Cameron rings Chilean president to discuss Falklands and self determination
Chilean president Sebastián Piñera received a surprise phone call at his summer residence on Tuesday afternoon from PM David Cameron who referred to the current Falklands dispute.
According to the Chilean media discussions covered a wide range of issues, but ‘undoubtedly’ the British PM was insistent of informing the president of the UK position regarding the current situation of the Falklands and the sovereignty dispute with Argentina.
Apparently PM Cameron made it a point to emphasize the Islanders right to self determination and their choice to continue belonging to the UK while Piñera said that Chilean public opinion has always supported Argentina’s claim over the Malvinas, but always retaining a peaceful dialogue with the two countries involved in the dispute.
Another issue addressed was the attendance of both countries to the G20 summit in Mexico and how PM Cameron and his coalition government are struggling to pull the UK out of recession.
PM Cameron also confirmed he would be visiting Chile in January 2013 in coincidence with the summit between the EU and the Community of Latinamerican and Caribbean states, recently created in Venezuela.
Suggested Stories
-
May 25th 2012
Cameron pays tribute to Falklands’ conflict dead and reaffirms Islanders right to self determination
-
May 23rd 2012
Following the Falklands’ ad incident Britain/Argentina at the opening hockey match in London
-
May 23rd 2012
Ambassador Castro embroiled in controversy over Falklands and “possible constitutional reform”
-
May 23rd 2012
Spain, on the edge of a financial cliff, cancels all development aid to Latin America
85 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.
and yet, it is Chile with only 3 neighbours (Boliva, Peru and Argentina) who has had historically poor relations with ALL THREE and CONTINUES to have poor relations with TWO of them
Only in the 1990's did Chiles relationship with Argentina improve. However, they still have poor relations with Bolivia and Peru. In the case of Bolivia, the Bolivian Gov't refuses to sell any natural gas to Chile given their poor relationship...
And Argentina is the nutty neighbour? Argentina has no feuds with any of its neighbours (except the UK over Malvinas)
Mate, do some reading before you post such rubbish *facepalm*
Try again mate, you are off your head!
Southern Patagonian Ice Field?
These people will always stand on their beliefs and will never cower to the aggressor that is Argentina. All Argentina achieves in doing the things it has been doing is strengthen the British spirit and willingness to get involved in the matters of the Islanders.
And we all know the British have considerably more power in matters of economics, politics and military force. All through British history they have proven they are willing and very capable opponents to anyone who wishes to challenge them and they have been challenged by mighty nations and won.
It's such a huge and basic mistake of CFK to think she can achieve her goals by bullying 3,000 islanders.
If you prod the tiger don't be surprised when at some point it decides to maul you.
a treaty was signed with them covering 20 some border disputes and is awaiting ratification by chile's legislative.
Whereas Chile (the good neighbour according to some ill-informed posters here) has a conflict with Bolivia over a large swath of territory and with Peru too!
Some here clutch at straws for a hobby.
islands. The British have been sending warships as well as merchant ships to the islands for the last 400 years ;so what has changed?
Oh .I know . The peronist paradise known as Argentina is unravelling at the seams.
The Plastic Lady had better get her helicopter ready.
The Paraguayans have probably given up in despair of ever getting their land back from Argentina.
l seem to remember reading somewhere that Bolivia & Peru attacked Chile first.
lf that is true & as l know that Chile won then the other two countries have no-one to blame but themselves.
No doubt if l'm wrong, some malvinista will correct me!
And, Helber, Argentina has NO RIGHTS in the Falklands♥
Seriously, how on earth can you have only 3 neighbours and yet manage to have poor relations with ALL THREE
Begs the question
If 1 persons say you are an @rse....he might be wrong
If 2 say it well... 50 - 50
If 3 say, they might be onto something.
FYI, Argentina is 1 of the few, very few countries in latin america which hasn't got a territorial dispute with a neighbour (I hardly consider the UK a neighbour). Even Uruguay and Brasil have an unresolved territorial border dispute.
”Argentina has no feuds with any of its neighbours (except the UK over Malvinas)”
What about the bullying of Uruguay? The dredging of the plate area / Uruguay river - now Argentina has had bulkers trapped for a week due to a grounded bulker solely due to incompetence by their side of the joint board. I think they don't have the money to do it.
What about import controls when Argentina has a massive export business with us?
Get real and start seeing the truth of things instead of appearing like another dork of CFK.
Chileans do not like Argentines. Most of Latin Americans do not like Argentines. Most intelligent Argentines are aware of this fact. And here is a hint, it has nothing to do with territorial disputes.
