MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina is “waging economic warfare” on the Falklands
The Falkland Islands government has accused Argentina of waging a campaign of “economic warfare” against it, according to an article in the Sunday edition of The Guardian by Robert Booth. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesCouncillor Summers, with all due respect, dont lie to the people, Argentina never blocked regular charter flights from Chile, only its extra-planned flights. Lanchile flies to malvinas every Saturday morning, departing from Santiago and flying via the southern Chilean city of Punta Arenas. Once a month the flight also stops in Rio Gallegos (Argentina) in both directions.
Jun 15th, 2009 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0link:
http://www.visitorfalklands.com/content/view/186/
About the fisheries commission, what did you expect? we have a sovereignty dispute and until the United Kingdom accept to negociate to resolve the dispute many things like this will happens. Nevertheless the
argentine withdrawn from the commission never stoped islanders from fishing.
But obviously mr Summers dont know what is an economic warfare. Mr Summers, an economic warfare is what the cuban people suffered for 47 years (setting aside any political comment) and iraq's children from the first gulf war.
http://www.visitorfalklands.com/content/view/186/
Luis,
Jun 15th, 2009 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are missing the point completely. Argentina is pledged at the United Nations to preserve the interests of the inhabitants of the Falklands.
We all know and understand Argentina's real intentions which are not inclusive for Falkland Islanders at all.
Their actions are just more examples of why Falklands Islanders should not believe a word of what they say or trust that any of their actions will ever be in their real interests.
I am sure that people in Argentina know all about economic chaos and political double dealing it is a way of life for you.
Get real man!!
Luis,
Jun 15th, 2009 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0before accusing a man of lying, perhaps you should beef up on your knowledge.
Start with looking up the difference between a 'scheduled', and a 'charter' flight. The WEEKLY Lan Chile flight is scheduled, hence it is at the same time every week.
As for ''what do you expect''... from Argenitna? nothing but rhetoric, propaganda, cruelty and moral disgraces.
So when we protect our resources that happen to be near the Malvinas we are waging “economic war”. Well, then the entire world has been waging economic world war for decades, Argentina has been ransacked by corporations endorsed by world powers many times since the 50's, but that was just business, not “economic warfare”. What's so terrible about wanting the tourists to spend their money in Argentina... rather than just fly over our heads from Chile to Malvinas? It's common sense, don't be hurt islanders... it's just business. Cheers.
Jun 15th, 2009 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The british decition of not talking to Argentina about sovereignty has a cost. This is the cost, nothing more. The problem is that this cost is paid by the kelpers; so complain to Britain for this not Argentina; Britain sustains the conflict when avoid the negotiation about the sovereignty. Sorry mates...as Marcos say...it´s just business. You are with me or against me...it´s your call.
Jun 15th, 2009 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The point exactly is the dispute of sovereignty. Once solved that, the rest is solved too.
Jun 16th, 2009 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Malvina's colonial government asked Chile for more flights from Lan Chile, and Argentina said ok but dont use Argentine air space to do that. Whats wrong with that?.
Dont picture Argentina as a monster, the uk is no angel in international affairs. Should i have to enumerate the atrocities make by them against international law?.
So come on!!! dont be so dramatic, relations with the uk are fine, there is no diplomatic tensions, and our presidential visit to the uk proved it.
Ah Louis Louis you unfortunately believe all your corrupt government tell you. Indeed your relationship with the UK may be fine but until you recognise the Falkland Islands and the rights of the Falkland Islanders this will always be a problem. The only thing that seems to change matters is how busy your government is filling their own bank accounts (they become less hostile to the Falklands) or need to distract attention from trouble at home as seen with the Farmers disputes, dirty war etc etc. Like your approach to sport it is time you stopped cheating and played straight. Then more respect will come your way.
Jun 16th, 2009 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fred, dirty war died with our military junta. Yes, we have corruption as you have it, dont be Hypocrite, investigate your parliament.
