ARA Libertad: Timerman at UN for round of contacts beginning with Ban Ki-moon
Argentine Foreign minister Hector Timerman is scheduled to begin on Monday a round of contacts with top United Nations officials to address the issue of the training frigate ARA Libertad, impounded in Ghana.
“The only issue is the illegal detention of the frigate in Ghana because it is a highly worrying concern for world shipping since a magistrate from Ghana has decided not to respect the immunity of a war vessel as it is recognized by international public law, and of which the African nation is a signatory state”, said the office of Timerman in a communiqué.
Timerman in his round of contacts will be accompanied by Deputy Minister Eduardo Zuain, who has been to Ghana, ambassador designate to UN Maria Cristina Perceval and the ambassador in Washington, Jorge Argüello.
The Argentine minister has a meeting scheduled with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon where he plans to address the issue which refers directly to the immunities system for States.
Another meeting scheduled for Monday is with the president of the UN Security Council Gert Rosenthal and finally with the president of the UN General Assembly Minister Vuk Jeremic.
On the sidelines the legal aspects of the controversy with Ghana will be discussed by the Argentine Assistant General for Legal issues Patricia O’Biren, with the UN Legal Counsellor’s office.
Meanwhile from Accra representative of the Ghanaian government said on Sunday that the crew of the Argentine frigate ARA Libertad, is free to leave the country.
The vessel and its crew have remained in detention since 2 October at the coastal city of Tema after a Ghanaian court ruled in favour of the NML Capital Ltd fund, which is demanding payment of Argentine sovereign bonds, principal plus interest, valued at approximately 300 million dollars.
Argentina defaulted over a decade ago and is facing several lawsuits in US courts over its unpaid debts. The decision from the Ghana magistrate confirming the impound has also caused a rift of relations between Buenos Aires and Accra.
“They are free to go and leave the country through the standard process of immigration,” an unnamed Ghana high-ranking government official said.
NML, associated to the Elliott Management investment fund, said that it would only accept the release of the Argentine ship if the country pays at least 20 million dollars of the unpaid debt.
On Saturday Argentine President Cristina Fernández ordered the evacuation of the 326 crew and cadets from the vessel, leaving aboard only the captain and a small maintenance group, after accusations of human rights violations due to a judge’s refusal to allow the refuelling of the frigate.
Suggested Stories
-
May 23rd 2013
Indigenous community asks Argentine president to protect their ancestral land
-
May 23rd 2013
Beware inflation: CFK announces “political groups” will keep track of prices in shops
-
May 23rd 2013
Kirchnerite Senate majority approves whitewashing bill; next week in the Lower House
-
May 23rd 2013
Cristina Fernandez administration limits overseas dollar extractions to a minimum
130 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.
Some might feel there is a need to send an anti U.S., anti anglo-saxon, anti banker message.
They might argue the waiver of immunity for vessels was illegitimate because that “Law of the Seas” is paramount and supercedes the immunity waiver. So they don't have to honor their waiver of immunity agreement and Ghana needs to give the boat back.
Just wondering?
Finally,an intelligent thought from the Turnip field........
Keep wondering, mate, it's good for the brain....
Do you think that the general consensus at the U.N. will be in support of Argentina on this ARA Libertad issue?
No sypathy at all for Argentina, they should pay there debts like everyone else. its the same old story with this inept corrupt goverment, they do as they please but when any thing, however minor goes against them, they start throwing their toys out the pram.
Can some one correct me if i am wrong, but i am sure they impounded a USAF jet once??
Argentina taking this issue to the UN is for domestic consumption, for people like Think, to make it look like they're actually doing something. But this type of issue isn't what the UN was actually set up to sort out. It is a legal issue not a political one.
For instance, this doesn't fall under the remit of the UN Security Council, unless Argentina was planning in declaring war on Ghana, which it can't do because it would be illegal and as it hasn't got the ability to project its military power beyond South America. So the UNSC is out, although I'm sure they whinge to them, but it really isn't their responsibility.
So Argentina will take it to the General Assembly, which may after much deliberation issue a resolution that will ask both parties to sit down and talk. That is the absolute most the UN will do, and General Assembly resolutions aren't legally binding.
In fact the only international body that can sort this out is the Internatinal Court of Justice, which the Argentines won't take any issues to because their judgements are usually legally binding and quite often final. Plus their judgements can take years to be made because they will make a through investigation of all the claims and counter-claims.
The Argentine government don't have years to settle this matter.
No what the Argentine government want is the resolution from the GA asking Argentine and Ghana to talk, which they will immediately interpret as the GA ordering Ghana to give them back their ship, which isn't in the UN's power to do.
But they will take that resolution home and wave it to the people and claim that the evil Ghanaian pirates are ignoring a UN resolution telling them to give Argentina their ship back, and claim that they are the victims in all this.
It's standard modus operandi with this Argentine government.
Could CFK be handling this the difficult and loud way also for domestic consumption? To “stand up to the world” and better her falling approval ratings? To distract from problems at home?
@4 jeffski
en.mercopress.com/2011/06/16/under-pressure-argentina-returns-seized-cargo-from-us-military-plane
@2 Think -
You responded to my first post, but did not answer it's question.
Do you think that the general consensus at the U.N. will be in support of Argentina on this ARA Libertad issue?
The only laws that Argentina will follow are those that suit there own purposes.
We all remember United Nations Security Council resolution 502 that Argentina ignored completely.
Yes that is also standard modus operandi for the Argentine government.
It also interesting to note that despite being President, CFK refuses to accept responsibility for this matter (hence the number of sacrificial scape goats). It seems her modus operandi is this. If something goes well, she did it and did it all on her own. If something doesn't go well, it immediately isn't her responsibility and she will immediately blame someone else.
She can't seem to seperate in her mind the difference between responsibility and fault. An incident may not be her fault, but as President it is her responsibility.
