Saturday, November 27th 2010 - 12:06 UTC

Unasur unable to agree on secretary; closes all ports to ‘illegal’ Malvinas flagged vessels

The presidents of Unasur (Union of South American Nations) meeting at a summit in Guyana paid homage to former president Nestor Kirchner, agreed to incorporate a “democratic clause” to the group’s charter, left for next month a decision on who will be named the next secretary general and had a special mention to the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the UK. Argentina also revealed that the post should be occupied by an Argentine.

The summit was considered a diplomatic success by Argentina

The democratic clause imposes sanctions on any member country of Unasur that breaks or attempts to break constitutional rule or the democratic system. Sanctions will be: suspension at the UNASUR; partial or total close of borders; suspension of commerce, air and maritime traffic, communication, energy provision and services; promoting penalization and political sanctions.

The clause has been taken as a priority after the recent conflict in Ecuador (when part of the police forces mutinied and attacked President Correa), and the coup in Honduras on June 28, 2009.

Regarding the Falklands conflict several articles of the final declaration state that all Unasur ports will be closed to vessels operating under the “illegal flag of Malvinas”.

This last statement and another referred to “vulture funds” or the organized hold-outs of sovereign bonds that do not accept debt rescheduling programs and demand full payment of capital and interest through international courts were seen as triumphs of Argentine diplomacy.

Before the official opening of the summit Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa (whose country held until Friday Unasur’s presidency) asked for a minute of silence to honour the memory of former Unasur Secretary General Nestor Kirchner who died of a heart attack a month ago. As the minute concluded the dignitaries present applauded and cheered.

In her speech Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner praised her husband’s will to walk down a path in the region from which there’s no way back and said that reaffirming the organization’s direction is the best way to honour his memory. “His goal was achieving growth and tirelessly fighting inequality and social differences”

Mrs Kirchner then thanked her peers from Brazil and Venezuela. “We have to remember him fondly. I would have loved to have him a few more years with me, but God only knows why these things happen. I would love to thank Lula da Silva, because along with him my husband could prove that there was no animosity between Argentina and Brazil. And also I would like to thank President Chavez for helping Argentina when no one would”.

Finally Mrs Kirchner recalled her husband as “a great creator of paradigms in South America and he was a unique, unrepeatable and wonderful man. He lived his sixty years intensely”. “Reaffirming Unasur direction is the best way to pay homage to Kirchner”.

Brazilian president Lula da Silva also praised the former Secretary Genral saying “he will always be a source of superior inspiration for the region’s politicians”, He added that “his dreams were shared by all South Americans”.

However in spite of the speeches and praise for Mr. Kirchner the presidents were unable to agree on a name for the next Secretary General.

Correa said “we must keep sounding and talking”, and recalled that when the post was created it was agreed it had to be a former South American president.

Several names had been originally floated: Brazil’s Lula da Silva who steps down next January and Uruguay’s Tabare Vazquez.

However Lula da Silva has his own plans to promote Brazil in Africa and Argentina would never accept Tabare Vazquez because of the long conflict over the pulp mills and it is known that there was personal animosity between the Kirchner couple and the former Uruguayan leader.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez added that the next Unasur secretary general did not necessarily have to be a former president, “there are great personalities that could very well be nominated, but I won’t advance names”.

Nevertheless he agreed that a decision should be reached at the coming Ibero-American summit scheduled for early December in Mar del Plata.

Brazilian sources in Montevideo said that following talks with several Unasur countries, the name of Marco Aurelio Garcia was seen as a strong candidate. Garcia is President Lula da Silva’s foreign affairs advisor and has been the driving force behind the creation of Unasur and promoting other regional integration processes.

Under Brazil’s long term strategy, Unasur in a near future should begin talks to join up with the Caribbean and Central American group of countries.

The Georgetown summit ended with Ecuadorian president handing the Unasur pro-tempore presidency for the next twelve months to his Guyana counterpart, Bharrat Jagdeo.

Out of the twelve member presidents, only eight were present since heads of state from Chile, Peru, Bolivia and Uruguay could not attend.

98 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.

1 falklandlad (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 01:09 pm Report abuse
Here we go again, more Argentine victimisation of the Falkland Islands. Clearly there is absolutely no preception whatsoever in el casa rosada, that current Argentine diplomacy (within Unasur) and unilaterally with its neighbours, is killing, and probably has killed, for several decades, peaceful understanding and appreciation in the south west atlantic. These new measure to alienate and drive forward a biligerent sea-blockade will haunt Argentina when the tide turns and the Falklands becomes the new oil province in the South Atlantic. Menem/di Tella were visionary and pragmatic; the Kirchers are just so appaulingly niave with transfixed selfishness, beligerence and victimisation to a level of hatred. The Falklands will get by without Argentina, and the more Mrs K seeks to victimise the more adamant we become that the possibility of any new relationship with Argentina will forever not be born. The greater the Argentine hammer wedge, the bigger the Falkland smile.
2 Zethee (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 03:14 pm Report abuse
1: Argentina has always underestermated just how stubborn we can be :)
3 Redhoyt (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 03:29 pm Report abuse
” ... “illegal flag of Malvinas...”.

What does that mean - exactly?

How many ships does that include - exactly?

