UK/Argentina: Tension over Falklands “likely to increase over the coming years”
Argentina has had to reduce military expenditure because of the recession but tension with the UK over the Falkland Islands is likely to increase over the coming years, according to a report from Companiesandmarkets.com (*) released this week.
“The British maintain the stance that Falklands’ sovereignty negotiations will only take place according to the wish of the Islanders” and “the issue is being clouded by complaints by the Islanders about Argentine interference in the economy of the Falklands”, threatening its industries, reads the report “Argentina Defence and Security Report 2010”.
The fact President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s administration has had to reduce military expenditure is resulting in the cancellation of new programs and the ditching of plans for pending upgrades of equipment and replacement programmes for all three forces. While the recession continues, procurement prospects remain poor and the military look set to suffer as a result.
In 2008, Argentine defence spending stood at ARS7.9bn (2.53 billion US dollars), and the report forecasts that it will reach ARS10.5bn (2.11bn USD) by 2014. This slow growth is in contrast to other countries in the region (Brazil, Chile, and Venezuela), where military procurement is on the up and often involving procurement of Russian-made arms and equipment.
It was reported in Military Balance that an arms race is likely to intensify in Latin America due to a “copycat' weapons buying triggered by recent military action in some countries and the reactions of their neighbours. Yet, in Argentina the aim of the former President Néstor Kirchner to reorganise the military by 2010 is unlikely to be achieved.
The economic recession has posed the greatest risk to increasing Argentine defence budgets, with any further fluctuations likely to lead to domestic unrest, including, on the civil front, an increase in violent street demonstrations.
The Argentine government faces significant pressure to increase aid to the farming community, which is becoming increasingly aggressive in its call for an elimination of grains export taxes. This long-standing dispute over export taxes has been a prime factor in the recent decline in popularity of President Cristina Kirchner. The 2009 Overseas Security Advisory Council's Argentine Crime and Safety Report claims violent street crime, theft, kidnappings and other felonies are on the increase.
In general, pan-regional co-operation is increasing, reducing tensions and rivalry between states. New mechanisms to address regional security problems are emerging, including the recently-established Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). The union is aimed at strengthening regional co-operation, particularly with Chile and Venezuela, while keeping the US, Brazil and other Latin American states onside.
Argentina's co-operation and friendship with Venezuela is continuing partly to counter Brazilian regional influence. Argentina stands to gain from the new US presidency in furthering its international influence, having been invited to participate in a US presidential meeting on nuclear power generation safety in April 2010.
Tension with the UK over the Falkland Islands continues to mar relations between the two countries and this is likely to increase over the coming years. The British maintain the stance that negotiations will only take place over the sovereignty of the Islands according to the wish of the Islanders. The issue is being clouded by complaints by the Islanders about Argentine interference in the economy of the Falklands, threatening its limited industries. The fishing dispute has worsened in that Argentina has withdrawn from a fisheries management commission and which could mean serious damage to fish stocks. The Argentines have also banned charter planes travelling from Chile over Argentine airspace to the Falklands, and have banned hydrocarbon industry workers in Argentina from taking up similar work on the Islands.
The region poses a latent terrorist danger, and there are fears that groups operating there could launch an attack similar to the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires. Relations with Iran have also continued to sour, with no end in sight for the dispute over allegations of Iran's complicity in the bombing.
While the overall risk of a major terrorist attack is low, there are problems with money laundering, fund-raising, and arms smuggling for Islamic groups in the Tri-Border Area, which remains the main focus of counter-terrorist operations. The Middle Eastern groups Hamas and Hezbollah (both supported by Iran), have a financial network in the Tri-Border Area which Hezbollah is continuing to use as a staging ground for terrorist attacks.
(*) The assessment is from Companiesandmarkets.com which provides a comprehensive range of global market research reports covering 27 different industry sectors, and focusing on major geographic areas of the world.
Suggested Stories
-
Feb 10th 2012
Timerman on Friday formalizes at UN complaint against UK ‘militarization’ of Malvinas dispute
-
Feb 10th 2012
State Department ratifies Falklands’ dispute is a bilateral Argentina/UK issue
-
Feb 09th 2012
“People of the Falklands want to remain British” and they will be defended
-
Feb 08th 2012
Argentina has no more claim to the Falklands than Canada does to Alaska
52 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.
