MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, August 20th 2018 - 05:00 UTC

Argentina questions Falklands release on a second flight: proposals are still under consideration

Friday, July 27th 2018 - 07:22 UTC
Full article 178 comments
Palacio San Martin stated that the different proposals from airlines interested in such a link, are still under consideration by the competent Argentine authorities Palacio San Martin stated that the different proposals from airlines interested in such a link, are still under consideration by the competent Argentine authorities
An additional scheduled commercial flight between the continent and Malvinas, includes a stopover in an Argentine continental airport of relevance An additional scheduled commercial flight between the continent and Malvinas, includes a stopover in an Argentine continental airport of relevance

The Falkland Islands government announcement that it has chosen Latam as preferred operator to provide a second commercial flight between the Islands and the continent, with a stopover once a month in Argentina, did not come without a reaction from the Argentine government.

 In effect the Argentine foreign ministry released a brief note saying that nothing has yet been confirmed from the initiative jointly launched by Argentina and the UK, and that the different proposals from airlines interested in such a link, are still under consideration by the competent Argentine authorities.

Early Thursday afternoon the Falklands government said that LATAM had been was chosen as the preferred operator on its proposal for a mid-week flight between the Falkland Islands and Sao Paulo in Brazil. However, “further negotiations with LATAM will include discussions on how the stop once a month in Argentina will be met”.

“Evidently, this is what the Islanders want”, was the first reaction in Buenos Aires, recalling that in September 2016, Argentina and UK agreed on a joint communiqué to defreeze bilateral relations, and which among other issues helped with the process to identify the remains of tens of Argentine soldiers buried at the Argentine military cemetery in Darwin.

Furthermore for the Macri administration, the Islands announcement “is erred since it is not the flight option decided by both governments”. The announced flight is one of several options under assessment, “but is not the only one”.

The Argentine foreign ministry media release 307/18 states that “the different proposals presented following on the joint actions undertaken by the governments of Argentina and UK to identify airlines from Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay willing to establish an additional scheduled commercial flight between the continent and the Malvinas Islands, with a stopover in an Argentine continental airport of relevance, are still under analysis by the competent Argentine authorities”.

“Once the whole of the proposals forwarded have been assessed by the Argentine government on their viability and convenience, the corresponding authorizations will be issued, if in effect one of those interested airlines is chosen, and in conformity with the Argentine law system and in the framework of the applicable air services accords”.

“It should be recalled that this process is covered by the Joint Declaration and Exchange of Notes accord, subscribed by Argentina and the UK under the sovereignty safeguards from 14 July 1999, the instruments which are the legal basis for flights between the Malvinas Islands and third countries”.

Apparently according to Argentine diplomatic sources, if the Chilean/Brazilian airline is confirmed she would become the only air service between South America and the Islands, since Latam currently flies on Saturdays to the Islands from Punta Arenas, Chile, and once a month stops over in Rio Gallegos, Argentine Patagonia.

Increasing connectivity between Argentina and the Falklands is considered by the current Argentine government as a very significant symbolic step forward, with an opportunity to advance in other fields of the relation, such as “the integration of the Islanders to the continent”.

Likewise LATAM offices at mid afternoon in a release indicated that so far the company “had not been notified of any definition on the issue and was awaiting for the announcement from the competent authorities” Latam admits having presented a proposal to complement the current air service, but “any changes regarding the route, frequency and aircraft to operate, are subject to the agreement between both governments”, Argentina and UK.

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “the UK does not entertain free association...“ Is what you claimed but your unable to show where they have ever refused to consider such a proposition.
    ”This general consent was reflected in two important resolutions adopted in 1960 by the UN General Assembly. The first was Resolution 1514(XV), passed on 14 December 1960 by a vote of 89 to 0, with 9 abstentions (Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, UK, US). This resolution was called the 'Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples'.8 The other resolution, Resolution 1541 (XV), was passed on 15 December 1960 by a vote of 69 to 2 (Portugal, Union of South Africa), with 21 abstentions (from socialist, as well as some Western countries).9 ”
    Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal
    https://books.google.com.br/books?isbn=052163752X
    Antonio Cassese - 1995 - ‎Law
    So I was correct, there has never been a emphatic refusal, so I'll dismiss it as just another of your many, many, many porkies.

    Jul 28th, 2018 - 01:13 pm +6
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
    “TH replies saying he's unable to show the UK have ever refused to consider it”
    Assertion: “the UK does not entertain free association...“
    Response: ”Is what you claimed but your unable to show where they have ever refused to consider such a proposition.”
    Consider - think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision:
    Therefore, based on that consideration they entertained (give attention or consideration to an idea) and, made a decision to abstain.
    Do people have to cut your food and feed you? As you apparently don't clearly understand your own native language, unless people literally have to spell out the meaning, Doh.
    p.s
    So glad you've found someone to whom you can be slavish follower of, and thus be their appendage.
    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    So your unable to provide a citation to confirm what say, while my citation shows that it does not state what you claim.
    So we can clearly see who lies, and who does not.
    http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-oxio/e5.013.1/law-oxio-e5

    Jul 29th, 2018 - 12:57 am +6
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “Did I not just quote from Oxford Public International Law.” No you did not as there was no such content provided.
    “No porkies coming from me...” Just plain old fashioned fraud.
    Many, many moons later, May of 2008 there was an addendum provided.
    “..the 1999 White Paper pointed out, the United Kingdom's policy towards the Overseas Territories rests on the basis that it is the people of each Territory who determine whether they wish to stay linked to the United Kingdom or not. The United Kingdom has no intention of imposing independence against the will of the people concerned. But the concept of free association, as defined by the UN General Assembly, would mean that the Territory itself would draw up its Constitution free ”from United Kingdom involvement. The United Kingdom would retain all responsibility for the Territory, but would not be able to ensure that it had the powers necessary to meet its responsibilities for the Territories. This is not a position the United Kingdom is willing to put itself in.
    UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) is not legally binding. Furthermore, the United Kingdom did not vote in favour of the Resolution. It believes that the guiding principles for the relationship with the Territory should draw on the Charter of the United Nations.
    Which is correct, as blindly following resolutions that could read to a result that is in conflict with the Charter, is barred under article 103.

    Jul 29th, 2018 - 12:34 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!