Jun 16th, 2009 - 04:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0About sports, i like the hand of god becouse you guys cheated us in so many ways that winning to the uk with the hand of god was something really funny. Anyway you have a good team and i hope both teams can see each other in the next world cup, obviously with fairplay this time.
cheers.
Talking about corruption, the book The Falkland Regime by Dr Mike Bingham, Quote :
Jun 16th, 2009 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0“This true story tells how twenty years after British troops died for democracy in the Falklands War, a British citizen would be forced to flee the Falklands to escape political corruption and death threats, to seek democracy and freedom of speech in Argentina.”
Corruption knows no bounds in Argentina. This and the socialist workers dream are the only faults this resource rich country really has. Successive govt's since the late 40's have conspired to keep the people poor and dependent, and done this on empyt promises... The charging on the expense accounts of pono DVD's by the UK labour group does not even compare with the theft of services that take place betweent the federal govt and the provincial capitals.
Jun 16th, 2009 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mark:
Jun 16th, 2009 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mike Bingham has since modified some of his opinions:-
Read the debate here May/June 2007:-
http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1040&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start;=0
“Whilst all these events were taking place between 1996 and 2003 I was very emotionally strained, and no doubt some of what I wrote during this period reflects the anger and sense of injustice I felt at that time.
However the Supreme Court upheld my accusations of injustice, which took away much of my frustration at being accussed of so many things I had not done. Since then I have had three peaceful years in Argentina, and the anger and bitterness has long since past. I really do not need to relive those emotions”................
“From my view point as a British citizen, with experience of both countries, I fully support the rights of the Falkland Islanders to self-determination.
However I think that to gain more wide-spread support for this right abroad, they need to develop a greater level of political maturity than I experienced during my 11 years there. I hope that this maturity is developing, but the Falklands' continued refusal to comply with international demands to halt the decline of penguins, makes me think there is still a long way to go.
From people I speak to in Argentina, most Argentines believe that Britain claims the Falklands as being British, and I can see that this would be difficult to understand in view of the distance from Britain. But the reality is that they are NOT British, even if Britain offers military support.
The Falklands are a tiny island trying to protect their own ownership. In most ways, except for the lack of political maturity, they do a good job. If the Falklands were British, most of the things I endured would never have happened.
Whilst it might be easy to dismiss Britain's right to claim ownership over the Falklands, most Argentines I know agree with me that the people who actually live in the Falklands do have the right to claim ownership of their own land and way of life.” Mike Bingham, June 6, 2007
fred said: “your goverment need to distract attention from trouble at home as seen with the Farmers disputes, dirty war etc etc.”
Jun 17th, 2009 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you really believe argentine goverment can distract our attention today???? We're not in 1982. You're insulting our intelligence. we're very concern about our domestic problems but, that doesn't mean we or our goverment forget the claim of sovereignty. As Billy Hayes said, if britain don't talk to us about sovereignty you will pay the cost. conplain to britain. This problem will be for ever until UK sit on the table and talk to us. Do you think we are gonna sit down and see how you develop our resources without doing anything??? Sit down to talk and there will be no problems anymore unless of course you wanna it continues.