I predict this saga will pan out exactly as LEPRecon has described. If only others could put as much thought into their posts.
Quote:
“But this type of issue isn't what the UN was actually set up to sort out. It is a legal issue not a political one.”
“...unless Argentina was planning in declaring war on Ghana, which it can't do because it would be illegal”
Political or legal? Does it stop being legal when it becomes political or is it the other way around? Make up your mind, will you...
Unlike “Others in Here”, I don’t own a “Crystal Ball” nor have such a “Profound International Policy Insight” as to foretell any UN process outcome……
But I do ”Think” that there is a growing sentiment on a vast majority of UN Member States to convey a very strong message to the ”Bankers” the “Hedge Funds”, The “Rating Agencies”, the “Vulture Funds” and their very own ” UN Security Council” about the current “Structure of Power”...............
The “ARA Libertad” affaire may very well be an opportunity to convey such message…......
Yes this is a bi-lateral 'legal' issue between Argentina and Ghana. The only people trying to politicize this incident is Argentina. It certainly won't be any business of the Security Council, unless Argentina tries to take military action against Ghana, it would then be under their authority, and they would most likely issue a resolution against Argentina's aggressive actions.
@11 Think
You don't need to own a crystal ball to understand how the processes of the UN work.
The UNSC won't get involved in a legal matter that is a bi-lateral issue between 2 countries.
The UNGA has no authority to impose its will on anyone, and they certainly cannot be seen to be taking sides, especially in a bi-lateral legal dispute between 2 countries. So the absolute most that they can do would be to encourage both side to sit down and talk.
By the way, it's also not the UN's remit to 'punish' people, even if they don't agree with them, the UN's main role is to act as mediator in disputes, hence they will probably go with a resolution encouraging Argentina and Ghana to settle their differences.
The only international body with any authority in this case IS the International Court of Justice. If Argentina thought it could win through this route you would take it. But the ICJ's rulings ARE legally binding, and if Argentina lose, there is nothing your government could do about it, and they won't risk it.
The UN cannot overrule a decision made by a sovereign nations courts, only the ICJ can. Such an act would be outside of the UN Charter.
So, Think, you only need an understanding of the UN Charter, the UN's mission, and the UN's remit to understand the likely outcome of Argentina's complaint.
Perhaps you should study the UN Charter, and look at all the articles. It will show you just how little power the UNGA has over soverign nations, they rely on cooperation of nations. The only part of the UN with teeth is the SC and this doesn't fall in their remit.
What do we need the UNITED NATIONS for, when we have our very own….:
LEPrecon (Lower Elements Police reconnaissance squad in the fictional Artemis Fowl series)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEPrecon#LEPrecon
Fairytales anybody?
Chuckle chuckle©
The current President of the Security Council is the Guatemalan ambassador, so maybe the evil Brit card, the sovereignity card, the pirate card, and all the other kneejerk cards will get some traction through LatAm solidarity. But it is rather hard to see any other members of the SC falling for it.
Presenting the issue as one of plucky resistance to evil vulture funds will probably play with the usual allies in the General Assembly, but at the expense of alienating the African members by insulting and bullying Ghana.
But fundamentally Argentina has already lost. For one thing they are humiliating themselves by placing themselves in the same bracket as poverty stricken failed states such as DRC, for another they are clearly demonstrating, once again, that an agreement with Argentina isn't worth the paper it is written on, and for a third they are showing their diplomatic ineptitude by attempting to resolve a problem by bullying, painting themselves into a corner, and then throwing a tantrum at the UN.
Some members are bound to notice where exactly it is they have seen this strategy before.
www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?feature=plpp&v=BQZbOY5Q3ZU
theintelhub.com/2012/02/23/trillion-dollar-terror-exposed-bush-fed-and-european-banks-in-15-trillion-fraud-all-documented/
m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?feature=plpp&v=Tym9AhMNcP0
LEPRecon responded to your post with a valid description of the UN SC/GA roles & remits and your only counter is to post a pointless link referencing his username.
Why is it whenever you are proved to be wrong you desperately try to distract from the topic in question?
It's something I notice with a log of the Argentine posters on Mercopress.
Oh now we try to distract the thread do we? Oh we know how to search on wiki - oooh impressive. No not impressive, what's the word? Oh yes. Pathetic.
I have stated several times on Mercopress where my handle comes from, so it's hardly news is it? Artemis Fowl by my favourite Irish author Eoin Colfer. You really need to keep up and start THINKING.
Regarding this thread, the UN do NOT take sides, no matter how much wishful thinking you apply to the matter.
The only part of the UN with any actual power is the UNSC. This is a legal matter, so not under their remit.
The UNGA may pass a resolution, but they will only go as far as asking both parties to talk to each other.
So that leaves Argentina only one option, go to the International Court of Justice. But you won't because you can't influence the result in your favour. The ICJ are impartial and will only look at hard facts, like the fact that Argentinian government waived its sovereign immunity on its assets to secure loans.
Face it, Think, Argentina isn't going to get its way over this, and will either have to abandon the ARA Libertad to NML or cough up the $20,000,000 US dollars to get the ship back.
The ball is in the Argentine governments court, but the longer they delay, the more it will cost them. No matter how many times your government crys, stamps their feet or accuses Ghana of 'picking' on them will wash with the UN.
Argentina needs to grow up and start accepting responsibility for its actions.
you read the koala comments.
If you're not going to comment on this thread why bother posting at all?
It may well be an opportunity to do this but it would be very punchy on the part of the UN to put pressure on the government/courts of Ghana to change their decision. Yes the UN may wish to see the ship back in the hands of the Argentiean government but they won't want this if they are seen to be moving against the rule of law.
They will probably ask the government to look into the situation and the government pretend to look like they are doing something but, in the end, it will bew more important for the Ghanain government to demonstrate that they operate by the rule of law...
