Saturday, February 27th 2016 - 03:47 UTC

Uruguay reaffirms Argentina's Malvinas claim and its commitment to Falkland Islanders 'interests'

Uruguay's foreign ministry expressed on Friday its “most firm support” for the 'legitimate rights' of Argentina's sovereignty claim over the Malvinas Islands, other insular territories in the South Atlantic and surrounding maritime spaces, currently administered by the United Kingdom.

Uruguay's position “consistent in time” is based on “the understanding that the Malvinas Islands issue is directly linked to the territorial integrity of States”

The release recalls the 50th anniversary of UN Resolution 2065, which 'for the first time' made reference to the UK Argentine controversy as 'a sovereignty dispute'.

Uruguay 'expects' to continue cooperating in areas of “education, healthcare, goods and services trade, and humanitarian aid” to the benefit of the Islanders.

 Uruguay's position, “consistent in time” and “supported by the different governments” of the country is based on “the understanding that the Malvinas Islands issue is directly linked to the territorial integrity of States” says the release from the ministry.

The document also recalls the fiftieth anniversary of Resolution 2065 from the UN General Assembly which 'for the first time' made reference to the UK Argentine controversy over the Islands as 'a sovereignty dispute'.

The release says the 2065 resolution calls on both sides to take into account the dispositions and objectives of the UN charter and General Assembly Resolution 1514 passed in 1960 on decolonization, ”as well as the interests of the Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands) people“.

”The reference to the 'interests' and not to the 'wishes' or to 'self determination' is a clear acknowledgement to a situation, in fact evident that the principle of self determination does not apply“.

Likewise this is the motive for Uruguay 'not recognizing' the 2013 referendum held in the Islands, in which 99.8% of voters supported British sovereignty with a 92% turnout of registered voters.

The release also recalls that Uruguay has always been a country which historically ”has seriously taken into account the interests of the Islanders in relevant areas for human, economic and social development of the Islands' population“.

To that respect, ”Uruguay 'expects' to continue cooperating and deepening in areas of 'education, healthcare, exchange of goods and services and humanitarian aid“.

Nevertheless, ”Uruguay maintains its support for Argentina and the UK (countries with which it has excellent relations) to engage in a constructive dialogue and resume negotiations to find a peaceful, fair and definitive solution to the controversy”, concludes the release.

Britain has had uninterrupted control over the Falklands/Malvinas since 1833 with the exception of 74 days in 1982, when Argentine troops invades the Islands, triggering a conflict in which 649 Argentines, 255 British and three Falkland Islanders lost their lives.

42 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.

1 Jo Bloggs (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 04:59 am Report abuse
Thanks for your continued support Uruguay. We look forward to strengthening our relationship with you; especially in the areas of education, healthcare and exchange of goods.

Don't worry Malvinistas of Argentina, Uruguay fully supports you. ;-)
2 R. Ben Madison (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 05:43 am Report abuse
The Falklands are already self-governing and have been decolonised. They are governed democratically by their inhabitants. Any Argentine claims to the land underneath their feet is colonialism and imperialism.

By Argentine standards, Jamaicans should have no say in the political governance of Jamaica.
3 Jo Bloggs (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 05:48 am Report abuse
Actually that's not correct. Whilst we have our own democratically elected government we aren't fully self governing.
4 Roger Lorton (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 06:06 am Report abuse
2065 is long dead

Even Argentines are starting to realise that their Gov has been lying to them since 1989
5 downunder (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 07:15 am Report abuse
”The reference to the 'interests' and not to the 'wishes' or to 'self determination' is a clear acknowledgement to a situation, in fact evident that the principle of self determination does not apply“.

Weasel words that refer to a defunct UN resolution. What about the rights of the Islanders? Where is the respect for human rights and decency?

By going along with Argentina’s bullying of the Islanders and its fraudulent historical sovereignty claim over the Falkland Islands and ‘the other insular territories in the South Atlantic and surrounding maritime spaces,’ Uruguay becomes complicit in Argentina’s crime.

The same applies to all the other Latin American countries who give lip service to this atrocity on the grounds of ‘solidarity’. They are gutless.

