Argentina is “waging economic warfare” on the Falklands
The Falkland Islands government has accused Argentina of waging a campaign of “economic warfare” against it, according to an article in the Sunday edition of The Guardian by Robert Booth.
Speaking on the 27th anniversary of the end of the Falklands war, Mike Summers, a member of the Falkland Islands legislative assembly, said Argentina is deliberately hampering the islands' three main industries of fishing, tourism and oil and gas exploration.
He said the British overseas territory's economic development is being held back by Argentinean policies aimed at forcing the islands to accept claims of Argentinean sovereignty. The Falkland Islands, or Las Malvinas, as the archipelago is known in Argentina, has a population of around 3,000 people and an annual income of £75m. But the Islands' government believes the affluence of its inhabitants is being deliberately held back by Argentina.
Summers complained that Argentina has withdrawn from a commission to manage fisheries, which provide the bulk of the Islands’ income, which means fish stocks may be seriously damaged; that Argentina has stopped charter planes traveling from Chile to the Falklands by banning them from using Argentinean airspace which has damaged the cruise ship industry; and the hydrocarbon business has been hit by a presidential decree from Buenos Aires that prevents anyone who works in the hydrocarbon industry in Argentina from doing the same in the Falklands.
"We don't have good relations," Summers said. "They are taking an economic warfare approach. It has created tension between the Falklands and Argentina. Economic development could be improved if we got on better. While the clear stated intention of the Argentines is to take over the Falklands whether we like it or not, we can't cooperate better." The block on charter flights from Chile to the Falklands means cruise ship passengers and crew cannot easily reach the Islands and this is hampering the ability of the Islands to capitalize on the growing south Atlantic cruise ship business.
A spokesman for Argentina's foreign ministry said the measures would remain in place until Britain agrees to resume talks over Argentina's claim of sovereignty.
"We have taken these measures because we have to preserve our position and our resources in the region," the spokesman said. "We are not intending to harm the Islanders."
52 comments
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.
link:
http://www.visitorfalklands.com/content/view/186/
About the fisheries commission, what did you expect? we have a sovereignty dispute and until the United Kingdom accept to negociate to resolve the dispute many things like this will happens. Nevertheless the
argentine withdrawn from the commission never stoped islanders from fishing.
But obviously mr Summers dont know what is an economic warfare. Mr Summers, an economic warfare is what the cuban people suffered for 47 years (setting aside any political comment) and iraq's children from the first gulf war.
http://www.iraqwar.org/childunicef.htm
You are missing the point completely. Argentina is pledged at the United Nations to preserve the interests of the inhabitants of the Falklands.
We all know and understand Argentina's real intentions which are not inclusive for Falkland Islanders at all.
Their actions are just more examples of why Falklands Islanders should not believe a word of what they say or trust that any of their actions will ever be in their real interests.
I am sure that people in Argentina know all about economic chaos and political double dealing it is a way of life for you.
Get real man!!
before accusing a man of lying, perhaps you should beef up on your knowledge.
Start with looking up the difference between a 'scheduled', and a 'charter' flight. The WEEKLY Lan Chile flight is scheduled, hence it is at the same time every week.
As for ''what do you expect''... from Argenitna? nothing but rhetoric, propaganda, cruelty and moral disgraces.
The Malvina's colonial government asked Chile for more flights from Lan Chile, and Argentina said ok but dont use Argentine air space to do that. Whats wrong with that?.
Dont picture Argentina as a monster, the uk is no angel in international affairs. Should i have to enumerate the atrocities make by them against international law?.
So come on!!! dont be so dramatic, relations with the uk are fine, there is no diplomatic tensions, and our presidential visit to the uk proved it.
About sports, i like the hand of god becouse you guys cheated us in so many ways that winning to the uk with the hand of god was something really funny. Anyway you have a good team and i hope both teams can see each other in the next world cup, obviously with fairplay this time.
cheers.
"This true story tells how twenty years after British troops died for democracy in the Falklands War, a British citizen would be forced to flee the Falklands to escape political corruption and death threats, to seek democracy and freedom of speech in Argentina."
Mike Bingham has since modified some of his opinions:-
Read the debate here May/June 2007:-
http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1040&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start;=0
"Whilst all these events were taking place between 1996 and 2003 I was very emotionally strained, and no doubt some of what I wrote during this period reflects the anger and sense of injustice I felt at that time.
