Falkland Islands’ delegates touring US and Latinamerica to drum up support for self-determination
Following the resounding results from this weekend’s referendum Falkland Islands delegates will tour the United States, Canada, the Caribbean and Latin America to drum up support for their right to self-determination.
Falklands’ lawmaker Mike Summers is already in the US and is scheduled to visit Washington where he expects to talk to US State Department officials and New York, where he will have a meeting at the United Nations.
MLA Summers and other members from the Legislative Assembly will also take the Falklands' message to the international media.
“We're taking the result of the referendum to various countries to ask for support, to encourage them not to sit on the fence, and to show that this is not an argument between Britain and Argentina, it is a human rights issue,” he said interviewed by the British media.
“The vote gives us a strong hand. It is an act of self-determination that nations should be able to support even if they don't support the UK.”
The initiative appears aimed at countering growing Argentine diplomatic relations. The government of President Cristina Fernandez has lobbied UN and regional bodies, paid for full-page advertisements in British newspapers and, most controversially, restricted access to the Islands. It has persuaded South American neighbors to turn away Falklands-flagged ships, curtailed over-flights and imposed sanctions on companies that exploit the natural resources (fisheries and oil) of the Falklands/Malvinas.
Argentine foreign minister Héctor Timerman, has declared the referendum on the Islands political status and future, “illegal”. Alicia Castro, Argentina's ambassador to the UK, described the vote as “totally irrelevant”.
“The situation is the same as it was yesterday. We have witnessed yet another delaying maneuver” she told an Argentine radio.
The Falkland islanders have the support of the UK government, which can often be counterproductive in a region where Britain's colonial history is widely reviled.
To get what they say is a distinct message across the community of some 2,900 Falkland Islanders has initiated its own charm offensive, funded from its own budget.
“It's expensive but important. We're trying to secure our political future and to push back against the relentless stream of aggression from Argentina” said Summers. “We have been self-sufficient for some time, apart from defense, so we can afford it. The only stress is that we don't have much time. There are only eight delegates and the world is a big place.”
The main target for persuasion is the United States. Islanders said they would try to use the referendum result to shift opinion. The US position is that there are competing claims and Washington recognizes the de facto UK Administration of the islands, but takes no position on sovereignty claims”.
The more assertive strategy of the Falkland Islanders is partly determined by economics. Currently, the islands' budget is largely dependent on sales of fishing rights, which can vary enormously from year to year.
Suggested Stories
-
Jun 19th 2013
Malvinas C24 Argentina petitioners: Maria Angelia Vernet and Alejandro Betts
-
Jun 19th 2013
India-Argentina pledge to improve trade; Timerman thanks Delhi support on Malvinas dispute
-
Jun 17th 2013
Falklands’ conflict depicted in opera ‘Allies’ based on Pinochet-Thatcher relationship
-
Jun 16th 2013
Falklands: Irish lawmakers support UN Resolution 2065 and dismiss recent referendum
59 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.
Basically the POTUS is stating that he and his administration don't support freedom and self-determination.
I think the Falkland Islands Government needs to strike while the iron is hot. Get enough support on Capitol Hill, and the Obama administration will become completely impotent.
I think that Obama needs to take that fence post out of his ar*e before it takes root.
I know that they see Argentina as a “Useful” ally in South America, but still, there is a point at which you have to throw your weight behind one or the other.
Argentina and it's allies are wrong to ascribe collective UN support to their claim and the Islanders are engaged in a futile exercise trying to change UN consensus this way. UK continues to sit back and watch, smiling like an imperial Cheshire Cat that never quite disappears completely and doesn't want to.
@3 I'd be surprised if they didn't jump all over it having gone to the trouble of supporting the Referendum with US Republican activists heading the ad-hoc International Observer Mission.
Argentina the people have spoken, self determination trumps any card you have to play. go back to your petty economy and your high inflation, our islands don't need or want you and there is not a constructive thing you can do about it. however feel free to keep shooting your self in the foot
Now where have I read that before.”
...No it doesn't.
thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/campaign/287301-us-should-support-self-determiniation-in-falkland-islands
And since when was the US so concerned about what the UN defines as legal? They repeatedly invade sovereign territory and incarcerate foreign nationals without trial yet they sit on the fence when the established population of a disputed land hold a democratic referendum.
