MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Spanish apology to Argentina for “protocol error” involving Falklands’ delegation
Argentina formally accepted Wednesday apologies from the Spanish government which admitted having committed a “protocol error” on allowing the presence of a delegation from the Falkland Islands in an international fisheries sustainability conference, reports Efe, the Spanish government news agency quoting the head of Argentina’s Fisheries Department Norberto Yauhar. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesHas Spain apologized for raping and pillaging South America for 400 years??
Sep 17th, 2009 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If it's a sustainable fisheries conference they're better off letting the Argies flounce off in a huff and letting the Falkand Islanders pass on some of their valuable experience in running a sustainable fishery. Even better ask someone from South Georgia along.
Sep 17th, 2009 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain has only back-peddled because of Gibraltar. Odd that both Spain and Argentina cannot act in a mature manner in the 21st Century. What is even worse is their denial of a peoples rights to self-determination. They are both pitiful in their actions towards the people of Gibraltar and the Falklands. As has been noted - they should look to their own history.
Sep 17th, 2009 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falklands delegates stayed at the meetings as well, our representative had been invited by Spanish minister to address the meeting on how our fisheries works -but the Spanish would not let him talk in the end! But lots of talks went on independently between Falklands delgates and other countries. Shame on you Spain - this meeting was nothing to do with politics but about marine consevation. Feedback was other delegates embarrassed by it and said Argentines are chlidish. Falklands has a very good sustainable fishery,well controlled and we are a world leader on seabird mortality reduction.
Sep 18th, 2009 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Give me the waters of Uruguay, Brazil and Chile and I could be a good managaer of fisheries too. You (british) are fishing in our waters. Things like this is expecting to happen very often in future. You must know it. What a shameless people!
Sep 18th, 2009 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0ROTFLMAO, shameless, I don't suppose for one second the utter hypocrisy in your statement hit you for one second. Shameless clearly doesn't mean what you think. An example of a shameless people, would be the Argentine people indulging in petty bullying of a small island community. The correct response of the Spanish to the Argentine Government should have been don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.
Sep 18th, 2009 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0this is quite worrying and indicates a deterioration of what should be an excellent relationship between Britain and Argentina.I am particularly concerned about future exploitation of hydrocarbons around the Islands.
Sep 19th, 2009 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am surprised the British government is allowing this as any large discovery of Oil will antagonise an already strained friendship and it must be remembered that any future military confrontation between Britain and Argentina would be disastrous for Britain's credibilty and standing as a nation only interested in spreading peace and stability.
Let me get this right, Argentina throwing its rattle out of the pram and initiating a confrontation would be Britain's fault? Argentina has initiated most of this, it was Argentina that tore up the joint agreement on oil exploration.
Sep 19th, 2009 - 02:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0No Justin its far more serious than that.The Falklands are a British colony maintained through force of arms which has a Governor appointed by the Queen via her parliament. In other words: it is a living echo of our imperial history - an anachronism. Very much like Gibraltar; which is actually part of mainland Spain.
Sep 19th, 2009 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Neither of these colonies serve any useful purpose for Britain. They are neither strategically or economically necessary and their continued existance can only be justified by our fundamental democratic tradition where the interests of the minority can superceed those of the majority.
But we live in a rapidly changing and ever more dangerous world. Britain's power both economically and military is in rapid decline and so we need friends and allies more than ever in order the maintain our economy and our security and countries like Argentina and Chile and all South American nations are absolutely vital to those interests.
We are arriving at a situation where we must seriously consider if the cost of preserving the rights of a tiny number of British citizens in lands far away...is worth our future security and stability.
Neither the Falklands or Gibraltar are colonies, both are self-governing. Both the Spanish and Argentine claims are utter bunk, as all irredentist claims are.
Sep 20th, 2009 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spain is particularly hypocritical maintaining the enclaves of Ceuta and Melila, despite Moroccan claims. I happen to agree with Spain that what the people want is what is important but its rank hypocrisy to say that its somehow different from Gibraltar. Not to mention keeping the Portuguese town of Olivenza.
Argentina has manufactured a ludicrous claim from the most tenuous of bases.
And you seem to think that Britain's security is best served by appeasing a bunch of bullie who behave like small children. We tried appeasement before it wasn't very successful.
well stated Justin. Furthermore Britain has good relations with Chile,Brazil,Uruguay,Peru and others. UK used to have good relations with Arg as well - there used to be an unwritten agreement to keep Falklands issues seperate from straight Arg-UK issues - until guess who broke it and now insists FI issue is in front to of every issue!