However the Supreme Court upheld my accusations of injustice, which took away much of my frustration at being accussed of so many things I had not done. Since then I have had three peaceful years in Argentina, and the anger and bitterness has long since past. I really do not need to relive those emotions"................
"From my view point as a British citizen, with experience of both countries, I fully support the rights of the Falkland Islanders to self-determination.
However I think that to gain more wide-spread support for this right abroad, they need to develop a greater level of political maturity than I experienced during my 11 years there. I hope that this maturity is developing, but the Falklands' continued refusal to comply with international demands to halt the decline of penguins, makes me think there is still a long way to go.
From people I speak to in Argentina, most Argentines believe that Britain claims the Falklands as being British, and I can see that this would be difficult to understand in view of the distance from Britain. But the reality is that they are NOT British, even if Britain offers military support.
The Falklands are a tiny island trying to protect their own ownership. In most ways, except for the lack of political maturity, they do a good job. If the Falklands were British, most of the things I endured would never have happened.
Whilst it might be easy to dismiss Britain's right to claim ownership over the Falklands, most Argentines I know agree with me that the people who actually live in the Falklands do have the right to claim ownership of their own land and way of life." Mike Bingham, June 6, 2007
Do you really believe argentine goverment can distract our attention today???? We're not in 1982. You're insulting our intelligence. we're very concern about our domestic problems but, that doesn't mean we or our goverment forget the claim of sovereignty. As Billy Hayes said, if britain don't talk to us about sovereignty you will pay the cost. conplain to britain. This problem will be for ever until UK sit on the table and talk to us. Do you think we are gonna sit down and see how you develop our resources without doing anything??? Sit down to talk and there will be no problems anymore unless of course you wanna it continues.
Argentina was offerred a policy of Open Skies as a solution to the charter flight dispute - open skies means Argentine Airline charter flights direct and Chilean and any other charter flights also. Your Kirscheners threw it out!
As for just protecting your own economy resources - we used to have joint fishery studies of the waters between us - and then conservation meetings to propose catch limits etc. Your Kirscheners threw that oput the window as well - so now there is no good fish conservation because of Argentina!
In 2007 the British Navy offerred to meet the Argentine Navy where G. Belgrano was sunk and hold a joint service of memorial for 25 years- Kirschener threw that idea out as well!
Throw out your Kirscheners and maybe in time we can become friendly neighbours again. The sovereignty is insolvable as we are opposite beliefs - but that should not stop us agreeing to "disagree" and becoming good neighbours - but it takes two to tango!
"My decision to live in Argentina was based on two things. Firstly, Mike Summers public statement after the Supreme Court ruling, stating that FIG would not change their treament of me just because "some judge said so". Mike Summers was attacked severely by Penguin News and readers for this statement, surpised by his arrogance in called the Supreme Court "some judge" and announcing publicly that Councillors would ignore the ruling.
It was clear to me that I would never be free to live a peaceful life in the Falklands, or even a safe one. So far I had been very lucky. Attempts to frame me by the police had resulting in them being forced to confess to fabricating evidence. Attempts to threaten my life had resulted in the person being caught in the act by Cable & Wireless and the Police, even though his position protected him from identification and prosecution. And finally, FIG's attempts to use the law to evict me had led to a ruling of acts of human rights abuse that the court described as 'legally and morally indefensible".
Saludos
It's just as funny for us to read "Argentinas" next to "Malvinas"...
Cheers
Argentina seeks to dominate and subjugate the islanders, ignoring their right to self-determination, denigrates them as a people and to seeks to impose an alien culture upon them against their will. That is the antithesis of colonialism.
Argentina seeks to impose a colonial situation, the Falklands are not a colony, the Govern themselves. For all intents and purposes of 2065 they are no longer a colony, they have been decolonised. Its deeply said that Argentina wishes to turn back the clock to the 19th Century when Britain and the Falkland Islands are in the 21st.
I will try and spell it out.
The de jure and de facto British sovereignty over the Falklands is well established and recognised by the UN. Even if Argentina disputes this sovereignty, based on a very weak case, that does not change the fact, recognised by the UN: The Falkland Islands are NOT Argentine territory occupied by the UK, they are British territory.