Argentina wont let charter flights until the falklanders let us normalize the airlines flights. Today the only way to get to the islands is via Punta Arenas (chile) wich costs more than US$750 for just a few Km's and only with a chilean company. That's the way they prevent argentinians to get there. Considering it's about 3 times the averange income in Argentina... Argentine's goverment several times tried to get a regular flight from our country. But the islanders won't even let the soldier's mothers get to visit the graves as an humanitarian flight. The charters flights eas only a benefit for the islanders, cause as they were even more expensive only they could pay them with an 75,000 pounds a year income. The goverment already sayed that as long as the regular flights are permited the charters will be so. There's also something called “international law” and apart from “self-determination right” there are several rights that reafirm argentine position in the conflict. Please read a bit more and not just one sided info. Read about argentinian position about 2065 UN resolution, read about historical facts. And then well, give an opinion. It's true, the war was made by a dictatorship goverment. Well but remember that this goverment was imposed by the US as well as all the other dictatorships goverments in south america since the 50's and that was also supported by the UK. This is not an economic warfare, read a bit of history and you'll find that there was a brutal Anglo-french blocade to the river plate between 1845/50. not to mention the polite ones during the XX's century. The Malvinas were ilegally invaded by the UK in 1833 and that's it. This was not the first british invation. Buenos aires was invaded by english troops either in 1806 and again in 1807. And we have no heart feellings, we just want what by is our, nothing more. In the other had you have an enoumus racism against argentine people in the islands. they didn't allow argentines to be there till the late 90's. We are not allowed even to carry anything with colours of the flag. Not even a 5 cm traditional virgin statue (wich happens to wear something light blue). to the graves by the relatives. It's a shame.
Jun 17th, 2009 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm afraid that Mr. Mike Summers, OBE may not be as impartial as he'd like to, partly perhaps his own large interests in fishing and tourism are at stake, and partly because he broods a long-time personal antipathy (I wouldn't say hatredness) against all Argentines and all and anything that represents Argentina in one way or other. These feelings bring only bad Karma and he should get rid of them before they start to undermine his health. With due respect, why don't you apply, Sir, for a vacation at the LegAss?
Jun 17th, 2009 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Families of Argentine War dead can and do visit the Islands, also Argentine veterans visit to pay respects to friends and lay their ghosts.They have been coming regularily since 1999. For an Argentine Airline to fly to the Islands it would first of all have to seek the permission of the Falkland Islands Government Dept of Civil Aviation and comply with all the regulations as requested by the Falkland Islands Govt. it is no good you just asking Britain - the British Govt does not direct control civil aviation here - we do! Which Argentine Airline wants to be the first to deal direct with the Falkland Islands Govt - and thus recognise it exists?
Jun 17th, 2009 - 04:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina was offerred a policy of Open Skies as a solution to the charter flight dispute - open skies means Argentine Airline charter flights direct and Chilean and any other charter flights also. Your Kirscheners threw it out!
As for just protecting your own economy resources - we used to have joint fishery studies of the waters between us - and then conservation meetings to propose catch limits etc. Your Kirscheners threw that oput the window as well - so now there is no good fish conservation because of Argentina!
In 2007 the British Navy offerred to meet the Argentine Navy where G. Belgrano was sunk and hold a joint service of memorial for 25 years- Kirschener threw that idea out as well!
Throw out your Kirscheners and maybe in time we can become friendly neighbours again. The sovereignty is insolvable as we are opposite beliefs - but that should not stop us agreeing to “disagree” and becoming good neighbours - but it takes two to tango!
Quote from Dr Mike Bingham letter
Jun 17th, 2009 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0“My decision to live in Argentina was based on two things. Firstly, Mike Summers public statement after the Supreme Court ruling, stating that FIG would not change their treament of me just because ”some judge said so“. Mike Summers was attacked severely by Penguin News and readers for this statement, surpised by his arrogance in called the Supreme Court ”some judge“ and announcing publicly that Councillors would ignore the ruling.
It was clear to me that I would never be free to live a peaceful life in the Falklands, or even a safe one. So far I had been very lucky. Attempts to frame me by the police had resulting in them being forced to confess to fabricating evidence. Attempts to threaten my life had resulted in the person being caught in the act by Cable & Wireless and the Police, even though his position protected him from identification and prosecution. And finally, FIG's attempts to use the law to evict me had led to a ruling of acts of human rights abuse that the court described as 'legally and morally indefensible”.
Mr Summer don´t victimize the situation, it is true that you have not choise if your people want to stay in Malvinas Islands, but the only solution here is to admit the argentine territory and then can chose a status to the citizen.. (autonomy community, province ) but never a foreing colony enclave. If you cannot understand that you still living in the XIX century, when brits invaded Malvinas. Remember the “Principle of Territory Integrity” where self determination dont applies.