The standard that they give tacit acceptance to, is the standard that they accept.
6 RedBaron (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 07:49 am Report abuse
There was 2065 and then there was 'uti possidetis'. End of discussion. Get over it, Argies.
7 Brit Bob (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 10:25 am Report abuse
Ooooh that usurpation!

and the UN resolutions!!
8 Alejomartinez (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 10:33 am Report abuse
Mr Trobo will have to swallow all of his words. Once again his Government has completely discredited him and his (own?) views. Same as Lacalle's. Sorry guys, you waste so much money on these pranks...
9 Britworker (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 10:54 am Report abuse
Does anyone actually care what Uruguay says or thinks? I think you would be hard pushed to find a more inconsequential country on the planet.
10 ChrisR (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 12:49 pm Report abuse
@ 9 Britworker
“I think you would be hard pushed to find a more inconsequential country on the planet.”

You may be correct, it's due to the Broad Fraud children who 'rule' us (they never use the term 'govern'). These are the seditious murdering commie bastards that used to be known as Tupas.

Scum, the lot of them.

As regards your claim, don't forget Scotland. They like to think of themselves as a 'country' after all even though they suck the UK's tit and couldn't run a piss up in a distillery. Are there any breweries in Scotland?
11 Philippe (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 01:58 pm Report abuse
Of course, any country is free to support Argentina's malvinazi illegitimate rights
in the free Falkland Islands.
Elementary, my dear Watson,

12 Britworker (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 02:09 pm Report abuse

I couldn't agree with you more, I think we Brits should spend a whole lot less time caring about what other people think, including some of those pimples on the map in South America.
13 Jo Bloggs (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 02:27 pm Report abuse
8 Alejomartinez

What you say almost seems plausible to an outside observer but it doesn't take account of the fact that we already do an increasing amount of trade with Uruguay. Uruguay allows our ships and aircraft to transit and there is ongoing collaborative work to re-establish a direct air link going on as we speak. So that is an example of some of the very ,ensure able ways in which Uruguay openly supports the Falkland Islands.

As for the statement overnight that Argentina demanded of Uruguay in response to the visit of the commerce delegation this week, name me one measurable thing Uruguay is doing in support of Argentina in the issue of the Falkland Islands... ...apart from making the announcement.

Just one...
14 Briton (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 07:56 pm Report abuse
'legitimate rights'
Argentina has NO rights over the British Falkland's,

but may have fantasy rights over Uruguay .
15 Voice (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 07:59 pm Report abuse
Sure sounds friendly...
A lot of Countries sit on the fence concerning the Falklands....
Some countries only pay lip service...
Uruguay goes one step further...
..and officially denies the Islanders a right to self determination...

With friends like those....
16 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 08:19 pm Report abuse
15 voice

Which side of the fence are YOU on?

Please tell us once and for all - an “official” statement direct from the panto-horse's mouth.
17 Jo Bloggs (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 09:51 pm Report abuse

You can make it sound however you want but the reality is that Uruguay ( the government in power, not just the trade delegation that left the islands today) are officially and actively facilitating trade between Uruaguay and the islands. They allow our ships into their ports, they allow aircraft bound to and from here to land in their airport for stopovers and they have no problem with the ever increasing amount of commerce that is taking place.

Apart from making that tired old statement every time Argentina tells them to, what are they doing in support of Argentina's claim? Don't hold back now, tell me EVERYTHING. I can take it.

You're right about the lip service but they're paying it to Argentina, not us.
18 Pete Bog (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 10:09 pm Report abuse
“The reference to the 'interests' and not to the 'wishes' or to 'self determination' is a clear acknowledgement to a situation, in fact evident that the principle of self determination does not apply“.”

This might be the case if the Argentines stated exactly what the Islanders interests are.

If the British or the Falkland Islanders state different interests, then Argentina's case disappears.

There seems to be no UN statement to define exactly what the what the Falkland Islands interests are.

NO Malvinista on these pots has EVER stated what the Falkland Islands interests are, therefore if they don't know what they are=NO case!

For example if it is in the Islander's interests to have self determination, then the above quoted, is completely irrelevant.
19 Roger Lorton (#) Feb 27th, 2016 - 10:47 pm Report abuse
Just politics Voice. Uruguay says one thing and does another. The bully next door needs to be kept calm. Uruguay has been doing business with the Islanders for decades.
20 The Voice (#) Feb 28th, 2016 - 12:08 am Report abuse
You got it wrong Troy, Voice only speaks out of his arse.
21 CapiTrollism_is_back!! (#) Feb 28th, 2016 - 03:27 pm Report abuse
What I have been warning for YEARS about here, way before the “think tanks” and “geo-political analysts”. Finally, you are starting to see some of those come around to MY analysis: I have warned any half-sensible Britto that may lurk in this forum (as unlikely as this is, I know), that the UK, specifically the ANGLO, is slowly evolving into the 4th Reich. I have said this many times before, occassionally even writing out a potential scenario of a London turned to smoldering rubble conquered by a Russo-Sino-Arab grand alliance. People laughed at me... well, keep laughing:

