Tuesday, January 31st 2012 - 05:35 UTC

Malvinas dispute a ‘bilateral issue’ which is not included in the EU agenda

European Union ambassador in Buenos Aires Alfonso Diez Torres said that the Falklands/Malvinas issue does not figure in the foreign affairs agenda of the EU, it’s a bilateral issue and he does not see any reason to amend the Lisbon treaty to exclude the disputed South Atlantic Islands as demanded by Argentina.

Ambassador Alfonso Diez Torres: no reason to amend the Lisbon treaty to exclude the Falklands as demanded by Argentina

“The Falklands/Malvinas issue does not belong to the framework of the EU foreign policy. We have a foreign policy that does not cover everything, besides the EU criteria is that there must be a full consensus”, said Diez Torres interviewed by La Nacion.

The EU ambassador explained that there is certain confusion regarding the Lisbon treaty since the fact that the Falklands/Malvinas are included is “merely descriptive”. Member states enumerate their overseas territories and in this case “it’s an article from previous treaties”.

“This does not imply acknowledgement of UK sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas by EU members. This must be defined bilaterally between the UK and Argentina. The fact today is that the Islands are under British jurisdiction and this must be discussed with Argentina. It’s senseless to amend the Lisbon Treaty, otherwise Spain could not have signed with the UK the EU treaty because of the Gibraltar dispute, so definitively it does not make sense to pretend to amend the Lisbon treaty, which would also require the unanimity of all EU parliaments and the different procedures”, pointed out Diez Torres.

Talking about other EU/Argentina bilateral issues such as trade and the President Cristina Fernandez administration current policy of limiting imports, the EU ambassador said these measures are not helpful and one or several EU members could decide not to open their markets to Argentina.

“As we see it there are clear indications Argentina wants a highly competitive industry and not based on protectionism, thus we believe that the trade agreement Mercosur/EU would be crucial to foster investment”, said Diez Torres.

About the possibility of the EU appealing to the World Trade Organization, WTO, because of Argentina’s policy, the ambassador was cautious and said it was not a question of dramatizing. “When these things occur the procedure is to make a request before the WTO and we know that the WTO is concerned about this attitude and the case in under analysis, but so far there has been no decision to move forward to the following step or to demand sanctions”.

The Argentine debt with the Club of Paris of sovereign creditors was also brought up and described by the EU ambassador as one of the pending issues to normalize full economic relations, “it would be a signal to grant Argentina greater confidence”.

“If one compares the Argentine macroeconomic and growth situations with investment confidence indexes it is evident there is a misbalance which can be explained because of situations of this kind (Club of Paris)” insisted the EU diplomat.

The EU remains the main investor in Argentina and in the long term a “trade and investment agreement between Mercosur and the EU could represent a seal of quality that goes beyond any legal or contractual doubts that could exist”.

Finally regarding the consequences of the Euro debt crisis, Diez Torres said that a slower economic activity in the EU means lesser exports, “but at the same time the need to search for new emerging markets and that can be seen as the positive side of any crisis”.
 

46 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. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 Teaboy2 (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 07:38 am Report abuse
Well Gibralter is infact an EU member country after joing the EU having joined the European Economic Community with the United Kingdom in 1973. Article 355(3) (ex Article 299(4)) applies the treaty to “the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible”, a provision which in practice only applies to Gibraltar.

So the Argument “otherwise Spain could not have signed with the UK the EU treaty because of the Gibraltar dispute,” would not even apply. And the listing of overseas terriotries in a treaty signed by members states is acknowledgement of those overseas terriotries belonging to the EU Member State that has sovereignty of them.

The EU Ambassodor is clearly wrong, though i agree their is no course for altering the lisbon treaty, just because argentina demands it. After all will argentina remove their sovereignty claim over the falklands from their constitution? I doubt it.
2 Dr Carrizal (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 07:51 am Report abuse
Argentina could always take the EU to the ICJ...
The list of those not interested in their, er, claim, is growing!
And, may I ask, what does the Lisbon Treaty have to do with the price of fish?
3 GeoffWard2 (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 10:32 am Report abuse
This is a highly charged set of messages being passed to Argentina and her Mercosur partners, couched in the political-speak of 'diplomacy'.

Try reading it again, and use plain speaking expressions in the place of political-speak.
There are threats, underminings, aggressions, all the tools of the game of coercion.
Be very sure, what is being said is that the EU and its member nations have 'had it up to here' with the Argentinian attitudes and behaviours, and they are letting the Mercosur partners know this, in no uncertain - but diplomatic - terms.
4 MistyThink (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 11:14 am Report abuse
This article says :

Malvinas dispute is not the agenda of UN..............

