Argentina has only shown aggression towards the Falklands, says Summers
Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly elected member Mike Summers said the Argentine government has shown no willingness to discuss with the Falkland Islanders and went on to describe Argentina as resembling “a dictatorship with elections”.
Interviewed by a Buenos Aires daily on Wednesday, a day before the presentations to the United Nations Decolonization Special Committee or C24 Summers said that “Argentina has shown no predisposition to negotiate with the people of the Falklands. The only thing they have shown is aggression. Furthermore I have seen no plans for discussions on those areas of mutual interest”.
“What would make sense for good thinking people is that the Argentines and the people of the Falklands could discuss about those areas of mutual interest, such as conservation and management of fisheries” added Summers.
When asked about Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Summers said he had no opinion, “I only have an insight referred to her policies towards the Falklands and to the people of the Falklands, which are totally negative”. However he went on to say that the Argentine democracy resembles more “a dictatorship with elections than a democracy, strictly speaking”.
The Argentine government has repeatedly denied establishing direct negotiations with the people of the Falklands/Malvinas since it does not acknowledge their right to self determination and claims sovereignty over the Islands taken over by the British in 1833, and which a century and a half later triggered a war, says the piece from “La Cronica de Argentina”.
In the recent OAS summit in Honduras, Latinamerican Foreign Affairs ministers reiterated their support for Argentina and her “legitimate rights” over the Malvinas islands.
Although the OAS statement does not explicitly recognize Argentine sovereignty over the South Atlantic islands, it does call on both sides to resume, as soon as possible negotiations on the sovereignty dispute with the goal of finding a peaceful solution to this protracted controversy”
However Summers underlined that “what United Nations has recently stated is that it respects self determination for all peoples, with no distinctions made” and rejected the Argentine sovereignty claim.
The people of the Falklands “have no conditions for dialogue (with the Argentine government). The Argentines put as condition talking about sovereignty. I believe that is a senseless perspective”.
29 comments Feed
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.
“Councillor Summers is completely wrong when he says that the Bingham case was about the right to choose who becomes a citizen. The case did not concern the right of government to make choices. The case actually concerned the need for government to act within the law when exercising its powers, not to impose personal prejudice on its choices, and not to abuse its authority. In acting as it did, Executive Council abused the trust we as citizens put in Government to act fairly, impartially and properly.” (Penguin News 12th December 2003)
Check the truth your government is doing it.
“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”
But now since the Kirscheners we are right back to 1982 with Argentina seen from here as no more than a big bad bullyboy.
Regards
But no. The stated position of your Government is that talks on sovereignty comprise discussions on how Britain can transfer sovereignty to Argentina. In all respects it seeks to impose a solution before talks even commence.
And to the person who asked, the FIG has already indicates its willingness to talk to Argentina. Argentina refuses to talk to the FIG.
The islands colonial government have nothing to do with us, the decolonization committe invite the uk(which include the islanders) and Argentina to resolve the sovereignty dispute.
It's quite straighforward.
1. Argentina disputes British sovereignty in the Falkland Islands.
2. The UK sovereignty over the Falkland Islands is a legal and recognised by the UN.
3. The UN has asked Argentina and the UK to resolve the dispute.
4. The UN has NEVER said Argentine sovereignty is the only outcome.
5. The UK is prepared to talk, but without any pre-conditions.
6. Argentina refuse to enter talks without Argentine sovereignty being a pre-condition - Argentina has decided the outcome of the talks before the talks even start.
7. Until Argentina drops pre-conditions the UK is under no obligation to talk - that is why the UK does not talk, and don't forget - you even say it yourself - the UK and Argentina have been “invited” to resolve their difference. There is no obligation.
Saludos
jajaj!!!!
es una broma???
si eso fuera cierto...porque la ONU reconoce que existe una disputa y llama a negociaciones respecto de ella???
la cuestion de soberanía es la disputa misma, si no se negocia de soberanía, de que queres discutir??? del clima??
la verdad es que cuando falta razon los argumentos son flaquisimos.
No es una broma. Te juro.
The UK is recognised by the UN as the “administering power” over the Falklands. That means UK sovereignty and legality, there is no way that argument is a bit soft, actually it's not even an argument, it's a fact.
The UN recognises the sovereignty dispute, but it has NEVER said the only outcome is Argentine control of the islands. The 1965/2065 resolution simply “invites” Argentina and the UK to resolve their differences.
Total independence, Argentine sovereignty and remaining British are all options for the Falkland Islands. The key thing is the outcome must be in accordance with the Islanders wishes. Under article 73 of the UN charter they have the right to self determination.