If anything is discovered you can bet the large multi nationals will become involved. With FOGL apparently talking to Chilean companies about using/sharing the refining capacity there
Argentinians are indeed copycats. Everything what their neighbor is doing, they have to do to, even if they don't have the money. They want to upgrade their out dated weapens with borrowed money. Laugh! The truth is, they are jealous that their friend (Hugo) is buying sophisticated weapens, and jealous because their fierce rivals (Brazil and Chile) are upgrading their weapons. Chile with better but used weapens while Brazil is doing the smart way. It's also sad that they can't accecpt by puting in their thik head that they don't have the money to confront the UK, “again”. They only destroy themself, what is perhaps the best way for them, “again”, to realize that their country has become long time ago just a territory for a group of people with fake pride, without having a “real” identity, and only lived aboved their means. If you look closely at the emblem on their flag, you see a “sad” sun. That truly represent the people there, sad, and full of hot hair (empty). So this is true: “Don't cry for me Argentina, you will always be the land where you never become what you want to become”.
Really? A nation without a defence is worthless. A nation must have weapons to defend its borders and interests, so not, it will become a wild west territory (like yours)
“Argentina prefer to spend money in internal security, education, health”.
Do you really believe that, while the truth shows a complete different story? Nitro, Your government is spending 'borrowed' money like crazy “again”, and still, it's been proven that your nation is the worst when it comes to education and health. Okay you beat Bolivia and Paraguay. Truth is, you had it in the past, but you lost that position, long time ago. The number one 'private' Hospital(s), in Latin America are in the State of Sao Paulo and also the Universities. Other states of Brazil are more developed than your nation as a whole and defeat you when it comes to good hospitals and universities, where plenty of argies with money study, and don't go back after their study. I have seen that with my own eyes. There are also plenty of argies studying here in the US (Boston-MA, NY and Miami-FL) and guess what, most eventually stay. What does that tell you huh?
Chile scores higher than your nation in all points. Even Peru is beating you..laugh. Now all what I typed here are not from some crazy anti argie study, but numbers from the UN. You cannot always trust the UN, but in this case I trust them more than an Argentinian who followes it's government unaware. A government that “cook” it's economic/statistical numbers, who is jealous, stuck in the past and comes out with crazy socialist rhetoric about the Falklands, that was never theirs. Conclusion, that is the path to destruction.
so get real, take off your sunglasses, before it' really to late. At the otherside, I applaud your nation to go further with their ”fantasy pro che socialist rhetoric' and destroy itself ...:)....
The Islanders are now playing with fire....I hope they have a bucket ready ahahah
but don´t forget that britain previosly invaded argentine malvinas in 1833; that´s the cause of conflict; britain is the cause with her imperialism, her colonialism, her hunger of domination all south atlantic at argentina expenses . Argentina is not at britain shores with military bases, britain is in argentina shores with military and warplanes threating us and trying to gain territorial advantages.
When kelpers ask their master to leave we will leave in peace, britain is the only cause of conflict. Kelper and argentines have the potential to be friends and partners; but please, don´t expect argentina to accept british presence, we will always fight against that foreign presence.
It´s kelpers choice, you can choose to be free and modern citizens without colonial masters so we can be friends; or you choose the conflict, being colonial subjetcs and accepting the british foreing domination.
Of course imperialism was driving things in 1833, just like Argentine imperialism drove the conquest of the desert in the 1870s, however we are now in 2009, nearly 2010 and today in the age of the United Nations it is the Falkland Islanders self determination which counts above all else - and please don't try the implanted population or territorial integrity red herrings, because Argentina propaganda like that has been demolished time and again.
Yes, it is the “kelpers” choice. If they freely choose (which they have done many times) to retain the British link, well then so be it. Sadly this right is denied them by your own Argentine constitution, so how you can spout the self-serving tosh above about being friends if the British link is dropped etc beats me. Because of your country's stupidity in 1982, the Falkland Islanders are now once bitten and so twice shy.