Sep 20th, 2009 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Justin - Argentina only needs to successfully isolate the islands from any contact with mainland south america. the economy of the islands would then be entirely dependent upon sea and air links with europe and south africa. If this happens then the islands' economy would collapse and they would be forced to depend upon Britain restoring full air and sea links the cost of which would have to be borne by the british taxpayer.
Sep 20th, 2009 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0What proportion of the population of Britain would be happy to bear the cost of this? - at a time of recession and cutbacks in all sectors of british society.
If Britain is required to increase its military presence on the islands do we have the capacity to do this? where would the extra funding come from?
And if - god forbid - we were forced into a military confrontation with Argentina where would the resources come from? We certainly could NOt repeat the effort we made in 1982.
And we wouldn't have to, the Argentine forces are nothing compared with what they were in 1982. Whereas in fact whilst numerically inferior British forces are far more technologically ahead than they were in 1982.
Sep 20th, 2009 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We wouldn't have to repeat the effort, the Argentine would go the way of the Belgrano before it got close.
Notice, the only way Argentina apparently gets its way is by bullying. Does it never get through their thick skulls they'd get farther by being less confrontational.
And the point you've conviently ignored is that history teaches us the cost of appeasement would be infinitely higher.
justin - this not about appeasement it is about taking the opportunity of resolving a potentially catastrophic scenario before it develops.
Sep 20th, 2009 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands have a tiny population that would be easily compensated and resettled in either Britain or any developed nation they choose.
Britain could then negotiate from a position of advantage with Argentina and a peaceful and permanent resolution to this problem would be found which would result in a much happier relationship with Argentina and the rest of south america. And we really do need nations like Argentina as strong and reliable allies.
You also have to recognise that Britain, Europe, the USA will be very different countries in 50 years. Radical demographic change will produce very different attitudes to nationalism and patriotism.
loyalty to enclaves of british citizens living across the oceans simply may not be understood in a britain whose population may be largely made up of people from Asia and the middle east.
All we are doing is pre-empting the inevitable without loss of blood, loss of face or national pride on any side.
And its always Britain who has to give in isn't it. Tell you what you sell that little scenario, you go to the Falklands and tell the people living there they don't matter and we're going to capitulate to ludicrous Argentine demands. And when you've gone to the Falklands wander along to Guatemala and tell them they can just march in on Belize as well.
Sep 21st, 2009 - 05:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0How about a peaceful and permanent resolution to the “problem” as you euphemistically call it. We take the issue to binding independent arbitration at the ICJ and let the principles of International Law sort it out. No loss of blood but you can bet loss of macho pride when Argentina loses.
Tell me, why can't Argentina simply grow up, drop its demands and just let the Falklanders live in peace. Why is it Britains who have to give in and the Falklanders lose their home and the land they've built up over 9 generations. Another way of pre-empting the inevitable as you put it.
Why do we need Argentina as an ally precisely? A reliable ally, have a look at Argentine politics over the last century. Reliable?
Thank you Justin. You are obviously becoming angry with this discussion so I will end by simply reminding you that Britain's relationship with Argentina has been strained somewhat in the past but this was largely due to the fact that Britain invaded Argentina TWICE in 1806 and 1807, occupied Buenos Aires and trashed it......lol
Sep 21st, 2009 - 07:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Neil,
Sep 21st, 2009 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You said :-
“The Falklands have a tiny population that would be easily compensated and resettled in either Britain or any developed nation they choose.
Britain could then negotiate from a position of advantage with Argentina and a peaceful and permanent resolution to this problem would be found which would result in a much happier relationship with Argentina and the rest of south america. And we really do need nations like Argentina as strong and reliable allies.”
So you will resettle them and compensate them with their own Money? What a brave idea, why didn't we think of that?
Argentina has never been a strong and reliable ally of any nation in the world, ever. In WWII secret allies of Hitler who then declared war on him at one minute to midnight to look good with the Allies.
What a load of tripe you postulate. How much are they paying you at the chancellory to write this rubbish?
Neil, Arg was actually Spanish in 1806 see my comment on other page. We do not depend on links with S America. Arg itself refuses to trade with us - we do not refurse to trade with them.We have some communications and trade links by convenience and they are good money and jobs for the countries we do work with - but loosing them would not be fatal! Of course though it would be fatal to any future visits by Arg next of kin families etc to the war cemetery as there would be no means of getting here! We have no links with S Africa. Oil - well lets see if its there first. By the way Arg threw away millions of dollars of business and Argentine jobs by refusing to partake in the exploration ten years ago - it is/was the logical base for supplies as the infrastructure is already there - this was suggested by UK - guess who threw it out!