Jun 17th, 2009 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0The principle of territorial integrity was intended to stop a colonial power from fragmenting a colony to keep choice pieces. It was never intended as a means for a potential colonial power, ie Argentina, to deny the right to self-determination of a dependent territory.
Jun 19th, 2009 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have no idea how funny it is for me to read the word “colonial power” next to the word Argentina.
Jun 19th, 2009 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Saludos
Self Governing territory is a more polite term to hide the real name, colony of the old empire.
Jun 19th, 2009 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Luis,
Jun 20th, 2009 - 03:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's just as funny for us to read “Argentinas” next to “Malvinas”...
Cheers
Colonial power next to Argentina?
Jun 20th, 2009 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina seeks to dominate and subjugate the islanders, ignoring their right to self-determination, denigrates them as a people and to seeks to impose an alien culture upon them against their will. That is the antithesis of colonialism.
Argentina seeks to impose a colonial situation, the Falklands are not a colony, the Govern themselves. For all intents and purposes of 2065 they are no longer a colony, they have been decolonised. Its deeply said that Argentina wishes to turn back the clock to the 19th Century when Britain and the Falkland Islands are in the 21st.
You are amazing guys, grown people. How is that Argentina is a colonial power, when is the uk who is in posetion of the islands. How is that Argentina want a colony on the islands if you have no idea how we are going to govern them?. Is the Province of Santa Cruz, Chubut or Buenos Aires a colony???.
Jun 20th, 2009 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Luis
Jun 20th, 2009 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will try and spell it out.
The de jure and de facto British sovereignty over the Falklands is well established and recognised by the UN. Even if Argentina disputes this sovereignty, based on a very weak case, that does not change the fact, recognised by the UN: The Falkland Islands are NOT Argentine territory occupied by the UK, they are British territory.
Argentina's dispute has been registered by the UN, but that does not affect the status quo and it certainly does not imply sovereignty has to pass to Argentina. The UN simply requires that the UK and Argentina resolve their dispute - the UN has NEVER said the Falklands must pass under Argentine sovereignty.
The inhabitants of the Falklands have a right to self determination as enshrined in UN resolutions. Under that right to self determination the Falklanders have FREELY CHOSEN to remain self-governing under the British flag.
So, if sovereignty passed to Argentina against the wishes of the Falklanders a colonial situation would arise. You see, it's very simple, even an amazing and grown person should understand that.
Un saludo
Justin R, the only truth you said is that the un has NEVER said the “Falklands” must pass under Argentine sovereignty.
Jun 20th, 2009 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The weak case is for the british. Ask to Duque de Wellington, prime minister in 1834,Sidney Spicer, American Department of the Foreign Office in 1910,R. Campbell, secretary assistand of the Foreign Office in 1911,Sir Malcolm A. Robertson, british ambassador in Buenos Aires in 1928,George Fitzmaurice, legal adviser of the England cancillery in 1936, or John Troutbeck.
Acording to the UN for geografic names, the official name of the islands is Falklands/Malvinas and it specifically says that they are administered by the uk and claimed by Argentina.
http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/geoinfo/geoname.pdf
About selfdetermination, give me the links where the UN specifically says they are a selfgoverning territory. As long as i know the islands are put as non-selfgoverning territory, so to say they are selfgoverning territory enshrined by the UN is a very big lie.
Link from the United Nations regarding of non-self governing territories:
http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/geoinfo/geoname.pdf
guess whos on that list????.
selfdetermination is something the islanders cant have until the united kingdom (the government they belong and are members) sit to the negotiation table.
And to respond your last paragraph, if sovereignty is passed to Argentina it would be from a colonial situation to a federal provincia which is not same.
The Falklands are a self-governing overseas territory, with the exception of those territories that are only inhabited by military or scientific personnel, all British Overseas Territories are self-governing.