Argentina should not pay ransom to rogue states, terrorists and murderers who's only focus is to murder innocent Muslims women and children around the world and the theft limited natural resources from all nations and people.
www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold/
theintelhub.com/2012/02/23/trillion-dollar-terror-exposed-bush-fed-and-european-banks-in-15-trillion-fraud-all-documented/
m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?feature=plpp&v=BQZbOY5Q3ZU
m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?feature=plpp&v=Tym9AhMNcP0
GREAT idea! Yes, let Argentina do that! And then NO ONE in the world will invest as much as a peso in their economy.
They may even face economic sanctions for their illegal acts.
Yup, lets islolate Argentina even further from the real world.
But at the end of the day, Argentina still won't have it's ship.
Oh, and trying to distract the thread from Argentina's humiliation won't work, even bringing up the poor muslims won't work.
It'll be the Chagossians next! LOL
Poor pirat-hunter, a pathetic little man who loves Argentina SOOOOO much he won't even live there. LOL
Psst, PH, the Ghanaians still have your ship.
You forgot about your nuclear defence program that'll fix all this.
Lets get some facts straight, the crew and “passengers” on the Libertard, were never prevented from leaving the ship.
The port of Tema is not to bad a place to be stranded.
Buses were laid on to take the crew to the Labadi Beach Hotel and the Accra Mall.
The fact that they might have run out of fuel can only be down not being able to reach agreement on payment for the fuel required - who in their right mind would provide fuel on credit to Argentina under these circumstances.
Yup, Argentina may regret those statements. The UN won't put up with such blatant lies, and the Ghanaians may take the Argentine government to court for liable and slander.
Accusing people of human rights abuses, when there aren't any, can also lead to Argentina get censured at the UN.
Oct 22nd, 2012 - 09:12 am
That's great LEP. Seeing as the thread is going nowhere fast, what did you think of Eoin Colfer's take on Hitchikers Fuide to the Galaxy? I thought he did a cracking job myself.
Douglas Adams would've approved, I'm sure. :)
www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=253706
You say
Presenting the issue as one of plucky resistance to evil Vulture Funds (VF’s) will probably play with the usual allies in the GA, but at the expense of alienating the African members….
I say
VF’s have no friends in Africa
It is their activities in Zambia, Liberia, Congo Republic and other poor countries which have caused the most concern. In 02, the British Chancellor Gordon Brown told the UN that it was morally outrageous and perverse that VF’s made vast profits by buying up the debts of these poor countries cheaply and then suing for ten or a hundred times what they paid for them.
The IMF and WB agree that VF’s endanger the gains made by debt relief to poor countries “The Bank has already delivered more than US40 billion in debt relief to 30 countries… thanks to this, countries like *”GHANA”* can provide micro-credit to farmers, build classrooms for their children, and fund water and sanitation projects for the poor…”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture_fund#Vulture_Funds_in_Africa
VF’s circle over Asia
www.indianexpress.com/news/and-now-vulture-funds/14019
VF’s circle over Europe
Ireland Spain Greece
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/baa89656-9613-11e1-a6a0-00144feab49a.html
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/vulture-funds-circle-as-greece-fears-grow-7758127.html
VF’s circle over Latin-America
www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/we-must-stop-the-vulture_b_290714.html
thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/234289-vulture-funds-and-their-mythys-about-argentina
(16) L S
You say
LEPRecon responded to your post with a valid description of the UN SC/GA roles & remits.
I say
Valid description? By who’s standards? Artemis Fowl’s ?
(20) W W
You say
”It may well be an opportunity to do this but it would be very punchy on the part of the UN to put pressure on….”
I say
It is high time for somebody (it may as well be the UN) to get ”Punchy” against the Bankers, Hedge Funds Rating Agencies and VF’s.
Don’t you Think?
I'm aware of that, Mr Think.
But it's a smokescreen.
What we really have here is a fabulously wealthy country by most African standards, which could well honour its legal agreements but has chosen not to, trying to cloak itself in victimhood while insulting and bullying an African state with a higher standard of governance.
You don't need to be a friend of the vulture funds to turn your nose up at this.
Very lame, and still trying to distract the thread.
I have directed you to the UN Charter, try this Article 2.
“The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. ”
All you have to do is read the UN Charter, and the proof of what I've said is visible for all to see.
There are other parts and articles of the UN Charter that support me too.
Chap, whether it is high time somebody got punchy or not doesn't really change the situation. The UN is very unlikely to really do anything as it isn't the right forum. Furthermore, the UN will not want to look like they are putting pressure on the judiciary in Ghana. Ultimately they will probably come out with something saying that they want a speedy resolution to the issue, the Ghanaian government will agree but will then say that they can't pressure the judiciary so back to square 1. The most the Argentinean government can hope for is a “stongly worded statement” ending with a conciliatory note stating that they hope this can be sported out asap...
Your point is well corroborated,within the link provided @29 - which states:
”In contrast, Argentina—a regional power in its South American neighbourhood with twice the population, twelve times the GDP, and eight times the foreign exchange reserves of Ghana (more than enough to pay off its overdue debts many times over)—received just $7.2 billion in FDI last year. This sharp contrast is understandable when one considers that Buenos Aires has been something of a deadbeat with its obligations since it underwent the largest default in history in 2001, one involving some $100 billion in bonds.”
You say:
“What we really have here is a fabulously wealthy country by most African standards….”
I say:
Are you referring to the Democratic Republic of Congo, widely considered to be the richest country in the world regarding natural resources....?
(32) LEPRecon
Your “Artemis Fowl” constructed interpretation of the “Malvinas Islands British Squatters” as being a ”Distinct People” deserving the usufruct of the UN consecrated right of Self- Determination clearly show the limitations of your interpretative capacities of any UN documentation.
(33) Welsh Wizard
You may be right……
But ”somebody” has to do it….
And that ”somebody” is, today, Argentina.