What difference will it make - exactly? I'm betting on 'none' :-)
4 Islander1 (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 04:28 pm Report abuse
None- since all Falklands registered vessels fly the red Ensigns - same as UK or any other British registered vessel. We have our national flag yes - but like other British Territories all vessels operate and adhere to UK maritime Board of Trade safety regulations and fly the red duster as the merchant navy call it.
5 mastershakejb (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 06:24 pm Report abuse
lol @ these angry UKers/Islanders above ^
Fact is, no one yet really knows what these clauses indicate or the bearing it will have on UK ships in this region of the world.
6 stick up your junta (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 07:04 pm Report abuse
Dont flatter yourself master baiter,not angry, just amused
7 mastershakejb (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 07:42 pm Report abuse
Coulda fooled me and anyone else. lol u jealous of South America's booming growth, while UK stagnates for decades, it's very common.
8 WestisBest (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 08:47 pm Report abuse
Booming inflation is not the same as booming growth Mastershake.
9 briton (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 09:24 pm Report abuse
Argentina has not a clue to what she is doing, she is using personal vendetta against the Islanders and the British without fully understanding the consequences, no matter what happens in the future, if violence breaks out, Argentina will suffer unmanageable retaliation , for she knows not what she is letting out of its chains, the fact remains that if Britain goes to war , thousands or possibly millions will die , with the involvement of other countries, as many will be dragged in, and when it is all finished, the firing has stopped, the dead are buried,
the world will suffer for many generations to come, But the instigator in all this shit, [Argentina] will be no more, the land you know today, will no longer exist, argentine keeps pushing and pushing at her own peril,
the living has warned you, as the dead wont care, ?????????
10 NicoDin (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 10:13 pm Report abuse

“Argentina will suffer unmanageable retaliation... thousands or possibly millions will die, with the involvement of other countries, as many will be dragged in, and when it is all finished, the firing has stopped, the dead are buried”

Haha you are a very imaginative man mate.

I give 2 hours before the whole British army disappears from the face of earth.
11 briton (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 10:25 pm Report abuse
your words, your actions ?
12 NicoDin (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 11:03 pm Report abuse
and your actions ? ZZzzzzzz still waiting yours
Keep dreaming mate UK its not a threat to anyone and less on these days.

Too little for such arrogance Boomb and you shit on your pants.
You will pull out of Afghanistan just for 345 deaths. Imagine 3000 in a week sending back in plastic bags.
13 briton (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 11:10 pm Report abuse
how stupid can you get [and your actions ? ZZzzzzzz still waiting yours
we kicked you out of the falklands, that WAS our action, and your responce is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz silly billy
14 Islander1 (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 11:22 pm Report abuse
Also what flag is Illegal - illegal as defined by which formal INTERNATIONAL Organisation please? UN-IJC ?
15 Marcos Alejandro (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 11:30 pm Report abuse
”On this day, the members of UNASUR signed a document establishing an agreement not to allow the docking of vessels flying the “illegal flag of the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands.”

It also establishes a commitment by signatory nations to report to Argentina on the movement of hydrocarbon vessels bound for the Malvinas, Georgias and Sandwich del Sur Islands.”

#9 The truth is more important and more valuable than brute power.
16 stick up your junta (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 11:40 pm Report abuse
It also establishes a commitment by signatory nations to report to Argentina on the movement of hydrocarbon vessels bound for the Malvinas, Georgias and Sandwich del Sur Islands

And then what, King Canute ?
17 Think (#) Nov 27th, 2010 - 11:51 pm Report abuse
Yet another little nail on Britain's diplomatic coffin on the South Atlantic....
18 WestisBest (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 12:17 am Report abuse
Yet another nail many are you going to need?
19 Redhoyt (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 12:30 am Report abuse
Think ... you're an optimist :-) So many nails ... with no result.

NiceButDim - you've got to stop smoking that stuff while you've half a brain cell left.

The reality appears to be that UNASUR have signed a document which has little meaning. Nobody seems to know which ships fly a Falklands flag and informing Argentina that a ship is passing through when it's hardly a secret in the first place, is just a nonsense.

Wind and water ............ yet again :-)
20 Beef (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 12:55 am Report abuse
Nico - the might of the British Army are really scared of Argentina's catapults. Whatever you have been smoking then I think there may be a law against it.

Think - for nails to be of any use you also need a hammer. Argentina lacks this crucial military or legal tool. As a commited commie you will be aware that Chairman Mao said “real power comes down the barrel of a gun”. Whether that gun is actual or the weapon of economic policy you have a lack of cards left.

How many of the ships involved in the oil drilling are Falkland flagged. Answer = 0!

And you pay tax for that kind of policy to be implemented. Time you asked for a rebate for incompetence.
21 Redhoyt (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 02:22 am Report abuse
“ ... Yet another little nail on Britain's diplomatic coffin on the South Atlantic....”

Think - Sorry, I just re-read your one liner and realised it was not optimism, but disappointment. The wording of the agreement really provides nothing at all. I assume that Argentina had stronger words in mind, so therefore the final words were not those of Argentina. Whose then? Brazil again? They were reticent before, are they still wary of committing in any real sense?

Politics ...... dirty business !
22 Zethee (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 02:46 am Report abuse
“You will pull out of Afghanistan just for 345 deaths. Imagine 3000 in a week sending back in plastic bags.”

Yes, the british Army is so scared of the 345 deaths it's had in Afghanistan that it's going to retreat...

...In five years.
23 Billy Hayes (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 02:54 am Report abuse
256 decrete is dealing with chile & uruguay traffic to malvinas.

Not Piñera nor Mujica in Guyana.

Unasur message is Brazil message. Look.
24 Redhoyt (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 04:00 am Report abuse
Interesting link Billious, but did you read it properly?

” ... Asked about the impact on the Falkland Island Company (FIC) of the Argentine Government’s Declaration 256, which requires all shipping going to the Falklands from South America to seek permission from Buenos Aires, Mr Spink said that it had only a minor effect....Mr Spink said that that the principal victims of the Argentine Declaration had been suppliers in Chile who had lost a significant amount of business...”

Good way to keep your neighbours friendly ..... by hurting them economically!

As for Brazil, the piece (which is 10 days old) concerns the 'importation' of 'uncertified' goods. In other words, it is the Falklands authorities that are being difficult over the quality of the imports.

And what was the UNASUR message Billious? It doesn't appear very clear, other than they'll bandy words which may not mean very much in practical terms.

