MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazil’s Lula da Silva blasts US Security Council and Britain
Brazilian president Lula da Silva condemned on Tuesday the United Nations Organization (UN) and its Security Council for not recognizing Argentina's sovereignty over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“What is the geographical, political and economic explanation for England to be in the Malvinas?”
Feb 24th, 2010 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps President Be-Bop-A-Lula can answer this: What is the geographical, political and economic explanation for a descendant of imported colonial Portuguese Conquistadors to be on the continent of America?
2 angel - Can you repeat that in English? I don't understand Spanish.
Feb 24th, 2010 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Michael, ho ho ho ho. More and More president is joining to the claim of ARGENTINA.
Feb 24th, 2010 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sooner or Later man, boo boo.
Grettings from Mexico !!!
Can I remind Number 2 of what it says at the top of this column.
Feb 24th, 2010 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0COMMENTS MUST BE IN ENGLISH
It won't matter how many Latin American countries join Argentina, once the facts come into play, there claim won't hold much sustains.
Feb 24th, 2010 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also, angel, you must write your comments in English on this forum. Good thing I can understand Spanish and understand how stupid your comment. For some reason, you state that the Portuguese colonize the area known as Brazil, and the decedents are Brazilians. Too bad that doesn't change the fact that most decedents are not the people who used to live there, and that Brazil is in the end, a former colony. You're not one to talk. Also, I really don't think your a rational person if your going to go calling British pirates. Here's the facts, Britain has many islands around the world, legacy of colonialism, the difference, is that most of those islands choose to be under British administration. Some got independence, some didn't, and the Falkland Islands has been inhabited by English people for hundreds of people. Who cares about their homes though, right?
Thanks for this, 6umad. How on earth it's possible for a community to be expatriate Portuguese conquistadors on 6 September 1822, yet on 7 September 1822 they suddenly become 'Brazilians' and Americans as indigenous as Evo Morales, and all without ever having entered the country through Immigration Control.
Feb 24th, 2010 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The bottom line - Cristina wants to distract her constituency from their domestic problems (shades of the 1982 generals?) and President Be-BopA-Lula will shortly need a new job (head of the LA bloc?)
Feb 24th, 2010 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Michael Says - “Can you repeat that in English? I don't understand Spanish. ”
Feb 25th, 2010 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you should learn it. It will be more useful in the future.
England in the islands? I always thought that man was intelligent and checked his facts before opening mouth and inserting foot. Apparently not. WE - the people of the Islands are in our Islands and we control our Islands by our democratic govt, neither are we English!
Feb 25th, 2010 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0But yes, he needs to get a few things cleared economically in his favour with Arg at the moment I recall - so the speech is not surprising.
10Islander: You are extremely mistaken. You are british citizens living in a foreign land; your government knows that they f*cked up when gave you fully citizenship after 1982. Before that, they might have the hope of one day lead you to an “independent” state within the Commonwealth, and in that way mantain any kind of control over Malvinas... But once they gave you fully citizenship, they made you at the same status as any other british citizen, and your claimed “self-determination” went to trash... International Law is very clear about this: self-determination right is only for “colonized” peoples, and can never be claimed by “colonizers” ones, as you are. <br />
Feb 25th, 2010 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0UN has always accepted this, and that´s the reason of its recognizion of only Two parts : UK and Argentina. This is a territorial conflict between us and UK; you are merely british citizens put there by UK...<br />
<br />
Your claim of self-determination is the same than chinese might attempt to do after illegal ocupation of Tibet: a complete nonsense.<br />
<br />
Islanders, as british citizens, are UK problem, not ours. Sorry, I dont mean to be disrispectfull, but that´s just the truth.<br />
<br />
On the other side, territorial rights of Argentina are very strong and solid and very well documented; UK Foreign Office knows it well, and that´s the reason they continuosly refuse to discuss sovereignity.<br />
No one - but no one - has addressed the question I asked at the beginning. What is the geographical, political and economic explanation for a descendant of imported colonial Portuguese Conquistadors like President Be-Bop-A-Lula to be on the continent of America?
Feb 25th, 2010 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Michael, or you are extremely stupid, or you never heard a thing about Brazil.First of all, Brazil is a sum of several imigrations waves from all around the world, wich already make much more then ''portuguese conquerors''.Second, What the F@%*& that have to do with Malvinas!!??
Feb 26th, 2010 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0And Third, the Brazilian rigth its called colonization, the act of building up one society, one identity, wich is(like i said before) the sum of several imigrations around the globe, wich never had happent in Malvinas, unhabitated for hundreds of years.And so i repeat, or you are extremly dumb or you never read a single page about Brazil.
Grettings From Santos.