Let's hope that others join this worth crusade ;-)
We will soon see… Won’t we?
The fact that the majority of bond holders came to an agreement on restructuring Argentina's debt does not change the legality of the remaining debt held by those that did not agree with the restructure.
We will see, although Argentina would be better served by going to the international courts and getting a judgement out of them, this way they would set a precedent for any other asset grab by NML. Also, Ghana would have to abide by it as it would be consistent with their rule of law stance. Have to say that I'm quite suprised that the Argentinean government hasn't decided to go down this route as it's a win-win for them...
Regardless of where my handle comes from it won't change the reality of this situation for Argentina.
Constantly referring to Artemis Fowl (don't knock the books if you've never read them), and bringing up the Falklands (why do you bring the Maldives into it?), is more than ample proof that you can't THINK of any counter-argument that holds any sway to this embarrassing situation your government has led your country into.
Try READING the UN charter, Think. It will wash away all those fantasies that Argentina has, and bring you back to reality.
The Ghana Pols knew long before the ship came into harbor exactly where this was going to end up. They took the risk knowing they were on the side of the law and wanted to gain respect as a legitimate country with the World's business community
The courts know they are on the side of their laws and Int'l laws. Do you seriously think they would endanger their reputation and Ghana's reputation without a well thought out ruling?
Argentina seems to think whinging and stomping their feet works for them. I think this time they are going to be taught a lesson they will not soon forget.
It is funny how everything seems to happen all at once. The 4th quarter of this year is going to be pretty bleak for the Rgs.
You say:
“ Argentina would be better served by going to the international courts......”
I say:
But we ARE taking this issue to the International Courts, Mr. Welsh Wizard, we are......
It has been stated repeatedly by the present administration.....
Don't you read the papers?
Unfortunately for Argentina this won't create one of those protracted situations where everything is frozen for them to moan on about the situation for years.
The boat will simply be sold, probably for very little, as I'm sure the Argentines will threaten anyone interested in bidding for it.
I have read some Artemis Fowl books aloud, for some infant members of my Clan…..
I have read them aloud in three different languages, none of them English….
That’s why I know what a Wonderful Childish Universe Artemis Fowl lives in….
Apparently the same you inhabit, “Mr. LEPRecon”…….............
(“I hope you're as smart as you keep telling us you are.”)
It is in the nature of the beast to do so AND to stir up whatever trouble they can with any country they can that in their own febrile mind seems to ‘help’ them.
Think is the epitome of this approach: lie, obfuscate and when that fails try to deflect the legitimate comments onto someone else. If only the negative energy and effort of people like him and the government were focussed in a positive manner the country would never have been put into the degenerate standing it presently holds.
If AG really wants to get a resolution to this hugely embarrassing situation they have only to pay their debts.
Allegedly they have USD 46 billion in the bank. Is this money for real or is it INDEC imagination?
I suspect the truth lies somewhere in-between and TMBOA cannot bring herself to face reality. The reality is that have lost on this matter and no amount of bluff and bluster by the ‘delegation’ (and check out these AG elite if you want a real laugh) is going to make one iota of difference.
No you are not taking it to the International Courts, you are just moaning about it to the UN.
If you are interested (since you're obviously not interested in reading the UN charter), here is a link to the current cases being heard by the ICJ - the only court in the world that can overrule the Ghanaian courts decisions.
www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=2
You will see that Argentina isn't on it. Maybe the Argentine government are planning on taking this matter to the ICJ, but they haven't yet, and to be honest they probably never will. The ICJ takes it's time over deliberations, wanting access to all relevant evidence and information.
If Argentina did take this to the ICJ its judgement may take months, if not years, and then it may not be in Argentina's favour.
Think, that boat will be long gone before the case is ever heard at The ICJ
It is amazing that given the choice CFK always chooses the wrong path.
I have a feeling there will be a lot of good articles up for discussion in December.
Again trying to distract the thread from the fact that your government is constantly humiliating the people of Argentina on the international stage.
Pathetic, Think, pathetic.
Oh, I've never told anyone how smart I am, I leave that to 'turnips' like yourself, the Troll and Guzz. You guys are always blowing your own trumpet.
I don't need to because I'm happy with who I am.
But Think, instead of reading Artemis Fowl books, you could try reading the UN Charter.
www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml
Who knows you may actually learn something.
Yeahhh... Yeahhh Artemis... I know.... You are a Genius.....;-)
Yeah, yeah you haven't got a counter argument so you turn childish and avoid the issues. Having trouble with the big words used in the UN Charter? They do a copy in every language in the world you know, maybe you should try the Spanish version if those words in English are too much for you.
Oh and Ghana still has your ship. Your country still owes lots of money. The Falklands are still British. Your government still oppresses the Native Amerindians. And your unions are threatening your government.
What are you gonna do, Guzz? Cry?
its the likes of yourself and GOT who keep telling us how clever you all are.
Yourself - “I am so clever I have read books in 3 languages and none of them in English”!
GOT - “I am fluent in 5 languages”
This perceived cleverness on both your parts, proves absolutely nothing
In the end, lots of dust and feathers, but nothing will be accomplished. 20 m was cheap.
Let us not forget that the Argentine government knew this was likely to happen and they skulked around trying to hide from justice. Unfortunately Timerman made the momentous mistake of thinking Ghana was a debtor's hide-out. Timerman, always Timerman at the route of all cock-ups.
Now the Argentines have had to beg Chile and Brazil for aircraft to repatriate the sailors as they know an Aerolineas jet will also be seized.
The ship had sailors from numerous South American countries onboard and they have all been shamed by Argentina's feckless behaviour. How utterly embarrassing. CFKC must feel like a woman inviting her neighbours round for high tea to impress them and have the bailiffs turn up.
