MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 15th 2017 - 12:21 UTC

Falklands' lawmaker: don’t leave dispute with Argentina to future generations

Friday, September 29th 2017 - 06:25 UTC
Full article 239 comments
MLA Summers believed it was irresponsible, “to take the position that the problem is insoluble and therefore we just leave it for future generations to deal with.” MLA Summers believed it was irresponsible, “to take the position that the problem is insoluble and therefore we just leave it for future generations to deal with.”

“We should not simply leave the Falklands dispute with Argentina for future generations to deal with”, was the message from outgoing Falklands Member of Legislative Assembly Mike Summers, in his final Speech to the Motion for Adjournment.

 Speaking to Penguin News after his last meeting of Legislative Assembly he said the Falklands, “should not give any grounds in terms of where we currently are on self determination, and the fundamental human rights principles, but we must be always open minded to find ways of moving forward.”

He said the basic premises were, first of all: “There is nothing in the world that is completely insoluble, because we have seen all sorts of examples in the past… of problems that looked as though they were insoluble but actually at the end of the day there is a solution.”

In his speech on Thursday, MLA Summers gave Northern Ireland as one example.

Secondly, he said: “If we just shut down and say there is no solution to this, and don’t try to find a way of moving forward, then we’re never going to move forward.”

He believed it was irresponsible, “to take the position that the problem is insoluble and therefore we just leave it for future generations to deal with.”

But some people see it as Argentina’s problem not ours, suggested Penguin News.

MLA Summers said: “There is a problem because we are constantly trying to solve it. When you look at the sanctions regime the reason that is in place is because we have an issue, we have dispute.”

He said the message was for those who believed the Falklands were better served by being isolationist and staying away from any kind of forward movement, ”frankly because we are scared of what might happen.”

But why would we believe there’s any hope - what has changed?

He said: “I think there is hope for as long as there is relative peace in South America and as long as they don’t revert to military style dictatorships, as long as they continue to have and to elect democratic governments and embrace the concept of democracy and with it embrace the concept of the rights of people and human rights, then there is hope.”

As an example he said Chile had matured in their examination of issues compared to other South American countries: “So what we have to do is to hold our position but be ready to engage if there are things that are to our benefit and push forward with, but not give anything if we don’t have to.”

He accepted, “it probably will take another 30 years frankly, for democratic concepts to broaden and deepen, not only in governments but in the community; that’s where ultimately it will blossom. When people really do believe that the rights of people are more important than land grabs, then there’s hope.”

Speaking of the Falklands in 30 years time he said, “it’s not just up to them [Argentina] it’s up to all of us to fix it if we can.” (Penguin News)

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvi 1833.

    You do talk some rubbish. Nothing of importance happened in 1810. Buenos Aires declared for Ferdinand. That was of no consequence.

    Prof James Crawford has clearly identified that a declaration of independence is a necessary precursor to the attainment of independence. Argentina declared in 1816 - not 1810.

    And as I said - Spain was only in possession of one island when it withdrew its garrison in 1811. (not 1810)

    Did you miss the bit about Spain only claiming one island in 1811?

    And BA didn't do anything about the islands in 1810. It sent the bill for Bordas's wages back to Montevideo for payment. Not an act of sovereignty. Not even an administrative act. Just a refusal to pay. Typical BA in fact.

    In 1834 Moreno changed the Argentine claim because he could not prove the grounds for the whole archipelago that he has used in the 1833 protest. That doesn't strengthen anything. Merely reveals the weakness of Argentina's case.

    And Argentina didn't claim anything between 1850 and 1884.

    By the way, have I ever mentioned that Argentina is not Spain? Or the myth of inheritance? Yes? Seems you haven't grasped that then.

    Oct 02nd, 2017 - 11:16 pm +7
  • golfcronie

    How many times have we to go round and round in circles. Do the Argies understand, No. If you have a legitimate claim take it to the ICJ otherwise it is status quo. Self Determination is paramount in this case,argue all you like go back a thousand years but self determination will still be in effect. just live with it.

    Oct 03rd, 2017 - 05:23 pm +7
  • Brit Bob

    Voice/Demon Tree

    Since it has never been used 'without the consent of both parties' by any court or tribunal in the past 150 that is pretty conclusive evidence that it can't be used by Argentina in respect to her Falklands claim. Britain has never opted-in. Comprende?

    Oct 03rd, 2017 - 05:57 pm +5
Read all comments

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