As for choosing conflict, don't forget, everything was peace and light and friendship between the Falklands and Argentina until Juan Peron came along and screwed it all up. Sadly, Argentina has not really recovered from Juan Peron...
training whales and penguens as spy there ???...or
may be to make a Finance Center which competes
against Hong Kong .. pardon Off-Shore countries !!??..
“”“””Oh and shots were fired in 1833? No, none were fired. So much for bellicose! The illegal Buenos Aires (let's not forget that Argentina did not exist in 1833) garrison was removed peacefully. Most of the civilians stayed on, some of them for decades afterwards.“”“”“
Thats only show your ignorance even of your own version of history. Do you mean that there was no invation becouse no fire was shoot?. Acording to what you said above Argentina did not exist in 1833, so what garrison did you removed? a spanish garrison?.
Look, in 1833 Argentina existed as an independent nation from 1816 officially, was in possetion of malvinas until 1833, and was recognized by britain as an independent nation in 1825 with a treaty of amity, which was a treaty that recognized in britain Argentina's independence with no mention or protest to Argentina's total control of sovereignty on malvinas islands.
That treaty was signed on 2,feb of 1825.
assets.cambridge.org/97805218/07791/excerpt/9780521807791_excerpt.pdf
About you second paragragh, when you say that ”“”“don't try the implanted population or territorial integrity red herrings, because Argentina propaganda like that has been demolished time and again.”“””
The UN decolonization committe recognize malvinas as a special case of colonialism that differs from other cases becouse of the sovereignty dispute. And i dont see people supporting islanders wishes other than sierra leone or fiji islands.
The rest of your comment was purelly nonesence.
Now it´s the same, you like Valenzuela are hoping for another Menem, but that´s won´t happen...Kristina 2011!!!
For being honest with my opinion, some of your arguments are very exigous, i have talking to my profesors, and they told me that some arguments are true, but there are also enough reasons to hold that we have rights on the islands, on the other hand it's very complicated to talk about the conflict by this forum, because the priblematic is almost never ending, if you want i can give my i mail, and keep us in touch.
I just want to say that what hapened the 3 of yanory of 1833 was a real invasion by bretain, we dont have to forget that the islands were already ocupated by argentina, so why onslow told them to low the argentine flag?, the san lorenzo treaty didn't recognize the islands as british eather, beside if we think it just for a couple of minutes, we can realise that how a incipient young nation like argentina in that time, would front the most powerful colonial power of the world?, i am sure if the authoritys didn't leave the islands in a pacefully way, i dont think john oslow would doubt one minute on killing all of them, the empires have always do that, the falklands malvinas woulden't by an eseption.
I will always hold that the solution to the conflict is debate, debate, and debate, i know it doesnt exist betwen us, but like all of us or not (argentines and islanders), the solution to the conflict must benefits both sides, because all of us have solid and legitim rights.
I hope your answer.
If you are so worryed about a future default by argentina, read the argentine newspapers and see the anouncement of president about the payments for next 2010.
Any way i dont think you are going to understand it, you wont never understand that we are not so ignorant and pathetic as you are, and we all know that we are not in any disnay land plan, we have serious problems since many years ego, but we have also great aspects like any other nation, on the other hand, if it makes you happy, keep on believing that we are so decadent and our future is catastrofic, that surelly we will became the poorest nation of latin america.
Y our view only shows the tipical arrogance of opulent societys, or may be in your case i should say, ex opulent societys, like my country, like it or not, to finish my comentary with your apocalipsis vitions, i am sure yuo must be a frind of lilita or of any other argentine speculator politic.
I f the future for aregntina is so bad, we will always recover from any crisis, we can teach you if you want, we have a lamentable experince on that , that was because of the irrisponsable authoritys that we had.
