MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
The Kirchners under increased international isolation
Argentina’s ruling couple, the Kirchners growing international isolation has been highlighted by Buenos Aires political analysts. The only leader who seems to visit Buenos Aires quite often is Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, while differences accumulate with neighbouring Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, with the more distant Mexico and Israel and there seems to be a growing distancing from the Obama administration. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIs seems funny to me how MercoSur Press seems to always show articles depicting Chavez as a dictator, ignores all the good he has done for the regional intergration aswell as the social programs he has created for the poor. It is very dissapointing to see how a well known News agency can be so bias and one-sided.
May 22nd, 2009 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with the previous comment, Martinez 83 (#). Also you look a little bias with Argentina 's gov. . The IMF is not quite like you picture it.
May 23rd, 2009 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Martinez and Roberto, newspapers are free to express their political stance if they wish, as long as they don't distort the truth, which I don't think MercoPress is doing. And anyway, the left seems to be too easily offended with anything that doesn't go 100% their way.
May 23rd, 2009 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chavez is clearly playing on borderland territory with regards to democracy and the Kirchners have consistently had an aggressive and confrontational attitude, both internally and internationally. That is an objective fact, like it or not.
Let us not kid ourselves. U.S. relations with Latin America are a very low priority for the Obama administration. So to imply that only Argentina is getting the cold shoulder from the U.S. is an exaggeration. In a couple of years time when the U.S. is forced to “rediscover” South America for export markets to sustain its economic recovery, diversify energy imports away from Middle East oil, etc. only then will Argentina be in serious risk of isolation if the Kirchner team continues down the same dead end path they are currently embarked on.
May 24th, 2009 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Martinez83, visit Venezuela, as I have, before and after Chavez. The poor have not gotten any better, except for a few statues of Che and Castro in barrio plazas, while his ruling party drives Hummers, and he shuts down any paper or broadcast in opposition. he put on a junk drive 2 years ago, and the poor in the favellas gave up their pots and pans for a few kilos of rice and sugar, this while he props up Cuba and Bolivia.
May 27th, 2009 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with Tim. The ruling couple, this truly describes the Kirchners, since his higness won by default when Menem, who diluted the oppostion pool, pulled out of the election, and her highness, the one that did not debate one opponent in the last presidential election, continue to dictate policy, like stopping beef exports, and hammering the agriculture to pay for failed social programs, need to wake up to the fact that unless you have millions of barrels of excess oil or gas to export, or wine, or school busses or cars, you can not wear the trappings of a capitilist society while running bankrupt socialist programs.
May 27th, 2009 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps our british islanders “friends” of mercopress would like us to vote for menem? whose political commitment was accord to british standard of democracy and neoliberalism for third countries?.
May 27th, 2009 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Luis,
May 27th, 2009 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is difficult to know who to vote for these days. Certainly not Menem. Winnie the Pooh caused much laughter in the Falklands and nobody took the so-called seduction policies seriously, rather looked on them with curiosity at this strange Argentine manuifestation rather than think they were of any practical use or actually sincere.
Talking of standards of democracy, if it is the policy of Argentina to protect the 'interests' and 'way of life' of Falkland Islanders why are you so shy of talking to them directly about what you mean by this? They have a democratically elected Government (a new one due to be elected in November this year) so why not deal with them directly if you are really sincere?
expat, like i have explained to you in another oportunity we are talking to islanders every time we talk with britain, becouse malvina's inhabitants does not represent a diferent entity from those who lives in the uk. There is two kinds of british the ones who traveled to malvinas and the ones who continue to live in the north hemisphere. Of course there is a minority that actually had born in malvinas but they do not represent half the population and are not even represented in their own colonial government.
May 28th, 2009 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Besides that, United Nations invites only the Uk and Argentina to talk about sovereighty. they didnt said anything about a third partie in this equation. So its way of life and interests means that if we regain sovereighty we shall not expell them or change their britishness, their culture, giving them the right to be represented democratically with elected members . Honk kong for example changed sovereighty without changing its way of life and respecting their interests
Honk was always Chinese, never british... they speak chinese, eat chinese food, go to chinese schools, gamble like chinese, on and on.... they speak english in the islands here. the brits administered the island since the opium wars. If Argentina had not invaded the islands, then the UK probably would negotiate now.
May 29th, 2009 - 06:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Luis, and like we have explained in other opportunities the Falkland Islanders DO represent a different entity from those in the UK - in the same way that people in Australia, Canada, New Zealand represent different entities. Why can the Falkland Islanders not decide their future in the same way?
May 29th, 2009 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I have explained before, to live in the Falklands you need a connection of some kind. Even if you were not born there, you will need some kind of connection to live there (eg. you have a parent born there). Or a job offer. The vast majority of the Falkland Islanders (including those not born there) have a FI connection.
Argentina is a country of immigrants, most Argentines have a heritage elsewhere, but that did not stop you deciding on your own destiny. Why do you deny that right to the Falkland Islanders?
The UN has invited Argentina and the UK to resolve their sovereignty dispute but the UN has NOT said the only outcome is Argentine control of the islands. There are two other options. Continued UK control or complete independence. Anyway, as has been shown many, many times Argentina's claim is very weak.
As Bubba has pointed out, Hong Kong is a poor example. Most Hong Kong residents have no British heritage, and another thing, most of Hong Kong (the New Territories) were on a 99 year lease from China, only a very small part of Hong Kong (HK Island and a bit of Kowloon) was British territory.
