Uruguay bars vessels but will never share a maritime or economic blockade of the Falklands’ people
Uruguayan President Jose Mujica addressing his peers at the Mercosur summit in Montevideo ratified the country’s position barring Falklands’ flagged vessels from Uruguayan ports in active support of Argentina’s sovereignty claim over South Atlantic Islands, which has led to a serious diplomatic controversy with the UK.
However Mujica also stated that the Uruguayan government will never share the idea of a maritime of economic blockade of the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands because this represents a violation of human rights and contrary to a peaceful environment for sovereignty negotiation between Argentina and the UK, “the only possible path”.
“We hold nothing against the UK, but we have a lot in favour of Argentina,” he said regarding the ongoing controversy over the Malvinas flagged vessels and underlined that Uruguay’s position is consistent with what he called “continental solidarity”
“We have repeatedly supported Argentina on its Malvinas Islands claim,” he explained. “It implies that we consider it a colonial territory in our America, consequently we can’t recognize its flag”.
Mujica said that “principles and interests” cement Uruguayan foreign policy and “should not be split when measuring the real world”. Regarding principles ‘continental solidarity’ is one of the most important and Mercosur and Unasur have “repeatedly supported Argentina’s claims over the Malvinas Islands”.
There was an explicit declaration from Unasur in November 2010 regarding vessels sailing to and from the Falklands/Malvinas.
However he recalled that Uruguay allows British flagged vessels to dock and operate in Montevideo as can any other flag recognized by the United Nations that are heading or coming from the Malvinas Islands.
“But we don’t allow English Navy vessels heading for Malvinas to call in Montevideo and this is because of solidarity with Argentina”, added Mujica.
The Uruguayan government “will never share” the idea of a maritime or economic blockade of the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands because “we understand this is not helpful, is in violation of human rights and contrary to creating the necessary conditions for a peaceful negotiations, the only path to find a way out for the historic dispute”.
Last week the Foreign Office summoned the Uruguayan ambassador in London to explain the announced decision by President Mujica of barring Falklands’ flagged vessels from Uruguayan ports.
The Uruguayan Foreign Affairs minister Luis Almagro and the British ambassador in Montevideo Patrick Mullee are scheduled to hols a meeting on Wednesday.
Suggested Stories
-
May 25th 2012
Three former presidents admit Mercosur has failed and has Uruguay ‘trapped’
-
May 25th 2012
Argentina attacks WTO and US on trade issues at OECD ministerial round
-
May 23rd 2012
Falklands’ economy “booming” in spite of Argentina’s efforts of a blockade
-
May 23rd 2012
Spain, on the edge of a financial cliff, cancels all development aid to Latin America
25 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.
Mujica says that..:
the Malvinas settlers can migrate to Uruguay whenever they want..!!
Looks like he is aware that he has made this a right royal fuck up of this and whatever is said things will carry on as they have before.
It is very clear. UK should comply with resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37 / 9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39 / 6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute and reaffirm the invitation made in resolution 2065 (XX) Parties (Argentina and the United Kingdom). ”To proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on Decolonization United Nations.
Thanks Pepe ... you're a genius. From the interior of Argentina appreciate your solidarity and effort in our struggle.
Is either totally confused
Or under a lot of pressure from outside influences, like argentina,
He is totally uncoherent,
And speaks double dutch,
1, barring Falklands’ flagged vessels from Uruguayan ports
And then says
2,
However the Uruguayan government will never share the idea of a maritime of economic blockade of the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands because this represents a violation of human rights
3, We hold nothing against the UK [but] he explained. “It implies that we consider it a colonial territory in our America, consequently we can’t recognize its flag”.
4, Uruguay allows British flagged vessels to dock and operate in Montevideo as can any other flag recognized by the United Nations
[
But we don’t allow English Navy vessels heading for Malvinas to call in Montevideo,
If this is not double Dutch, or anti British of argentine sentiment, then I don’t know what is,
1, is the Falklands recognised by the UN
2, is Uruguayan breaking international law.
3, is she abusing the human rights of the Falklanders.
My only suggestion is that the British, government should get U/N sanctions against all those that are in this conspiracy to deny the Falklands the human rights that they are legally entitled to .
The British government and the Spanish government, should then protect all boats from argentine aggression.
And / or, the British thus should blockade these countries and remove trading with them,
Yes we will both suffer, but they more than us, we will get ours back, =they may lose theirs for good,
[do nothing] and they will think we are weak ,what will it take for the british to act,
[a few deaths perhaps]
,
.
Political solidarity is not lawful; UN Treaty and Rome Statute obligations are lawful, Mujica know the difference and so back pedals
Poor Mujica does seem to be trying to please everyone, and not managing it at all. I wonder if he got anything out of bully-boy Argentina ?
”The Uruguayan government “will never share” the idea of a maritime or economic blockade of the inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands because “we understand this is not helpful, is in violation of human rights and contrary to creating the necessary conditions for a peaceful negotiations, the only path to find a way out for the historic dispute”. Genius, excellent words.