12Dimitri - You say Brazil is the sum of several immigration waves from all around the world. Exactly my point. The Portuguese conquistadors - from whom President Be-Bop-A-Lula is descended - kicked in the door, subjugated the indigenous Americans and then imported black slaves and white immigrants to pack the population. In fact, Brazil abolished slavery only by the Lei Aurea of 1888. Europeans ruled Latin America and still do, and it makes no difference whether they rule it from Europe itself, or locally. What does this have to do with the Falkland Islands? Only that the descendants in America of imported Europeans have no standing to whine that the Falkland Islanders have no right of self-determination on the grounds that they are not indigenous. If President Evo Morales of Bolivia were to make the same complaint, I'd take him seriously. Then I'd point out to him that he has no interest in the Falkland Islands, as they were never part of Tawantinsuyu, neither did anyone know they existed until the Europeans discovered them.
Feb 26th, 2010 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, your logic is good.... for 300 years on the past.If you realy think that europeans rule latin america, you never set a single foot here.This land has its own culture, its own identity, and Argentina its one of this sovereign lands, wich malvinas belongs to.Its realy strange to think that a island wich belongs to a country coast, dosnt belong to that country... its simple like that.Imagine if China claimed that Lundy Island belong to them, because they colonized before,its simple ridiculous everyone with a map on its hands see that Lundy belongs to britain, like Malvinas belong to Argentina, its just a matter of looking into a geological map.Its the same land!!!Theres no underground geological formation that connects Malvinas to any british part...
Feb 26th, 2010 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't need to go to Latin America to tell that Europeans rule the place. For a start, it's Latin. Latin is an adjective derived from Latium, the land around the city of Rome, in Italy, in Europe, where the Latin language was first spoken. Spanish and Portuguese are two languages derived from Latin. Now, why are these languages also spoken in America? Because Spain and Portugal sent conquistadors to conquer peoples like the Incas, who had a culture and identity of their own. If Argentina and the other artificial conquistador regimes had become independent forty years ago the United Nations would have declared them illegal, just like Rhodesia: white-settler republics set up to perpetuate the colonial domination, exploitation and subjugation of the native Americans by means of apartheid.
Feb 26th, 2010 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, so folowing your logic, there is only 3 cultures, African Asian and caucasian..... Because thats how far history goes, so, USA is no more then a ''Caucasian Land'' Because they are mainly british, who are mainly romans who are mainly greeks, who are mainly caucasians.....
Feb 27th, 2010 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tell me, every caucasian culture is the same??? Is America same has France??? Is Every asian the same culture???Is North Vietnam the same has russia!!!???If you wanna keep playng dumb its fine, just dont pretend you dont understand what cultural indetity means and dont pretend that your pseudo-history lesson has anything to do with anything discussed here.
The point I'm making, 16Dimitri, is that a population can't migrate from one country to another as part of a colonial project, claim a right of self-determination for itself and then deny it to others, just becaise they happen to speak English and prefer to remain linked to the mother country. That would be like calling your mother's sister a whore.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0if geographical is not that important, why brits given hong kong to china ? what do you claim??, uk can only mess with Argentina coz they are military weaker. It's ilegal this drilling, and Brasil has taken a grea step towards this, thank you Lula and Brasil. It's clear why the island is still with uk, two reasons OIL and UN
Feb 27th, 2010 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Michael 17, Of course you do, because that ''colonial project'' is far beyond on the past, what you got nowdays is much more then that, its a sovereign land with its own culture and identidy, that have little to do with the original colonists.Countrys delvelop, they dont stay the original way, or otherwise we would have Tea Cola in USA.Theres a Huge Gap betwen 300 hundred years in the past and nowdays, wich made an unique culture called Argentina.
Feb 27th, 2010 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll say this in words of few syllables in the vain hope someone may understand.
Mar 01st, 2010 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hong Kong was leased, the British signed a piece of paper leasing the land for 100 years, then returned it to the Chinese on the date agreed. It had nothing to do with Chinese military strength, it was the case of honouring an agreement.
The reason the Falklands remain aligned with the UK are ties of culture, blood and history. Argentina maintains ties with other nations for the same reasons.
Apparently logically, “300 years in the past is OK”. Well the Falklands have been British since 1690, so I guess there is no more argument.
Michael, Brazil abolished slavery per se early on, but still allowed indentured servitude until the late 20th century. Another note, the rest of Latin America or at least the majority, fought wars of independence. In Brazil, the Portuguese just up and left after the Queen Isabella freed the slaves.
Mar 01st, 2010 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ilen- sorry wrong, All citizens in the remaining british Territories are FULL BRITISH Citizens today. Are you going to say that the people living in St Helena for 500years cannot choose Independence if they wish? Nor those of the other territories?
Mar 02nd, 2010 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0The citizens of Scotland are also Full British Citizens - and if they vote for it the could end up Independent as well.
Sorry Ilen, under the UN Charter we Islanders have the same right of self-determination to decide our future - as you do in your country. Wether we are 3000 and you are 40 million does not matter - it is a principle - a thing that in the past Arg has not really understood.
Arg invaded us in 1982 - Britain came and kicked you back out based on the principle that - you do not pinch somebody elses home against their will and by armed force.
England, England England! Hasn't this supposedly intelligent head of state heard of the UK?
Mar 03rd, 2010 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0You would think his Knowlegde on international relations is dictated by football?
the buggers going to start asking for bilateral relations with Chelsea FC next!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!