Hypocrisy? yes siree! d'you want fries with that?
It's ...: “Disputed territory”
Else......., I fully agree with you.
Hypocrisy? Yes siree! I want some Liberty fries with that.
We shall see, we shall see, the coming months will tell. Your response to the referendum was predictable and expected.
It is also very relevant, because the issue now moves on from one of sovereignty to one of the Universal Right to Self Determination. Human rights and that is a whole new political ball game!
Your government is quite clear on where it stands, it does not respect them.
As long as CFK has a straw to cling to, she thinks she has a chance,
Sadly it does not help the situation when it is the president that is holding, this piece of straw.
.
they should now defend the rights of the falklands.
I ask you, what would the founding fathers do?
The United States took its position 'on the fence' because of the Lexington Incident. They declared the islands as Res Nullius, even though both Spain & Britain had competing claims to the Islands. One of the reasons behind this was the American's desire to keep exploiting the territory for their own benefit. Although they had no trouble doing so up until Vernet pirated their ships, the fact that there were now three claims to the territory meant that any American ship might have difficulty from thereon or that any trespass on soil that the Americans agreed to belong to any nation in particular would be an aggression against that country.
The American position was to avoid any international dispute, by maintaining that they supported none of the three claimants. Now there are only two claimants & only one of these (Britain) has a legitimate claim, the other basing their claim on a false history.
The Americans have another problem. Argentina pursued them for compensation for the Lexington Incident. If the United States were to confirm that they supported the Argentine claim, then they would be obliged to pay a significant sum in compensation, possibly even trillions of dollars. So it would be in the United State's interest to support the British claim.
However, there is also the thorny problem of the OAS. It would be very difficult for the Americans if they, the Canadians & all the other Commonwealth countries in the Americas were isolated from the Latin-American bloc. America is reluctant to take a position lest it causes trade problems.
Even so, the United States may have to take a position now, or they will be confirmed as hypocrites, supporting Self-Determination in Iraq & Afghanistan, yet denying it to the Falkland Islanders for trade reasons.
Looks like the Republicans & US oil companies will change the US stance once & for all.
By the way - regarding your comment elsewhere on the 3 No votes - well our ex garden vegetable thief - remember the sour faced lad who your President personally gave him his new ID card- he is still on the elctoral role here (has not yet been away long enough to be taken off it)- so if he applied for and completed a Postal Vote - hje could perhaps have been one of the 3.
As for USA and others - nothing is going to change in the very near future - but over the next year or so, don,t be surprised if you see a few positions start to alter as countries review their overall positions and what matters to who.
Oh did you ever answer me on the difference between a squatter of say 170 yrs and one of 200 or so?
Muslims wants sharia, shall that be self-determined as well, or only issues of your choosing?
I don't want to live under their savagery, but if they want to it is their choice.
Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Chile, CHINA, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, East Timor, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Grenada, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Ivory Coast, Mali, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, RUSSIA, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, Venezuela.
Russia and China remain two of the world's greatest hegemonic 'nations', having gobbled up and colonised, many, many nations and tribes/racial groups over the decades and centuries.
For the sake of consistency, should not the likes of Ossetia and Tibet be the C24 Members, rather than the nations that gobbled them up? (Ru & Cn ... hypocrites or rectitudinous ex-sinners?)
Then we would have a level playing field from which to throw mud at the mixed-up and mystified C24.
A few extreme muslims do want Sharia law, but as they are a minority & laws are decided by a parliamentary democracy, Sharia law would never be allowed unless the majority of the UK wished it - which they don't.
Your statement is laughable because you are suggesting that the UK would be against self-determination, when an unpopular group seeks to impose unpopular laws.
Sharia law could never be imposed where it conflicted with English & Welsh law, just as Jewish law would also have to comply with the law of the land.
If the muslims wanted to declare independence, they would have to seek a majority for this in the elections. I doubt that they would achieve this, as any on benefits would lose that support.
Furthermore, the extremist muslims are a minority. The majority of muslims are moderate and very happy to be part of British society. They do not want the status quo to change.