I say :

We nevertless observe that ,despite effort of Governments and non-State actors in all countries ,development remains a distant goal and there remain major barriers and systemic gaps in the implementation of internationally agreed commitments...!...................
5 Malvinero1 (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 11:41 am Report abuse
This does not imply acknowledgement of UK sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas by EU members. This must be defined bilaterally between the UK and Argentina. The fact today is that the Islands are under British
Geoff are you reading correctly???
Same language as the yanks...recognizes the de facto administration.....but it is a bilateral issue,which means they are not going to support-like before something agains the all mercosur countries.Check mate,uk!
I think EU ,considerering the bankrupt state of many of its members,are more interested in trade than to quarrel for an island with NO ECONOMIC Advantage,since they have NO OIL....
6 Lord Ton (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 12:04 pm Report abuse
“The fact today is that the Islands are under British jurisdiction”

Yeah !
7 Islas Malvinas (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 12:06 pm Report abuse
Oops... another one for Argentina.

The US does not recognize British sovereingty rights over the islands... the EU neither... British occupation does not have international recognition.

Good job Argentina!
8 Lord Ton (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 12:37 pm Report abuse
falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/defence-upgrade-for-the-falklands/

Keep kidding yourself Is mal - the US is about to 'invest' !!
9 yankeeboy (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 12:55 pm Report abuse
7. If the USA had any question over sovereignty of the Falkland Islands Andarko, Noble, Hess and Murphy Oil would not be investing U$ 1.5 BILLION there. It's not like you see them searching in Argentina for oil do you?
Do you seriously think the USA would not protect our oil investments? If so you are not paying much attention over the last 40 years.
10 Malvinero1 (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 01:00 pm Report abuse
Keep kidding yourself Is mal - the US is about to 'invest' !
Andarko....Who the hell is that.....
Exxon is not interested?. Of course not.They have drilled in the '70..nothing important there....
Pinchioo lord...again//
Just get another job,lord..you suck!
11 LegionNi (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 01:01 pm Report abuse
7 Islas Malvinas - “Oops... another one for Argentina.

The US does not recognize British sovereingty rights over the islands... the EU neither... British occupation does not have international recognition.

Good job Argentina!”

Why is it good job Argentina - no one is recognising Argentine soverignty either.
12 yankeeboy (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 01:13 pm Report abuse
10. I posted something similar on another thread, but don't you think there has been any technological advances since the 70s? They're finding oil/gas all over the USA in places they thought were dry in the 70s.

Maybe you don't have any technology in Argentina but the rest of the world is moving on.

Umm, Andarko is a 51Billion dollar company about 4-5X larger than YPF. data.cnbc.com/quotes/APC/tab/1 I am sure you can look up the rest of the companies yourself.
13 Islas Malvinas (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 01:25 pm Report abuse
@11 “No one is recognising Argentine soverignty either”

You have not been reading the news....
14 so_far (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 01:40 pm Report abuse
So, who are the valid players here in the eyes of international law ?

1) European Union - EU - Malvinas dispute a ‘bilateral issue’ .

“..there is certain confusion regarding the Lisbon treaty since the fact that the Falklands/Malvinas are included is “merely descriptive”.
“This does not imply acknowledgement of UK sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas by EU members. This must be defined bilaterally between the UK and Argentina.”

2) U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands

“. This is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. WE ENCOURAGE both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels”

3) OAS - Organization American States AS AG/DEC. 53 (XXXVII O/07)

“ RECALLING ……the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find, as soon as possible, a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute. “

4) United Nation UN C-24 A/AC.109/2007/L.8

“ REQUESTES the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to
consolidate the current process of dialogue and cooperation through the resumption of negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute relating to the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).”

5) UN - United Nations –RES. 928 (XVIII-0/88) and A/RES/43/25

”.REITERATES IT REQUEST to the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries..”

6) UK Position – Minister of Defence

“We have Typhoons already stationed there. have a very clear message that we have both the naval power”

Easy understand why Argentina have huge support from international community and which country is acting civilized according to international law.
15 Yuleno (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 01:44 pm Report abuse
The facts are
The Eu doesn't support the UK
The Eu recognises a dispute
The Eu recognises the dispute is bilateral
The Eu does not endorse UK sovereignty

Therefore if there is a dispute and it's a bilateral dispute, what can it be.
The yanqui involvement is a economic one,there investment in las Malvinas would be protected under international law,(not lordton's discipline),and would not therefore be in jeopardy when the islands are returned to Argentina.
Why does anyone think the islands economic matters would be nationalised?
Answer
Because you are alarmist fools.
16 so_far (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 01:51 pm Report abuse
Pinochio LordTon Law

UN = irrelevant

C-24 = irrelevant

US = irrelevant

OAS = irrelevant

Mercosur = irrelevant

Unasur = irrelevant

Celac = irrelevant

and now the last one....