Argentina's dispute has been registered by the UN, but that does not affect the status quo and it certainly does not imply sovereignty has to pass to Argentina. The UN simply requires that the UK and Argentina resolve their dispute - the UN has NEVER said the Falklands must pass under Argentine sovereignty.
The inhabitants of the Falklands have a right to self determination as enshrined in UN resolutions. Under that right to self determination the Falklanders have FREELY CHOSEN to remain self-governing under the British flag.
So, if sovereignty passed to Argentina against the wishes of the Falklanders a colonial situation would arise. You see, it's very simple, even an amazing and grown person should understand that.
Un saludo
The weak case is for the british. Ask to Duque de Wellington, prime minister in 1834,Sidney Spicer, American Department of the Foreign Office in 1910,R. Campbell, secretary assistand of the Foreign Office in 1911,Sir Malcolm A. Robertson, british ambassador in Buenos Aires in 1928,George Fitzmaurice, legal adviser of the England cancillery in 1936, or John Troutbeck.
Acording to the UN for geografic names, the official name of the islands is Falklands/Malvinas and it specifically says that they are administered by the uk and claimed by Argentina.
http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/geoinfo/geoname.pdf
About selfdetermination, give me the links where the UN specifically says they are a selfgoverning territory. As long as i know the islands are put as non-selfgoverning territory, so to say they are selfgoverning territory enshrined by the UN is a very big lie.
Link from the United Nations regarding of non-self governing territories:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust3.htm
guess whos on that list????.
selfdetermination is something the islanders cant have until the united kingdom (the government they belong and are members) sit to the negotiation table.
And to respond your last paragraph, if sovereignty is passed to Argentina it would be from a colonial situation to a federal provincia which is not same.
Self-determination is a right guaranteed under the UN Charter, and as regards Article 73 of the UN Charter:
" Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end: "
I don't see anything in there that says people can't enjoy self-government due to a sovereignty dispute. And if sovereignty were to pass to Argentina against the will of the populace it would create a colonial situation. The current status of the Falklands is not a colony, they are a self-governing overseas territory. Whilst Argentina dreams of an irredentist fantasy rooted in the 19th Century, Britain and the Falkland Islands have modernised their relationship. The Falklanders govern themselves, they rely on the UK only for Defence. They represent themselves at the UN.
And the annual farce that we have seen repeated at the UN this week is just that a farce. They are no longer a colony and should have been delisted long ago. I note that many of the countries that prevent them from doing so are far from models of democracy and China maintains it own undeclared colony in Tibet.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust3.htm
There is a world of difference between the situation of 1947 and today. The British Empire is no more, it was dissolved by the British who chose to grant independence to its former colonies as Empires in the late 20th Century were an anachronism that ill-fitted with a democratic nation.
The remaining territories of the former British Empire are no longer colonies. That they remain listed at the UN is a farsical situation and is more down to power politics between nation states. The C24 was created to represent the interests of the people of dependent territories. That purpose has been perverted and now rather than support to the self-determination of the people of dependent territories it is used for petty point scoring in international politics. It became farsical when states attending speak in favour of creating a colonial situation, ignoring the wishes of the very people they swore to represent.
Sorry, did I mention the words "self governing" in my post above?
This was your question: "How is that Argentina is a colonial power, when is the uk who is in posetion of the islands."
I answered that in my post (no mentioning self government once), and I'll summarise what I said above again:
1. The UN recognises British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
2. The Falkland Islanders have the right to self determination and choose to remain British (that right has nothing to do with the dispute between the UK and Argentina, that is a right the Islanders have no matter what).
3. If sovereignty were to pass to Argentina against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders (no matter what the current status is) a colonial situation would arise.
As for the name: the official UN for the islands is "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)". The "Malvinas" bit is in brackets, not Falklands/Malvinas as you state and is only there because of Argentina's insistence. Argentine maps even referred to the islands as Las Islas Falkland until the 1940s.
Justin R. you are right you didnt.
About point 1,2,3, why dont you substantiate a little more with proof may be?.
About point 1- Give me the link where the un says the "falklands" belongs to the uk.
point 2- Thats your opinion?.
3-if this happens, if that happens, then it could happens.... only wishfull thinking.
Yes the official un for the islands is Falkland Islands (Malvinas) so i can call them falklanders or malvinenses right?.