Jun 20th, 2009 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self-determination is a right guaranteed under the UN Charter, and as regards Article 73 of the UN Charter:
“ Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end: ”
I don't see anything in there that says people can't enjoy self-government due to a sovereignty dispute. And if sovereignty were to pass to Argentina against the will of the populace it would create a colonial situation. The current status of the Falklands is not a colony, they are a self-governing overseas territory. Whilst Argentina dreams of an irredentist fantasy rooted in the 19th Century, Britain and the Falkland Islands have modernised their relationship. The Falklanders govern themselves, they rely on the UK only for Defence. They represent themselves at the UN.
And the annual farce that we have seen repeated at the UN this week is just that a farce. They are no longer a colony and should have been delisted long ago. I note that many of the countries that prevent them from doing so are far from models of democracy and China maintains it own undeclared colony in Tibet.
Again the list of non-self governing territory acording to United Nations sources:
Jun 20th, 2009 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/trust3.htm
The Falkland Islands were originally listed as a colony by the UK back in 1947 at the formation of the United Nations. Listing was entirely down to the discretion of states, there are many territories that could be considered in a modern sense to be colonies. For example many of the former satellite countries of the Soviet Union were effectively colonies, Tibet is under the domination of China.
Jun 20th, 2009 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is a world of difference between the situation of 1947 and today. The British Empire is no more, it was dissolved by the British who chose to grant independence to its former colonies as Empires in the late 20th Century were an anachronism that ill-fitted with a democratic nation.
The remaining territories of the former British Empire are no longer colonies. That they remain listed at the UN is a farsical situation and is more down to power politics between nation states. The C24 was created to represent the interests of the people of dependent territories. That purpose has been perverted and now rather than support to the self-determination of the people of dependent territories it is used for petty point scoring in international politics. It became farsical when states attending speak in favour of creating a colonial situation, ignoring the wishes of the very people they swore to represent.
Luis,
Jun 20th, 2009 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, did I mention the words “self governing” in my post above?
This was your question: “How is that Argentina is a colonial power, when is the uk who is in posetion of the islands.”
I answered that in my post (no mentioning self government once), and I'll summarise what I said above again:
1. The UN recognises British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
2. The Falkland Islanders have the right to self determination and choose to remain British (that right has nothing to do with the dispute between the UK and Argentina, that is a right the Islanders have no matter what).
3. If sovereignty were to pass to Argentina against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders (no matter what the current status is) a colonial situation would arise.
As for the name: the official UN for the islands is ”Falkland Islands (Malvinas)“. The ”Malvinas” bit is in brackets, not Falklands/Malvinas as you state and is only there because of Argentina's insistence. Argentine maps even referred to the islands as Las Islas Falkland until the 1940s.
Justin Kuntz, the list of non-self governing territory of the un was made in 2002 as you may see it in the link,not in 1947. Then you say “”That they remain listed at the UN is a farsical situation and is more down to power politics between nation states“” Nice apreciation you have for the United Nations, very acordly with unilateralism aplicated by the uk and the us in the international arena.
Jun 21st, 2009 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Justin R. you are right you didnt.
About point 1,2,3, why dont you substantiate a little more with proof may be?.
About point 1- Give me the link where the un says the “falklands” belongs to the uk.
point 2- Thats your opinion?.
3-if this happens, if that happens, then it could happens.... only wishfull thinking.
Yes the official un for the islands is Falkland Islands (Malvinas) so i can call them falklanders or malvinenses right?.
Guys, stop showing opinions or conspiracies theories about the Argentine claim and present some proof.
Luis,
Jun 21st, 2009 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. No need to substantiate. The UN recognises the UK as the “administering power” over the Falklands, i.e. the UK has sovereignty - and since it is recognised by the UN why could this not be legal? They don't say the “occupying power”, which is a very different thing.