Despite the entertainment value of this story, there are enough governments that don’t like what is happening, who will be prepared to put pressure on Ghana. I am thinking particularly about Brazil. Ghana is on the other side of Brazil’s “Blue Amazon” and Brazil can put string in Ghana, as the Ghanaian government can pull strings in its judiciary. The boat will sail.
@Elaine
Brazil and Chile have offered aircraft because there is probably no Argie aircraft that could make it across the Atlantic: La Nacion ran a story about the state of the armed forces in Argentina. Due to budget restrictions only 3 Arg navy boats were able to partake in international operations this year. Two were sent to Brazil and both broke down on the way. One when to South Africa and broke down on the way. It was fixed, but has since broken down again and is now stranded in South Africa waiting for some Germans to arrive and fix it. In the air force, none of the Mirages are flying because they can’t get spares. It is a sorry state.
Not bothering,.,.,.,.just detection .
All comments English are neither American nor British.
All comments writing styles are methodic,planned agitprop
and as if derived from same thinking brain not from differents
All comments timings are neither Europe nor South America
Then ?
My guess the ship will be on its way to UK as soon as Singer finds a crew.
They won’t stick their neck out or put risk their prestige, but they will apply pressure quietly behind the scenes. Brazil wants good relations with their neighbour and if they can help them out of what is a monumentally humiliating situation, at very little cost to Brazil, then they will.
Pay Up!
Ai escratch iur back
Comprende? :-)))
“Quite pressure” from Brazil will do nothing to move this case through the courts. As I state earlier the Ghana Pols have already staked out their path prior to the ship ever coming into port. Why would they side with Brazil with they can side with USA/UK/Commonwealth it makes no sense.
The Brazilian consulate in Ghana is already involved.
Brazil has cadets onboard that's why they are involved. I'm sure they're making sure they are safe and trying to get them home.
There is nothing to do politically, pols can't overrule courts. So what are you implying that Brazil could accomplish?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
There is hope for the survival of the free press as the truth will be very profitable in sales.
A Ghanaian court has upheld a demand from a private US entity. That is not the same as US/UK diplomatic involvement.
I am implying that Brazilian diplomatic pressure could result in the overturning of the court ruling. Legal rulings are susceptible to political and/ or public pressure in all countries. I don’t expect Ghana to be an exception.
“Legal rulings are susceptible to political and/ or public pressure in all countries. I don’t expect Ghana to be an exception.”
In some, more than others. Ghana's democratic resilience is subject to test, and so far - exemplary standard.
Do you seriously think the US Embassy isn't aware and involved? Singer is one of the richest people in the USA they know exactly what is happening.
legal rulings maybe overturned by the politicians were you come from but in truly democratic nations this does not happen.
I think they would be declared “persona non grata” and ejected from the country.
No way would Brazil risk it for Argentina.
No way.
I'm sure Brazil has been doing the grown up diplomatic stuff behind the scenes since this situation began. But the Agentine government isn't helping their own case here.
1st the turn up in Ghana and treat the Ghanaians like crap (not very diplomatic is it), they are rude ans arrogant.
2ndly they then stand up in front of the world's media and accuse them of abusing the crew.
Now, I'll admit I'm not an expert at diplomacy, but even I know that you don't insult people, especially when they have something you want.
So I'm sure the Brazilian diplomats will talk to the Ghanaian government, but it really isn't in the interests of the Ghanaian government to try and over-rule their own judiciary, especially for a country that has erroneously accused them of human rights abuses because they oudn't get their own way.
It would take a very skilled diplomat to persuade the Ghanaians otherwise. And let's be honest, just what is in it for the people of Ghana?
On the one hand they can stick to their guns and how the international community how they abide by the rule of law, and show that they are strong and won't be bullied.
On the other hand what does it show? That they break their own laws and are seen to be intimidated by Argentina.
No I have to disagree with you. Brazil may try to act as an intermediary, but Argentina has insulted Ghana and they won't forget that.
@4 Not quite. Argieland seized some equipment from a USAF C-17. It was visiting argieland to conduct “advanced hostage rescue and crisis management techniques.” to the argie federal police. Just argieland flexing its non-existent muscles and trying to look big.
@6 Hang in there. Sooner or later some argie clown will list the UN resolutions that the UK isn't complying with. What argies can't get through their thick skulls is that NO UN General Assembly resolution is binding. They trot them out as though they are “law”. They aren't. They are “recommendations”, “wishes” or “hopes”. The FACT is that every “argument” they've ever come up with for possession of the Falklands has been refuted HERE! Lies and non-binding UN resolutions are all they have.
@11 Good thought. Since you don't have crystal balls, or any other variety, why don't you just wait for the auction? The Falkland Islands should be favourite to “take possession”. Some long-delayed “reparations”. Plus a ready-made, unbeatable defence force.
@14 UN resolutions have to be seen to be fair and reasonable. This could be argieland's chance to destroy any reputation the UN has left. Stupidly, argieland went for publicity. Now the world knows that Ghana is right and argieland has tried to bully a Superior Court, a government and a country. How to prove you are worthless!
@15 Squirm and lie!
@22 Attempted threats. Easy from Canada. Why not go back to argieland and wait for the Marines to arrive?
@29 Brilliant link! Thank you.
@30 Desperation!
@32 You've left out paragraph 8!
“8. None of the above provisions apply to the faggots of Argentina.” Or is that just what argies would like to see it say?
@37 “win-win”? For argieland? In what universe?
@40 Everywhere, except for the one court with jurisdiction.
@45 NO!! Falkland Islands!
@53 Any chance of “Timerman Firing Squad” on DVD?
They can make as much noise as they wish at the different UN committees, none of which can overturn the Ghana court decision.
There is no way any political pressure will be able to change the Ghana court ruling.
They could always sail to the nearest Ecuadorian Embassy and claim asylum!