Sep 21st, 2009 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes it is true that the Falkland Islanders themselves may soon have the key to a permanent resolution to the sovereignty issue...if they discover large quantities of oil.
Sep 22nd, 2009 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0During the period 1998-1999 a consortium of oil companies came to the islands to look for oil and at one point it was believed they had discovered a vast reserve.
The response of several Falklands' government representatives reflected the consensus of opinion in the islands when they openly stated that an oil rich Falkalnd islands would immediately pursue independence from Britain and would be more than able to finance its own defence...even it meant an agreement with Argentina that involved Argentine forces defending the islands in exchange for a share of the oil wealth.
Councillor Mike Summers was particularly vocal on the issue.
Neil:
Sep 22nd, 2009 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see you like pork pies and tripe as your daily diet.
The Falklands is a long way from being oil rich and if there is oil proven in large quantities it will be at least 5 years before it begins to flow in substantial amounts.
However once the drilling next year reveals their actual situation it will be crunch time both for the Falklands and Argentina.
If results are positive the Falklands will immediately have the resources available for its needs if it so wishes to release them and Argentina will have missed a great opportunity for any genuine act of conciliation towards Falkland Islanders.
The recent Fish Gate scenario in Spain was typical of Argentina's racist attitude towards Islanders. The meeting was about preservation of Fish stocks and Argentina chose to make it about the actuality of the presence of certain people. Not about what they had done or intended to do but simply about who they were. This is typical racist behaviour.
Shame on you.
Yes kelper the events you speak of were most unfortunate but unfortunately unavoidable as Argentina does not presently recognise the validity of the british claim to sovereignty of the Falkland islands...so the Argentine delegation really had no choice.
Sep 22nd, 2009 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Much like your own british delegation removed themselves from a recent convention in europe in which a delegation from Zimbabwe was present.
What you say about the conservation of fish stocks is most interesting...particularly if you look at the Falklands' conservation zone around the islands which was imposed in October 1986 by the british government.
The Islanders were offered several options for the development of the fishing zone,the principle one of which was a project, financed by the british taxpayer,to develop a Falklands fishing industry which would involve moving the greater part of the british fishing fleet from ports around the UK, to the Falklands.
This proposition was immediately rejected by the Islanders because it would have involved the creation of an infrastructure including a new harbour,processing facilities packing and export and accommodation for the families of fishing crews from britain.
The islanders chose a sub-licencing system whereby the could simply act as brokers for licence sales to foreign fishing fleets.
This created a scenario whereby the fishing zone could never be adequately controlled and stocks maintained which has resultd in the Faljklands conservation zone being grossly overfished to the point where certain stocks are threatened with extinction.
One of the most distressing effects of this rampant uncontrolled exploitation is the devastation of both the Albatross and the penguin.
Neil, where dod you get the fantasy of the Uk taking over and all its investment in our Fisheries from? I live here and never ever heard of anything like that being on offer. Sorry but if you look and ask around you will find that internationally ours is accepted as one of the worlds best regulated and controlled fisheries. We had cooperation and joint research cruises with Arg fisheries on the straddling stocks as they do move from zone to zone and used to cooperate of catch monitoring and conservation measures - all this was thrown out the window a few years ago by your president. Albatrosses - you will find that our fisheries is a world leader in reducing mortality - it is now virtually zero in our and South Georgia waters from licensed vessels. Do check facts please.
Sep 22nd, 2009 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the meeting in Spain - how come nobody objected to Greenland being there? they are not independent of Denemark but were accepted as a country that had a big fishing zone. But the Danes are a bit more mature.
I see some people don't or won't read what contradicts their prejudices, at least Mr Rogers has given up the pretence of being British. I do so love it when someone lectures people what they have apparently done, usually in blissful ignorance of the facts in preference to the usual propaganda.
Sep 23rd, 2009 - 05:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0By the way, there is a current Mercopress article about the growth in the Penguin population - and the reasons why it dropped.
As to the spoilt child behaviour by Argentina, I'll let Islander's excellent rebuttal speak for itself.
And Mr Rogers, don't flatter yourself. Your knowledge of history is rather sketchy, Britain and Argentina had a very close relationship. When that was in place Argentina was the 5th richest nation on the planet. It was Peron who used the revival of the Falklands issue to create an Anti-British feeling.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!