2. It's not my humble opinion. It it international law. Above Justin K quoted the relevant article 73 of the UN charter.
3. The only wishful thinking is the Argentine claim.
I think you'll see that these are not opinions or conspiracy theories. No-one is denying an Argentine claim exists, but that claim is very weak and does not trump the Falkland Islanders well established right to self determination. The most sensible thing Argentina could do is park (or even better drop) their claim and start living with their neighbours as neighbours should. This is exactly what happened until the 1st Kirchner was elected.
Luis
Jun 22nd, 2009 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are incorrect, the original list was compiled in 1947, the list you refer to reflects territories removed as they achieve independence. Apart from those territories that have achieved sufficient autonomy to be delisted but remain on the list due to certain nations perverting the purpose of the C24.
And again Luis, I reiterate that the islanders find the names you use to be offensive. Nothing else. You can either chose to respect that or continue to use certain terms in the knowledge of the offense they cause.
Justin R, you said it yourself “”The UN recognises the UK as the “administering power” over the Falklands“” , i agree with this you are the administering power not its owner.
Jun 22nd, 2009 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sovereignty is not only to administer a territory Justin.
occupying power is not the case,first becouse you cant be an occupying power of your own citizens and secondly the un cant determine who is the sovereign owner until the dispute is resolved.
Justin Kuntz, i didnt show any list of 1947, nomatter if there was an original list prior to the one i showed, the list i gave you was of 2002 and its hosted in the official webpage of the United Nations.
About the islanders i try not to use it as to not offend them, but dont worry “bloody argies” must be their favourite word for them to call on us and i think the lonely fact of our claim, made them feel that way, so there is nothing i can do about them beign offended.
Cheers
Luis,
Jun 22nd, 2009 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sorry, but the UK is the sovereign power, however you try to rework the language and the Argentine dispute does not make the slightest difference to this under international law.
Saludos
Luis,
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 02:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0It does matter, the islands were only ever listed because Britain chose to do so. Had it not, they would not be listed its that simple. That they have not been delisted is purely because the C24 is a farce.
Luis, how can we still be thought of as a colony of the old world? 50years ago yes this was correct, but not today.
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 04:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Currency-we have our own currency notes and coins and we are NOT part of Sterling,I send money to Britain I pay a foreign currency commision just the same as if to USA,Chile or even Argentina we are outside, but for convenience we follow same interest rates and maintain fixed parity to the british pound.
Laws - we have our own Laws -fully under the legal control of our own locally elected Government in which the UK Governor does not have a vote, nor any official, only elected members.
We have our own Police Force - independent to british police.
We have oput own Taxation Laws.
We have our own Education System.
The Governor here can only exercise control over Defence and Foreign Affairs. He has no vote in anything that happens inside the Islands and he cannot act agaist our elected Government.
We even have our own flag.
So yes we have full control over our own internal affairs - we are to small to be alone so need a bigger power to look after defence and Foreign Affairs - se we choose one we trust
How can you possibly say that Argentina taking all that over against our wishes is not old fashioned colonialism at its worst?
Would she let us keep our flag,currency,laws,police, etc!! I think not.
“Would she let us keep our flag,currency,laws,police, etc!”
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I very much doubt it. They will also try and force you to drive on the right, like they did in 1982.
Islander,Justin, Argentina only want its legitimate rights be listened, and is compromised to respect islander's interest in the case we recover them. We are not going to expropiate islanders natural resources or their britishness. For law, in Argentina Minerals and oil are managed by the provinces, every province have its own police, its own flag, its own judicial system. You should investigate and take as an example provinces like Tierra Del Fuego, or Santa Cruz.
Jun 24th, 2009 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0About the drive side, thats only speculative, the 1982 government were a military one, and once we get in the position of transfer of the islands i dont thing it would be on Argentina's interest to apply controversial changes.
Let me ask you a question,just hipothetical, if youislander were born in england for example, would you declare war on them if it would be needed??
Luis,
Jun 25th, 2009 - 04:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have been to TierradelFuego and Rio Gallegos - the flags I saw outside all govt offices etc was your national flag. Our national flag flies outside our govt offices and buildings - the british flag only outside the Governors house.