“During its apogee in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the British Empire reached a territorial size larger than that of any other empire in history. Britain was once referred to as ”the empire on which the sun never sets.“

But someone forgot to tell the United Kingdom that its empire is largely gone. Rising nationalism, fear of immigrants and the lingering pride of British ”exceptionalism” (notice the quotations!) are driving this island nation to the brink of abandoning the EU...“

”...Exacerbating Brexit fervor is the country's growing right-wing populism, fueled by fears of recession, terrorism and refugees. Xenophobia is on the rise elsewhere in the world, as the strident rhetoric of this year's presidential race in America shows.....”

Who HERE already came to this analysis that BRITAIN was increasingly either right-wing racist, xenophobic left-wing, or just plain deluded with ideas that an isolated Britain will have any standing in the world? It won't... the only way to regain this standing is by CONQUEST. When the UK withdraws from the EU and sees no one cares for it, wait for the 4th Reich to try to wage war. This will lead to the real destruction of England.
22 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 28th, 2016 - 06:18 pm Report abuse

Argentina: The empire that never was.
23 Faulconbridge (#) Feb 28th, 2016 - 07:11 pm Report abuse
Given the history, politics and sociology of Argentina, it's obviously not in the interests of the Falkland Islands and its inhabitants - as Argentina would no doubt call them - to be ruled by or have anything to do with Argentina. In fact, the history, politics and sociology of Argentina, it's obviously not in the interests of Argentina and its inhabitants to be ruled by Argentina.
24 LukeDig (#) Feb 28th, 2016 - 07:51 pm Report abuse
It´s ironic to call imperialism wanting to recover territory that was taken by force by another country... A country whose actions defined the most negative aspects of the word “imperialism”, whose said imperialism made them colonize these islands.
25 Pete Bog (#) Feb 28th, 2016 - 09:27 pm Report abuse

“But someone forgot to tell the United Kingdom that its empire is largely gone”

Hello! In the UK we know that there is NO empire. We don't NEED one to punch above our weight.

We are a tiny tiny country and achieve far more than our size indicates that we should.

It is other countries that are in denial and think that Britain has am empire-we are not in denial.

There is NO British Empire-do you think we lose any sleep over that?
26 Islander1 (#) Feb 28th, 2016 - 09:55 pm Report abuse
15 Voice.Just the normal confused Argentine - living in your own fantasyland created entirely out of your own fantasyland beliefs - but very remote from the real world.
Uruguay and Chile both formally support Argentina at the Un. Both Uruguay and Chile recognise the Islands Govt exists and do a lot of business with us- and on all these standard international commercial documents the words Is.Malvinas do not appear.

As far as Uruguay is concerned: The FI/Malv problem is one for Arg-UK-FI,
NOT a problem for Uruguay to get involved in and anything Uruguay does direct with FI has ZERO bearing.
Chile takes the similar position.

After all Chile and Bolivia have a big territorial dispute. Does Argentina refuse to have relations with and do business with Bolivia? - no of course you don't, after all the Chile-Bolivia problem is nothing to do with you.
27 CapiTrollism_is_back!! (#) Feb 29th, 2016 - 04:07 am Report abuse

At the sight of undeniable facts, deflect. I thought you never deflected.


Any Argentine is automatically superior to you, don't worry. You are a nobody foreigner whose opinion of us is utterly inconsequential. That was a typical Anglo response: racist, elitist, and completely devoid of reason.


Look at the schizophrenic nature of the British public and politics today. May not be evident to you Brits, but to the rest of the world yes: you all are utter insomniacs at this point over your loss of power, which is what is driving the EU question in large measure. No one is fooled by the fog of “EU is broken”, “UK needs it's independence”, blah blah. Beneath the 20 layers of veneer is the real reason behind it: you want to build back empire (in a soft way of course: thus all the talk about focusing on the “Commonwealth”, on the USA, on getting Britain a seat in international trade talks... delusional. Think about this possible scenario in Trade talks:

