MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 5th 2023 - 21:44 UTC



Argentina rejects UK complaints, demands Falklands’ sovereignty talks

Tuesday, May 25th 2010 - 05:59 UTC
Full article 23 comments

Argentina rejected Monday Britain’s complaints about maritime controls in the South Atlantic and again condemned the “unilateral and illegitimate acts” of the UK regarding hydrocarbons exploitation in the continental shelf of the Malvinas/Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Rufus

    “This is a matter for Argentina and the UK. At this moment we for see no role for the US unless both sides so request it”

    - Which won't happen. The UK can't negotiate soverignty on behalf of the Falkland Islands, not won't but can't. There's a treaty between the democratically elected government of the UK and the democratically elected government of the Falkland Islands, the UK can act on behalf of the islands in terms of foreign relations and defence only.

    The difference between this announcement from the US State Department and the one from Hillary Clinton is that Colonel Crowley (ret) is an expert whereas she is a politician. They know that the UK can't act on FI's behalf in this issue and are using it as an easy way of washing their hands of the whole business without too much international embarrasment.

    May 25th, 2010 - 07:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LegionNi

    Any attempt by Argentine forces to intercept shipping in UK territorial waters around the Falklands and other islands should be dealt with by the Royal Navy. Any Argentine crew trying to enforce the illegal Argentine decree should be tried for Piracy in a court either in the Falklands itseld or in the UK.

    May 25th, 2010 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    At a guess I think this current situation will reach a crescendo to roughly coincide with the next presidential election in Argentina. Will the generally disliked Kirchner be able to swing the Argentine vote because she has ranted the loudest over the Falkland Islands issue?

    May 25th, 2010 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Christopher UK

    Whilst the Argentine claim to the Falklands is, as we all know, including deep down Argentina, spurious at best - Argentina's claim to both South Georgia and South Sandwich islands is without foundation at all.

    “Argentina replied that those norms regulate coastal maritime traffic between ports in Argentine territory and therefore comply with the Law of the Sea.”

    But they are not trying to regulate maritime traffic between argentine territory. They are illegally trying to regulate maritime traffic within UK territory and to do so would be an act of piracy on the part of Argentina.

    “Argentine democratic governments have favoured talks with Britain to reach a peaceful and fair solution to the sovereignty dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands, and again invites the new British government to resume talks.”

    Why? Argentina has no real claim to the islands at all. Why should the UK sit down to negotiate with a country that wants to impose colonialism upon the islanders and wants to ignore their UN enshrined rights to self determination? All Argentina has done is said that it has title to the islands - anyone can simply say something. If I say that I own your house but cannot show proof - in fact I am unwilling to show proof - why should the legal owner sit down to talk about handing it over to me? And this is exactly what Argentina wants with talks. The only thing it wants to do is negotiate the transfer of the islands to her. She doesn't want to sit at a table and be willing to give up its spurious claim - let alone back it up.

    Anyway- because of Argentina's illegal invasion of 82 - the UK cannot sit down to discuss the title of the islands as that would go against the islanders constitution and their UN enshrined rights to self determination.

    May 25th, 2010 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    “the UK is showing a more pro-active policy towards the Falklands/Malvinas” at a time when expectations of hydrocarbons commercial reserves are increasing...“

    Hmmm ... better believe it ... I think the British Government message to Argentina is ... ”swivel” !! :-)

    May 25th, 2010 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    I'd regard it as a reactive policy.

    It is the Argentine government that has been ratcheting up the tensions surrounding the Falklands. All the UK has done is respond to it.

    May 25th, 2010 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LegionNi

    ”We want the British government to respond for the illegal activities that are being conducted in Malvinas.”

    Really? So how are the activities illegal exactly?

    No international court has said they are illegal. So what illegal activities?

    The question that really needs to be aasked of the Argentine government is - If you believe the activities in the Falklands are illegal then why have you not taken the matter to the ICJ?

    I for one would be very interested to hear their response.

    May 25th, 2010 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    Does this sound familiar ??

    Spain tells UN seminar that trilateral process should pave the way for sovereignty talks with Britain

    The Leader of the Opposition Joe Bossano addressed the UN Seminar in New Caledonia on several occasions as regards the work of the committee in general and made suggestions as to the way forward in what is likely to be declared soon as the third decade for the eradication of colonialism.