Laugh...Isn't that the female version of Menem? Laugh...Oh you argies are so funny (morons)
I find it just hiarious how clowns like you, juan and idiot nitro are so busy with a territory that doesn't and never belonged to your country, rather than fixing your crap between your “true” borders. How sure am I that your nation will default again? Very sure. Since the day your idiot president nationalized the pension system (poor argies, they already had nothing), it was a sign that Argentina is in deep trouble. It is already been proven by many “non-argentine” experts ( seekingalpha.com, you can read) that your government is an excellent cheater ( well, actually behind Greece) and an increddible low budget illusionist in creating fake numbers, “cooking” the books, so that idiots like you keep on believing the nonsense plus plus plus, important, can beg more for fresh funds, more debt. That you believe your own nonsense in the “argentinian” newspapers (gosh, they are not biased and in bed with the kirchner administration) doesn't surprise me, but to call yourself a “future” professor who study at an “excellent government” university is Hilarious..LAUGH. You will never recover from any crisises so long you don't face the true situation, and that's the case in your silly country. Here in the US we know we're in trouble and that's why we will recover. I bet your doesn't, for one worthless peso so I know you can pay me. Something what your country doesn't, you should be ashamed to be argentinian with a government like that and an irrisponsible population.
Axel, I don't think Argentina's so called “rights” are very solid and nor are they particularly legitimate. If the UN thought that the Argentine claim had any legitimacy they would have awarded the islands to Argentina a long time ago.
More than that, i gave you a link from the Cambridge University that state the treaty signed between Great Britain and guess who? Argentina.
assets.cambridge.org/97805218/07791/excerpt/9780521807791_excerpt.pdf
“”“”“”Woodbine Parish signed the Treaty of Amity with whoever was in control of Buenos Aires at the time and they certainly did not call themselves “Argentina” then.“”“”“
Who was in control of Buenos Aires at the time then?. The spaniards? the indians?. May be you reffers to the United Provinces of the River Plate name, which means officially and legally Argentina.
J.A. Roberts, When you say ”whoever” was in control.... show how little you know about, our history, and yours.
www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/56/a5623p2.pdf
in the link above it is mentioned in the report of the decolonization committe the special and particular colonial situation. Page 11, nº1.
www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gacol3196.doc.htm
It is mentioned again.
www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gacol3197.doc.htm
In the link above it is mentioned the acknowledged of the “special and particular colonial situation”, which differed from others because of a sovereignty dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom.
I recomend you to read it all, its very interesting.
Yes Billy, our independence was in 1810, but i was avoiding giving further explanations, so i said 1816 when we were officially independents.
What matters today in the Falklands and is paramount - are the democratic wishes(not interests) of the people of the Islands. That is the key issue. Yes the feelings and views of Argentina need to be taken into account as you are next door neighbour - and somehow a solution reached that you can live with also - but the key principle is and will be - the principle of self-determination - the wishes of the people.
If your real key issue is Britain in the S Atlantic - then back off from the aggression and britain will have no need to be militarily in the S Atlantic and we can continue gradually moving towards a suitable form of mini-state Independence.
Argentina is not the only legal heir to the United Provinces. You could just as easily argue today that Woodbine Parish signed a treaty with Uruguay, because Uruguay is also heir to the United Provinces. You might have been independent in 1810, which countries recognised this?
Your first link is to a special committee resolution which also refers to many other GA and SC resolutions all of which enshrine the Falkland Islanders right to self determination, something which Argentina still refuses to recognise. This resolution also reaffirms the “non use of force” principle, which Argentina patently ignored in 1982. You can't pick and choose the bits of international law which suit you. The decolonisation of the Falkland Island is special only in as far as a sovereignty dispute exists between the UK and Argentina, the options for the Falkland Islanders are no different to what they are for the people of any other non self governing territory. Argentina has proved time and again that is is unfaithful and untrustworthy. The irony is despite all fo this Argentina was on the cusp of getting the islands by the beginning of the 1980s but then you invaded and now it's doubtful that you will ever get them. You can't just set the clock back and pretend that the 1982 invasion did not happen.
Your second and third links are about the special committee reaffirming the the principle of self determination as a fundamental right but the irony of this seems to be lost on you. It seems you simply did a google search for the words “special and particular” and didn't bother to read the rest...
“”“”What matters today in the Falklands and is paramount - are the democratic wishes(not interests) of the people of the Islands.“”“”
According to who?.
Then you said:
“”“”If your real key issue is Britain in the S Atlantic - then back off from the aggression and britain will have no need to be militarily in the S Atlantic and we can continue gradually moving towards a suitable form of mini-state Independence. “”“”
Islander, you are britain!!!!.
