“An agreement over the Falklands is a matter of time”, says world affairs analyst
Analyst of the Investigation Conflicts Unit at The Hague, Ivan Briscoe said that some kind of agreement involving the Argentine claim of sovereignty of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands is only a matter of time.
Briscoe, who is also Buenos Aires Herald columnist, is a member of the Clingendael Institute in The Hague, an organization which acts as adviser to the Netherlands Government and the United Nations and helps them understand disputes in countries in Africa, the Middle East and Central America.
“In the long term I do not see how a population of 2.000 o 3.000 people who consider themselves British far away from England can avoid contact with their nearest country. It is a matter of time until there is a change in the relationship and some kind of agreement affecting the interests the Argentine claim to Islands,” he assured.
Regarding the United Kingdom, Briscoe recalled the fact that before 1982 war Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s administration had sunk low with a 20% approval rate and rioting hit the streets.
“However, everything changed with the war, which created a practically complete consensus in the British parliament, in media outlets and a nationalism which was manipulated by Thatcher’s government, which made it very hard for any party or media outlet to openly renounce to the claim over the islands.”
That symbolic value has been degraded in the generations that did not live the eighties’ experience despite that tabloids play with the notion that Argentina will invade the Islands, something that is not featured in President Cristina Fernández de Kircher’s agenda.
“A poll conducted in the UK regarding the importance of defending the Falkland Islands sovereignty everybody was in favour excepting the generation of young people born after the war,”
Briscoe added that the potential discovery of oil in areas surrounding the Islands would be another issue to take into account in the dispute. Stepping away from what many analysts say, Briscoe considers that the discovery of oil could bring Argentines and Islanders closer.
Oil exploitation in maritime area requires infrastructure in nearby shores and neither Uruguay nor Chile would support the UK because that would worsen their bilateral relations with Argentina.
Brazil would see it as an influence attempt that would hinder its own oil interests. Briscoe added that the discovery of oil in the South Atlantic would create short term tension, but it would also create an interesting horizon in terms of solving the conflict by either a shared sovereignty or a negotiation with a cession of rights to Argentina”. (BAH).
Suggested Stories
-
May 23rd 2013
Falkland Islands wish for normal neighborly relations with all South American neighbors
-
May 21st 2013
Falkland Islands: it’s a three-side debate; Argentina must recognize Islanders right to decide their future
-
May 20th 2013
Falkland Islands: Argentina blasts UK’s ‘double standard’ on self determination right
-
May 20th 2013
Polynesia in decolonization list; Pacific islands proposal supported by 193 votes in UN General Assembly
86 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.
Well in the fullness of time, anything is possible, but a “cession of rights to Argentina” probably isn't in the cards. The Falkland Islanders are putting up with Argentine economic harassment now in the form of embargoes on food and other products and services and if the Islanders haven't knuckled-under yet, why would they do so with the prospect of oil exploitation? Its possible that technology will make it feasible for Falklands Maritime territory commercial oil extraction without ties to the South American continent.
As for the British young being less enthusiastic about defending the Falkland Islands, useful not to forget it was many young British military in 1982 who liberated the Falklands - and undoubtedly today's generation would do so if called upon.
What seems to be missing, always, from any commentary that emanates from Argentina is a sense of having created this mess themselves. They talk of Others having caused the bloodshed and unlike Germany, which faced up to its murderous past, Argentina continues to busy its head in the sand and continue to latch on to second tier commentators and fora to advance its claims. Maybe if there was true contrition and a cessation of the bellicose dialogue, the Falkland Islanders might feel more comfortable getting closer to Argentina or Argentinians.
@ JohnN, I agree - today's generation would not care less about the liberty and rights of its citizens anywhere in the world. It seems less likely to happen though if only due to the depleted nature of Argentina's military and government coffers.
Centuries or millennia?
”In the long term I do not see how a population of 2.000 o 3.000 people who consider themselves British far away from England can avoid contact with their nearest country.)Correction, They consider themselves Falkland Islanders who are protected by Britain from an aggresive neighbour called Argentina who were welcomed to the Islands pre 1982 and used the warmer relations, flights etc to plan an invasion. The islands have proven that they do not need ,nor want any Argentinian “RELATIONS.” Trust is like a mirror,its only broken once and.... we are, who we choose to be.....please take that last bit on board.
