Brazil extends sovereignty over undersea continental shelf
Brazil expanded the offshore area where drilling for crude or prospecting for minerals requires government authorization as it seeks to increase control over natural resources.
Prospecting anywhere on the undersea continental shelf that extends from the South American country’s coast will now require government approval, even in areas that are beyond current sea borders, according to a Brazilian Navy order published in the official gazette Sept. 3. The continental shelf is the extended perimeter of a continent between the coastline and the oceanic abyss.
President Lula da Silva has sought to increase control over offshore oil resources after state-run Petrobras made discoveries such as Tupi, the largest find in the Americas since Mexico’s Cantarell in 1976. Brazil is preparing a new sea-border expansion request to the United Nations after a 2004 proposal was rejected.
The UN generally recognizes a country’s maritime territory as the area within 200 nautical miles from the shore.
Suggested Stories
-
Feb 03rd 2012
Cuba’s pro-democracy blogger denied permission to travel to Brazil
-
Feb 03rd 2012
Brazil follows Argentina: sets up a special unit to monitor and control imports
-
Feb 03rd 2012
Brazilian minister travels to Argentina to discuss latest set of import obstacles
-
Feb 03rd 2012
Following on the Indian deal, France expects Brazil will purchase Rafale fighter jets
33 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.
Go fire on a Brazilian Navy ship and see what happens.
Why don´t use your brain even once in your lives....
Nobody can take what belong to other... so if FI belong to their inhabitants ...you can take them....
UN is good when it is useful to my goals, but when it doesn't ist´s a crap ...!!! Very straight deal.
This explain why your Gvt.'s have not honored thier sings(treaty, I mean).
Then who would we sell our old ships to?!
On the other hand, if the Brazilian Navy is stupid enough to become belligerent, it will meet the same fate as the Argentine Navy.
A blockade would, of course, be illegal. Any vessel attempting to deny right of passage in international, or indeed in territorial, waters would be in breach of international law. (UNCLOS)
I have little doubt that the Royal Navy would begin by warning such belligerent vessels off. It would then seek instructions from London. Negation of a belligerent threat by surface, sub-surface and/or air assets would be an obvious response.
But you aren't. Ships still arrive at the islands.
It's quite fuuny really.
In one topic he went on about how the islands were a colony and the colonial age is dead, then towards the end of the post claimed that because argentina maintains the most bases and people(or colonys) that they have the biggest claim to it.
And even if you read here on mercopress idiotic comments from Argies ...“Supporting Brazil and blockading ships going to Malvinas, what else???”
Laugh, as if Brazilians really care about helping Argies with their silly problems or blockading the islands that belongs to one of the their best trading partners when it comes to Navy ships. Get real Argies, UNASUR is full hot air talk behind close doors, while in reality everybody there defends their own interests...LAUGH.
The blockade affects ships related only to the oil exploration traveling from ports in Argentina to Malvinas. Though I suspect if the number of ships reaching the islands were to decrease you wouldn't admit it. And no, Argentina does not base its sovereignty claim on Antarctica on the number of bases it has there, you just picked one thing from a list and took it out of context.
If you think because Brazil purchased armament from the UK they won't use it against the UK, you're even dumber than I thought.
I don't spend every minute of my day stuck to the computer waiting to read your replies, I have a life.
One of the points that Argentina uses to support its claim to a piece of Antarctica is the number of bases it has. Conveniently forgetting that it had to be persuaded to take over a British base as its first base. Conveniently forgetting that Argentina's claim came 34 years after Britain's.
The important thing about that part of Brazil's surface fleet built by Britain is that Britain knows the capabilities, and weaknesses, of those vessels. Apart from the old French aircraft carrier, the most capable vessels they have are Type 21 frigates. After Britain got rid of her cheap Type 21 frigates, it moved on to the Type 22 frigate and is now on the Type 23.
Of course, no-one spends the day hunched over their computer, but F_A has a LIFE! Does that mean it's the day to see his probation officer or just that he needs to nip down to the pharmacy for his medication?
“The blockade affects ships related only to the oil exploration traveling from ports in Argentina to Malvinas”
Thats what you said, but ok. It only effects the ships going to and from the falklands regarding oil...which are none.
Sorry, what have you blocked? Nothing.
“If you think because Brazil purchased armament from the UK they won't use it against the UK, you're even dumber than I thought.”
Aye, they could try, the ships are good but not as good as the ones we are using, and they are using old weapons. Our anti ship missile has almost double the range of the one they use.
Not to mention our fleet has three carriers(if needed) and double the surface fleet, and sub fleet, is the main reason the brazilian navy wouldn't attack ours.
I guess I was wrong all along!!
