, fear and loss of community experienced by the defectors. Whether analysing Maga in the West, Modi’s dominance in India, or PTI in Pakistan, the underlying dynamic remains the same. Many troubled supporters struggle to get out. When a political movement demands total moral devotion to a single leader and uses digital echo chambers to cut off critical thought, it ceases to function as a mainstream political entity and crosses into the realm of the cult. Published in Dawn, EOS, September 13th, 2026
Can Milei count on Trump to deliver on the Falklands?
The territorial dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands (or Islas Malvinas in Spanish) continues to escalate. Last week, Argentine President Javier Milei, a close ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, announced a series of new measures aimed at pressuring Britain over the future of the islands. The most significant announcement was of new sanctions on companies involved in oil extraction in the waters around the Falklands, which Argentina has long claimed as its own. Argentina’s attempt to prevent the exploitation of the Falklands’ natural resources is a reminder that beneath the often farcical relitigating of sovereignty claims dating back to the 18th century is a very modern geopolitical conflict with real stakes for energy and maritime resources. Yet what was most remarkable about Milei’s announcement was what Milei did not announce — namely, a shift in U.S. policy regarding the Falklands. Given the hype that Milei built up ahead of his announcement, many observers speculated he would announce U.S. support for Argentina’s claim. Those expectations had been further raised by a steady trickle of reporting going back to April that the Trump administration has been considering recognizing Argentina’s claim to the Falklands, bolstered by Trump’s recent comment that the U.S. position on the islands was “one of many” under review. The Falklands question, though easily dismissed as a curiosity in the United States, has long presented a genuine dilemma for U.S. policymakers torn between its transatlantic alliance and the Western Hemisphere. Despite being officially neutral in the territorial dispute, the U.S. decided to side with Britain over Argentina in the 1982 conflict, providing significant material support to the British war effort. This support caused lasting damage to U.S. standing in Latin America. Now, geopolitical shifts in the United States, Europe and Latin America have all converged to Argentina’s advantage, and help explain why Milei sees an opportunity to push Britain over the Falklands without risking broader diplomatic isolation. It’s time to ask: what would it take to get Donald Trump to give Milei what he so clearly wants? Milei’s self-proclaimed ability to obtain U.S. support for Argentina’s claim has become a major part of Milei’s domestic pitch. As is often noted in Argentina, Milei’s recent focus on the Falklands is a new development. Milei had risen to power with bitter and divisive attacks on left-wing domestic opponents, whom the president blamed for Argentina’s economic problems. Milei’s belated embrace of the Falklands issue comes as his economic reforms have largely failed to deliver the widespread prosperity he promised. Milei’s bet is that close alignment with the U.S. will translate to U.S. support for Argentina’s territorial claim, reversing the recent pattern of Argentine diplomacy, which searched for allies in the Global South. In this effort, Milei may well be repeating the error of the Argentine military junta, which believed the U.S. would stay neutral or even support Argentina in the 1982 war over the islands. Milei is betting this time will be different. For the United States, however, most of the recent consideration about whether to back Argentina over Britain in the South Atlantic has not revolved around the Falklands at all. For Trump, the Falklands question is clearly about Iran, with reports pointing to his notable frustration with Britain for its perceived failure to support the U.S.-Israeli war. Yet regardless of Trump’s frustration, Britain remains a far more useful ally in the current Middle Eastern conflict than Argentina could ever hope to be. British bases on Cyprus and Diego Garcia have served as logistical hubs for U.S. operations, and even briefly came under fire from Iran and its allies. While Trump no doubt wants Britain to do more, he also wouldn’t want Britain to do less. Milei’s government has acted in lockstep with the United States on the diplomatic front, designating Iran’s IRGC a terrorist organization. Washington is clearly interested in such support, as indicated by the State Department’s trumpeting of Peru’s recent decision to break off diplomatic relations with Iran. Yet these diplomatic “wins” are more about recognizing U.S. dominance over the Western Hemisphere than anything else; neither Peru or Argentina can make any real military contribution to the actual armed conflict. Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby effectively acknowledged as much in his recent Americas Quarterly essay, writing “we will not ask neighbors to project power out of this region.” This gives Britain the upper hand for now. Closer to home, though, the case for U.S. recognition of the Argentine claim is far more straightforward: the U.S. has a clear and permanent interest in close ties with Latin America. The Trump administration has embraced the Monroe Doctrine, the original purpose of which was to defend the newly independent states of Latin America from exactly the sort of European imperial predations that Britain accomplished by seizing the Malvinas from Argentina by threat of force in 1833. If the United States truly means to prioritize the Western Hemisphere over Europe or the Middle East, then trading Britain for Argentina makes much more sense. The Falklands also occupy another strategic waterway — the approaches to the Strait of Magellan and Cape Horn. Before the construction of the Panama Canal (another Trump obsession), the Falklands commanded the only maritime corridor between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Indeed, this is why Britain seized them in the first place, as part of its global network of maritime bases from Singapore to Suez to Cape Town to Gibraltar. The Falklands’ strategic importance was proved by the 1914 Battle of the Falklands, when the Royal Navy annihilated the German East Asia Squadron as it attempted to enter the Atlantic. More recently, U.S. aircraft carriers have traveled through the Strait of Magellan, a useful practice in case the Panama Canal becomes unavailable for any reason. Milei’s pitch to Donald Trump then seems to be this: in exchange for U.S. support against Britain, Argentina would offer unprecedented access to its South Atlantic territories to both the U.S. military and U.S. business interests. Yet there are good reasons to doubt that Milei, already increasingly unpopular domestically, can keep that promise. Many prominent leaders on the Argentine left who vocally support confrontation with Britain nevertheless see the U.S. as a similar threat to Argentine sovereignty, specifically warning against U.S. control of Argentine naval bases in Tierra del Fuego. Argentines are undoubtedly united on the Falklands across ideological lines, but they also envision the islands and the crucial sea lanes and natural resources around them returning to Argentine sovereignty, not U.S. control. The divisive and partisan governance style of both Milei and Trump makes any long-term U.S.-Argentine partnership fragile, particularly when, as seems likely, the Argentine left returns to power. For now, Milei seems to be waiting in vain for U.S. support. Trump has already done extraordinary political favors for Milei. From facilitating a $20 billion U.S. Treasury bailout to importing Argentine beef, Trump has done more for Milei’s political fortunes than any prior U.S. leader has for any Argentine counterpart. It is also clear that the calculus of 1982 no longer holds: Britain is militarily weaker, more diplomatically isolated, and less geopolitically relevant to U.S. security needs in 2026 than in 1982. Yet Milei still needs Trump far more than Trump needs Milei. Milei has increasingly staked his presidency on proving that his subordination to the United States will allow him to win the Falklands, the White Whale of Argentine foreign policy. Yet Milei’s needs are not Washington’s. The U.S. has no real reason to change position as long as it can string both of its nominal allies along. That is likely what Donald Trump, who is much better at talking about deals than closing them, will do.
Can Milei count on Trump to deliver on the Falklands?Britain should accept a Hong Kong-style handover of the Falklands
Argentine President Javier Milei has every right to reassert his country’s territorial claims over the Falkland Islands. His proposal to use the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration as a template for resolving the Falkland Islands dispute merits serious consideration as a pragmatic framework for bringing this long-standing territorial conflict to a peaceful conclusion. Argentina’s claim to what its citizens call the Islas Malvinas rests on solid foundations. Upon independence from Spain in 1816,...
Argentina sues Israeli oil firm as Ben Gvir urges Netanyahu to back its Falklands claim
Argentina is to file criminal charges against several companies linked to Israeli oil firm Navitas for operating without authorisation in the Falklands, as Milei steps up his offensive against the Sea Lion project with new sanctions and measures to bolster territorial defence.
‘Mini-dictatorship’: Students slam far-right turn at Argentina-run residence in Paris
Weeks before President Javier Milei visits France, scrutiny has grown around an Argentina-run university residence in Paris supposed to promote peaceful coexistence but which activists say instead restricts lodger freedoms and hosts European far-right figures. Paris city officials have demanded the foreign ministry investigate Argentina House, one of dozens of homes run by foreign nations or French institutions on an international campus in the French capital. The Cite Universitaire campus, or...