If you need an ophthalmologist, gynaecologist, ENT surgeon, orthopaedic surgeon, psychiatrist, and oral surgeon you have to wait for visiting specialists that comes from the uk or fly to chile.
Your seniors magistrate John Trevaskis came from england. so he is the guy on criminal defence, civil and family proceedings, Military Law, immigration tribunals, Licensing Law and Fishery prosecutions. Your chief justice other nonresident Christopher Gardner.
You TV service is provided by the armed forces. Your economy is based on the numers of fishing licence you can sell and the “falklands islands company”, a publicly uk quoted company on the London Stock Exchange.
The islands director of finance or financial secretary Keith Padgett came from the uk.
David Waugh is General Manager of the Falkland Islands Development Corporation, came from london.
Steve Dent,
I can put names all day, to demostrate those who came from london, are you doctors, specialist, bussines man, etc.
J.A. Roberts, you are absolutely wrong. You said:
“”“”Argentina is not the only legal heir to the United Provinces. You could just as easily argue today that Woodbine Parish signed a treaty with Uruguay, because Uruguay is also heir to the United Provinces.... “””
First, Uruguay was anexed to Brazil from the year 1821 until 25 august 1825 (after the treaty of amity) so they do not formed part of our nation at that time. Secondly, we are still legally the United Province of the River Plate.
I do not pretend that 1982 war did not happen, like i do not pretend the 30.000 dissapeared argentine people in that time did not happen. You should not pretend that wining the war will let you owner those islands.You should not pretend that losing the war will take us our rights over those islands.
J.A. Roberts, you should read more carefully the reports of the UN decolonization committe.
Bretain and the F.I.G refuse to discuss about the conflict, and our goverment ignores the islanders, the posture of the three goverments is pathetic, the only one debate about the sovereignty is this forum, it's so sad, as long as the three parts dont recognize the legitimate rights of all of them, the conflict is never going to finish.
If argentina wouldn't have solid rights, the U.N. wouldnt call both sides to negociate, and if bretain and islanders wouldn't have legitimate rights on the island, the U.N. would tell argentina to drop on it's soveriegn clame, any way powerful nations do whatever they want, it has always been like that, and i think it will always be, so the status quo in the islands could remain for houndred of years surelly.
Axel, actually the UN recognises the islands as British, it was the UK who voluntarily added the Falkland islands to the C24 list and as yet the UN has not removed British sovereignty.
Sadly you are correct about this being one of the only forums for discussion. Until someone makes a concession there will be deadlock. Personally I think the ball is in Argentina's court. The UK negotiated with Argentina through the 70s, the navigation agreements etc and if it was not for the invasion it is very likely the Islands would be Argentine now. Luis says it's about winning and losing, but it's not. It's about trust, and when Argentina invaded trust was lost. You and others have proposed a formula, where sovereignty is transferred to Argentina and then immediately the Islands are given independence. A workable solution, but the trust is not there so unlikely to happen. Even from more recent experience, the 1999 agreements and the 1990 fisheries and 1995 hydrocarbon have all been broken by Argentina. Given all of that how can the Falkland Islanders trust you to do what you say? I think it is up to Argentina to start speaking directly to the FIG and building trust and do so consistently. That way the next generations of Falkland Islanders might not see Argentina in the same way that their parents do.
We are only 3000people - please show me a rural town in your country with population 3000 that has all its own locally born specialists and professionals with nobody working from big cities covering those type of jobs - also oin our 3000 we have to run not just a little town administration but a national government one. o we import the proffessionals we need - just like a small remote town in Argentina - that town from a city - us we have to get from another country. Since many of our laws and legal systems are British origen we recruit from britain - that is only sensible and practical.
You said:
<<GUYS, the U.N. doesn't recognize te islands as british eather nor argentine, they recognize that there is a conflict betwen both countrys around the sovereignty of the falkland malvinas islands, and it calls both sides to find a solution to the conflict by negociation.>>
This is not a valid statement. The UN actually DOES recognise the Falklands as a British Territory and the UK as the Administering Power which is obliged to report to the UN on a regular basis what progress is being made towards the inhabitants achieving a “Full measure of Self-Government” and what is being done to ensure that the inhabitants are being assisted to develop their natural resources for their own exclusive benefit. The UK does report on these matters on a regular basis to the UN.