You are suggesting a conflict, a hypocritical position, where none exists.
Go away and find something better to do. You are obviously not up to the task of trying to ferment discord where none exists.
Franco, Mussollini, Hitler, all your ancester Stevie?
No surpriz then. Got lost scum
@5 Already ours. We've already kicked you off twice. Want to try again? How would you like the next British “Task Force” to be a little bigger? In 1833, we sent two ships. In 1982, we sent around 10,000 troops. What would you like next time? 50,000? How do you fancy the Land Attack cruise missiles as well as the naval gunfire? What about the air-launched cruise missiles as well as the guided and non-guided bombs? We can't match the air “superiority” you had in '82, but how about we send 200 combat aircraft against your 83?
@10 Yes it does. Not everybody is as stupid as you are.
@13 Let's see. Three “parties”. Two agree, one doesn't. Democracy. The “two” win. Oh, and one “party” isn't recognised by the other two. And that same “party” is a world-recognised cheat, criminal, debtor, guilty of genocide, attempted larceny and mendacity. It's going to be a turkey shoot.
@21 Maybe we should follow your example and have some death squads. What do you think. Guess what, we're an island. How about a new “muslim” sport? Freestyle skydiving.
@23 Here's a thought. We have a democratic referendum. 2.4 million muslims say they want self-determination and sharia. 60.7 million say they can't have it. Democracy, you see. Comparison? 98.8% of Islanders say they want self-determination and to be a BOT. 88% of Brits agree. Democracy again, you see. Who doesn't get a say? First of all, there's the UN. Second, there's the U.S. and who else? Oh yes. Nonentity argieland.
Don't forget that soon the United Kingdom will have drone attack stealth bombers. The 'Taranis' drone bomber is about to undergo testing in the Australian desert.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268909/Taranis-Britains-deadly-superdrone-picks-targets.html
As far as I am aware, there are only 3 countries in the world that have this level of technology and one of those is the United States.
The F35 will be the last manned fighter. Drone fighters are being developed in the States at a 'well known' desert testing site. The UK will also have this technology, either from the States or developed separately. Could you imagine the oil-rich Falkland Islands have constant patrols of drone fighters patrolling the airspace around the islands, whilst drone bombers protect the oil rigs.
Argentina has no chance of ever taking the Falklands by force.
I thought our US cousins would have found a short cartoon with a voiceover worthy of Downton Abbey - an aid to readily understanding an external affair.
Freedom of speech?
“Please take the time to look at the below link- which briefly explains the plight of the Falkland Islanders, and why the US should offer support.”
youtu.be/6tfvfsZaMsY
Muslims make up about 4% of the population in the UK, if that is in any way relevant to the discussion. The majority by far live peacefully and respect the law. There are, of course, some extremists in all societies; look at La Campora meetings if you want to see extremist fervour.
I am not sure the US needs to back the UK on this issue either. It is neutral because they are well aware that nothing is going to change. The Falklands remains the same and will continue to remain a BOT. None of the nonsense spouted by the Argentine government is going to change that and the US know it.
Argentina's problems are growing daily and even fairly pragmatic friends are now looking at getting their remaining money out and looking at how they will survive. Others that were supporters of CFK now hate her. They have seen her for what she is. Soon the country will be in too much turmoil for the Falklands to be an issue there. Though I can imagine CFK screaming about the Falklands as she is dragged away and pumped full of Thorazine.
Remember trolls try not to let the truth get in the way of your day to day trollings jajajajaj
really?
he is incapable of doing anything else.
USA.. hypcoritical? Crikey - THAT IS A SHOCKER.
Now wait for the “get out of jail free” card given to Argentina over their little issue of outstanding debt.
Yes, there are some 'nice' Muslims, but they are equally at risk from their Saudi Wahhabi 'brothers' and the suicide bombers, et al. who are sponsored by the Saudi Royal Family, the biggest terrorist financiers on the planet.
There is a famous saying in Muslim history involving the Crusades. The Muslims were about to slaughter their defeated enemies when one commander asked how they could tell the Muslims from the rest and was told 'to kill them all, Allah will know them'. They have not advanced any further.