Personally, I continue to feel that taking the Libertad was rather low (and I would have gone after their nationalized airline assets since the “vultures” already have a bad repoman rep) but the reality is that until we get an official ruling from the ICJ on if the LoTS Treaty gives them an out from their bond wavers, this a problem of the Kirchners' administrations' making (albeit with some inheritance from their predecessors) and they need to be grownups about it. I just don't see how they can milk much sympathy from this by playing this out longer and longer.
But all those other people are foreigners, and so don't matter in the eyes of the Argentine government. It's all about them.
I do wonder if Argentina will get itself suspended from the UNSC for wasting their time with this irrelevant drivel.
If the US UK CW were involved I would agree with you, but I doubt they are. Of course the US embassy will be aware, but I don’t think they will be partisan ( I would hope and expect they weren’t).
68 agent
I don’t know where you are from, but there are always cases and circumstances when political/public will overlaps with the judiciary. I will assume you are British for the moment...the recent case of Teresa May intervening to halt the extradition of one hacker to the US (I applaud her) is a recent example. It was a high profile extradition case in which many public and political figures influenced the outcome. There are many such cases and we could go on, but it is not the subject and I wouldn’t have touched on it if not for your post.
69 yanqui
It happens a lot. If a UK, French, Chilean etc citizen is detained in a foreign country, the citizen’s diplomatic mission in that country may intervene at a legal level and if the case becomes important for the public at home, at a political level.
70 Lep
I agree with much of what you say and I know that I might be wrong, but I think on balance enough pressure will be put on Ghana to release the boat.
71 Capitan
Actually Chile scores very highly in transparency international corruption index, but yes, I am sure there are cases were politics influence the judiciary. You are throwing the term “troll” pretty wide there. I am not here to insult anyone and as a general rule don’t. I am only expressing my opinion on the topic of the thread – not a troll, not pro CFK, not malvinista.
Then again, if Argentina just takes some responsibility for it's own actions and pays what it owes, then we can get along as normal.
¿Why does Timerman and other government spokesmen always avoid telling that Argentina explicitly waived its sovereign immunity on its assets?
I agree she made a good decision when all aspects of the case are considered.
Do you read what you post?
You are delusional
I ”Think” that, if your old naval academy paper about the GS contains similar amount of fantasy and wishfull thinking as this comment does, Langsdorff would still be alive (possibly at el Frutillar) and the Huns would have won the war ;-)
Let me clarify that:
1) For this administration ”Political Considerations”, it would be a good thing is those ”Luxury Cruise Passengers” landed at Ezeiza on a Brazilian or Chilean civil aircraft.....
2) I doubt that the Argentinean Navy will ”organize” any sort of ”Ticker Tape Parade” for these “Luxury Cruise Heroes”…..
3) There will, of course, be some press… Those young, white uniformed, well groomed ”Heroes of Ghana” will have ample opportunity to talk to the media about their traumatic experiences of being transported in air-conditioned Chinese minibuses from the ship to the Casino-Hotel and the beaches, days on end, for two whole interminable weeks…..
A very minor ”best seller” indeed…..
TWIMC
I have a confession to made…..
Condorito is one of my many Sock Puppets…..
I use him to Troll the Internet against the United Kingdom of Great Britain….
As I use “Captain Poppies”, “Toooldtodiejung”, LERPEcon, Yankiboy, Chichurrio, ElianeB and many, many others…..
;-)
No probs, easily done.
81 Alberto
Answer: Domestic consumption of news sound bites.
Elaine,
yes I realize that it has always been her job, but the point is that (and many in the UK don’t like this) a politician has the final say over a legal process. Personally I think it is fine, when used seldom and with responsibility. On your suggestion that yielding to political pressure would have meant her handing him over, no. The public overwhelmingly didn’t want him extradited, along with a high profile lobby group of celebrities, so the political pressure (appease the public) was to say no to the US. I really didn’t want to get in to it because it is way off topic, but I just wanted to point out that politics (and even the monarchy in the UK) can weigh on judicial process. I think it is fine and I am not criticising your system, it serves you well and has evolved over many centuries.
Yuppppp..............
That's exactly what happened with the Chagossians....
The Highest British Court said...: Give the Chagossians their land back.
But then: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdjCb4LwQY
Their system serves them well indeed!
Now Timerman has been told by the UNSC that this matter is none of their business, as we already knew would happen, where is he running crying to next?
“Condi or er um Toby”
Come on. Look at my relatively limited vocab and statements like “I could be wrong”.
At 69 you say:
“I can't imagine any foreign ministry trying to influence court proceedings in a sovereign state.”
And now you ask:
“AND the USA is not involved?”
So do you think the US is doing the unimaginable and trying to influence proceedings? I think not, but I think that Brazil is, yes.
88 Elaine. Yes I appreciate that.
If there ever was a resolution on this issue, it would have no legal weight, it would not be a mandate. But I think that message would take a swipe against bankers, but try not to side against any country. The UN bureaucrats will brush right over the agreement to waive immunity. They'll spin it as “irrelevant”. That's only my opinion.
I think this non-binding message would influence things in Ghana, on a subtle level.
But in the end, I don't think CFK can lose the ship, that would be the most embarrassing scenario for her at home by far. She'll pay if she has to, bring the ship home, have a parade maybe, and spin her capitulation into some “grievous injustice”, “us against the world” propaganda.
Can't wait to see what really happens.
It's a pity that you don't use your brain occasionally. I know it would hurt you but you could try occasionally.
Oh by the way the UNSC has told Timidman that this is none of their business. Maybe my crystal ball is better at seeing the future than yours. :)
- about: “Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger.” (Franklin P. Jones)
before you try to derail the subject “Timerman at UN for round of contacts beginning with Ban Ki-moon”.
Timerman is trying to suppress a court ruling, although he knows (so do you) that Argentina's debts were incurred based on the premise that Argentina explicitly waived its sovereign immunity, thus rendering enforcement proceedings against it a matter of routine commercial debt collection in common law countries.