Even Think considers this nothing more than a 'little nail' :-)
25 NicoDin (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 04:44 am
Comment removed by the editor.
26 Billy Hayes (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 05:01 am Report abuse
We are not hurting a pacific neighbour as you say; we are only challenging british presence in south atlantic; kelpers can stay and make their business as peacefull neighbours but please, without british presence in south america and southatlantic.
27 Marcos Alejandro (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 06:08 am Report abuse
22 Zethee “...In five years”
Under USA pressure, UK Gov. want to get the hell out now.
28 jerry (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 06:10 am Report abuse
I have been out of touch for awhile, but I understood that not enough countries had approved UNASUR to make it´s charter official. Is it really an actual organization or still a pipe dream?
29 Redhoyt (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 06:36 am Report abuse
Billious, I've told you this before, even if the Falkland Islanders decided to opt for independence, that would still not remove the British from the South Atlantic. We would remain in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands ... and we still have our Antartic claims. Are you thick? Do you not see the strategy whereby South Georgia was given an Overseas Territory staus of it's own.

We are there to stay!
30 Think (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 07:12 am Report abuse
A diplomatic ”little nail” is not so much a ”doer” as it is a ”reminder”…….

A reminder to the FCO.

A reminder that you haven’t lost any business………….yet.

A reminder that you haven’t lost any face………yet.

A reminder that “Times They Are a Changing”.


It is a pretty little nail that, with a very simple rewording can become a beautiful 7’nail securing the lid of Britain’s diplomatic coffin in the South-Atlantic :-)
31 Redhoyt (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 08:22 am Report abuse
Oh Think .... an optimist after all :-)

32 Beef (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 08:37 am Report abuse
Think - for your coffin to be of any relevance then you would need a dead body to place in it. In terms of the Falklands, your little stunt in 1982 - a defeat some of your countrymen appear to revel in - made those remote and windswept islands a central part of the British identity.

The political discourse may have changed since the 80s but the UKs commitment to the Islands has remained.

All your leadership has done in make noise and toothless threats (election in 2011 the reason????). Anyway like my old choir master said “empty vessels make the most noise” empty like your hypothetical coffin.

Have a nice Sunday, roast beef and Yorkshire pudding day, yum!
33 stick up your junta (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 09:20 am Report abuse
Argies new national anthem

When you get in trouble
and you don`t know right from wrong,
give a little wistle! (Whistle)...
Give a little wistle! (Whistle)...

When you meet temptation
and the urge is werry strong,
give a little whistle! (Whistle)...
Give a little whistle! (Whistle)...

Not just a little squeak, plucker up and blow.
And if your whistle`s week, yell “Jiminy Cricket”

Take the straight and narrow path
and if you start to slide,
give a little whistle. (Whistle)...
Give a little whistle (whistle)...
And always let you concience be your guide.
34 Think (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 09:58 am Report abuse
(31) Hoyt
Sad optimism……
Describes me well, lad……

(32) Beef
A chicken chimichanga, generously speckled with “Dave’s Ultimate Insanity”, for me today…..
Duly washed down with a properly aged “Don David”…..
Enjoy the pudding…… (home-made by the missus, I hope) and remember to eat all your veggies boy.:-)
35 Beef (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 10:29 am Report abuse
Nah Think. Going to the Pub for the chef's special roast. Nice pint of real ale from one of the many small independent brewerys we have. Supporting small communities is what it is all about.
36 Redhoyt (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 10:35 am Report abuse
You have independent breweries ... hell, you're far more advanced than I'd realised. I'm in SE Asia ... stuck with bloody larger :-(
37 Think (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 10:50 am Report abuse
I know the hype and craze about those Micro Breweries in Europe….
You mostly end paying 10 Euros for a pint that, in a blind test, wouldn’t score more than 0 points….
Some Islands are very overrated too…………
38 Redhoyt (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 11:13 am Report abuse
10 Euro's ??? When I was last in the UK only a couple of months ago I was paying between 2.00 (GBP) and 2.50 (GBP) for a pint of decent Real Ale ..... nectar of the gods ... that Larger is SH#T
39 Beef (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 01:32 pm Report abuse
There are lots of delightful real ales on offer now that winter has arrived. Lots of festive combinations with some double hops and others that are dark and warming with traces of mixed spice and cranberry. If you are supping at home then I would recommend Badger's Poachers Choice - full bodied and very fruity. I remember a very strong ale called Pickled Santa, I remember it had a very sweet taste but my god did I have a bad head on Christmas Day morning.

Once again we find peace and common ground in booze!
40 Typhoon (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 05:05 pm Report abuse
I reckon this all a cunning ploy by Brazil. They reckon that if they play it just right and the cruise missiles fly, they will not only end their little favelas war but also solve any housing problems in Rio. And, as a bonus, get rid of those annoying neighbours in Buenos Aires.
41 mastershakejb (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 06:04 pm Report abuse
I want what Typhoon's smokin.
42 Forgetit87 (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 06:11 pm Report abuse
Typhoon in one of his agressive-teenage-boy revenge fantasies that will never materialize.

It's just funny how the UK and LatAm are out of sync. The UK speaks about restoring ties with LatAm, specially with Brazil. Meanwhile, Latm and specially Brazil, in only two weeks, make a series of pronouncements and decisions that are positively pro-Argentina and anti-British. How does that make you feel Typhoon?
43 Beef (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 11:00 pm Report abuse
Forget - there are plenty of hormone fueled revengists on these forums (of various nationalities). What I can tell you - and I have financial investment in the Islands - is that nit one announcement has concerned me. The reason is that any pronoucment has been purely symbolic and in no way affected my investment. Brazil at the same time signed a defense agreement with the UK and provides port facilities for ships moving to the Islands - military and oil related. These look set to continue so many Argentine neighbours are happy to show a “guesture of support” but are unwilling to take any actual actions.