KFC: “Let me check.... Has anyone seen Phil MacCawk?”
Cameron: *chuckle* ...
KFC: *slam*
Repeat until satisfied.
Bolivia and Chile have disputes at a whole different level with Bolivia not renouncing to the use of war to reclaim territory taken from them. It doesn't take much to see the different scales of both disputes and the potential consequences.
I'll tell you more, Argentina has such sound relations with its neighbours that it is the country that spends the least amount of its GDP on armament.
@ Elaine B
Chileans don't like Argentines, right? Well Bolivians, Peruvians AND Argentines don't like Chileans! Who's that for you?
Chile is economically sound you say. At what price??? They have one of the biggest gaps between the haves and have not. Oh but they are sound economically.
Pls., don't make me laugh. Your reasoning has more leaks than a sieve filled with water.
You see, it doesn't take a retard to open a textbook and see what warmongering little shysters you really are. You may now get back to your goose-stepping.
HelberG. you might have good intentions, but don't waste your time explaining to the ElaineBs or the world (and the like) about the relationships between South American nations...it's none of their business...The only thing that they should be concerned about is realizing and coming to their senses that the Malvinas (which they insist in calling Falklands) are Argentine and sooner or later they will have to give it back. English PIRATES, GO HOME!!!
Piracy, my friend is violent criminal activity at sea, not on island, and especially not on islands that you have no remit to be on.
Philippe
Pinera: “Chilean public opinion has always supported Argentina's expansionist policies, especially during the Beagle Conflict”
Chilean Public: *shocked silence*
Most likely, both Uruguay and Chile are paving the ground ready for imports of Falkland Islands Oil and Gas, and as Argentina is in terminal decline, and has no effective military, Uruguay and Chile won't be worried about any verbals from Argie land.
Cameron in a desperate act is trying to convince the countries on the invalidity of self-determination in a land invaded ... He doesnt convince anyone .... ridiculous
NO need for any increase in British forces. No need for any “assistance” from Chile. Just one Trident D5 missile with every warhead targetted on Casa Rosada. Perhaps a second missile with every warhead targetted on Mar del Plata.
Goodbye, argieland. Including the half-breeds! JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
Just wonder...
@Conqueror and then Conquy who will save you from ashes?
The only way Argentina will get their hands on the Falklands is will a fight.
The Falkland Islanders will not allow it, and nor will Britain.
You will be obliterated!
Argentina has managed to grow global awareness of the conflict. Latin America supports the claims, both MERCOSUR and UNASUR, CELAC and United Nations have achieved a unity of conception and action with the United Kingdom.
It's a way to cope together with economic and military aggression in the UK in 500 years of history.
Many countries are sympathetic to the claim of sovereignty and even the UK itself the controversial attitude of David Cameroon causes internal and external cracks in its alliance with the United States.
The main error is to underestimate Britain's growing leadership in Argentina and South America and keeps getting more evidence of the double discourse of Britain “say champions of democracy and human rights but in fact ignore the resolutions of United Nations and its decolonization committee and continue the humanitarian bombing civilians in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq ”As what I say but not what I do.
Argentina's main weapon is the abandonment of the arms race and proceed with its proposal for dialogue, consensus building and peace. This mystifies David Cameroon that more and more often have to explain to the world of armaments policy wrong, he turns on him.
It is obvious that none of the Argie posters has the vaguest idea of any British history whatsoever . I can think of at least 3 precedents where a small group of islands,very much the underdog, held out and ultimately triumphed over a much bigger and more powerful foe.
The first was at the time of the Armada ( with surprise surprise) some of the ancestors of those living in Argentina. Spain was expected to win ;England won instead (Britain had not been invented yet).
The second was the Age of Napoleon where Britain despite having a massive numerical disadvantage to the all powerful French Empire held out and won after a proper war lasting 12 years.
The most recent was 1940-1945 when this time the bad guy was a German called A Hitler. Here again he was all powerful for a few years but then him and his cronies made the mistake of attacking Russia and the USA.
Read your real history, Argies, not some Malvinas Fairy Stories.
Holding out against overwhelming odds and triumphing in the end is
part of our history and what we do best.Prepare for lesson number four.
Surely a glimpse at a history book would tell them that.
I’m not claiming anything its just the way its. Cameron gov. is sinking internally and internationally. His own arrogance has put Britain in that position. The economic mess is worsening, the ability to repaid debt jeopardized, EU partners isolated him. US/UK relationship coolest than ever. Do you want more?
@STRATEGICUS
And are you planing to teach history to an Argie soldier when he starts to shoot you with his full automatic 7.62 FAL?