The very reason that the Falklands was included on the C24 list of territories to be “de-colonised” is because it was (and is) a non-self-governing country under British Sovereignty that had not yet achieved a full measure of self-government.
The UN recognised, at Argentina's request, that Argentina disputed British Sovereignty. This did not and never has meant that the UN agreed that Argentina had a legitimate claim it was merely acknowledging the existence of the situation that pertained and of which it had been advised. It invited the parties to find a peaceful solution to the declared problem. Nothing more, nothing less. The UN does not make judgements on sovereignty or otherwise in International Law. This is a matter for the ICJ where Argentina could if it chose to do so request a non binding ruling on the legitimacy or otherwise of its claim. This would not involve the UK being bound by any such decision. Argentina has never sought to have its claim legitimised in any body qualified to give such an opinion, it tends instead to shout about its claim in any meeting or forum that cares to listen except the very one that could in fact make a ruling. This rather silly performance is carried on as a diversion to avoid any challenge to it legitimacy. It neither strengthens or weakens its claim one way or the other to use these forums as a sounding board for its claim whether they support the proposition or not. He who shouts the loudest does not always win the game.
The British position on sovereignty has never changed from the very outset of Argentina's claim at the UN in the very beginning. The British representative said then in the early 1960's at the UN:
<<el representante británico afirmó que su gobierno estaba convencido de que sus actividades “de épocas anteriores habían sido suficientes para darles buenos títulos sobre las Islas Falkland por ocupación”. Además,
el establecimiento de la soberanía británica mediante una abierta, continua, efectiva y pacífica ocupación por casi un siglo y medio daba al Reino Unido un claro título prescriptivo. La Argentina no había protestado constantemente desde 1833, como había dicho su representante, sino que había guardado silencio por espacio de hasta treinta y cinco año. Los isleños no tenían relaciones con la Argentina ni las deseaban aparte de las relaciones amistosas normales entre países vecinos...Los isleños eran quienes debían determinar en definitiva su propio status y...el Gobierno del Reino Unido, que no tenía dudas respecto de su soberanía, se atenía al principio de la libre determinación (CARI I, 181).
Which roughly translated says;
the British representative affirmed that his government was convinced that their activities “of past times had been sufficient to give it good title to the Falkland Islands by occupation”. In addition, the establishment of British sovereignty by means of an open, effective and peaceful occupation of almost a century and a half gave to the United Kingdom a clear prescriptive title. Argentina had not protested constantly from 1833, as its representative had said, but had kept silence for periods of up to thirty five years. The islanders did not have relations with Argentina, nor wished to, aside from the normal friendly relations between neighbouring countries... the islanders themselves are the ones who have to really determine their own status and... the Government of the United Kingdom has no doubts in respect of its own sovereignty, and had always relied on the principle of free determination (CARI I, 181).>>
Even in the 1970's when the Foreign Office used all of its considerable wiles to give to Islands to Argentina, come what may, the above position did not change from the point of view of the UK Parliament. It was free determination then, was in 1982 and remains the same today.
So the Islands do not hang suspended, like the coffin of the prophet (blessings be upon him!), in some sort of limbo between one sovereignty and another but are firmly under British sovereignty unless or until the Islanders themselves decide otherwise.
“”“”it's not about winning or losing the war. It is about your invasion in the first place. Morally, if you did have any rights, you lost them at that moment.“”“”
What makes you think that?.
Then you said:
“”“”You even put a link up above for a special committee notice which has the title “SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION APPROVES TEXT REAFFIRMING PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AS FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT”“””
It seems you didnt read the full title.