EU = irrelevant

i think everybody here should be agree in this FACT.

Roger Lorton = irrelevant

:)
17 ChrisR (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 01:55 pm Report abuse
15 ?

Is someone spouting rubbish here? Can anyone hear it?

Does anyone care? ICJ anyone?
18 yankeeboy (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 01:58 pm Report abuse
15.
Alarmist fools?! You don't known your own recent history. There is a reason why foreigners don't invest in Argentina. They let companies come in build infrastructure and then confiscate it. Just like CFK's buddies in Bolivia and Venezuela.

Foreign investment is protected under International Law, yes in legitimate countries it is, but not in the banana republic of Argentina it is not. Shall I refresh your memory of recent events,; Sovereign default/holdouts, nationalization of Water Company from France, Nationalization of Airline from Spain, NUMEROUS ISCID awards not paid by Argentina ummm shall I go on or do you get the picture.

$ speaks louder than words and the USA by it's words and actions recognize the UK sovereignty of the Falklands.
19 ljordao (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 03:00 pm Report abuse
“Easy understand why Argentina have huge support from international community and which country is acting civilized according to international law.” Nonsense! Support for Argentina is lukewarm, as its extortionist tactics are quite transparent. In fact, every freedom-loving person in the world who has studied the relevant historical details is ardently against this sorry joke for a country.
20 zethe (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 03:16 pm Report abuse
“Umm, Andarko is a 51Billion dollar company about 4-5X larger than YPF.”

With close ties to the Pentagon, Run by an Ex Strategic commander in the US forces.

I'm pretty sure he knows the score.
21 briton (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 03:53 pm Report abuse
Oh dear, the indoctrination is kicking in is it not,

Support is their for the purpose of trade and peace, anything else is bull,
The countries that back Argentina, is far more interested in trade, not your interests in a claim,
And their support will back you right up to the time the talking stops and action is taken, at this point your supporters will drop you like a brick, and you know it,
And before you all say it, the British government , only wants peace and friendship, and to continue trade links with our friends, we have no interest in back up or promises, the Falklands are British, and will be defended as such,

Look at the British site, the British government only wants to be friends and trade, anything else
Is down to Argentina ,
As long as you continue to talk, [even if no one is listening]
Then we can all be friends, , until the time comes, not to be friends,
2012 celebrations in the Falklands will go ahead, so just sit back and watch,
As nothing short of argentine aggression, will stop it,
That’s all that matters is it not.
.
22 dreyfoss (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 03:55 pm Report abuse
Very interesting that Britain refuses to protect the Falklands through legislation that would commit British forces to the defence of the islands automatically in the event of a threat and without any deference to Parliament.
This is a wise decision and allows Britain negotiating room in any future conflict after all - Britain knows it cannot at present defend the islands.

Europe will not support Britain in this issue as Spain has refreshed its claim to Gibraltar and Spain has a large vote in the European parliament and is an essential ally of the Eurpean technocratic cabal that runs that place. They will not dare risk losing Spanish support and anyway - Britain has pretty much ostracised itself within Europe now so has lost a lot of support. You also have to take into account the level of investment European countries have in South America which is immense.

Cameron and Kirchner must be sweating now that the game 'is afoot' - with Kirchner betting on an explosion of nationalist outrage by all the people of South America when they see that oil being shipped north into the pockets of European and North American speculators.
And Cameron gambling that Chile and Brazil stay neutral long enough for North America to get a Republican president, and of course - those aircraft carriers get built.
The British press have not yet noticed the new airport in St.Helena and I will be interested to see public reaction to another half billion £ being added to the national debt at a time when Britain faces the greatest economic crisis in its history.
23 Conqueror (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 06:28 pm Report abuse
@22 Silly child. The UK is constitutionally committed to the defence of the Falkland Islands against ANYONE. Do trust me on this. There is no difference between you saying “I want to die.” and your cesspit attacking the Falklands. How do you feel, temporarily, about 180 cruise missiles landing in the middle of Buenos Aires. Trust me on this. Twice in thirty, fifty, seventy or a hundred years and the British people will be demanding the your sh*theap is wiped off the face of the planet. And you know we can do it, don't you?