I guess that Argentina doesn’t care much about your history really, it is like prehistory down here. They don’t even care about what happen 10 years ago to be honest.
So may be you will have to teach them another lesson as you say, but I would be very careful if I would be you. They can turn from friendly to a very mad, salvage and violent prospects especially on fights.
And being honest after seeing the state of your military power on these days I really doubt that UK can even give a good fight. To start with you don’t have any carries left. No Harries, shortage of personnel so with what are you planning to fight another war with Argentina? With stones?
Think in negotiation will be cheaper and less traumatic for UK and especially for the Islanders.
That's mainly because Obama's grandfather was a Mau Mau rebel who got tortured by the British in Kenya. Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel had a father who was a senior member of a well known Israeli terrorist outfit called the Stern Gang/Irgun, who basically hated anything British, killed lots of people in Deir Yassin and then killed the UN Ambassador to the region. (wikipedia deleted his father's page)
Their combined hatred for the UK was enough to drive the “very un-special relationship” into sub-zero temperatures that they are today. No one cares though, because the peoples of the USA used to pay and train the IRA, which wasn't very brotherly of them.
Please do go on..... I would like to hear what you are thinking.... Perhaps I can help answer some of your unusual questions or statements....
What precisely has happened between 2003 when Argentina walked out of talks and now that has caused Argentina to need talks?
The time when there were British politicians ready to do secret deals behind the backs of the islanders is long gone. Mrs Thatcher was the last one who tried that and look where it got us.
After 1982 everything changed totally. Oh yes there are still various British (and American actor) oddballs who say 'give back the Falklands, despite Argentina controlling them for 2-3 months in 1832-1833 and about the same time in 1982.They are in a tiny minority.
These MPs who are coming to the Falklands are the 'skinheads' of the Conservative party who have been giving Cameron hell for being too nice to the Argies and for cutting defence too far too fast.Many of them are also the same people who have stiffened his back regarding the Eurozone disaster. The idea that any British Prime Minister or politician would advocate negotiating with Argentina is further than the far side of the moon .Cameron ,who is thought of as weak in the UK , has been warned that if anything bad happens to the Falklands ' his head is on the block'.
As for the armed forces Britain spends $60 billion per annum; Argentina spends $3 billion.The quality and standard of the equipment and more importantly the personnel is even markedly different. From memory apart from Santa Ana in Mexico I cant think of any major conflict were Hispanics won against gringos.
When (not if) the oil bonanza happens the islanders freedom of action will grow further. $180 billion ($60 million per capita) is a useful amount.
CFK could have had 50% of that if she had not torn up the the exploration agreements. Another smart move by your Plastic Lady.
The Argie politicos can't run Argentina properly. Why should the islanders want anything to do with that country. The Anglosphere alternatives are much more attractive. The Falklands do not need Argentina and will need it even less in the future.
I take it you are referring to the FN 7.62 x 51 NATO FAL rifle, firing the standard 150 gn FMJ hard-ball round?
You have obviously never fired one on automatic because:
You can't hit anything you aim at with them;
You run out of ammunition pretty quickly;
And with someone like me around you would be dead.
It is however a good rifle in semi-automatic mode and used by someone properly trained.
My PH M85 using a Sierra Match-King 185 gn 'hollow-point boat tail' bulleted cartridge (hand-loaded) would kill your Argie soldier out to 1,000 meters. At 300m I could decide which EYE through which to kill him.
Or where to hit him and keep him alive, thus taking up at least one other to look after him.
Am I frightened of your Argie soldier: NO, but he would be scared shitless of me. :o)
Is the economy, Europe , Scotland, Obama, his brother Clegg, Sean Penn or no support over Malvinas dispute?
I am sure he called the Chilean president for asylum.
Maybe even a nightclub!!
She is running out of ideas to come up with and not forgetting near the end of this year she has a meeting of her own with the Chilean President, well I guess he did stand by Argentina with the so called claim so he must be entitled to one BJ and she certainaly knows how to use her mouth.
Argentina are the ones causing the problems not the UK government. I don't see Cameron complaining to anyone who will listen or complaining to the UN.
It is quite clear to anyone with a semblance of intelligence its CFK who is desperate and wouldn't anyone else be who was in her position with a crumbling government and imploding economy. 25+% inflation anyone? Argentina is the new Zimbabwe!
Poor Cameron he looks so lonely and desperate, I bet the Chilean president took him a while to figure out who in the hell was this guy on the telephone.
Camaron who? didn't ask for seafood sorry...
And furthermore, Mr. Pinera is pulling Mr. Cameron's leg!