Members Conclude Consideration of Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Question
The non self-governing territories are 16 not 11. This report consider that those evelen territories must be decolonized acording to resolution 1514 while with malvinas the UN acknowledged the “special and particular colonial situation”, which differed from others because of a sovereignty dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom and calls for negotiation between the UK and Argentina.
the you said:
“”“”actually the UN recognises the islands as British, it was the UK who voluntarily added the Falkland islands to the C24 list and as yet the UN has not removed British sovereignty.“”“”
The UN does not recognize the islands as british, they recognize its british administration, not its ownership. While would they call Argentina and UK for negotiation on sovereignty?. Perhaps you can show me your source of UN recognizing british ownership of the islands.
J.A. Roberts , what have to do in first place that the uk added the islands in the c24 list?. The uk wants decolonization, but at their “own” way. Thats means the actual status quo.
Islander, you described exactly the definition of colonization. The people who suposedly are a different entity of your “islanders community” are the ones who cure you, you cook for you, who clean the streets, who govern you, who protect you, who won games in your name, etc...
A small remote town in Argentina does not work like that. For example, a remote town in Santa Cruz province, does not need to full the town with porteños (Buenos Aires), they have their own police (Santa Cruz police), Their own ministry of education, their own ministry of health, their own ministry of justice, etc...
And even if they would needed porteños, they wont relegate of their nationality. You are british but you want to be something else, while you are not different from those who live in London, Liverpool, Glasgow, etc. becouse they actually came from those places.
Expat, you said:
“”“The UN actually DOES recognise the Falklands as a British Territory and the UK as the Administering Power ”“”
Pleaseee, where the UN recognize malvinas as a british territorie???? Where????? Give me the link.
No sympathy for any of you both.
Fourth, though many Argentinians have left the sunshine state since the crackdown on illegal immigration (ugh, they still do a lousy job here, thanks to PC language liberals), there are still to many Argentinians illegal in the US, according the Miami Herald, NY Post, but struggle. Also according to the same newspapers many more Argies in Argentina, socialist paradise, struggle to buy food (meat, bread, milk), clothes, shoes, etc. and struggle to believe their own government, specially about inflation. Oh wait they are lying too right? of course..Laugh. Same newspapers also explain why more argies are waiting in lines like dogs in front of the gates of the Italian and Spanish embassy to get the heck out of there ...gee, wonder why...and and and there are more Argies living and working in Neighboring countries like Chile, Peru and Brazil, where they work for someone or are able to have their own business (Import-Export, Restaurant or an Ice cream store under an italian name (they are ashamed of their Argentine Identity..oh wait, they don't have one..laugh). Anyway, There are more Argies outside than foreingers in Argentina. All of you fake patriot argies here have to ask themself why many ordinary middle class argies are desperate to get the heck out of their country. Any idea? Of course not, you're to proud for the truth. Answer is clear, they don't believe but KNOW that they no longer have or cannot have a future in their homeland. Poor people. That's the truth and I know by reading your comments that truth hurts for you idiots. You all know, but can't or wont admit because of you're blindless and fake patriotic nonsense and fantasies. But hey, again Keep on coming with those comments, it makes me LAUGH harder at you idiots...LAUGH.
“SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONIZATION APPROVES TEXT REAFFIRMING PRINCIPLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION AS FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT”“”“
”It seems you didnt read the full title.“ Actually, that is the full title above.
This document you link to is a C24 working paper for a recommendation to the General Assembly, whatever is above ”Action on Draft“ is discussion, nothing more. Please read the ”Action on Draft“ again, that is what has been agreed as a recommendation to the General Assembly, and there is says absolutely nothing about the Falklands being a ”special or particular colonial situation“. Nothing. In fact, as I have stated above, it recommends that there be no alternative to self determination.
And another thing, it is generally accepted that C24 reports/resolutions/recommendations are not a source of international law, however General Assembly and Security Council resolutions are. The GA and SC have never accepted that decolonisation in the Falkland Islands is any different to decolonisation in any other non self governing territory.
”The UN does not recognize the islands as british, they recognize its british administration, not its ownership.“ Actually (as in ”de hecho“ and not ”actualmente”) the UN does recognise the Falklands as British territory. It is you who asserts the opposite, so I think it is you who should show us exactly where the GA or SC have specifically denied British sovereignty in the Falkland islands.