Bubba is also right. If you had not taken aggressive action in 1982, the UK might have even handed sovereignty to Argentina by now. This process was under way in the 1970s, with the Navigation agreement etc. You only have yourselves to blame for the Islanders not wanting to trust you...
Both wrong. The only thing you are right and i agree with, is when you say that if we didnt used military force the islands would be ours by now.
May 30th, 2009 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0About the rest is not true.I said “Hong kong changed sovereignty without changing its way of life or interest” what did i said wrong? well i should have used the word administration instead of sovereignty.
Justin the uk can give malvinas the same status as Australia, Canada, New Zealand or whatever but it does not mean it is recognized by the world becouse the uk do so. Personally i dont care what status the uk gives to them, its irrelevant.
Justin, let me put it this way. The illegal colonial government in malvinas has nothing to do with our sovereignty rights, so if malvinas have or not a legal government it does not affect our claim at all. Having said that, if Argentina one day decide to forget that claim in favor of another solution why should we recognize a government in malvinas where its autorities were born in the north hemisphere.
If malvinas inhabitants has the right to choose between Argentine government or british government dont you thing that having almost the entire government in the islands being born in england or scotland will have influence in that decision?
So the question is, a government that is born elsewhere with a population born elsewhere have the right to selfdetermination? definitely not.
The United Nations recognize there is a sovereignty dispute. The uk denie there is any dispute. The UN invite the two part to resolve the problem of sovereignty to end with decolonization of those islands. So the United Nations recognize the islands are a colony. And you are right Justin the UN has NOT said the only outcome is Argentine control of the islands but they neither said that they should be independent or that they have the right to selfdetermination.
And anticipating to your response everybody have the right to selfdetermination but as i cant ask for selfdetermination of a piece of walles you cant ask for selfdetermination in Argentine territory, in this case malvinas.
Luis,
May 30th, 2009 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I cannot let your unsubstantiated assertions go unchallenged. You clearly do not understand your own history or the historical context. You are judging something that happened 177 years ago by a new set of standards post WWII. This is a ridiculous argument.
You are also quite wrong that the Islands would have without doubt been handed to Argentina if it were not for the war. The reason for the conflict was that the UK had made clear to Argentina that without the consent of the Islanders the British Parliament would not agree to any kind of handover. This is what prompted the Argentine military to attack the Islands and occupy them illegally.
You fail also to recognise the origins of your own people from the Northern Hemisphere if it was legitimate for you why not the Falklands? You operate double standards that’s why. Er? Galtieri, is that a Spanish name? Give us a break from propaganda. When natural born islanders were a clear majority in the 1960’s and 70’s you still did not treat with them correctly. The shifting sands of your arguments are pathetic.
There is no illegal colonial government in the Falklands it is perfectly legal and recognised by the UN as the government of the administering power, reports on its progress to self-determination are submitted to and accepted by the UN on a regular basis.
Argentina's attempt at the UN this year to get the UN to agree that existing sovereignty disputes negated the right of the colonial countries to self-determination failed miserably. It was outvoted.
It was made it clear to Argentina in 1829 when the then illegal Government of Argentina announced its intention to set up a Colony in the East Falklands that this act was considered in breach of the UK’s rights but the UK’s protest though acknowledged was left unanswered. Then after Moreno made his first protest in 1833 at the UK’s re-occupation of the Falklands it was made clear to him that the UK was settling an old dispute with Spain and it was none of the new state of Argentina‘s business.
What was his reply? OK then well “Just let us have one of the Islands then.” Check it out.
Spain certainly had not ceded the Falklands to Argentina in 1833. Where is your proof? It did not even recognise Argentina as an independent country until 1859.
Besides there is no right of succession to new states that have obtained their independence by violent means, the extent of the territory of the new state is determined by its ability to hold on to that land against all comers and Argentina failed in a number of respects to do this. Several new states were created out of the former vice royalty or parts of it and their boundaries with Argentina (so called United Provinces or rather not united till the 1850's and later) were decided by violence and various agreements. There was no succession to the territories of the former Vice Royalty or the Spanish Empire. The only difference with the Falklands is that so far Argentina has failed to recognise the final frontier.
That day will come of course.
Expat you are wrong and in fact you are not denying any of my statemens. What happened 177 years ago is something we keep claiming and like i explained in my last post, why should we recognize a government that not exist? nor it is not represented in their own colonial government?. In the 60's and 70's you are right we didnt talk to islanders becouse like i said in my last post sovereignty rights has nothing to do with the illegal colonial government imposed in malvinas. To resolve the dispute we have to talk with the uk government which administer illegally the islands.
May 31st, 2009 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0What you fail to underestand is that in Argentina in the time of the colony, mayority of people were born in this nation, the population was between 500 and 700 thousands people of which 6000 were spaniard who BORN in spain obviously but ejerced government with an argumentation of etnic type to maintain domination. More important is that our governments after independence were not controled by spain nor the usa or britain.
What would happends if the war did not exist? i can only assume and you can agree or not.
If you suggest that the United Nation recognize the government of malvinas as an independent one its a lie bigger than those islands. The UN recognize that the administering power of the islands is the uk. ADMINISTERING. It specifically state that the uk is only the adminitering power not its sovereignty owner.
About Mariano Moreno give me the links where he said that.
Then you said “”“Spain certainly had not ceded the Falklands to Argentina in 1833”“””. Spain went home long before that year. In 1833 Argentina controled the islands and before that, in 1825 England recognized Argentine independence with an Agreement without protest for our governance in malvinas.
Expat comparing the subjet with anything only confuses people, the only thing you forgot to mention were comparing the killings of the natives with the expelled of argentine settles in malvinas.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!