Spain? Spain is nothing. All Spain can do is be an irritation. Look at its debt. Look at its unemployment. Spain is what it has always been. Big-headed, over-ambitious, in debt and useless. Much like argieland.

The new airport on St Helena? Excellent idea. Twice as many combat aircraft to the Falklands. Twice as many argie casualties. How good is that?
24 ChrisR (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 06:53 pm Report abuse
23 Conqueror

I wish you wouldn't soften it for them! ;o)
25 Pugol-H (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 07:31 pm Report abuse
Spain has never dropped its claim to Gib, but it has realised that in modern Europe trying to coerce anyone is completely unaccetable.

Any question over this, or the position of the Falkland Islanders in the EU
would ultimately be settled in the European Court, no prizes for guessing the (binding on all EU states) outcome there will be. Which is why Spain will not push the issue beyond asking for Bi-latteral talks.
26 Yuleno (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 09:25 pm Report abuse
They want to curb themselves these Brits.
As for yankeeboy he wants it both ways.Without yanqui investment and companies,he says,Argentina would be poorer.But then they wouldn't invest in Argentina for fear of nationalisation.Are you really yankeeboy,I don't think so.
27 Teaboy1 (#) Jan 31st, 2012 - 09:53 pm Report abuse
Lol Yuleno its argentina that needs to curb itself, after all its your country thats doing all the agressive actions and agressives verbal tirades, not the UK. Where quite happy to just sit back and repond once in a while, whilst prepare to defend the islands in case you change your minds and decide to attack. After all did you not say prior to 1982 that you would get sovereignty not by military action but by diplomacy too, only to then tire of the talking along with being desperate to boost public support, invade the islands. And you wonder why we don't believe you, and when your country has been found out to have been planning a mock invasion during the 30th aniversary with fishermen landing on the islands and raising the argentine flag, then you can not expect us to just sit back and not strenghen out defenses.

Also i would have loved to have seen the mock invasion go ahead as there would have been widespread international condemnation and such acts would have given us the green light to have declared war, especially when we have the proof that confirms your government was planning it. Which would therefore make such a mock invasion a state sponsered act of agression/war against the falklands islands and the UK.
28 shb (#) Feb 01st, 2012 - 12:04 am Report abuse
@So far
The Typhoons keep Argentina at arms length. Lets face it, without a garrsion, the Argentine army would be goose-stepping through Stanley again. The word of an Argentinian means nothing when it comes to peace on this issue.

@ Yuleno keep on dreaming about the islands being given back to you. It's never going to happen. Short of carrying out the garrison feet first, you're never going to get hold of the islands.

We arent' interested in talking to you.

You will never get enough sanctions on us to make us change our minds either, the issue just does'nt carry that much clout on the world stage.

No surrender to Argentine aggression.

No negotiation.
29 so_far (#) Feb 01st, 2012 - 01:48 am Report abuse
# shb,

your words....

“..never going to happen..”
“..never going to get hold of the islands.”
“..arent' interested in talking to you.”
“..never get enough sanctions on us .”
“..No negotiation.”

Wondering.....why that necessity of repeat all the time the negative ?
If you´re so sure, relax then.

Certain kiddo everybody can see you have a lot of fear ....

BTW, Argentina is a friendly nation, don´t worry almost 200.000 honest brits live here without a single problem.

Chill out, now go to change your diapers, you're wearing seem to be used buddy.

:)
30 Millet (#) Feb 01st, 2012 - 02:47 am Report abuse
I, and I believe many many people, are simply getting sick and tired of Argentina's constant whining about the Falkland islands. Argentina is hopeless, they have no ability to do anything about it, so they keep crying on every shoulder that they can. What a sorry sorry nation Argentina has become. - Millet USA
31 GeoffWard2 (#) Feb 01st, 2012 - 10:54 am Report abuse
OK, Argentina attacked a country militarily and was defeated in the conflict. It was not an all-out war, and it left the homeland intact and undamaged, unlike the country that it attacked.
The focus of attack has now switched to the public opinion forums of the world, where it expects to 'win'. But it is a universal truth that words spoken, and recorded, in these fora - like Humpty Dumpty said - mean 'whatever they want them to mean, no more and no less'. Argentina might believe they have gained 'world support' for their battle of world opinion, but these supports are weasel-words, open to interpretations, wiggle room, and back-peddling.
If Argentina were to be seen to be tooling up for another armed conflict, the back-peddling would be fast and furious. Even the South American nations, supposedly agreed to fight alongside their neighbour-in-defense-agreement would back away, seeing this as aggression, not defense.