Guys, stop showing opinions or conspiracies theories about the Argentine claim and present some proof.
1. No need to substantiate. The UN recognises the UK as the "administering power" over the Falklands, i.e. the UK has sovereignty - and since it is recognised by the UN why could this not be legal? They don't say the "occupying power", which is a very different thing.
2. It's not my humble opinion. It it international law. Above Justin K quoted the relevant article 73 of the UN charter.
3. The only wishful thinking is the Argentine claim.
I think you'll see that these are not opinions or conspiracy theories. No-one is denying an Argentine claim exists, but that claim is very weak and does not trump the Falkland Islanders well established right to self determination. The most sensible thing Argentina could do is park (or even better drop) their claim and start living with their neighbours as neighbours should. This is exactly what happened until the 1st Kirchner was elected.
You are incorrect, the original list was compiled in 1947, the list you refer to reflects territories removed as they achieve independence. Apart from those territories that have achieved sufficient autonomy to be delisted but remain on the list due to certain nations perverting the purpose of the C24.
And again Luis, I reiterate that the islanders find the names you use to be offensive. Nothing else. You can either chose to respect that or continue to use certain terms in the knowledge of the offense they cause.
Sovereignty is not only to administer a territory Justin.
occupying power is not the case,first becouse you cant be an occupying power of your own citizens and secondly the un cant determine who is the sovereign owner until the dispute is resolved.
Justin Kuntz, i didnt show any list of 1947, nomatter if there was an original list prior to the one i showed, the list i gave you was of 2002 and its hosted in the official webpage of the United Nations.
About the islanders i try not to use it as to not offend them, but dont worry "bloody argies" must be their favourite word for them to call on us and i think the lonely fact of our claim, made them feel that way, so there is nothing i can do about them beign offended.
Cheers
I'm sorry, but the UK is the sovereign power, however you try to rework the language and the Argentine dispute does not make the slightest difference to this under international law.
Saludos
It does matter, the islands were only ever listed because Britain chose to do so. Had it not, they would not be listed its that simple. That they have not been delisted is purely because the C24 is a farce.
Currency-we have our own currency notes and coins and we are NOT part of Sterling,I send money to Britain I pay a foreign currency commision just the same as if to USA,Chile or even Argentina we are outside, but for convenience we follow same interest rates and maintain fixed parity to the british pound.
Laws - we have our own Laws -fully under the legal control of our own locally elected Government in which the UK Governor does not have a vote, nor any official, only elected members.
We have our own Police Force - independent to british police.
We have oput own Taxation Laws.
We have our own Education System.
The Governor here can only exercise control over Defence and Foreign Affairs. He has no vote in anything that happens inside the Islands and he cannot act agaist our elected Government.
We even have our own flag.
So yes we have full control over our own internal affairs - we are to small to be alone so need a bigger power to look after defence and Foreign Affairs - se we choose one we trust
How can you possibly say that Argentina taking all that over against our wishes is not old fashioned colonialism at its worst?
Would she let us keep our flag,currency,laws,police, etc!! I think not.
I very much doubt it. They will also try and force you to drive on the right, like they did in 1982.
About the drive side, thats only speculative, the 1982 government were a military one, and once we get in the position of transfer of the islands i dont thing it would be on Argentina's interest to apply controversial changes.
Let me ask you a question,just hipothetical, if youislander were born in england for example, would you declare war on them if it would be needed??
I have been to TierradelFuego and Rio Gallegos - the flags I saw outside all govt offices etc was your national flag. Our national flag flies outside our govt offices and buildings - the british flag only outside the Governors house.
Many of the british veterans of 1982 who have neen back here say - our future is ours to decide , they fought for us to have the right of choice- if we did decide to accept Argenina then they would respect our wish.
Listen to yourself. Argentina only wants its rights to be listened to, and in your next breath you will claim that the Falkland Islanders rights are not worth listening to. I don't suppose for one second the rank hypocrisy in what you state will strike you.
You're not going to expropriate the islanders resources but designate they belong to a fictional Argentine province 350+ miles away. You wage economic warfare against them, ignore them as "irrelevant" but expect them to trust in Argentina benevolence?
Again I expect you to ignore such awkward questions.
As to your "hypothetical" question, I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. IF you're asking if the islanders decide to be part of Argentina, then the British will respect that viewpoint. The British Government is already publicly committed to respecting the self-determination rights of all of the British Overseas Territories.