Philippe
You have the carrot, and you have the stick,
You choose,
But one things for certain, A democracy will never hand itself over to a dictatorship,
And neither will the UN,
Argentina has no chance, so swing baby, swing .
.
Ronald Camp, Foreign Office official, July 1911
It's that easy.
Have you ever asked yourself why your government is terrified to take its ridiculous “claim” to the ICJ?
You lads really make me laugh with all due respect because I’m so scary now after Mrlayback threat toward me. Ha ha
@ChrisR
oh! Please why you don’t save your energy and tactics for the real thing Uh!
So I guess that this conversation about your dick is little than mine is pointless.
So keep training your shooting skills eat well and don’t waste your AMO UK is a little bit short of cash at the moment and you never know when you can need it more.
To support a CLAIM is totally not the same as supporting a RIGHT, and Chile is aware of his need to present a South American-acceptible sound-bite.
Further, Chile has its own CLAIM to a sector of Antarctica that is legally documented as a British Antactic province. Piñera needs to preserve, for public Chilean consumption, the facade of 'Chilean Antarctica', even though the land belongs to another nation.
Whilst the Antarctic paradox may be managed as an exercise in real politik, the populated FIs is an absolute non-negotiable.
All you've got left is war!
l'm also surprised as your country keeps saying that it's “peaceful” ha ha.
So if you can't or won't go to the ICJ,
And you're too “peaceful” for war,
Just how do you intend to conquer OUR lslands?
l'd be interested to know.
No other malvinista can/will give an intelligent answer.
Will you, Marcel?
As usual, as an Argie, you have a few things wrong:
I live in Uruguay;
I am most certianly not 'short of cash';
I am not the one boasting about Argie squaddies firing an FN-FAL on automatic as if that was the be all and end all of combat - it shows your lack of knowledge and experience;
You could not even answer the question about the rifle;
My dick is probably bigger than some midget of an Argie, so I don't need to boast.
You are correct on one thing however: practice does make perfect; has the Army got any money for ammunition and who would supply a rogue state like Argentina with it?
P.S. It's no good asking Chavez - he uses Russian crap, so in '30' cal it's 7.62 x 54 R or 7.62 x 39 (assault rifle) neither of which will fit the FN-FAL.
Keep dreaming and making up more lies.
“I am astonished when I read British participants here mentioning the ICJ. First: when Argentina suggested arbitration during the 19th century, the UK refused.” >> Correct, because there was nothing to arbitrate as it's not your land.
”In 1955 the UK brought the case of Antarctica to the ICJ, but explicitly excluding the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) themselves.“ >> Correct, because the Falkland Islands are not Antarctica, they are a British protectorate.
”In 2004 the British government modified its acceptance to the ICJ jurisdiction excluding disputes that arose before 1977” >> It matters not, because before 1977 and after 1977 you still never owned the Falklands Islands.
Does that make it any clearer for you? Basically, you should be happy because if you were able to go to the ICJ then you'd end up looking like a bunch of expansionist savages. Glad we could help.
His childish equation (“3 neighbours must be right”) does still not have any weight in arguments, when you got to know, what really bugs these nations in regards to Chile.
With Argentina we indeed have no major issues, of course we do not trust them. And we have good reasons for that, like for example the recent unfair business policies they applied on our imports this month, few days after Piñera supported their claim: it's like a slap in the face for someone just granted you a gift for peace sake. But that just says alot about general egocentric argentine idiosyncrasy.
The other 2 he mentions, Bolivia and Peru... WE don't have any issues with them, but it seems they think they have with us. That's a BIG detail and difference. Chileans would love to live in peace with it's neighbours, but... for a certain reason (which alot of people would describe “envy for the good house”, even others will deny it), they don't want us to. Chile HAS NO CLAIMS towards it's neighbours at all.
Bolivia is claiming a vast territory of north Chile to be traspassed to Bolivia for... nothing in exchange. They just want to have it! Even there is a bilateral border treaty from 1904, whereas both (chilean and bolivian) democratic parliaments ratified the actual and final borders. This has been done a quarter century (!) after the war had ended.
Peru is claiming sea borders to be revised (currently they are parallel, they want the border to head southwest), after they had signed multiple treaties with Chile, that they also see the parallel as THE border. They even had an official ceremony in the 60ies, building a lighthouse heading along the parallel. An earthquake destroyed that lighthouse and they never rebuild it, you can still go there and see it totally destroyed on the ground. Since then they are trying to ommit any prove, that they have valid treaties with the parallel as border.