BTW anybody who eats beef, lamb and chicken in the UK does so from animals that have had their throats slit BEFORE they are stunned. Why? Because the Muslims insist on it for 'religious' grounds and the meat industry cannot operate two slaughter systems they claim and don't want to risk offending the 4%, so stuff the 96%. Do yourself a favour and go and witness it for your own education.
Do yourselves another favour and spend 10 minutes or so watching these two videos from Pat Condell. He has a number of others that are well worth watching, especially if you have the god delusion.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KHHKuVVRc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM2dC1iWzww
There are a lot of people who have extreme & negative views of Islam. Thankfully, these people are in the minority. Despite what some claim, it is not Islam at fault, but the extremists on both sides that take things too far.
There are members of the Royal Saudi family who hold extreme views, but as the family is enormous (over 5,000 princes) & each of them has considerable wealth (even the poorest has millions and some billions), it is not unknown for them to support a few causes that the rest of us would consider terrorism.
The vast majority of the Saudi Royal family are good and decent people. Unsurprisingly, they suffer a great deal of envy, but they do their best to develop a deeply religious country and tread a middle path in the modern world.
CFK calls it a miracle
That’s all we fxcking need,
Now she will claim divine rights.
.
Unwelcome reminder of film 'The Mission' (1986).
So the King cannot deal with 'errant' Princes?
Pull the other one.
Islam is a vile and terrible religion which circumsizes little girls and defiles women as being on a par with their animals.
Anyone who is not a Muslim is marked for execution if they do not convert.
Get a grip on reality.
I bet you did not view the videos: try The Burka one if you disbelieve me about women being cattle.
Well now, THAT is naive.
When has the world ever agreed on anything?
THe USa only supports self0-determination if it means they get to blow shit up.
They certainly wont support self-determination if it will set a rather nasty precedent that would mean they would ahve to give-up their very expensive military base called Diego Garcia.
And if they supported the rights to self-determination of the Falklands Islanders that is precisely what they would have to give up.
And, as we all know, the USA REALLY likes its shiney expensive military toys, it does, after all, keep most of their politicians in paid positions of corruptness and allow them to shit over other nations whenever it suits them, regardless of international laws or other minor considerations such as being “an ally”.
Indeed the USA is soon to confirm a new definition of “ally” which is something like:
“Somebody we are not currently considering invading..but we reserve the right to do so unless they become our bitch and bark lie a dog when we butt-fuck them in public every now & then!”
And it is at times like this when people like CFK almost appear sane & rational: because she sticks two fingers up at the USA and says “Frak you!” instead of bending over and whimpering like a poodle.
aka Tony Blair (and pretty much every other post-war UK prime minister except Churchill).
You got a clear and rational insight about American politics and hypocrisy.
Question is?
Where do you “Think” they got it from?
What Argentine has is a fantasy about a bunch of fantasy islands it clearly has no claim over.
I see price controls on food through the election now ........amazing. What's more amazing is that asslips kirchner must think the people believe Indec with their .5% for Februay....I can hardly wait for the balance of accounts figures.
Isn't it hypocritical of asslips acting like she is happy about Bishop Bergoglio being elected as she detests the man because he is an outspoken critic a kirchner and the bishop supported the junta. He turned a blind eye to the oneway airfares over Rio de La Plata. He she is tweeting that the “powers that be need to have dialogue” WTF! Like we don't know what she means? How long will it be before she asks for an audience to bring up the Falklands?
I can only think that there is a conspiracy of silence. But why???
Don't always agree with the way Poppy makes his case, but his #51 has few things wrong.
The American problem is that they refuse to get off the fence for fear of offending other OAS members. The administration is reluctant to take a stand, because they believe that they don't have to. They were involved in the Falkland Islands dispute from the very start & see no profit in being blamed for something that they didn't do, or didn't need to be involved in. The United States was furious with the United Provinces/Argentina for seizing the ships. So much so, that Andrew Jackson, a well known anti-British American (because he lost his brother and mother in the war) refused to blame the UK, or to invoke the Monroe Doctrine.
Obama is trying to steer a middle path, but it will become increasingly difficult to do this if CFK is pulling one way, the Pope another and the Republicans are pointing to the hypocrisy of supporting Self Determination in Libya, Egypt, Iraq & Afghanistan, but not in the Falkland Islands.