Would Argentina put this to the test? Possibly, if societal collapse were seen as inevitable within the nation. Externalise problems and the ruling parties might just survive. But the last Falklands conflict shows just how difficult it can be to survive if you take your country to war for 'the wrong reasons'. Particularly if you keep on losing.
32 LegionNi (#) Feb 01st, 2012 - 11:54 am Report abuse
13 Islas Malvinas (#) - “@11 “No one is recognising Argentine soverignty either”

You have not been reading the news....”

What news. As far as I am aware the only recognition to Argentina's claim that any other nation has it exactly that, to recognise Argentina's claim to the Falklands.

Which country has actually come out and specifically stated in any International forum that it categorically recognises Argentine sovereignty of the Falkland Islands???

I believe it is none.

All Argentina has is alot of empty platitudes from it's neighbours and fellow members of MERCOSUR.
33 briton (#) Feb 01st, 2012 - 07:47 pm Report abuse
The British military at this point in time are doing exercises in the Falklands with mock attacks and invasions,
Is this provocative, or just training.
34 Yuleno (#) Feb 01st, 2012 - 09:55 pm Report abuse
There's a consistency around all the pro-Brit comments.The end story is Argentina should take back las Malvinas militarily.
Now how stupid can people get.The whole idea of the UN is born from the terrible waste that resulted from the war in Europe.The war that ended any hope of european hegemony and that global dominance shifting across the Atlantic.
In this era we are seeing yanqui influence diminishing,if it military capability is still formidable.So other states are willing to work together to avoid military conflict but not to be economically subordinate to that dominance.China is building it prescence in global affairs economically and is more than capable of resisting yanqui intervention in it's own affairs,while reclaiming it's territories lost to colonial invasion without using military blackmail.Why then, would Argentina use military means to reclaim it's territory while a unitied SA supports it's cause.Only stupid people would suggest that method and the UN was established to provide a more civilised means to resolve the dispute.What is needed is the UK to act civilised and not the way some on this thread want.They need to get civilised.
35 ljordao (#) Feb 02nd, 2012 - 01:21 am Report abuse
There is a consistency among the pro-Argentina comments: the idea that the United Nations are the embodiment of morality in international disputes. Here is a reality check: this organisation is today more corrupt than most national governments. It is futile to appeal to its moral authority, as it is now almost utterly bereft of any. Therefore, the pro-Argentina crowd have no option but to explore the nuts and bolts of ethics. A philistine adherence to external codes will lead them nowhere.
36 Filippo (#) Feb 02nd, 2012 - 01:26 am Report abuse
It is obvious to me that the EU is no friend of Argentina. Who cares for them? They have no military and they have no power over us.
37 ChrisR (#) Feb 02nd, 2012 - 10:32 am Report abuse
36 Filippo

Well CFK does for one, because she is trying to sell things to the EU to help stave off the monetary disaster that is about to deluge Argentina.

'They have no military and they have no power over us.' is laughable! ALL the EU counties have a military alliance for defence purposes. Why would any EU country attack Argentina, not even the UK will do that unless the Argentinos ATTEMPT a strike at the Falklands (there are no Malvinas).
38 Yuleno (#) Feb 02nd, 2012 - 01:26 pm Report abuse
More rubbish from Brits.Now the UN is corrupt and irrelevant.Not as much as the UK increasingly getting.
The Brits only value their own opinions whatever they are.At this rate they will only have themselves to argue with.
39 Filippo (#) Feb 02nd, 2012 - 02:06 pm Report abuse
In 1970's my father responsible for helping to disappear many thousands of political traitors from this country but his work was undo by failiur of our coward military to win Las Mavlinas battle. But always remember that parents of disapeared were praising their government when we re-occupied Las Malvinas, this is proof that people believe in our country more than they care for their family. This is what make Argentine such strong country.

We can be strong again, with all our might and all our passion directed at Las Malvinas and ignore all our problem at home, we can again be strong.

Never give in to English colonials because our blood is thicker than water and the blood of Las Malvinas I believe is black gold for which many of us with right connections can get very rich from..
40 ljordao (#) Feb 02nd, 2012 - 02:20 pm Report abuse
Yuleno, I am not British. I am Brazilian. The gargantuan shenanigans at the United Nations are not difficult to spot. Therefore, in the context of this dispute, LEGAL arguments are worthless. If you cannot present a MORAL argument for your position, you should rest quiet.
41 Pugol-H (#) Feb 02nd, 2012 - 06:36 pm Report abuse
40 ljordao

Well put, I agree, ultimatly this is an issue of right and wrong, and the rights of people in the modern world.