North America: 18.3 trillion GDP / 360 million people
EU: 17.1 trillion GDP / 450 million people
ASEAN: 4.2 trillion GDP / 650 million people
China: 20.2 trillion GDP / 1.5 billion people
India: 8.4 trillion GDP / 1.2 billion people
Japan-South Korea: 6.6 trillion GDP/ 180 million people
Euroasian Economic Community: 4.2 trillion GDP / 180 million people
MERCOSUR - (288 million / 4.2 trillion) + Pacific Alliance ( 206 mllion 3.6 trillion) = 7.8 trillion GDP / 500 million people








Mickey Mouseland that still has a Queen: 2.5 trillion / 64 million

That's if you survive Scotland... if not: 2.2 trillion / 59 million people

You will have at best HALF the GDP of the next SMALLEST member of the above hypothetical world trade table... in other words, no one will give a sh@t.

And population wise, you are not even in consideration. If those big dogs above decided that economic growth would be fostered by flooding the UK with 7 feet of water, I think you better strike free trade with Venice!
28 Briton (#) Feb 29th, 2016 - 08:12 pm Report abuse

Prove it.
29 merlin (#) Mar 01st, 2016 - 12:12 am Report abuse
I wonder how the troll would fancy making an unanswerable case to oppose the proposition that when England ruled most of the world it was,on average,much more peaceful and almost infinitely better governed than it is today.
And its no use picking isolated examples where things went wrong to oppose this,we are looking at the big picture,not regrettable trivia.
30 kiwi_ian (#) Mar 01st, 2016 - 12:43 am Report abuse
Uruguay IS important in the Falklands sovereignty issue.

In the period 1776-1810 Spain “ruled” the islands with no official British presence (1774-76 there was unofficial presence) or protest. Political control lay with the Viceroy of the River Plate but executive and administrative control lay with the Navy, indeed every Spanish “governor” was a naval officer or underofficer. Every ship Spanish sailing to or from the islands was controlled by the navy, all supplies and personnel were transported by naval controlled ships.

In 1810, political unrest in Buenos Aires forced the Viceroy to move to the naval base from where now ALL Spanish control of the islands was excercised.

In 1811, the Spanish settlers on the islands were ordered off by the Spanish authorities at the naval base and they returned to the base given that it was also the nearest port of any size.

In 1816, the United Provinces of the River Plate declared independence and after a series of additions and secessions would become Argentina. The Viceroyalty of the River Plate also gave birth to Uruguay, Paraguay and much of Bolivia. Argentina would continue to try to absorb its neighbours until 1848.

The naval base which held much of the control of the Falklands, indeed all the control in the dying days of Spanish hegemony, the base that was the nearest large port, was in Montevideo, capital of Uruguay. It can therefore be argued that it should be Uruguay, not Argentina, that should “inherit” the islands if one would follow that argument.
31 Don Alberto (#) Mar 01st, 2016 - 03:56 pm Report abuse
”the interests of the Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands) people”

and what may these **interests** of the Falkland Islanders be?

Is it what they decide themselves, or is it what others decide for them?

What are the interests of the Uruguayan people?
What are the interests of the Argentine people?
Is it what they decide themselves, or is it what others decide for them?
32 Briton (#) Mar 01st, 2016 - 07:55 pm Report abuse
30 kiwi_ian
Prove it.
33 kiwi_ian (#) Mar 02nd, 2016 - 01:21 am Report abuse
@32 Briton - Prove what?

My argument is simply that IF Argentina's “inheritance” is valid, then in fact Uruguay also has a claim on that inheritance and may even have a greater call. In other words, should discussions be between Britain, the Islanders and Uruguay rather than Britain, the Islanders and Argentina.

One big and often forgotten factor is that when Britain re-established control in 1833, Argentina did NOT include Patagonia or Tierra del Fuego and the proximity and territorial arguments put out today could not apply. Indeed the nearest large port was Uruguayan not Argentinian.

This is solely if one believes that Argentina has a case in the first place - which it does, the question being is its case better than Britain's?