In other words business as usual and we will see what happens after the 2011 election. Things will likely quieten down and if the FI becomes a new oil province then I imagine Argentina as a neighbour to the Islands would start to seek a collaborative agreement. This will be up to Argentine policy makers and while joint working is always preferable, Argentine involvement is not actually required.
44 Monty69 (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 11:36 pm Report abuse
'The democratic clause imposes sanctions on any member country of Unasur that breaks or attempts to break constitutional rule or the democratic system.'

This is the bit I especially like. Bunch of rotten hypocrites.....'this is what we think, right up to the point where we don't like the look of your democratically elected government, in which case we'll try and undermine it and then replace it with colonial rule'

Just goes to show what meaningless bits of paper these are.
45 briton (#) Nov 28th, 2010 - 11:46 pm Report abuse
Lets face it, is this not just Argentina trying to lead from the rear,
making out she is doing something, but in fact, without the help of others she can do nothing, she tries/begs/steals/bribes/corrupts, almost anything to get others to do her dirty work.
And as usual when the sparks fly she will cower in the background, surrounded by white flags shouting I have human rights/it wasn’t me honest, yeh crap crap , splutter sputter
46 PomInOz (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 03:55 am Report abuse
Based on the latest vessel-tracking information, there are currently 7 Falkland Islands flagged vessels in UNASUR ports...So, Baldrick, the cunning plan is working well isn't it?!
47 Think (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 06:10 am Report abuse
………In the first series of the show, Baldrick is more intelligent than Blackadder…………

…..…Baldrick continually invents many “cunning plans”, which are scathingly ridiculed by Blackadder………

……..Baldrick also proves more intelligent than Blackadder's other companions - such as Lord Percy or George - although only slightly……….

Source: Wikipedia…………
48 PomInOz (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 06:47 am Report abuse
...And his favourite vegetable is one of your favourite taunts, Think...the turnip!! As Basil Brush would say, “boom boom”!
49 Think (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 06:58 am Report abuse
As an Argentinean, I can easily identify the ”Baldrick” in me…
As a Briton, you should be able to recognize the ”Blackadder” in you :-)
50 WestisBest (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 09:36 am Report abuse
“Some Islands are very overrated too…………”

I assume you're refering the Falklands Think, Quite surprised you kick up such a fuss over them if that's what you believe.
51 Juanweather (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 01:37 pm Report abuse
Your are in deep shit!

I see a lot of comments like “Lets face it, is this not just Argentina trying to lead from the rear,
making out she is doing something, but in fact, without the help of others she can do nothing, she tries/begs/steals/bribes/corrupts, almost anything to get others to do her dirty work.
And as usual when the sparks fly she will cower in the background, surrounded by white flags shouting I have human rights/it wasn’t me honest, yeh crap crap , splutter sputter”

Typical whining, that happens when you know you're losing...
52 M_of_FI (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 01:40 pm Report abuse
Yes!!! Another nail in Britain's coffin. However, I am yet to understand how this is the case regarding this story, as it only refers to Falkland Island flagged vessels...if anything this only means the increased isolation of the Falkland Islands from South America.

I also have to mention another thing that I love about the Argentina posters... they seem to believe that the Islanders and the Brits are somehow terrified regarding Argentina's military strength or the state of the British economy...either they have terrible insight into the mentality of the Islanders and the British (this has been proven over and over again) or they like to comfort themselves with a fantasy, that someone in the world is afraid of Argentina...Personally I think it is both.

Years of living with Argentina's attempts to isolate the Falklands, leave me indifferent...not terrified. It does say something that a country of 40m+ cannot terrify a country of 3000. It just sums up the incompetence of Argentina.

Another nail in the coffin! Only another 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to go. Patience is the key!
53 Juanweather (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 03:25 pm Report abuse

why do we have to stand british on Southamerican territory??? that is why you are isolated...

You have to understand that it's inacceptable to have a european power in our continent, that's pure colonialism. Do not bring up that it is not, because if it wasn't for UK the island would sink!
54 xbarilox (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 04:00 pm Report abuse
@ Juanweather: “because if it wasn't for UK the island would sink!” Are you a British, Juan? Antoher fake Briton, as fake as they come.
55 Juanweather (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 04:12 pm Report abuse
nope, just pointing out that islanders can't survive on their own.
56 xbarilox (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 04:30 pm Report abuse
Ok, I understand, but the islanders are British too. The UK is sinking to the bottom right now. Let's hope to see their dead bodies sailing the deep blue sea.
57 Ant (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 06:56 pm Report abuse
Typhoon did not understand, it's silly your hymn to Argentina, is all they have?
“There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
It is an important diplomatic achievement of Argentina.
Soon the flag Argentina in the “Malvinas ”
58 briton (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 07:35 pm Report abuse
If anyone is sinking its Argentina, they cant swim/cant fight/
but they can run/show white flags/ is it not the union jack over the falklands. Where is the Argentinian flag [still in its box lol
59 stick up your junta (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 07:37 pm Report abuse
Soon the flag Argentina in the “Malvinas