Sorry Luis I missed off, I am not sure who I am to declare war on if I was born in England? I would not declare war on the Islands if they wanted to change to Argentina as that is the democratic and self-determination right of the people. Yes I would fight against Argentina if she tried to take the islands over again - that would be an act of agression against another people same as it was in 1982.
Jun 25th, 2009 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Many of the british veterans of 1982 who have neen back here say - our future is ours to decide , they fought for us to have the right of choice- if we did decide to accept Argenina then they would respect our wish.
Luis,
Jun 26th, 2009 - 05:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Listen to yourself. Argentina only wants its rights to be listened to, and in your next breath you will claim that the Falkland Islanders rights are not worth listening to. I don't suppose for one second the rank hypocrisy in what you state will strike you.
You're not going to expropriate the islanders resources but designate they belong to a fictional Argentine province 350+ miles away. You wage economic warfare against them, ignore them as “irrelevant” but expect them to trust in Argentina benevolence?
Again I expect you to ignore such awkward questions.
As to your “hypothetical” question, I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. IF you're asking if the islanders decide to be part of Argentina, then the British will respect that viewpoint. The British Government is already publicly committed to respecting the self-determination rights of all of the British Overseas Territories.
Islander my hipothetical question was to proof my point that if you born in england nomatter where you live you will never act against british interests.
Jun 26th, 2009 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0If half population living in the islands and govern them (that came from england scotland or wales) were born in Argentina instead of the uk, do you think the status quo would be known as they are known today?.
Luis,
Jun 26th, 2009 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Islander my hipothetical question was to proof my point that if you born in england nomatter where you live you will never act against british interests.”
Simply your opinion Luis, speculative, not relevant to the Falkland situation AND I will give you a very good example of where exactly that happened: Rhodesia.
Of course its my opinion, but would you act against british interests Justin??? be honest.
Jun 26th, 2009 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Luis,
Jun 27th, 2009 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0If British interests didn't coincide with my own personal interests there's a very strong possibility that I would act against those British interests. I bet you there are many Argentines who would act against Argentine interests which do not coincide with theirs. There's actually a good example of that happening now - all the black money making its way across the Rio de la Plata into Uruguayan banks. Surely that is not good for Argentina? But does it stop Argentines from doing it?
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make?
Justin you miss my point completly. You are talking about legality. It is not legal to have black money in Uruguay or Argentina, and the fact of doing so constitute a crime, so the ones that do so are criminals. If money is transfered acording to law, it is not constitute a crime and you acording to the constitution are free to do with your money what ever you want. Is in Argentina's interest to respect law and not to pursue those who take their money legally out of Argentina.
Jun 27th, 2009 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway i think you know exactly of what im talking about. I was waiting just a yes or no but instead you choose to take a bicycle and go around this topic.
Luis,
Jun 27th, 2009 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know several people here who were born in Argentina and none of them ever want Argentina to take over this country-they like it as we are. There is a saying - none of us can choose where we were born - but we can chose where we live and eventually die.
I am not sure how you prooved your point - if I had english parents and I had been born in Iraq I probably would have fought against the US and UK invasion in 2003 as I felt it was wrong. The fact is I was born here so I defend my country and democratic rights - luckily for us britain is prepared to do so as well. If Britain were to act against us and force us over to you I would feel very anti british - but not sure how 3000 of us could invade Britain!
Luckily it will not happen.
Please you must get away from this notion that we are ruled by half the population who were not born here. Those people have made their homes here and settled here because they like this country and our life. They are permanent residents, where they were born is irrelevant be it Britain,Chile,USA,Argentina etc . - if you are on a work contract from UK or any other country you do not have a vote here. Only those who qualify for the right of residence without a work permit can vote.