"Our future is for the people who live here to decide," Falklands Assembly tells Milei
The Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly issued a statement on Friday in response to Argentine President Javier Milei's address, maintaining that the archipelago's future is for those who live there to decide. "The Falkland Islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory, and our future is a matter for the people who live here to decide," the text says, adding that this is "a right grounded in international law" and that "it is not altered by the statements of any other government."
Trump raises doubts over support for Britain in Falklands dispute with Argentina
US President Donald Trump raised doubts about whether the United States would support Britain in another conflict over the Falkland Islands in an interview with a British broadcaster aired Thursday, injecting new tension into the long-standing dispute over the British-controlled archipelago also claimed by Argentina. Trump's comments came as his ideological ally, Argentine President Javier Milei, prepared to deliver a televised national address about what his government has described as diplomatic progress over the islands that lie about 480 kilometers off Argentina’s coast in the South Atlantic. FRANCE 24's International Affairs Editor Rochelle Ferguson-Bouyahe tells us more.
Arjantin ile İngiltere arasındaki tartışma yeniden başladı
Arjantin Devlet Başkanı Javier Milei, Falkland Adaları çevresindeki petrol projelerine yaptırım uygulayacaklarını ve bölgedeki askeri varlığı güçlendireceklerini açıkladı. Arjantin Devlet Başkanı Javier Milei, Falkland Adaları çevresinde petrol ve doğalgaz çıkarma faaliyetlerine katılan şirketlere yönelik yaptırımları sertleştireceğini, ülkenin güneyindeki savunma kaynaklarını artıracağını ve egemenlik ihlallerine karşı Kongre'ye acil bir yasa tasarısı sunacağını açıkladı. Televizyondan halka hitap eden Milei, Arjantin'in kendi toprağı olarak gördüğü ancak İngiltere'nin kontrolünde bulunan sularda yürütülen enerji faaliyetlerine karşı yasal yaptırımları hızlandırmak amacıyla bir kararname imzalayacağını bildirdi. Yaptırımların yalnızca ilgili şirketleri değil; bu kuruluşların hissedarlarını, yöneticilerini ve tedarikçilerini de kapsayacağını belirten Milei, "Arjantin'in izni olmaksızın adalardaki projelere doğrudan veya dolaylı olarak dahil olan şirketlerin Arjantin topraklarında faaliyet göstermesini engellemeyi sürdüreceğiz" dedi. Milei, hükümetin Tierra del Fuego eyaletinde bir deniz üssü inşa etmek ve telekomünikasyon kapasitesini artırmak için acil durum kararnamesiyle savunma bütçesini genişleteceğini kaydetti. Kongre'ye sunulacak "ulusal egemenliği savunma" yasa tasarısının ise adalardaki izinsiz operasyonlara yönelik cezaları ağırlaştırmayı, yaptırımları tedarikçilere teşmil etmeyi ve doğal kaynakları etkileyen diğer faaliyetleri kapsayacak şekilde yasal çerçeveyi genişletmeyi hedeflediği aktarıldı. SONDAJ PLANI BUENOS AIRES'TE TEPKİ ÇEKTİ Arjantin yönetiminin, İsrailli Navitas Petroleum ve İngiliz Rockhopper Exploration şirketleri tarafından yürütülen "Sea Lion" açık deniz projesinin önümüzdeki aylarda petrol üretimine başlayabileceğini tespit ettiğini söyleyen Milei, bu durumun Arjantin çıkarlarına yönelik acil bir tehdit oluşturduğunu savundu. Söz konusu