Nobody´s going to wage war on anyone in the Atlantic.
England cannot wage war by themselves anymore, their political leaders are so vanilla today they can´t even convince students in a London University pottery. Besides being broke to the bones right now, it will be too costly for England to wage war on any country in the world. Everytime England engages in a conflict they lose more than they win, it´s like they love to hit themselves in the head with a hammer. The last great war they “won” and paraded around as “victors” but ended up financially broken, lost their entire empire and said goodbye to most of their influence abroad.
With all due respect for my latinamerican friends, what´s Brazil or Argentina going to do? Lose the few aircraft carriers they got in the first minutes of a war against a fifth generation army, with a legendary military tradition and armed forces in full readiness as they continually train in real war scenarios, along their american buddies invading banana and oil countries around the world? their army is capable of taking down any russian, chinesse or american aircraft in a snap.
Besides, the south american´s weaponry, aircrafts, vessels and airfighters, they all came at tremendous costs to their already poor populations, they spent billions of dollars much needed to spend in social programs, education and health care.
Give me a break guys. Let talk some sense.
Fernando you pretty dim in the brain cell dept if you think that fleets of ships are required to service one rig, no the gear is just shoved on the 3-4 regular ships that travel between Chile and Uruguay, they even stick some on the LAN flight.
And you don't think a major logistic operation in a harsh environment wouldn't have set up a forward logistic base in the islands?
You see the ironic fact is that Argentina has known for almost a year before the guardian arrived that drilling was going to happen, the gear and drill heads where shipped mid 2009, even the FIG had the courtesy to tell the Argentine government they intended to drill in 2008 no protest hmmm?
So why on earth when KK is flagging in the polls (coincidentally when the guardian arrives) does the Argie government start cranking up the old Nationalist machine?
There are only three nations in the world who can wage war in any part of the world, US, UK and france.
“Everytime England engages in a conflict they lose more than they win”
It's a common misconception that the empire broke because of ww1+2, but thats not the case, those wars defenantly speeded up the process but the world was changing and the empire's time was over all. If ww1+2 had not happened, there would still be no empire. The break up would have just taken possibly 20 to 50 more years.
Also, what wars have we ever “lost more than we gained”? I can think of few, England has been in more wars than any other nation in it's history and lost very few of them.
See what we're dealing with Jose?
But let us look wider. Who is attempting to impose economic sanctions on whom? Would that be Britain on Argentina? The Falkland Islands on Argentina? No to both of those. Argentina on the Falkland Islands? Yep. In total contravention of the UN Charter, Argentina is attempting to interfere with the economic development of the Islands by its inhabitants.
Does Argentina have any legitimate claim to the Islands? No. What they generally do is to twist or invent things to support their imperialist colonialist ambitions.
Let's be clear. Argentina has a total land area of 1,068,302 square miles. The Falkland Islands have a total land area of 4,700 square miles. Why would Argentina care about such a small area? I reckon it's fairly easy. For almost the first time in its short history, Argentina wanted something. Someone else told them they couldn't have it. If the subsequent Argentine attitude strikes you as being similar to childish tantrums, you wouldn't be wrong. Only consider its approach since 1982 when it got spanked. Instead of taking its claim to the one body that could give a definitive judgement, it has chosen to seek support ANYWHERE else. Effectively, “Look how big my gang is. Now give me what I want.”
Unfortunate that they've picked on the wrong people. Britain and the Falkland Islands will resist this bully to the death.
I beg to differ with you on some of your assertions:
“There are only three nations in the world who can wage war in any part of the world, US, UK and france.”
I don't think the UK and France are capable of waging war “in any part” of the world. They may be able to invade a small banana republic of two or three million peoples but not a normal size country.
The US is capable. They have military bases and presence all over the world, and unlike the venerable British Expeditionaries that are deployed in very small numbers around the world, the US has a huge, fully fledged standing army in readiness capable of nonchalantly taking down any threats and of “liberating” any country.
But Britain and France are not the world superpowers they once were and since they no longer control the world trade and finances as they did in their heyday, the shrinking size of their economies contrains their budgets and their ability to maintain large standing armies as they did in the past. Today they have to scramble to keep their financial numbers in good shape and their political and economic influence is ever more confined to their very borders, and even though their fine armies are some of the best in the world, their size is definitely a limiter in a world of new, vastly and ever more independent and better organized growing economies.
They might be able to take down some technologically inferior aircrafts and warships, but the technologic gap they once enjoyed against other countries has closed in and they wouldn´t be able to finish the job invading the country. Their military might is today more a persuasive form of what is was past times but time catches up with everyone and England and France or the US for the same matter, are no exception to the rule: sooner than later Brazil, China, and even Argentina will catch up with them.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!