The simple question is “what is in it for them” and the answer is “nothing”
I seem to remember the Falkland islands were going to offer Argentina a generous offer on cooperation with oil, but the Argentinians threw their dummies out of the pram and left the negotiations.
It is not the Islanders wish to distance themselves from Argentina, it is the Argentines wish to distance themselves from the islanders that is the cause of the problems.
The Argentines keep describing this a s a global issue, therfore the Islanders have taken the hint and if they can't deal with South America (who have banned the Islanders from their ports, let's not forget), they will deal globally.
So I am sure they are thanking the Argentines for their advice.
It is the South Americans who are financially and practically loosing out by distancing themselves from the Islanders. This is inconvinient to the Islands but with the seige mentality forced on them by the bullying South Americans they simply go global (as the Argentines have suggested) to make their way in the world.
And while Argentina's economy goes ratshit, the islanders economy stil propers.
We have always been willing to cooperate with Argentina in areas of mutual interest, look a little closer to home to see who's avoiding contact.
Does 'analyst' have some different meaning in Argentina...one who talks out of their arse perhaps.
You could have said something similar about Taiwan being close to China, and they turned out okay. South Korea turned out fine without any links to their nearest neighbour North Korea. Israel gets along fine whilst being isolated.
I suggest Ivan Briscoe buy some books on modern world history and give them a read.
Also he has no idea how oil is developed offshore these days!
Mr Briscoe - I challenge you - visit the Islands and investigate.
2-3000 people now. In the long term, 20,000 -30,000.
So, everything changed during the war. Well it showed Britain could win through against adversity and against an evil government. It explains why we are on the Security Council and Arfgentina is not. If Mrs Thatch had let the Falklands go then all the other nations with neighbourly gripes would start having a stab a smaller countries on their door steps.
So,a general poll shows declining knowledge and interest in the falklands. Well perhaps, but 10 minutes of Argentine aggression reporting on the 10 o'clock news is all it takes to put millions in the picture.
So, it's only a matter of time. So how long is that, 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Perhaps when there is 1 single world government is when it will happen!
She's driven the prospect off the chart - there will be no change in the status of the FI in any of our lifetimes.
You are absolutely right, instead of spitting bile, Kirchner should have gone out of her way to make friends with the Islanders and encourage good relations. She should have gone on a charm offensive but as Ronnie Barker might have said she's a “Charmless Nurk”
Anyway too late now, the Islands, other South Atlantic territories and maritime space are British and that's the way its going to stay.
Same as London or Manchester if you like- Simply english people, living in our land...same as 250.000 who lives here, mainland-
Regards-
It's that simple.
You believe that because you have to; it's the only way you can make sense of your position and the corner you have backed yourselves into.
Sadly for you, it isn't true. Believe what you like, but if you want to understand why your 'claim' is going nowhere, you will have to start challenging some of your dearly held beliefs and assumptions.
Christ your hypocrisy really does venture far beyond the pale! You do realise that mearly declaring the Islands Argentine doesn't make them so? The very fact that they are, and have been for over 180 years, populated by people(s) who have no great desire to be subjugated to Argentine rule, have no sense of Argentine national identity and (certainly recently) have lost a hell of a lot of respect for Argentina (it's political class certainly).
< sub-rant > P.S.: The Malvinista's hysterical claims that the original settlers were Argentina (ignoring for a moment that many were not even from the United Provinces or South America) is rendered even more absurd owing to the youth of said nation. No distinct national identity had yet asserted itself, the 'Argentines' within the original colony were no doubt independents with no great loyalty to anyone but themselves (as was their right, as pioneers). Laying claim to these people so many years later, when the shape of the Americas has changed so much is absurd! Maybe they were federales; In which case Uruguay has a better claim to them? Maybe they were Royalists; in which case Spain/The House of Bourbon has a better claim to them. < /sub-rant >
Then more thieves will crawl out of the woodwork,
The world has gone loony,
Turning democracy on its head, for a bunch of thieving crooks,
Just to save face, or the fact, they are to scared to put a sock in it .