Fill your boots Atom Ant
60 briton (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 08:05 pm Report abuse
Soon the flag Argentina in the “Malvinas [isn’t that in the pacific somewhere, still if you have to stick you whit flag somewhere it might as well be n the pacific, because it wont fly in the FALKLANDS will it lol
61 Islander1 (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 08:26 pm Report abuse
Juanweather, please clarify and explain why/how the Islands would sink without UK? We have been economically financially Independent of UK for some 130 yeasr since the 1880,s.
Defence yes we require, and are entitled to under the UN proclomations of selfdetermination of peoples, being as we are directly threatened by a foreign power.
Several on your side of the debate often make wild claims and accusations - and whenever challenged to explain and quantify - there is usually a total silence!
62 axel arg (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 10:36 pm Report abuse
I only will say that i dont agree in absolut on considering as illegal the flag from the islands, every culture have right to create their flag, even football teams have a flag, i think it was a some thing very stupid to say that islander flag is illegal.
On the other hand, like i said in many oportunitys, as long as the the u.k., and the f. i. g. keep on ignoring all the resolutions from the u.n., we will keep on having more and more of this kind of situations.
I will always understand the rejection of the sialndes to the fact of being part of argentina, i know that most them dont hate us, except for an idiot recalcitrant minority, but the point is that there are strong cultural reasons why the islander reject the argentine sovereignty, and that's all.
If the islanders would think deeply the situation, they would realise that none of the resolutions argue that the solution to the conflict is the transference of sovereignty to argentina, they only call both parts to find a nogotiated solution to the dispute, and that's all. if negotiations would exixst betwen both countries, both parst will have to cede in their pretentions, the islands wont never be only under argentine sovereignty, and the islanders will keep their autonomy and economic policys that they want to preserve.
I hope that some day, the u.k, and the f. i. g. leave their intransigence behind, and respect the resolutions from the u. n., if they dont do it, they will keep on being responsable for their own intransigence, beside my government should try to include the islanders to find bewten both parts a solution that respects the wishes and rights of both populations, anyway i must recognize that from the deepest of my mind, none of these posible scenarios will happen.
63 Juanweather (#) Nov 29th, 2010 - 11:13 pm Report abuse
I think everyone got lost between lines, when i say: “south america does not want you” I think i've said it all (at least not as an administered territory of the U.K). It's like a failed organ transplant, we reject it.

P.D: And that's how you would sink, blockage by our legal means.
64 briton (#) Nov 30th, 2010 - 12:57 am Report abuse
we cant sink, we have something you dont have, [plugs] lol
65 Islander1 (#) Nov 30th, 2010 - 01:06 am Report abuse
Juanweather, you are a relative newcomer here, the Islands are not an administered territory of the UK. We may have been 50-60 years ago in the days of Empire - they are long gone, We govern ourselves internally and have done for many years. UK is responsible only for foreign relations and defence - really only defence as we do our own representation at the UN Co of 24 and in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. You- Argentina are the only reason why we do not become fully Independent! We know that if we did - and thus no longer had the British Defence - your forces would re-invade very quickly and force us into old fashioned colonialism- the enforced rule by one nation over another people who do not want it.

Axel - we debate often but where are all these UN resolutions that we always ignore? Also you Govt has made it crystal clear many many times that they can have only ONE solution - Argentine control and flag flying over the Islands.- no chance of any form of “halfway” middle ground which you agree can be the only fair way. That is why our Govts dont sit down to talk - how can you when one side has already declared the only result it can accept?
66 Redhoyt (#) Nov 30th, 2010 - 01:26 am Report abuse
“ ... to the fact of being part of argentina ...”

It's not a fact Axel, is spurious conjecture on the part of a belligerent state.

It is also unimportant whether South America 'wants' the British in the islands. Want doesn't come into it. They are there and that is unlikely to change. we do not care what you want.
67 Billy Hayes (#) Nov 30th, 2010 - 02:26 am Report abuse
Your speech is belligerant; you are beting for ever lasting dispute.

JW is bringing a negotiated solution; independence x britain leaving.
68 Juanweather (#) Nov 30th, 2010 - 03:21 am Report abuse
Islander1, wrong on every single word you've said.
1- I am not newcomer, im here since commenting in mercopress was a dream.
2- Do you really think petroleum enterprises came to malvinas just like that? so you really think your govt brought them? are you sure sheeps and fishing covers the needs of the islands population without U.K interfering? (yeah sure, of course you need permission FOR EVERY SINGLE BREATH YOU TAKE)
that is what i called being dependant on someone/something, in your case U.K, is not just defence, let's not be hypocrite (foreign politics, power, transport, health care, higher education, and so on...)

again, hypocrisy OUT!
69 WestisBest (#) Nov 30th, 2010 - 09:53 am Report abuse

Regarding your second point JW, I understand that you need to believe all that because you have to to validate your position on the Falkland Islands, however with the exception of UK defending us you are entirely wrong. 'Sheeps & fishing' along with tourism and do give us sufficient income to be economically independant, Oil exploration was instigated by and is under the control of the Falkland Islands Government.

Hypocrisy?'s simply that your beliefs are wrong mate.
70 NicoDin (#) Nov 30th, 2010 - 11:34 am Report abuse
The offer now has increased:

2 sheep+bottle of Scotch and 10% off on one way ticket on tourist flight to Scotland.
71 WestisBest (#) Nov 30th, 2010 - 12:53 pm Report abuse
“2 sheep+bottle of Scotch and 10% off on one way ticket on tourist flight to Scotland”

For every Falkland Islander? it's a lot of ewes 'n' booze NicoDim, are you sure Argentina can afford it?
72 NicoDin (#) Nov 30th, 2010 - 07:06 pm Report abuse
Yeah may be I was too much generous lets say 5% 1 sheep and a can of coke.
That would be enough
73 stick up your junta (#) Nov 30th, 2010 - 08:39 pm Report abuse
Why would you buy what you “own”

The paco is doing your head in.
74 WestisBest (#) Dec 01st, 2010 - 12:48 am Report abuse
@72 good to see you at least are being realistic about your economic 'success story' Nico, are you sure you dont need to borrow some (more) money to buy us out of what is ours....oops! sorry about us out of what is yours I mean.