If half population living in the islands and govern them (that came from england scotland or wales) were born in Argentina instead of the uk, do you think the status quo would be known as they are known today?.
"Islander my hipothetical question was to proof my point that if you born in england nomatter where you live you will never act against british interests."
Simply your opinion Luis, speculative, not relevant to the Falkland situation AND I will give you a very good example of where exactly that happened: Rhodesia.
If British interests didn't coincide with my own personal interests there's a very strong possibility that I would act against those British interests. I bet you there are many Argentines who would act against Argentine interests which do not coincide with theirs. There's actually a good example of that happening now - all the black money making its way across the Rio de la Plata into Uruguayan banks. Surely that is not good for Argentina? But does it stop Argentines from doing it?
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make?
Anyway i think you know exactly of what im talking about. I was waiting just a yes or no but instead you choose to take a bicycle and go around this topic.
I know several people here who were born in Argentina and none of them ever want Argentina to take over this country-they like it as we are. There is a saying - none of us can choose where we were born - but we can chose where we live and eventually die.
I am not sure how you prooved your point - if I had english parents and I had been born in Iraq I probably would have fought against the US and UK invasion in 2003 as I felt it was wrong. The fact is I was born here so I defend my country and democratic rights - luckily for us britain is prepared to do so as well. If Britain were to act against us and force us over to you I would feel very anti british - but not sure how 3000 of us could invade Britain!
Luckily it will not happen.
Please you must get away from this notion that we are ruled by half the population who were not born here. Those people have made their homes here and settled here because they like this country and our life. They are permanent residents, where they were born is irrelevant be it Britain,Chile,USA,Argentina etc . - if you are on a work contract from UK or any other country you do not have a vote here. Only those who qualify for the right of residence without a work permit can vote.
As simply as it is you won a war, as an imperial power that you are, that's your self-determination there's no other, we the argentines will never give up our rights on our lands. I've got to admit that neither of the parts are impartial, nor me or you. But reading everything regarding the malvinas issue, came with the conclusion that the war changed everything. We are dealing with it as you are doing so with the aislation. I know that my words means nothing to you but, we know that someday the beautifull, lost in the atlantic, islands will be back to us.
No further comments, thanks for read.
P.S: Falklanders, we would love to recieve you as argentines citizens. We are much more warmer than brits, but you must know your claim basis is not correct. Best wishes, hope you understand our position.
You asked if I would act against British interests. I answered you in the first line of my reply, pretty clearly I think.
Juan, the Falkland Islanders think the Argentine claim is weak, because it IS weak!
Once again, and in a nutshell. Only the Buenos Aires (Argentina did not exist yet) officers were expelled in 1833. Why? Because the British had a prior claim and were defending it. Most of the civilians stayed - they were not all kicked off - that is an indisputable fact.
Of course Roca's "Conquest of the Desert" is relevant. In 1833 "Buenos Aires" did not really go south of the Rio Salado, Argentina did not exist until 1853, La Pampa did not even become Argentine territory until 1884 - and you are trying to tell me the Falklands were Argentine territory in 1833? Please! By the way, Patagonia was not "unknown land", it was very well known to indigenous people like the Mapuches.
P.S. All the above is history and does not affect the situation TODAY. The Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination under international law, enshrined in the UN charter. It is up to them - and nobody else - to choose what they want.
Beside that, in 1825 England recognized Argentine independence without making any claim of sovereignty over the islands having Argentina total control over malvinas islands with total sovereignty.
So contrary to your propaganda Argentina existed prior to 1853, the treaty of friendship, comerce and navigation signed by England and Argentina is proof of it.
Your last paragraph only show your constant lie about selfdetermination becouse Britain refuse to talk about sovereignty arguing the islanders wishes are paramount and, in that way, they avoid talking about their weak claim.
Do you know Lawrence Freedman? he took british secrets files and admited the british claim is weak.
That is why in the 21st century the most important principle is that of the right of selfdetermination of the people who live in the place - so says the UN and most nations. We find it interesting that the 24 Committee nor the OAS have ever thought about sending an independent fact-finding team here to find out for themselves what the Islands really are all about in today,s world, to help them make a better assesment of the situation when they discuss it formally.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!