Expat Kelper above asks why Argentina does not go to the ICJ for a ruling? What not? Can you answer that for us Luis? Argentina nothing to lose and much to gain by a ruling in its favour. If your case is so strong why do you not go? If the ICJ rules in your favour then it would strengthen your case at the UN. Why do you not seek a ruling?
Colonisation? We invite these professionals in and we pay them with our money, our elected Govt can(and has done at times) sack them as well! No difference to importing say Chilean or Argentine professionals if we wanted.
How about a definition of colonisation - the occupation and control of a land AGAINST the wishes if its inhabitants- that would be the Islands if Argentina ever took over.
Modern Day Democracy has a basic foundation stone - the freely expressed wishes of a people to choose the government of their choice. We do it, You do it, Britain does it and many others.
On the other hand before criticising another country, you should make a self critic about what happened in the U.S.A, you said that we should be ashamed of our goverment, and you called us ,irrisponsable population.
Firstly Cristina Kirchner has the 30% of popularity, two years ego her husband has the 87% of popularity, now they very rejected, there are reasons for that, as you can see we are not so proud of our goverment like you think, beside talking about irrisponsable population, let me remind you that your soposed responsable population, voted bush twice, and took your country to the biggest crisis after the great depression.
Any way i think that people are not guilty of economic crisis, when people votes a candidat, it's because it trusts him, if the president finally is a corrupter or useless, the responsability doesnt belong to the people, it belongs to the politician, the populations are not stupid in any country.
On the other hand, i think that the proud that some one can feel for it's country, it's not base only on economic progress, notwistanding argentina is a rich nation or poor, i will always love it, because it's the place were i was born, where i grown up, and it's the country of my family.
About our furture, may be your right and we are going to have another default, crisis crisis and crisis, but we will always recover from that, it's not the first one, we are used to have crisis every 6 years because of the irrisponsable authoritys that we had.
To finish my comentary, i recognize the good and the bad aspects of my country, you should do the same and recognize the responsability of your ex authoritis in this big crisis, if you dont do it, like or not ,you have no so much moral authority to cricicise another country, not to mention about insulting
why there is not a progressive party; why there is no labour party??
kelpers workers and middle class would be the winners of a developed society living in a no-conflict situation. In Malvinas there could be living at least half the population of Tierra del Fuego, receiving every year 500K tourists, most landbased; and oil, fishing, etc.
Why you don´t think in kelper nation?? for me it´s amazing.
Perhaps some ignorant people could be confused by the fact that in the 40´s the conflict entered a new phase with the creation of UN and the begining of the decolonization process in the post WW2 world.
Argentinas goverment ignores the islanders, they are not included in the negociation, i think it's a big mistake, on the other hand the u.k. and the f.i.g dont want to discuss about the sovereignty issue, there is no debate in absolut about it, each part of the conflict is an obstacle, it seems like if they actually want to remain the status quo, the only one good news that rode lately, is that ypf is going to explore that bassin of the malvinas-falkland, that's a great news not only for the islanders, it's very good for us too, if is it found oil and gas, we will profit it.
YPF will be exploring Malvinas basin but outside the unilateral exclusion zone imposed by britain.
About exploring the bassin of the islands, notwithstanding is not inside of the exclusion zone, the fact of exploring the bassin is a great news, we need more oil and gas, luckilly it was found an important bassin in neuquen, but we must know all the potential that we have in the whole country.
en.mercopress.com/2009/12/24/father-christmas-arrives-for-lan-chile-with-contract-for-30-airbus-a-320
Mind you, no other country in the world would be foolish enough to spend so many millions on securing 3,000 people. With great economic decisions like that, no wonder Argentina's government wants its people to think of the Falklands instead of their own economic woes. This is called political misdirection. Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's economic woes. Argentina blames the Malvinas.
As for what the Malvinas' population may think, bullies don't care.
I dont like the posture of thet three goverments, in this way, the conflict is never going to finish, or may be in 100 years, i just hope i am wrong, and the three goverments understand they must find a fair solution to the conflict wich benefits the three parts, because they all have solid rights on the islands, i have studyed the problematic all my life, i keep on doing it, eaven i could know about the arguments of the islanders, that's why i hold that the solution must benefits all the parst of the conflict. HAPPY NEW YEAR FOR EVERY ONE.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!