Still
30 years of peace was nice while it lasted.
.
It would be a good idea to do some research before risking an opinion in print.
Firstly, the 3149 Falkland Islanders wish to be FALKLAND ISLANDERS with ties to UK (defense and international relations.)
Secondly, there is no need today for on land infrastructure in the off-shore oil business, ever heard of FPSO?
Thirdly, what exactly does Argentina have that the Falkland Islanders want? As far as those Islanders who post on the Mercopress threads are concerned... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
So why should there be any sort of agreement over thr Falklands?
Your reasoning is not valid, therefore your conclusion is invalid.
CFK's agenda may not necessarily include planning another invasion, sum of Argentina actions toward Falklands suggests both state and non-state actors engage in generalized, persistent aggressive economic, political and cultural initiatives that should keep Britain (as custodian of Falklands defence and international relations interests) concerned.
Such Argentine aggro is well-known and includes economic blockades (including food staples), non-cooperation on fisheries, petroleum, flights, cruise ships, etc. Cultural antagonism includes that Zylberberg training video shot without permission and antagonistic, and earlier works such as the even-worse Fucklands movie of 2000.
Interesting that in spite of Argentina's blathering about British “militarization” of the Falklands territorial sea, the 2012 Global Peace Index puts UK at 29, but Argentina less-peaceful at 44.
References:
Quebracho, “Fuera Ingleses....”: goo.gl/CXo0W
El Malvinense: www.malvinense.com.ar/
Global Peace Index: www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/
Now consider the past 30 years and compare it to Europe in 1975. WW2 was horrific and massive in scale compared to the Falklands war. But, 30 years later European countries had given up enmities and developed new improved trade and cultural links. In 2012 it should be the same here in the Falklands. Old enmity should be a thing of the past and for a while in the late 90s it looked as if things were heading that way. However Argentina CHOSE to pull out of the agreements made and embarked instead on a long campaign of hostility and economic aggression.
The current situation is entirely of Argentina's making yet they seek to lay the blame everywhere except at their own door.
Argentina says it wants nly to talk, but equally has made it clear that they have no respect or consideration for the people of the Falklands and want the Islands back without us. On the world stage this is unacceptable and they will not make progress until they revise their position. The only way forward is friendly co-operation, not domination. However, given the Argentine C24 delegation's unseemly scramble to avoid being given a letter inviting them to discussions with Falkland Islanders, their claims to want only to talk hardly bear credibility.
I think several Falkland Islanders post on here but I'm not aware of many who are constantly on here; they seem to pop up from time to time. I know who some of them are but I don't actively try to find out who any of them are. Some give it away by their names or the things they say but I prefer to remain anonymous. Let's face it, out of 3,149 people if someone reveals their sex and occupation they may have given their ID away, depending on what they do.
They need to create a new goverment post: “Minister for the Exacerbation of Irritation in the President of the Republic Across the Water” - or some other grandiose title.
Kiwis want to be All Blacks. Americans want to be Astronauts. This could become the most coveted role in the Falklands.
It is there free choice,
And if the other South American countries or the UN or the C24 cant accept that, then that’s there problem,
Is it not.
Why should we be condemned or suffer others disproval, be cause we are British,
As long as we British are freely willing to stand our ground, and defend what is ours, then the rest of the world, can go jump.
.
I wouldn't say Mercopress was widely read. Most people know about it these days and I am sure more now read it than say, 12 months ago (I started reading it when a friend of mine started getting excited about it a few months ago).
I just took a straw pole in my office. Out of 9 of us, two of us read it at least weekly, two others read the articles from it that we email them all of the time, two more some of the time and the other 3 hardly ever read it. My wife and kids never read it and of the five people currently in our office (customers and suppliers), 0ne reads it at least once a week and the other four never read it including two who have never heard of it.
We are very aware of how little news it is making in the UK and elsewhere worldwide except for in Argentina.
Granted, it was not an overall majority in favour BECAUSE most of the people who voted had not heard of the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas).
I was surprised that so many youngsters HAD heard of the islands.