The fact that Argentina has steadfastly refused to go to the ICJ shows that Argentine authorities have doubts themselves. It is easier to get UN General Assembly resolutions passed by playing the colonial card in an assembly where half the members are ex colonies than to go to a court where both sides have to present their evidence and this evidence will be examined and cross examined.
34 Hepatia (#) Mar 02nd, 2016 - 03:37 am Report abuse
The UK will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
35 Faulconbridge (#) Mar 02nd, 2016 - 09:15 am Report abuse
Why, Hepatia, and who to? The Viceroyalty of the River Plate no longer exists and Spain wouldn't want them.
36 Briton (#) Mar 02nd, 2016 - 01:53 pm Report abuse
My argument is simply that IF Argentina's “inheritance” is valid

first off, it is not, as the ICJ would prove,

besides if they got everything that used to be Spanish,
then how long will it be before you claim part of the united states, and the rest of south America,

the fact is, Argentina has no claim, and all this [as you well know] is a distraction away from there home problems and nothing else,

we have repeatedly told you,
if you think you have a claim, no matter how remote, take it to the ICJ,
its that simple.
37 Pete Bog (#) Mar 02nd, 2016 - 02:39 pm Report abuse
You are boring.
38 Briton (#) Mar 02nd, 2016 - 07:51 pm Report abuse
u can not return, what does not exist,
a bit like your intelligence.
39 lsolde (#) Mar 04th, 2016 - 09:09 am Report abuse
@34 Hepatia,
The Argentina will return the land you stole from Paraguay within 25 years.
40 spanner48 (#) Mar 04th, 2016 - 04:07 pm Report abuse
This is a real story from 2nd April 1982. I was listening to the BBC News midday broadcast. First reports of the Argy invasion a Port Stanley had just come in. The BBC interviewed someone from RUSI [I don't recall the name, but a retired Admiral] about our possible response.
He commented that one of our SSBNs was in the Atlantic, and within range of Buenos Aires. Their nuclear missile warheads had a “Selectadeath Dial” which could turn the yield down from 1 megaton to 30 kilotons. One warhead, turned right down and fused for below-ground burst, would take out the Casa Rosada, with a Circular Error Probability of 10 metres, and with limited 'collateral damage'.
I thought “That's a bit strong, for 1800 sheep farmers”, and waited to hear the inevitable reactions on the 3:00pm News.

NOTHING. No repeat; no reactions. Couldn't understand.

Then I realised: lots of people may, or may not, have been listening to that first, midday broadcast. But one group CERTAINLY were: the Argentinian Junta [Galtieri, Azera, Lami Dozo]. So the broadcast was addressed to them. And it told them “We really mean this. Be prepared to lose big time”.
41 downunder (#) Mar 05th, 2016 - 06:20 am Report abuse
48#“…..the Argentinian Junta [Galtieri, Azera, Lami Dozo]. So the broadcast was addressed to them. And it told them “We really mean this. Be prepared to lose big time”.

The whisky swilling Galtieri, the rest of the junta and the baying plaza mob, drunk with faux nationalism forgot to consider that Britain (and other countries) may not see their surprise invasion of the Falklands the same way that they did.

PM Thatcher et al saw it as an unprovoked attack on British sovereignty that demanded a robust response.

The Argentine dictators made a fundamental error – they failed to understand who they were dealing with.
42 kiwi_ian (#) Mar 07th, 2016 - 09:23 pm Report abuse
36# Britain - While I agree that Britain has a strong argument and might even win a legal case before the ICJ, it is NOT a foregone conclusion partly because of the period 1776-1811 when Spain exercised total control with no British comment or protest and there was no British presence on the islands. In 1790, Britain and Spain signed the Nootka Sound Convention, both seemingly deliberately NOT specifying whether or not the Falklands were included (the Spanish thought included, the Brits thought not).

There is also the problem of the French colony that was the very first colony on the islands. When France ceded the colony to Spain in 1767, did she also pass all the rights of sovereignty or was she merely ceding the land, buildings and chattels. In other words, did Spain acquire sovereignty that pre-dated Britain's presence or not. This needs a legal resolution taking into account the Bourbon Family Pact and France's later consideration.

Therefore there may have been absolute Spanish sovereignty and if so, despite abandoning the colony in 1811, Spain may well have been deemed to continue sovereignty and to pass on the islands to her ex-colonies on their independence. As the independence was not recognised by Spain for many years, de facto sovereignty may be deemed to have been transferred regardless of whether Spain recognised it or not.

Both Britain and Argentina would have to agree to be bound by the ICJ's decision, and as Britain had approached the ICJ (in 1947, 1949 and 1951) regarding the Falkland Dependencies, this case falls outside of Britain's agreement to be bound by the ICJ on all cases brought after the threshold date of 1973. Argentina has not yet signed the protocols agreeing to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ and would have to agree anyway.

Britain may well have been delaying any legal judgement, frustrating Argentina to the point of war in 1982.

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


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!