75 xbarilox (#) Dec 01st, 2010 - 02:55 am Report abuse

I hope this is possible, for the good of humankind.
76 axel arg (#) Dec 01st, 2010 - 09:58 pm Report abuse
I understand your posture, but, likes our government or not, if tomorrow, the u.k. decides to renew the negotiations, my country will have defenetly to cede on hes pretentions, in the same way that the u.k. will have to cede.
That's a fact, negotiating does not mean submition, like i said before, the islands wont never be only under argentine sovereignty, the islanders will fight for preserving their constitution and economic policys, in the same way that we will fight (only in diplomatic ways), to exercise our sovereign rights on the islands.
I proposed in many oportunitys, an idea that i could read from a couple of students from the university from oxford, that's about the creation of an autonomous protectorate, from the falklands-malvinas islands, the islanders will keep their policys and autonomy, and argentina and the u.k. will give them defence, and that's all, i think it's the best and the fairest solution i ever heard.
I am sure that if my government would heard that kind of solution, i dont think it would reject it, we all know that we will have to cede in our pretentions if the negotiations betwen both countries are renewed.
Beside, dont take into account only the articule from our constitution, wich reffers our claim on the islands, that was made to assure that all the governments in the future, will keep our claim, but, it does not mean that we will not have to cede, if we start to negotiate again with the u.k.
I really think that the u.k., and the f. i. g. use self determination as an excuse to avoid the negotiations with my country, if that right would be applicable to our cause, then ¿why, none of the resolutions from the u. n. invoke that right to finish with the territorial dispute?, i could read other resolutions from the u. n. regarding decolonization issues, and in those resolutions the general assembly argues that self determination has to be applicable to those cases, of it were applicable to our cause, the u. n. would recognize it.
77 stick up your junta (#) Dec 01st, 2010 - 10:50 pm Report abuse
about the creation of an autonomous protectorate,Trelew, with the The Welsh Assembly Government

Daft idea?
78 Domingo (#) Dec 02nd, 2010 - 09:28 am Report abuse
@76: Axel, self-determination is a fundamental right, one which you enjoy

Resolution 1514(XV) & self-determination applies to the case of Falkland Islands, which Argentina voted for. You can read the source text here:
Nota Bene: Declaration 6 reinforces Declaration 5. This protects territorial integrity of countries & peoples granted independence

The entire resolution addresses the rights of those peoples being granted independence, it does not confer any rights whatsoever on any countries which object to their independence, like Argentina objecting to Falkland Islands independence. Resolution 2065(XX) explicitly confirms 1514(XV) covers the case of the Falkland Islands & requires both the UK & AR to comply

It is hypocritical for the majority of modern South American states & especially Argentina, when they are populated through mass European immigration which has displaced & exterminated to native populations, to complain of colonisation when colonisation is the basis of many modern South American states

Fundamentally the reason for the demand for Britain to banished is due to South American racial discrimination. The Falklanders & British are non-hispanic & are therefore unacceptable to hispanics because they are non-hispanic. This is no argument at all

The British and the Falklanders have equal rights to be in the region and to exercise sovereignty over their territory as all other European immigrants into South American states.

The arguments about the British Empire are ridiculous and spurious, since it ceased to be over 60 years ago. The proper justifications for Britain being involved in the Falkland Islands today are the UK's role as an Administrating country under Article 73 and 1514(XV) and the free association of the Falklanders with the UK by free choice.

The reason for the UK's modest garrison is to act as a credible minimum deterrent against a repeat of 1982 AR invasion
79 Be serious (#) Dec 02nd, 2010 - 09:46 am Report abuse
Recent aggressive action by Argentina makes a deal impossible in the short and medium term. Negotiations can never start and could never succeed whilst Argentina continues to act like a bully. Isolate the Falklands and all that will happen is to make the Islanders more independent and more determined to stay that way.
80 axel arg (#) Dec 02nd, 2010 - 04:14 pm Report abuse
I rode in many oportunitys what you type, i respect your posture, but this is evident that your arguments are based more in a personal opinion, than in academic knowleadge and objetivity, all my arguments are based on the conversations that i had with professors in international right from the u. b. a. (university from buenos aires).
Answer me something please, ¿if self determination is applicable to the our cause, then why none of the resolutions from the general assembly, invokes that right to finish with the territorial dispute?, like it does with other resolutions that reffer decolonization issues.
In fact in 1967, the u.k. celebrated a referendum in Gibraltar, to ask the populations, what the sovereignty they preffer, the british sovereignty, or the spanish one, finally most gibraltarins chose the remain under british government, however the u. n. didnt take as valid that referendum, because it didn't respect the spanish territorial integrity, that fact shows the relevancy of territorial integrity, beyond if you, and many other forists in mercopress preffer to understime it.
If some day, one resolution from the u. n., invokes that self determination has to be applicable to the malvinas-falklands populations, then my country will have to revew seriously if it can keep on claiming for the islands.
Beside, the argument of the implanted population, is not good, most our populations from patagonia was implanted, after the extermination of the native people, many inmigrants started to populate the patagonia, this is why the claim of the native people will always be valid and fair, exercising our legitimate rights on the patagonia since 1880, as sucessors of the spanish kingdom, dont justify the extermination of a culture that lived there during many generations.
If self determination is not appicable to our cause, is not because of the british population from the islands, it's actualy because that would brake our t. integrity, and that's all.
81 Zethee (#) Dec 02nd, 2010 - 05:26 pm Report abuse
“If some day, one resolution from the u. n., invokes that self determination has to be applicable to the malvinas-falklands populations”

Axel, That is EXACTLY what the UN resolution says.
The United Nations has never called upon the British Government to discuss sovereignty over the Malvinas islands merely the problem caused by Argentina's revival of its claim and to discuss the problem of the islanders gaining there independance for there right of self determination.

”Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas); ”
82 Domingo (#) Dec 02nd, 2010 - 11:00 pm Report abuse
@80: Axel, the objections to the Gibraltarian referenda are technical. They were conducted without consultation of Spain, which was strictly a request of the UN resolutions on the question of Gibraltar

However, it is agreed that resolution 1514(XV) is fully applicable to the question of Gibraltar, which in declaration 2 explicitly states:

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”

I think if both Spain and the UK agreed to a referendum, the UN would accept the result

As commentators have stated, to ignore the overwhelming will of the peoples to be granted independence is undemocratic & wrong

Indeed, according to your logic Spain could successfully dispute the independence of Argentina on the grounds of territorial integrity simply by repudiating their previous treaty concluding settlement with Argentina & simply lodge a dispute with the UN over their disruption no matter how large the majority of Argentines who chose independence

With respect to the Falkland Islands, this is exactly what Argentina has done by ignoring the CONVENTION between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship which was ratified by both parties in 1851

I think in the instance of 1514(XV) territorial integrity must first and foremost apply to the peoples being granted independence & it is their territorial integrity that must be protected not those attempting to frustrate independence

I do not understand the argument as to how & why the Falklands, S. Georgia, Sandwich Islands or Br. Antarctica could be considered genuinely integral to Argentina nor what is the precise nature of the disruption to territorial integrity nor national unity that Argentina claim?

States seek stability & constant territories but history teaches they change by people's choice!
83 NicoDin (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 06:16 am Report abuse
Yeah I agree we have to respect people choice so...

Would you like to return back to UKI by Air of sea?
84 WestisBest (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 06:51 am Report abuse
Choices eh?

Would you like to start behaving like a sensible, honest, tolerant, democratic Nation.....or continue being Argentinian?
85 NicoDin (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 09:19 am Report abuse
Reading my post I have to recognize that the typing sucks. Haha

Of sea???

Anyway West seriously what do you prefer boat or direct flight?

We can arrange tasty Huggies for you meal if you want plus delicious Indian tea.
Also Kebabs are included in the menu don’t worry.
86 Domingo (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 09:22 am Report abuse
@83: “Yeah I agree we have to respect people choice so...

Would you like to return back to UKI by Air of sea?”

LOL. Very funny.

Not so funny for Falklanders or Argentines who have never been to the UK or Spain/Italy and call home the Falkland Islands or Argentina.

There is nowhere for them to return to, because they are already home.

87 WestisBest (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 11:32 am Report abuse

Setting yourself up as a travel agent are you Nico? very enterprising of you (for an Argie that is).

Not sure I like the look of your menu mind, Haggis & kebab? still I suppose one can't expect too much of a culinary extravaganza from someone who's idea of good food, indeed their national dish, is a lump of beef.

Also I prefer Ceylon tea.
88 NicoDin (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 11:49 am Report abuse
@ Domingo

“Not so funny for Falklanders or Argentines who have never been to the UK or Spain/Italy and call home the Falkland Islands or Argentina.

There is nowhere for them to return to, because they are already home.


I am relax Domingo thanks for your concern, but tell me something why persons that have never been in UK (according with you) want to be British????

Its there not something wrong here?

And here and analogy so you can see what we see:

I’m in Israel taking by force a Synagogue.
Claiming that I’m German supported by the German Army Force and Govt.
Repeating that I want to remain German, showing some pics of Adolf (by the way) while asking clemency to the Mossad and respect of my rights of self - determination to become a Nazi.

As that seems not enough I call some friends from Germany to make some holes and see what can take away.

And to make my situation even more precarious I start asking to go to the Skinhead International Court (AKA ICJ) to arrange my case legally.

Do you think that this its a good way to make friends in Israel or the best way to be killed?

Hey mate you have to agree with me that at least sound very silly what your thoughts?
89 WestisBest (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 12:17 pm Report abuse
I agree Nico, that does sound very silly, not destined to become a classic analogy I fear.

Perhaps if you said Palastinian rather than German....
90 lsolde (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 01:02 pm Report abuse
l think nico tico has finally cracked up. maybe he has a strange sense of humour or maybe none at all. hey nicolito, we're here & we're staying here. no more paco for you, me lad
91 NicoDin (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 02:22 pm Report abuse
No mates its what more people thinks even English speaker after your fanny stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan related to invasion, occupation Malvinas, and that kind of stuff. etc.

Most Argies don’t distinguish due to the media, little care, Anglo propaganda and your stick in the @ss of US (Special relationship) what its the difference of a English, Scot, Wesh, Irish or American.

You make that portray alone like you do here called yourself Brits what people associate more with English. Haha

People refer to been fighting the English in 1982.

But have another view on art, music, etc.

Everyone knows that Rolling Stones, The cure, etc are English, That U2 are Irish, that here there is a lot of Welsh (Knows as Galeces), Scots and Irish. But none think that and Scot or welsh was fighting against us. And none have Idea of where Camerom came from.

He could be confused with an American politician because he speaks English sad but its the reality of the shadow of the Uncle Sam and your over exposure to American foreigner policy I guess.

So after Bush/Blair era for normal people Anglos has become something general as Nazis child killers like you refer to us when talking about the Germans emigrated here.

Most people thinks in UK that a German emigrated to Argentina during WWII was a Nazi refugee.

Can you see that my analogy was not so far of reality?