projenin, Birleşmiş Milletler'in taraflara tek taraflı adımlardan kaçınma çağrısı yapan kararına aykırı olduğunu öne süren Milei, "Buna izin verirsek İngiliz hükümetinin adaları işgalini derinleştirmesi ve kaynaklarımızı sömürmesi için teşvik yaratmış oluruz" ifadelerini kullandı. Salı günü, Arjantinli Falkland Savaşı gazileri ve çevre hukuku uzmanları da projeyi durdurmak amacıyla dava açmıştı. Milei'nin açıklamaları, daha önce İngiltere ile ilişkileri geliştirmek isterken anlaşmazlığın diplomasi yoluyla çözülmesini savunan tutumuna kıyasla belirgin bir sertleşmeye işaret ediyor. Bu çıkışın, Milei'nin kemer sıkma ve serbestleşme politikalarına desteğin kamuoyu yoklamalarında yaklaşık yüzde 34'e gerilediği ve yeniden seçilme sürecine bir yıldan biraz fazla bir süre kaldığı bir döneme denk gelmesi dikkat çekiyor. LONDRA'DAN YANIT: FALKLANDLILAR İNGİLİZ KALMAYI SEÇTİ Milei, konuşmasında küresel dengelerin kendi lehlerine değiştiğini savunarak "Dünyada iddiamızı destekleyen değişim rüzgarları esiyor" dedi ve İngiltere'nin "göç, demografi ve ekonomi alanlarında krizlerle karşı karşıya kalarak gerileme sürecine girdiğini" iddia etti. İngiltere Savunma Bakanı Wes Streeting, Milei'nin açıklamalarına sosyal medya üzerinden yanıt vererek "Falkland Adaları İngiliz'dir, çünkü ada sakinleri İngiliz kalmayı seçmiştir" dedi. Arjantin liderinin açıklamalarını "iç politika kaynaklı" olarak nitelendiren Streeting, "Falkland konusundaki taahhüdümüz mutlak ve sarsılmazdır" açıklamasını yaptı. Adalılar, 2013 yılında yapılan referandumda ezici bir çoğunlukla İngiltere'ye bağlı kalma yönünde oy kullanmıştı. WASHINGTON'IN TARAFSIZLIK İNCELEMESİ Falkland konusu, ABD Başkanı Donald Trump'ın Washington'ın anlaşmazlıktaki tarafsız tutumunu gözden geçirdiğini duyurmasının ardından yeniden uluslararası gündeme taşındı. Washington'ın Londra'yı, savunma harcamalarını artırmaması halinde bölgedeki İngiliz egemenliğini tanımama ihtimaliyle baskı altına aldığı yönünde haberler yayımlandı. Trump, dün İngiliz televizyonu GB News'e verdiği röportajda, Londra'nın İran ile yürütülen savaşa yeterli askeri destek vermemesini eleştirerek, Arjantin ile olası bir yeni krizde İngiltere'yi destekleyip desteklemeyeceğini teyit etmekten kaçındı. Trump, 1982'deki savaş için "Uzun zaman önceydi" ifadesini kullandı. AFP ajansına konuşan Arjantin Katolik Üniversitesi Uluslararası Çalışmalar Merkezi Direktörü Tomas Mugica, konuya ilişkin değerlendirmesinde, "Falkland meselesi Trump'ın, NATO harcamaları ve İran savaşındaki işbirliği taleplerini kabul etmesi için İngiltere'ye baskı kurma amacına hizmet ediyor" dedi. Milei ise ABD'nin pozisyonundaki bu esnemeyi kendi yönetiminin dış politikasına ve Trump yönetimine verilen desteğe bağlayarak, "ABD bu tutum değişikliğini Arjantin'in güvenilir bir ortak olduğunu bildiği için değerlendiriyor" dedi. Arjantin ana karasının yaklaşık 500 kilometre doğusunda yer alan ve Arjantinlilerin Las Malvinas olarak adlandırdığı adalar, 1833 yılından bu yana İngiltere'nin denetiminde. Arjantin güçlerinin Nisan 1982'de adaları ele geçirmesi üzerine dönemin İngiltere Başbakanı Margaret Thatcher bir deniz gücü sevk etmiş; 10 hafta süren savaş sonucunda 649 Arjantinli, 255 İngiliz askeri ile üç ada sakini hayatını kaybetmişti.
Milei'den Falkland Petrol Faaliyetlerine Yaptırım ve Askeri Güçlendirme