The argentinian argument is based on denying the rights of the Islanders in the present, and denying the British history of the region in the past.

A moraly bankrupt argument.
42 briton (#) Feb 02nd, 2012 - 07:46 pm Report abuse
There's a consistency around all the pro-Brit comments.The end story is Argentina should take back las Malvinas militarily.
Now how stupid can people get
[shame you did not think of that word, in 1982, ]
Why then, would Argentina use military means to reclaim it's territory while a united SA supports it's cause./
[Who backs you is irrelevant, why don’t you take it to the ICJ ]
Only stupid people would suggest that method and the UN was established to provide a more civilised means to resolve the dispute///
[Interesting, then, why Argentina refuses to go to the ICJ, if you think so highly of .]
What is needed is the UK to act civilised and not the way some on this thread want. They need to get civilised.////
[now that is interesting, CIVILISED, coming from a country that illegally invaded an innocent unarmed tiny peaceful islands, bullies them , threatens them , tries to blockade them , tell abhorrent lies abt them , intimidates them,
[For reference, the 1999 Encarta World English Dictionary defines:
“civilized: adj 1. CULTURALLY ADVANCED having advanced cultural and social
development 2. REFINED refined in tastes”
-and-
“civilize: vt 1 TEACH ABOUT SOCIETY to create a high level of culture
and end barbaric practices in a society or region 2 MAKE MORE
REFINED to teach somebody to behave in a more socially and
culturally acceptable way”
In the spirit of “civilize” 1, I offer
Argentina does not qualify then, does it .
..
43 Yuleno (#) Feb 02nd, 2012 - 09:08 pm Report abuse
40# your nationality is not a problem.Why does your country support the case which Argentina has for the return of las Malvinas? You are not going to tell me that your country has a left wing immoral government are you?
Bear in mind,that not only does the UN call for negotiation,and the EU recognise it as a bilateral issue(that is they do not condemn argentina's claim,but many other countries support Argentina.It is the UK that refuses to negotiate.
44 briton (#) Feb 02nd, 2012 - 11:04 pm Report abuse
UK that refuses to negotiate.
if we are the bad guys,
then do something about it,
take us to the ICJ,
its simple, isnt it, [isnt it ]
45 ljordao (#) Feb 03rd, 2012 - 08:23 pm Report abuse
Yuleno, my country does have a corrupt leftwing government. I wonder why you think otherwise.

As to the UN, I do not care what it says, as I have zero respect for it. The willingness to negotiate is not always a sign of reasonability. Would you sit at the table and negotiate with a creepy stalker who is drooling at the prospect of sodomising your wife?
46 row82 (#) Feb 06th, 2012 - 12:42 am Report abuse
Argentines are not very bright, given the choice between fascism and democracy they have chosen fascism every time. Given the choice between American hegemony and being an independent nation, they have chosen America hegemony every time, characterised by its attendant secret police (NSA, CIA, Special Forces and other such gestapo trappings, including their own) and an attendant military or militant right government.

Given the choice between being diplomacy and child like spats of anger and lies, they choose child like spats of anger and lies.

Argentina has never recovered from being a wannabe be Axis power in the 1930's. Argentina's version of fascism (like that of Spain's) remained undefeated by WW2 Allied powers. It hadn't even had to fight a real civil war to maintain power, just murder 50,000-100,000 of its own unarmed political activists and we all know how easy that was for their brave and heroic military men, like their hero Commander Astiz.

It took the Falklands War to shake the Argentines into some semblance of reality. Remove their military government and see the Americans as something other than a benevolent uncle, rather more like a the uncle you kept your children away from, you know the one in the old mack who always had his hands in his pockets and a grimace on his lips.

But within a few short years a girl came alone, a wannabe Eva Peron and took them all the way back to year zero! And the Argentine people gave up their collective memory and switched back to servile child.

In the West it's very difficult to understand how the average Argentine thinks. We have to imagine how our own per-adolescent children think and we can then get into their mindset. Give them a box of toy soldiers & some flags to play with and they are as happy as pie, tell them that they can't own Tracey Island though and they will cry their eyes out.

At school, the teachers would always tell them “Tracey Island” was their's. Even though the reality was, it wasn't!

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

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!

Advertisement