My bet is that the Pope will seek to get involved, but only to urge talks WITH the Islanders included. This dispute cannot go anywhere without the islanders and the Argentines will find it difficult to get any investment in oil exploration on shore. So the only way they can get oil money - to feed the poor - will be through cooperation with the Islanders.
I still suspect that CFK will try to veto any recognition of the Islanders, but the Pope can influence the next election to get rid of CFK and unpopular politicians, to elect someone determined to improve Argentina and not rip it off for their own enrichment. That means cooperating with and recognising the islanders.
I like the thesis that the new pope is the catalyst to break the 'log-jam', and that Argentina will only move forward by cooperating with and recognising the islanders.
Although his sermons indicate that he towed the nationalistic line of “the return of the Malvinas”, the truth is that his sermon at these ceremonies would have gone down like a lead balloon if he had said the opposite.
We know for certain that he is an outspoken critic of CFK & her seizure of money which belongs to the people. We know for certain that he is a 'man of the people' who prefers to travel by bus, would rather eat dinner in a hostel for the homeless than a restaurant and only travels by economy ticket when he has to fly.
This man has 'the Fisherman' all over him. It could be his Jesuit background, but it seems to me that the most important thing in his life is to care for the poor of this world. He is living the creed of Christ to look after the poor and that's why he hated CFK's corruption, which only makes the poor poorer.
I heard today that he replied to the Cardinals that elected him to say “God forgive you for what you have done” and I suspect that he now has the power to do a root & branch pruning of the Catholic hierarchy, especially the Curia, to remove anyone engaged in sexual abuse or profligate with church money. I suspect that the Cardinals & Archbishops are about to lose their expense accounts & limousines!
Obviously, he knows Argentina far better than most, but he must also realise that the money is not there to feed the poor, unless the economy improves or Argentina exploits oil. There may be plenty of shale deposits, but Argentina is a long way from developing these & whilst CFK is around they are going no where. The only way Argentina can get a financial shot in the arm is through offshore oil, but that will not happen whilst CFK is around to steal it.
So if the Pope wants to feed the Argentine poor, CFK has to go first. So it's likely that he will use his influence to pressure a populist alternative to CFK at the next election, with the intention of removing corruption.
Mar 14th, 2013 - 03:39 pm
A very good summary of Francesco's outlook, with one glaring mistake, Bergoglio would never support a populist government ANYWHERE, and certainly not in Argentina. His is a stand against populism everywhere, he has described populism as “close to satanic worship”, he also did not support the 1976 - 1983 dictatorship, but also refused to support the terrorists that brought it into being.
As a not very good Catholic, I must say that His HolinessFrancis is a very good choice for the Papacy at this time, he has a will of steel and will not allow the paedophiles and corrupt preists to stay within the Church, and I suspect that the Curia will find itself being cleaned up from top to bottom.
A final thought about the election of Francis, it has given us, the Argentine people, hope for a better future for our poor devastated country!!!!!!!
On that we can agree. Pope Francis will seek to root out any of the misbehaviour that the clergy have been doing & seek to cure the poverty of Argentina.
I don't know how long it will be before he returns to Argentina though. It's undoubted that CFK will try to make political capital out of any visit. Let's hope that like John Paul II, the visits to each country will be more about the people than meeting & greeting the leaders. He certainly seems to avoid any of the trappings of power, preferring to spend time with the public.
The latest news I heard was that the Pope went to a school and spend time chatting with school children. How unlike any of his predecessors. He enjoys the company of ordinary people, just like himself.
he did
1, cal for the islands to be given back to argentina
and
2, sent a petition to the pope asking for the falklands subject to be put on the vatican list.
bith failed,
but today,
this man is the pope,
what will he do with the falklands,
what can he do,
if at all,
all i ask is please remember that he represents over 2 and a half billion catholics, and this includeds south America and European countries,
it may amount to nothing,
but woth a thought..
I am pleased for you, you could do with some good news for once.
I am not a catholic, but I like the look of this man, there is something about him, his smile is infectious, perhaps he can do do something for Latin America?
I wish him and you the best of luck.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!