Can you see Anglo propaganda its like when Americans where bombing during the WWII everyone get the blast.
92 stick up your junta (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 05:20 pm Report abuse
But none think that and Scot or welsh was fighting against us
93 WestisBest (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 06:18 pm Report abuse
British armed forces Nico, BRITISH. That means that BRITISH people serve in them, not just English. You really should try to get past your stereotypical 'Eeengleesh peegs' way of looking at the world Nico, you would appear much less of a knob if you did.
94 axel arg (#) Dec 03rd, 2010 - 07:49 pm Report abuse
I suggest you both, to read other resolutions from the general assembly regarding decolonization issues, they are all on line, you''ll see that in those resolutions the u. n. invoke self determination to finish with those colonial situations, zethe typed exactly what many resolutions about the malvinas cause argue, and as you can see, self determination is not included, when i can publish my survey, you'll read what the i. c. j. affirm about self determination, territorial integrity, and the right of sesession, i can't explain them here, we have no so much space, there are many aspects that we must take into account, beside, you know zethe that i respect your posture, but unfortunately, your arguments are based more in a personal opinion, than in acedemic level, like domingo does, there are planty of questions that you dont know.
I want you to answer me something zethe, if self determiantion is applicable to our cause, then why in none of the resolutions from the general assembly, it's argued that self determination has to applicable to the malvinas cause, it's simple, that's because it's not applicable, when you read other resolutions from the general assembly, you''ll see that it's perfectly invoked self determination as an inalienable right to finish with those colonial situations.
I included in my survey, a report from ernesto gross spiell, he was a very important uruguyan jurist, who argued that in some cases self detrmination is not applicable, i think those people knows much more than all of us, the problem is that some of you preffer to adjudge for your selves to be the owners of the international right, and make wrong interpretations.
On the other hand, domingo, it's a role from int. right, wich argues that when one territory declares it's independence, it inherites all the territory, inside of the former colonial limits, spain can't claim anything from our country, that's one of the most stupid assertions that i could heard in years.
95 NicoDin (#) Dec 04th, 2010 - 12:16 am Report abuse
@ stick up your junta & WestisBest.

People see you like this way mate English.

Do you really think that somebody will care about that link? Nah!

This its like you try to fine out from where was our soldiers Corrientes, Missiones, Formosa, Buenos Aires (Province) Capital?

Have you been looking for that? Surely not who cares.

So again normal people think of English what it its much better for you else they will thought...

Ah! Scot? Welsh? We can crash much easier those insets with our boots. Haha

Have you ever seen a country invaded by Scots or Welsh???

Bloody there are only sheep grass and trees. So shsss before someone realize here that and lunch an invasion to Scotland and Wells

True “English” casualties in Malvinas war in el Forro History and Mitology.

BTW this guy says TOTAL: 1090 deaths for Britain

“Verdaderas bajas inglesas en guerra de malvinas en el foro de Historia y Mitología”
96 Domingo (#) Dec 04th, 2010 - 12:48 am Report abuse
@94: Axel, unfortunately you are completely wrong when you quite falsely and quite disingenuously state self-determination is not applied in the resolutions about the Falklands and you fail to back up your argument with evidence.

The fact is resolution 1514(XV) applies to the case of the Falklands Islands as confirmed by resolution 2065(XX) and declaration 2. states the right of self-determination applies to the Falklanders. So stop repeating you're propaganda; you're lies that 1514(XV) does not provide self-determination for people being granted independence under 1514(XV) are clear for all to see.

Axel, you only argue the position of utis possedetis juris based on a theoretical inheritance, whilst in fact Spain retained its claim via a plaque in 1812 (one year after Argentina declared independence), and Spain retained its control of Puero Soledad beyond the creation of Argentina.

The UK and the Falklanders argue discovery, effective control, 177 years of prescription and uti possedetis after the 1982 war.

I am glad you agree the argument of territorial integrity is stupid in the case of the Falklands or Argentina, however, it is you who claimed it was valid not I, hence I used the illustration of Spain applying it to Argentina, to illustrate it was analogous to Argentina apply territorial integrity to the Falkland Islands, a point that you were not able to comprehend.

Axel, self-determination is applicable if a people declaring independence say it is applicable.

As a foreign power and foreign aliens to the Falklanders, Argentines have no say whatsoever in their choices or government. No more, than Falklanders or the British have no say in the lives of Argentines.

Thus the year-long reported opinion or otherwise of some random UBA academics you fail to quote, is of no consequence.

Unfortunately, you do not express yourself well & are hard to understand but I look forward to a meaningful & substantive answer from you at some point in the future.
97 stick up your junta (#) Dec 04th, 2010 - 09:18 am Report abuse
Have you ever seen a country invaded by Scots or Welsh???

True “English” casualties in Malvinas war in el Forro History and Mitology.

BTW this guy says TOTAL: 1090 deaths for Britain

What a nasty little boy you are Nicotine, I can only assume you havent been in a play ground fight let alone a war,any way if it gets you off good luck to you,but would be more healthy if you used the kays catalogue
98 axel arg (#) Dec 04th, 2010 - 11:02 pm Report abuse
I know that i make mistakes when i type some words, but you understand perfectly what i try to express, you are not stupid.
I suggest you to read resolution 2353 (XXII), regarding the gibraltar question, in that resolution you'll se what's the opinion from the general assembly respecting territorial integrity, you can read also many other resolutions about decolonizations issues, and you'll see that self determination is perfectly invoked in those cases.
Beside, inte chapter from the u. n., it's also included territorial integrity.
If the u.k. had any sovereign right on the islands in 1833, that was only on the gran malvina (west falkland), there was a garrison during 8 years, however the rights of the u.k. were very arguable, because they left the island in 1774, and during 59 there was no any british authority in the islands, during those years there were just exporadic settlements of british sailors, but they dont give any sovereign right to the u.k., because they were part of a soposed secret treaty betwen spain and the u.k., beside they didnt exclude spain form the archipelago, like the international right exacts, on the other hand, a plaq was insignificant for the international right from that time, but it was an usual practice.
In 1833 the islands were no body's colony, we were just trying to exercise unless in a precarious way our sovereign rights, beside we didn't need the consent from spain to declare our independence, in fact that country recognized us an independent nation in 1863.
I will always respect you posture, the opinion of the british people, and the rejection of the islanders to the fact of being part of argentina, but i prefer to take as valid, the knowleadge of academic people, not even the british professors who i included in my investigation coincid with your assertions, like it or not someday you, and you compatriots will have to understand that academic people knows much more than all of us.

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!