Why you falklanders still think that Argentina's claims over Malvinas is weak? I'm sure that the true sence behind that phrase is that you don't have much to say, what else is behind your self-determination?? why do you think that being determined has a strong basis on the sovereignity claim when you know that british forces invaded the islands on 1833 with argentine civilization, we know they were well determined but none talks about it. Obviously, you are british, and you defend them as any other war they fought and will fight, after all, just as them you are the empire. Don't bother on bringing such things as Roca's conquest, that was to expand the unknown lands over patagonia (continuous lands), just as brits expanded their territory. Now, why do the uk come all away here and invade an already habitated island with a proper government? were was our self-determination back then??.
Jun 27th, 2009 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0As simply as it is you won a war, as an imperial power that you are, that's your self-determination there's no other, we the argentines will never give up our rights on our lands. I've got to admit that neither of the parts are impartial, nor me or you. But reading everything regarding the malvinas issue, came with the conclusion that the war changed everything. We are dealing with it as you are doing so with the aislation. I know that my words means nothing to you but, we know that someday the beautifull, lost in the atlantic, islands will be back to us.
No further comments, thanks for read.
P.S: Falklanders, we would love to recieve you as argentines citizens. We are much more warmer than brits, but you must know your claim basis is not correct. Best wishes, hope you understand our position.
Islander, i underestand your position,you only try to defend your home. But you should underestand our position and those argentines that lived there didnt have that oportunity to defend their home with diplomacy, they were expelled. Or those Argentines that could have raised there in peace.
Jun 27th, 2009 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Luis,
Jun 27th, 2009 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You asked if I would act against British interests. I answered you in the first line of my reply, pretty clearly I think.
Juan, the Falkland Islanders think the Argentine claim is weak, because it IS weak!
Once again, and in a nutshell. Only the Buenos Aires (Argentina did not exist yet) officers were expelled in 1833. Why? Because the British had a prior claim and were defending it. Most of the civilians stayed - they were not all kicked off - that is an indisputable fact.
Of course Roca's “Conquest of the Desert” is relevant. In 1833 “Buenos Aires” did not really go south of the Rio Salado, Argentina did not exist until 1853, La Pampa did not even become Argentine territory until 1884 - and you are trying to tell me the Falklands were Argentine territory in 1833? Please! By the way, Patagonia was not “unknown land”, it was very well known to indigenous people like the Mapuches.
P.S. All the above is history and does not affect the situation TODAY. The Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination under international law, enshrined in the UN charter. It is up to them - and nobody else - to choose what they want.
Luis or whoever wrote above me, Argentina existed from 1833 and it was known as the United Provinces of the River Plate, a name that is legally acepted until this day, that means that today you can legally call Argentina as the United Provinces of the River Plate ok?.
Jun 27th, 2009 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Beside that, in 1825 England recognized Argentine independence without making any claim of sovereignty over the islands having Argentina total control over malvinas islands with total sovereignty.
So contrary to your propaganda Argentina existed prior to 1853, the treaty of friendship, comerce and navigation signed by England and Argentina is proof of it.
Your last paragraph only show your constant lie about selfdetermination becouse Britain refuse to talk about sovereignty arguing the islanders wishes are paramount and, in that way, they avoid talking about their weak claim.
Do you know Lawrence Freedman? he took british secrets files and admited the british claim is weak.
Luis/Juan, Yes I do understand and respect that you have a view as well, and if you go back far enough in history either side can make some form of claim based on what did or should not have happened 200-300 and even more years ago. But you could also do that in many other parts of the world as well. Of course Britain did some pretty bad things in the past in its empire - it did a lot of good things as well, which is why so many of the now independent nations still keep their political links through the British Commonwealth. You dont see much of this with the old empires of other european states.
Jun 28th, 2009 - 06:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is why in the 21st century the most important principle is that of the right of selfdetermination of the people who live in the place - so says the UN and most nations. We find it interesting that the 24 Committee nor the OAS have ever thought about sending an independent fact-finding team here to find out for themselves what the Islands really are all about in today,s world, to help them make a better assesment of the situation when they discuss it formally.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!