Rosenthal made a statement earlier today on the meeting: “We had a conversation about this incident. I spoke to the chancellor and he also knows that the Security Council is concerned with the maintenance of world peace and security and that this case is not exactly threatening world peace.” However, he continued, “this is an issue which concerns us very much, not only as the Security Council but as a UN member country; clearly there is a problem of international law affecting and threatening not only Argentina but every country in the world.”
www.modernghana.com/news/425433/1/argentina-calls-for-un-help-over-seized-ship.html
She is not above the rule of law,
You cannot ignore, abuse , threaten , intimidate , insult ,
Then cry help, when the neighbours cat scratches you.
Either grow up, and obey the rules yourself,
Or go and get it yourself,
After all, you have a big enough mouth, do you not..
.
Argentina's foreign minister on Monday called on the United Nations to help free a navy sailing...
Argentina's foreign minister on Monday called on the United Nations to help free a navy sailing ship seized in Ghana over an unpaid debt.
Foreign Minister Hector Timerman sought help from the UN Security Council and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon over the case of the ARA Libertad, which has been held in a Ghanaian port since October 2.
But the Security Council president, Gert Rosenthal, Guatemala's UN ambassador, said the 15-member body could not intervene in what was a legal dispute over an outstanding debt.
“I explained to the foreign minister, and he knows that the Security Council is concerned with the maintenance of global peace and security and that this case is not exactly threatening world peace,” said Rosenthal, who is chair of the council for October.
Timerman went on to meetings with Ban and UN General Assembly president Vuk Jeremic, telling reporters he had prepared a document setting out his country's case. He called the seizure of the ship “completely illegal”.
The three-masted tall ship, which has a crew of 300, has been held in a port near Accra since a Ghanian court backed an order sought by a Cayman Islands investment fund which says it is owed more than $370 million by the Argentine government.
Geez, even the political laymen saw this coming.......now what tinman? Another workdwide embarrassment!!
www.starafrica.com/en/news/detail-news/view/argentina-readies-evacuation-of-ship-cre-258081.html
Here is an idea Pirat-Hunter will love:
Argentina should immediately build nuclear bombs, lots of nuclear bombs.
Argentina should then drop their nuclear bombs on foreign owned companies
- in Argentina - to cleanse the state of evil foreigners.
She is not above the rule of law
Perhaps you shouldapply this to the UK in the Malvinas case
Wow, well if he's handing out free tickets to New York....I've been to Ghana, can I go too? It's seems a long way to go, just to come back again..........
But the Security Council president, Gert Rosenthal, Guatemala's UN ambassador, said the 15-member body could not intervene in what was a legal dispute over an outstanding debt.
“I explained to the foreign minister, and he knows that the Security Council is concerned with the maintenance of global peace and security and that this case is not exactly threatening world peace,” said Rosenthal, who is chair of the council for October.
You are mixing up responsibility for extradition and the criminal law as well as civil law.
The 'criminal hacker' claimed by the Pentagon to have caused millions of dollars of damage was no such thing. The Pentagon could not even run their own security system properly with many of the passwords being the word password or mother, etc. The Pentagon used this Brit because they could not catch the real hackers and needed a success. In reality, if these military numb-nuts had half-a-brain they would have kept their mouths shut. Are you impressed that they couldn’t hold a piss-up in a brewery when we consider what was at risk here? They claimed at one point it could have triggered a nuclear conflict but I think that was up there with there are WMD in Iraq, in other words they were lying to ‘puff’ their claim.
We (Britain) to my shame have allowed this one way extradition law to become OUR law. What we should have to the Americans was ‘provide the evidence and we will consider our response’. We should not have allowed ourselves to be bullied by such an incompetent arm of the American Military. Theresa May was correct in this decision. Yet again it takes a woman with bigger balls than Cameron to uphold British values.
With regard to the criminal law: no chance of arm twisting our judiciary do not report to the government. With regard to the civil law, I have never known any such thing in 35 years of civil law involvement at the commercial level.
“ A honest answer is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger.” (Think)
Nobody is denying and everybody knows that a previous Argentinean administration waived some of our sovereign immunity rights in order to loan money….
Question now is….:
Was the Argentinean administration entitled to wave such rights?
Were the International Money Lenders entitled to ask for such a waiver?
To which degree is it legal (if at all) to wave fundamental rights for commercial purposes?
To exemplify:
I loan one million kroner from you, my dear Danish stranger….
As collateral, you ask me to “wave my right to live” to you....
I can’t pay you back……................
Would any court accept your “aquired right” to kill me?
I don’t “Think” so……
bahahahaa
Condi, Again, the US embassy is well aware what is going on in Ghana. I'm sure they were part the due diligence prior to the ship entering the harbor. I''m sure Singer's attorney were working very closely with the Embassy as soon as the port call was announced.
Sorry you lose.
More to follow in December...
That money was borrowed by a “previous” administration, so we don't have to pay it back.
And you have no right to kill me. That's why.
I wasn’t mixing them up, I do understand the difference. In fact I didn’t want to get on to the matter because it is off topic. I was merely pointing out (in reply to 65) that it is not uncommon for politics to influence judicial proceedings. There are other examples from the UK I could have given but they are more inflammatory so I prefer to leave it. Besides, I am not suggesting UK legal proceeding will be influenced. It is the legal process in Ghana that might be susceptible to outside pressure.
yanqui,
I will have “lost” when the boat sails off to its new owner NML, until then, the jury is out, so to speak.
“For humans, honesty is a matter of degree. Engineers are always honest in matters of technology and human relationships. That's why it's a good idea to keep engineers away from customers, romantic interests, and other people who can't handle the truth.”[Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle]
I am an engineer and a scientist. You really do not want to go down this road of how the Americans won both World Wars. The position of my country in supporting the Americans since WW2 is public knowledge.