Briscoe came to notoriety by being the only English journalist in BsAs during the war and was given access to the Junta side. He stayed after the war was over, thus giving the lie that he had been restrained from leaving.
I think this item is just an easy way to earn a crust. As for being independent, that is as laughable as B_K and his queen fixation. LOL
The solution is an independent Falkland Islands maintaining strong links to Britain, similar to maybe New Zealand, same FI flag, head of state etc. Not that much would change in the FI, but it would shut Argentina up permanently. The islanders could do a deal with Britain and maybe Australia for defence. The FI would be much safer as an independent nation as no country could justify an invasion. The international community wouldn't allow it.
Honoria
Remember every year South America get more powerful. One day even Argentina will be more powerful than the UK, they are a massive country, with vast resources, they will get their act together eventually. While ever the FI is a BOT or anything else to do with Britain, Argentina will claim its is still a colony and was stolen from them by Britain. It will give them a reason to invade, remember we can't defend the islands forever. Also the FI issue will be escalated at every OAS until a solution is found and we know how deluded they are.
www.falklands.info/history/82doc008.html
The way I see it there are 2 ways Argentina will shut up.
1. FI Independence (after much moaning they will accept it)
2. Full Argentine sovereignty
But its up to you islanders, we will always back you.
Do you know if independence will be an option in the referendum?
Thanks, we appreciate it. Truly we do.
I am more than happy to agree with and endorse all that you say. A notable analogy involves Britain and Germany. Individual Britons may get along well enough with individual Germans. But, even now, 70 years after our last little disagreement, Britons don't really trust Germany. As Frau Merkel provides “leadership” in Europe, Britons are talking about the Fourth Reich.
@17 YOU and CFK will be dust, or more likely worms, before argieland gets a fingernail of ownership to any part of the Islands.
@23 Let me help you by explaining some things. “Simply english people, living in our land...same as 250.000 who lives here, mainland”. These are DREAMS. Those “english” people that live “here, mainland” are not “same” as the people on the Falkland Islands. The first group chose to live in a third world country. The second group, who are British, chose to live in a land of their own. And they do. Just to be clear, when you used the words “in our land”, that was also a DREAM. Wherever you are in argieland, if you travel east, your land ends at the ocean. It has been that way for over 320 years. It's going to be staying that way. If these DREAMS persist you should see a psychiatrist as it means you are losing your grip on reality.
Surely you meant, the losing side.
27th March, 1944.
We did it to become a founding member of the UN, that's all.
If Argentina got its act together and thus became more powerful economically and militarilly it would be as a result of being a far more democratic and responsible country with less political manipulation and corruption . Thus the jealously and insecurity complex the Malvinistas have would ebb away and the Falklanders would be freer to go about there business.
The Falklanders should welcome Argentina being better managed (richer and more egalitarian).
Not necessarily, leaders of all nations big and small can be corrupt, as history has shown, people can be brainwashed or deceived.. Certain countries have certain traits, Argentina will never change.
Let me tell you about a scenario I witnessed the other day in the park. Two young boys were playing football on the football field, a large group of older boys wanted to use the pitch for a game. The younger boys didn't want to move and initially didn't, but eventually they were forced out by the more powerful group... Real life politics isn't much different.
Have a read of this, let me know what you think.
www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012/04/the-thirty-years-on-threat-to-the-falkland-islands/
I just don't want Argentina to get their dirty thieving colonial hands on the Falkland Islanders Land and Oil.
Countries and mindsets can change. Japan and Germany are cases in point. Brazil and Chile seem to be adapting to a more worldwide viewpoint albeit with very token support for their largest trading partner Argentina.
The malvinas issue is only important because of what it represents not because it tangibly affects Argentines daily lives. Argentina has a massive chip on its shoulder for failing consistently to provide economic and political stability in a country with so much potential. If the economy improves and Argentines feel they have a country to be proud of the Malvinas issue I'm sure would fall away.
I don't know what it will take to change the status quo but it can and eventually will.
Well, you did ask.
Seems more of an attack on the MoD than anything else.