But of course they can take this step, it's their decision. But I doubt that the consecuences might be favourable to them, as Chile currently grants Bolivia privileged conditions for their exports via Chilean territory and ports (they pay no taxes, no import tolls, they have reserved stockrooms for free at the chilean ports, they pay no port fees, etc...)
With their hostile attitude, they are endangering all these benefits...
“Cameron rings Chilean president to discuss Falklands and self determination”
Pinochet wasn´t home..............
Chill out mate I don’t care a F@king shit about your weapon expertise after all you cannot fire an Argi FAL on automatic without killing your mum. Ha ha poor idiot.
The man was just giving you some true weapon facts.
He doesn't come across as a rambo.
l can tell you for sure that the amunition for a 7.62 x 39 Assault rifle will not fit an FN, because l've fired both of them.
Maybe you'd kill your Mum.
The rest of us are more careful
Live & learn, Dany.
Isolde is fishing. ha ha
@Isolde little boy...
First if you read carefully what I posted you will realise that I said “with his full aoutomatic” what its different to say on full automatic. Because Arg. FAL are a full auto weapon. Anyway...
Argie FAL and Amerikan FAL version have been improved since long time ago new grip, magazine, recoil system, sight, etc. Argie factory made several version of that weapon. If you are familiar with that weapon I can assure you that in full automatic you can hit your target.
Of course if you are a skinny person may be ended up with your bottom on the ground. What sure was your case-
There is magazine for 30 and 50 round. I little bit hot the cannon but still lethal
www.youtube.com/watch?v=npJHACsP-CA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1q8GiSIdc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKLqwj6BzEA&feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=efo7caxdBPg
DSA also has some FAL improved versions
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkkTvV9tQU0&feature=related
I didn’t check the videos jut info for your knowledge.
Good day mate.
Clearly you have NO experience of firing ANY long gun chambered for 7.62 NATO, either single shot or automatic. If you had you would understand the claim of 'improvement' is relative.
Armies do not want accuracy, they want the opponent wounded not killed: it takes out at least TWO people for one shot. Just to explain so you can get it into the thing you call a brain: one shot, one caring, HALVES the opponents numbers. But perhaps Argie squaddies just want to run away when someone near them is shot. That is what happened on the Falklands (there are no Malvinas) in 1982 and I do not see anything improving yet.
BTW Isolde is a lady. You would do well to read and understand her posts. You may be able to learn something because you clearly know very little about firearms.
First of all do not support or my country or in England. I think both countries are handled by a natural instinct of patriotism, which in a case like this is not good.
I will ask them to be more intelligent than their representatives and seek to see the Argentine point of view as English, that's what I did and I arrepinto. I'm on the side of the rules and if the rules say that the decision of the citizens is more important than any geographical correspondence I agree.
I'm on the side of truth, period. If we want to see how the Argentines simply reverse the situation.
No need to see the Argentine and British opinion, need to see the opinion of the natives who are the true and only sovereign and no authority can tell who they belong. In any case I would be happy to be really independent.
That's my opinion, are sympathetic and intelligent.
Thank you.
Be aware of the fact that only diamonds are forever
Empires come and go and our world is rapidly changing
l believe that Bolivia wants a sea coast & this is understandable.
lf Peru was their ally & is their great friend then why doesn't Peru give them some of their own land so that they can have some?
Peru has got plenty of coastline, they could spare a bit to their friend to keep the peace.♥
@82 I think Peru should give Bolivia a considerable amount of it's sea coast. It's clear from the map that the sea coast is on the same tectonic plate as Bolivia. The Peruvian sea-coast is close to Boliva too, which in South American logic is important. I can also see that Bolivia wants it, which in South America is more than enough reason to have it. Now they just need to put it into their constitution that a large percentage of the Peruvian sea-coast is Bolvian territory and then go to the UN and ask for negotiations on that territory. Ban Ki-moon will agree with anything so long as it involves him getting more koreans into top jobs at the UN. Then and only then will Bolivia stop the Peruvian pirates from stealing what's historically theirs.
Latin american logic is simply “élucubrations de sauvages”
Peru's population reacts very acidly on that claim you mention (Bolivian sovereign path through Peru), because this is sometimes in discussion too, but Peruvians feel betrayed by Bolivia back then, because Bolivia provoqued the war with Chile, just to be able to activate the secret military pact with Peru (and “forced” them to enter the war, according to peruvian historians... though we have a bit different view on that and we are convinced there were other interests and reasons)
Bolivia as originating country of the war, retreated from the war very soon and Peru was left alone against Chile.
Therefore Peruvians are much more hardcore on not-granting Bolivia a sovereign path to the sea. Surprisingly you will see more chileans (mostly Santiago) in a position to give them something...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!