Thanks Pepe ... you're a genius. From the interior of Argentina appreciate your solidarity and effort in our struggle.
Cristina is now claiming that the Falklands are a global issue - another complete duck !
falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/cristina-takes-the-chair-at-mercosur/
upping the anti,
looks like you may have push to far,
If you know anything about the british claim you know it is based on their principle of acquisitive proscription. See, they used to claim on historical basis but then they couldn't defend it against scrutiny. So they do what any good crook does, make an excuse to chuck the old basis and pull something out their bum.
In this case, what they pulled out is a principle that basically says “this territory has been administered by us for so long it might as well belong to us, no matter if we got by legal or illegal means”.
This is what argentina school children learn, because this is what the british say. We don't teach lies, we teach the truth and plain to see to all that the british think argentina's rights could never have been violated because argentina had no rights any british government would be bound to recognize.
You know, kind of like in the US the supreme court not so long ago ruled a black man had no rights a white man would be bound to recognize.
And then they have the bollocks to call us racist!
Oh and then the poor poor islanders are the victims, too!! Why yes mr. argie how dare you not allow our god-given right to treat you like the south american third world wankers that you are!! If we want your islands and your fisheries and your oil, we take it - that's that.
Hmm so all I have to say:
GRANDE PEPE. PLENTY MORE SPACE LEFT TO GO, BUT A GOOD START. RESISTANCE? “JUST MORE CUSHION FOR THE PUSHIN”.
PUNTA ARENAS IS NEXT. ENJOY IT WHILE IT LASTS. ONLY THIEVES WHO TAKE BY FORCE DON'T NEED TO NEGOTIATE - AND BEING SELF-RIGHTEOUS PRICKS COMES AT A PRICE.
” 2010 - “The UK Government’s position on sovereignty of the Falklands has traditionally been as follows:
The British Government has no doubt about Britain's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
With the exception of the 2 months of illegal occupation in 1982, the Falklands have been continuously, peacefully and effectively inhabited and administered by Britain since 1833.
Argentina's claim to the Falklands is based on the grounds that, at the time of British repossession of the Islands in 1833, Argentina had sovereignty over them through her inheritance, upon independence, of Spain's possessory title (uti possedetis), through her attempts to settle the Islands between 1826 and 1833, and through the concept of territorial contiguity. However, uti possedetis is not accepted as a general principle of international law. Moreover Spain's title to the Islands was disputed and in 1811 the Spanish settlement was evacuated, leaving the Islands without inhabitants or any form of government. Argentina's subsequent attempts at settlement were sporadic and ineffectual.
As for territorial contiguity, this has never been a determinant for title to islands (otherwise the Canary Islands, for example, might be Moroccan) and should not be used to overrule the right of self-determination.
The Argentine Government has argued that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right of self-determination, on the (false) basis that they replaced an indigenous Argentine population expelled by force. However there was no indigenous or settled population on the Islands until British settlement....”
“If we want your islands and your fisheries and your oil, we take it - that's that”.
Only problem is that they are our fisheries, our oil and our Islands.
We continue to keep them because they were ours before Argentina was ever invented and have remained ours for years and years and years.
So take that rather obvious chip off your shoulder, teach your offspring some sense and allow the distinct, hardy and courageous Islanders to determine their own future.
So then the question that remain for you to prove a claim would be the exclusion of a part of the territory, in this case the archipelago. How you intend to prove this rationally is beyond imagination. You have no presence for 40 years before argentina independence. You had title to ONE settlement, egmnont, and you agreed with spain to leave and not erect any new settlements on the island. After you left it was destroyed. Britain always claim right to its settlements, not to the whole archipelago.
So what happen in 1833? Magic? Because even if one considers their previous claim to egmont still valid - how you go from egmont to the whole archipelago??No, what happen was force of arms implied and then used against the gauchos who wouldn't have british rule imposed upon them. If they such murderers why they were found innocent and set free in montevideo? Britain most certainly DID replace the population by force in 1833. If you're a gaucho working for vernet stuck out there in middle of nothing in brutal cold and bunch of guys on a war ship armed to the teeth come and say “this is ours, you can stay and work for us now” what you gonna do huh?
Say no? Fight them unprepared and outmanned and outgunned? The islands were never yours. EGMONT was yours, you left. Mercosur knows this well.
the construction begins..........................................!!
Sure...go and tell it to Ghandi.
and you are a prime example
You see your problem is that you only want to understand your side of the argument which amounts to what you think a few dead gauchos may have thought 150+ years ago.
Of course it would suit your purposes very well to forget “possessory title” and the views of the Islanders but that ain't how the real world works.
I know you want some of our beautiful succulent Falkland Island fish to go with that big fat ugly chip on your shoulder but really your father should have taught you better the meaning of the word “NO”.
you shot yourself in the foot.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!