Can't say the analysis of the 'garrison' is correct either, given the statements made eslewhere on the internet. Not only that the balance seems wrong anyway, knowing as I do some of the logistics and problems involved with military capital equipment maintenance.
At best it seems defeatist and does not consider the military response to a 'surprise' airliner attack. This is already trained for and would most certainly succeed in killing the incoming force. Anything more than one airliner coming from Argentina without previous permmision would be dealt with anyway.
It also misses one point: the Argentine military forces are presently utterley incapable of a serious strike and nothing seems to be changing to alter that.
No massive influx of money / manpower / modern personal weapons / modern capital equipment / training their forces with seasoned military forces of other countries.
By their own admission the remnant cruise missiles they have are untested since 1982! No upgrades to electronics, etc. Airforce is poorly equiped with only the Super Etendairds of any (very limited) use and no threat to a Type 45 at all. Surface navy never leaves the docks, no submarine force of any merit.
AND, the litteral killer: a British armed force with current and deadly experience of dealing with scumbags and ragheads who think of nothing else than seeing Allah (who, like God, does not exist) and therefore are dangerous in their own right. Argentinians seem very good at mouthing but are cowards when it matters. You cannot blame the squaddies, they are led by egotistic biggots who have never taken part (and therefore never succeeded) in a modern conflict.
I think I have covered the basics.
You say….:
”Let's not forget that for 200 years the Falkland Islands were wide open for immigration, as was South America. ” Had they been so minded, our British culture could have been dominated by an influx of Hispanic immigrants…………..
I say…..:
C’mon Honoria !!!...... “Wide open for immigration” you say???..........
You know perfectly well (or at least you should know perfectly well) that, until 1983, it was almost impossible, even for Kelpers to buy any land in Malvinas…
Every acre was owned by absentee British landlords…….
And you Kelpers were poorly paid employees…
What could any Hispanic immigrant do...?
Open a Pizzeria?
Why don't you move to the FI and open a Pizzeria?
''And you Kelpers were poorly paid employees…
What could any Hispanic immigrant do...?
Open a Pizzeria?''
You appear to be saying that Hispanic immigrants would have been too grand to work as poorly paid employees.
Those farm jobs were open to South American workers, as they were to British shepherds.( Hence the number of South American words in farming language.)
In fact they still are. There are plenty of Chileans with FI status who started out that way. If the Argentines lacked the sand in their character to come here and make a go of it, you can hardly blame us for it.
Maybe what you say is true maybe it isnt but you aren't denying that British descended Falklanders and South Americans had the same opportunity to live and work in the Falklands albeit more restricted in ability to buy land or not. That is the important point surely.
“We did it to become a founding member of the UN, that's all.”
Gosh. Aren't you the clever ones?
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-why-is-there-no-debate-in-britain-about-the-falklands-7856549.html?origin=internalSearch
A founding member isn't something you can become, it's something you are. You scrambled to join what was to become the UN after others had done the hard work, hardly a founding member.
One persons opinion in a paper does not mean anything much - and dont forget that sort of opinion gets expressed in UK papers as they all have total press freedom, but perhaps less so in Arg ones as they fear the Govt screws and threats etc if they dare write anything that questions the presidential doctrine.
I have no doubt that the message she will receive this week from London over her waffles about AA flights will be the same - if you are serious then go and talk to the people concerned- the islands - they will be the ones you deal with professionally anyway regarding flight permits etc - as it is NOTHING to do with London - but dont be surprised if the Islands tell you where to stick AA flights, given all your nastiness to them!
@60 Billy Hayes - yep, it is a point of view but the writer selects her version of a 'politically correct' outcome and puts the story together to support this.
She doesn't live there.
Now thats a good idea, and I heard somewhere that Morales was in favour of it. And there are several South American leaders who could be a very credible inaugural leader of it from today if it was set up, and of course Cristina is one of them =)
#36 Does that mean me and my views are well known to the Islanders? I hope people don't misinterpret what I have to say as hostility, I really want the best for both sides which is why I support negotiations. To that end I'll second Idlehands' big wave to Joe from the home country =)
then suporting the witch against them
wont work,
you are either suport thier right to self determination, and the right to be british , and left alone to live in peace,
or you support CFK and her dictatership to control them.
you cant have it both ways .