My real friends are the ones who can challenge my concepts with the truth and likewise for me, yet WE KNOW we can trust our friends with our lives. I used to think that about the USA. After a number of episodes like the hacker nonsense I am a little circumspect now.
I note that you do not challenge my post at all: good, the actions of your governmental lawyers and Military Intelligence in this matter are indefensible.
There are many of us Brits who admire the young Americans of both wars who volunteered and made the ultimate sacrifice, when their governments were stymied from entering the conflict by the electorate who kept parroting ‘it’s not our problem’. WW2 and the advent of Pearl Harbour soon changed that, thankfully.
This is not an apology, just an explanation of how things are. I do hope and trust that this helps clarify my position.
I doubt ICJ would even take the case.
If CFK really thought they were going to get it back they wouldn't be flying the crew home.
They've already written it off.
I will be one of the 1st people on board when it gets to NYC!
Maybe they're a welcome cheer-up to a boring day, trying to hold laughter in front of Tinbrainman speaking.
Who though in a country awash with million and billionaires would step up...oh darn i forgot..they wont be able to buy the dollars to pay with ..CFK FOOT SHOOTING AGAIN...oh yes they would have to actually pay taxes on their money also..
Answer: Yes, a government can waive these rights.
“Were the International Money Lenders entitled to ask for such a waiver?”
Answer: Yes, of course. A money lender can ask for any condition within the laws. The borrower is free to NOT accept them an then NOT borrow.
”To which degree is it legal (if at all) to wave fundamental rights for commercial purposes?”
Answer: The right to exclude property as collateral for a debt is NOT a fundamental right. It is done all the time when a juridical person (human, corporate, state, ...) borrows.
“To exemplify:
I loan one million kroner from you, my dear Danish stranger….
As collateral, you ask me to “wave my right to live” to you....
I can’t pay you back..............”
Answer: To waive your/my/his/her/their right to live is NOT within the context of law.
So if it turns out that Argentina signed an invalid waiver clause, would you say that was through ignorance or bad faith?
Well, my dear Danish stranger...
Argentina's current administration (and I) disagree with your two first answers.
This matter will have to be clarified by the pertinent courts.
(115) HansNiesund
I would say an equal part of both .......from both sides.
As I said above; this matter will have to be clarified by the pertinent courts.
If a government cannot waive its rights when it wants, isn't that a loss of sovereignity?
Which pertinent courts would that be? The only court that can overrule the Ghanaian court is the International Court of Justice.
Argentina hasn't even filed a complaint with them yet. Considering how long these legal cases can take Argentina better get a move on.
Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman announced triumphantly on Saturday that the crew of the training vessel was set to be evacuated.
The minister’s triumphant tones has been lowered,as the government still hasn’t worked out how to bring the Libertad cadets home. Chile seems to have offered to provide a plane to bring the crew back and Argentina has asked Brazil to provide one.
“The problem HAS been solved”
I am glad to hear it. The poor cadets and crew have been ignored long enough by the Argentine government's orgullo nacional.
Most countries pay their judgements.
Argentina is a deadbeat and a scofflaw
Now the bondholders can collect wherever and whenever they find Rg assets.
Guess what!
They found one
It will look so pretty in NYC.
So pretty,
I wonder what else they will find
I think there are a few buildings in DC that are up for grabs
I thought CFK had bought her daughter Floride an apartment in Manhatten, right??
Surely, Singer would easily have collected a list of Argie assets - what would qualify to be seized??
Ha ha. I see where you are trying to come from chap but I’m sorry to say that is possibly the worse piece of legal analysis I've come across, as well as showing a vacuous knowledge of standard commercial terms.
1. Q: Is waiver of immunity legally valid.
A: Yes both in the law governing the transaction documents and also under Argentinean law.
2. Q: Could the provision be struck out?
A: Yes, but only if the Argentinean government could prove that they were an unsophisticated financial entity (i.e. couldn't understand such a clause) and that they had no legal representation. Considering they paid a “white shoe” firm to do the work, they would have had full disclosure as to what this meant. Furthermore they had agreed to other such provisions previously.
Q: Can this provision be likened to saying that, on non-payment, you can kill someone.
A: No, that is contra legem and would be struck out by the courts.
You say that the current administration says that this kind of waiver is not legal and yet it is still legal under Argentinean law. Furthermore they are not disputing the validity of the waiver of sovereign immunity; they are just saying that it doesn't count in this case. That is the crux of the argument, to what state assets can to take security under this clause. The documents that they signed say pretty much any (including this ship). They knew this which is why they have been trying to make sure it doesn’t dock in certain places. It is also why they aren’t taking any legal action at a higher court because they know what would happen.
No need Pirate Hunter here
Eagerly need a Talent Hunter to explore and see
an exceptional talent who can able to write even novels easily
by using so many different personification names here.
If we look at the Litérature History,we'll see mány big novelists there.
Between: Republic of Argentina, Appellant - and - NML Capital Limited, Respondent
APPENDIX 3
The terms of the bonds
... The republic has in the fiscal agency agreement waived any objection to related proceedings in such courts whether on grounds of venue, residence or domicile or on the ground that the related proceedings have been brought in an inconvenient forum. The republic agrees that a final non-appealable judgment in any such related proceeding ('the related judgment') shall be conclusive and binding upon it and may be enforced in any specified court or in any other courts to the jurisdiction of which the republic is or may be subject (the 'other courts') by a suit upon such judgment.
... the republic has hereby irrevocably agreed not to claim and has irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction ...
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/41.html
Frankly I hope so, but all they really need to do is recognise the unarguable legality of Argentina's case
#94 Good idea, they're going through all legal and peaceful avenues first, but if it comes to it this would be a classic justified military action
#113 If someone has to, and then run for President...well, you keep saying how Croistina is rich =)
#124 Don't think she used Argentine treasury money for that though you muppet!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!