The Argentine government is only prepared to talk if the outcome is Argentine control (it is even in your current constitution, but was not in earlier versions, especially not the first), so in effect Argentina wants to pre-determine the outcome and ignore the Islanders rights to self determination. Es la falta de razon del gobierno Argentino que es tan flaqo y por eso no esta resuelto la disputa!
Since the formation of the UN, the UK has offered on three separate occasions to take the Falklands dispute to the ICJ. On each occasion it was Argentina that refused.
Which nation is prepared to test their convictions in a forum capable of delivering a definitive judgement? Clearly not Argentina.
Which leads one to the question, why not? The all to obvious answer is that Argentina is not prepared to go down that avenue for it knows it would lose. Much like the Beagle Channel dispute, the Falklands is an invented claim. Like the Beagle Channel dispute, where Argentine maps showed the disputed islands to be Chilean right up to the point where Argentina decided to rewrite history, the past actions of Argentina give lie to its modern day claims. Much like the old Argentine maps refer to Las Islas Falkland.
No instead Argentina choses to grand stand its claim in the C24, which is not a forum capable of solving a sovereignty dispute. Instead those non-aligned nations mouth sympathetic platitudes and ignore the responsibilities of their office.
So if the un recognize there is a sovereignty dispute regarding malvinas islands ergo that means the un does not recognize british sovereignty over those islands, they only recognize they administered them right?.
Besides in the case of malvinas i dont find where the un say that Argentina must respect Islanders wishes, can you find the link for me?
Justin Kuntz, About the Icj you are absolutely wrong. In 1947,1948 the United Kingdom offered to submit to the icj the falkland/malvinas dependencies and the antartic territory. And in 1955 they submited the matter to the Icj , having Argentina and Chile denied any jurisdiction of the court.
As i said the falklands/malvinas dependencies and the antartic territory not the malvinas itself, only its dependencies.
Links from the International Court of Justice:
Argentine,Chile-vs-UK dispute:
www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/26/9069.pdf
In this link there is all the case presented in 1955 and at the end there is a map concerning the disputed territory.
List of all cases presented in the International Court of Justice.
www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=2
“So if the un recognize there is a sovereignty dispute regarding malvinas islands ergo that means the un does not recognize british sovereignty”
No, not at all. The UN would not designate the UK as administering power if it did not have sovereignty over the Islands.
De facto AND de jure. You can't argue with that. It's an undeniable fact, unless you can show me some UN resolution or how under international law that is not the case. I can guarantee that you will not be able to do this.
Did I miss something? Has Argentina dropped the claim to the Falkland Island Dependencies as was? As I said Argentina has been offered 3 chances to take the dispute to the ICJ, on each occasion it was Argentina that refused.
And those are only the occasions where the offer was made in public. During the New York talks Britain offered to refer the Falklands dispute to the ICJ.
My comment was 100% correct, your attempt to quibble about the details are pedantry and a poor attempt to distract from the fact they are 100% correct. Nice try, no cigar.
If i quote british sources that says argentine settles were expelled you say they are secondary sources so it is not valid for you. If i quote a United nations link that describe the colonial status of the islands and even a map you discalify the UN as a farse cheat of argentine colonialist empire. If i quote The ICJ ( international court of justice)with all cases ever taken and even a map showing that dependencies and antartica were submited, then there is the other Justin acusing me to distract him with details.
The same happens with the census, with vernet , darwin and who knows what else im forgetting.
All im asking Justin is a simple link with all your responses and statemens if it is not too much to ask, becouse if i say something, you say the oposite and we will be here for ever dont you think?
You have said the Falklands are de facto British, but not de jure.
I will repeat my simple request above:
Can you to show us proof that the UN does NOT consider the Falkland Islands as de jure British.
There are a lot of info, so if you want to read it be my guest, im more than willing to give you the links.
You've ducked my question. How convenient... I'll reply to yours when you have shown me how the Falkland Islands are NOT de jure British.
The sovereignty dispute does not change anything, the islands are still British territory de facto and de jure. You have not shown me any evidence to the contrary.
The UN recognises the sovereignty dispute over the Islands via Resolution 2065/65, and invites UK/Argentina to resolve their dispute, but that resolution does not question de jure British sovereignty over the FI.
You british never lose isnt it?.
Resolution 2065/65 simply notes that a dispute exists. It does not in any way state or even imply that the legal situation would change because of Resolution 2065/65, in other words the Falkland Islands were de jure British territory before Resolution 2065/65 and the Falkland Islands remained de jure British territory after Resolution 2065/65, as they do to this day.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!