I bet if she were the target of some crackpot foreign leader she'd expect the UK government to support her all by herself.
“Phooey on Buenos Aires Herald and their labeling of the Falkland Islands as “Malvinas Islands” in English”
Not at all. Buenos Aires Herald is based in Argentina and thus required to use the M-word. It would be illegal to use the proper name, Falkland Islands.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyPC0SD0PGw
Well, they don't have to avoid it... practically almost same distance, they find Chile and Punta Arenas, which have always been the direct continental contact. So they'll be fine!
Against this, the United Kingdom is a long-standing, never-conquered democracy, a powerful member of the United Nations, a permanent member of the security council, an EU member, a NATO member, a Commonwealth member and a respected member of the international community.
Despite many attacks on the UK by terrorists et al over the years, including the attempted assassination of the Prime Minister, the UK did not give in to terrorists and those using force to achieve their aims. We never give in and we never give up.
The Falkland Islands is an overseas territory of the UK, and this will remain so. Perhaps it is time to incorporate the Falklands into the United Kingdom itself (as an autonomous entity), and remove any doubt that Argentina may have as to our position, or that of our British Citizens in residence there.
One begins to experience serious fatigue listening to the 'macho-moaning' emanating from Queen Christina and Lapdog Timerman. It is only a matter of time before they fade into irrelevance with this broken record.
The wise thing to do (explains why they haven't done it!), would have been to woo the islanders ... but that would have required patience, something Argentina is short of, along with food, jobs, diplomacy, as well as foresight and hindsight.
Argentina is an aggressor. It knows no other way, and cannot demonstrate otherwise.
They often do it to look and feel “progressive” , because they know whats best for everybody (just let the nice Argentines trample over your heritage, culture and history, don't be mean to them).
You might detect a hint of sarcasm in my post- thats because most people over here think that folks who write columns like that are apologists for evil, useful idiots for the Argentine cause.
Thats why there is'nt a big debate - most of us just know that Argentina will say anything to get it's own way - lie, cheat, distort.....
Why talk to people like that?
she loves them all
then totaly ignores them.
very clever move,
taking your advice then .
But l suppose that lvan's life would be in danger if he said anything else. Argentina could have had a share in the oil, now they'll get nowt.
l have no sympathy for them & l'd just let them oil in their own juices.
What a shower of macho cry babies.
We don't need Argentina & l look foreward to an airlink to Capetown or even over the pole to Australia(one of my favourite countries!) & New Zealand.
And what did THEY do with the natives?! Anyway this fantasy that you can be completely isolated from by far the nearest country, and the continent you are part of more generally, by ”flying over the pole” or whatever, is just silliness and will have to be put away some day with other childish things. Thats my honest advice as someone from the home country who only wants the best for your long term future
You have clearly never been to the Aboriginal Homelands, I have.
As in all societies there are some intelligent and thinking persons and some real unintelligent examples. Regrettably, there are far more of the latter than the former in their nation.
I see an earlier comment - 'She (Mrs K) has done more than any other Argentine leader to make clear that the rights and traditions of the Islanders should be part of any settlement. How very kind of her. The best way she can respect the rights and traditions of the Islanders is to bugger off and leave them alone. By the way, some Islanders go back seven or eight generations which is significant in terms of ownership (in relation to her three).
What Australia did to their natives or anyone else has got nothing to do with you, me, Argentina or the Falklands.
Why even bring it up?
l just happen to have very fond memories of rural life in that country.
Thank you for wanting the best for us, but let us decide what the best will be(for us).
The best certainly does NOT include a failed rogue state like Argentina.
We don't need them & we don't want them.
Look at their shambles of a country!
What sane person would give up a stable, secure, prosperous democracy to live in a corrupt, undemocratic, nightmare that they have made all by their little selves?
You must be mad, BK, to even suggest such a ridiculous idea!
Of course we can cut ourselves off from Argentina.
And of course we can fly to where ever we want when we get the airlinks.
We owe Argentina & its crazy president absolutely nothing!
Take off your rose coloured glasses, BK & get real.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!