    In addition he spoke in reply to the presentation made by the Spanish delegation.


    Spain argued that the situation of Gibraltar was colonial in nature and that it was disruptive of the national unity and territorial integrity of Spain. This question was divided into two issues that of the territory ceded under Utrecht which had to be returned to Spain under Gibraltar’s decolonisation and that of isthmus which should be returned in any event because it was illegally occupied.

    Spain also argued that the Treaty of Utrecht required that Gibraltar’s international status could not change without the consent of Spain and that this view was shared by the UK, who accepted that the Treaty was still valid.

    Finally, the argument was used that the only way to resolve the matter was for the UK and Spain to agree Gibraltar’s decolonisation in the Brussels Process and that the Tripartite Talks should create a favourable climate to enable bilateral negotiations under Brussels to be resumed.

    Spain also highlighted that they were fully committed to the UN C24 and the UN Decolonisation Resolutions of 1960.

    Joe Bossano told that Committee that as an elected Member of Parliament in Gibraltar for the last 38 years in Government and in Opposition he had fully supported the work of the UN in the decolonisation programme continued to do so and defended the role of the C24.


    However, it was clear that Spain was confused in its analysis of the UN criteria for decolonisation. He pointed out that from the first moment in 196

    May 26th, 2010 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt


    However, it was clear that Spain was confused in its analysis of the UN criteria for decolonisation. He pointed out that from the first moment in 1964 the C24 had said two things. On the one hand that there was a disagreement between the UK and Spain, which they should meet to try and resolve, and on the other that the UN Decolonisation Resolution of 1960 applied fully to the territory and the people of Gibraltar.

    As far as any disagreement between the Administering Power and another Member State was concerned that was not the issue for the people and the territory of Gibraltar to whom the Resolution applied fully and therefore had exactly the same rights as any other colonial people in any other colonial territory.

    In fact, the relationship between the people of the territory which did not enjoy full self government and the Administering Power was covered by Chapter 11 of the Charter whereas a dispute between UN Members fell to be dealt with under Chapter 12. Neither Spain nor UK could curtail the rights of the Gibraltarians under the Charter which were universal and inalienable right by agreeing that a Treaty signed in 1713 was still valid. A universal right is one that applies to everyone without exception and if it is inalienable it means that it cannot be removed from the people by anyone else.

    This confusion on the part of Spain he said could be illustrated because since they accepted that Gibraltar’s status in international law was a colonial situation then it was the relationship between Gibraltar and the UK that had to be addressed to achieve decolonisation.

    An agreement by the UK to pass its sovereignty over Gibraltar to Spain could not produce decolonisation it would simply replace UK by Spain as the colonial power which under the UN would still have the duty to decolonise the territory.

    This of course was quite academic since the UK would never agree to pass the sovereignty to Spain unless the people of Gibraltar asked

    May 26th, 2010 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    them to do so and the people of Gibraltar had no intention of doing any such thing therefore the proposed transfer clearly had nothing to do with the decolonisation process.


    By contrast and in order to explain the differences to the Spanish representative who was sitting next to the representative of Morocco, Joe Bossano told the members that the solution that Spain was proposing could be implemented in the case of Ceuta and Melilla because they were not colonial territories and their people were Spanish citizens who did not enjoy the right to be decolonised in accordance with the UN Charter. In the case of these two non-colonial territories the matter could be settled by negotiation between the two sovereign states Spain and Morocco, precisely because of this difference in their status.

    Joe Bossano in the process assured the Spanish delegate that he was merely raising this to illustrate the point and that he was not trying to get Spain and Morocco to quarrel with each other.

    The Moroccan representative intervened to inform the Committee that Morocco had very recently proposed to Spain setting up bilateral negotiating machinery to discuss the future of the territories with Spain with whom it had very cordial relationships.

    In essence, Joe Bossano said Spain’s position was that Gibraltar could not be decolonised and that the only option for the people was to opt for Spain to acquire the colonial relationship or stay with UK. He then put it to the Chairman whether this was what the people of Gibraltar had to be told was the one and only option open to them since it had been stated at the beginning of the Seminar that the people in the remaining territories had to be given an explanation of the options open to them.

    In the process he reminded the Committee that his party had obtained from the Information Department of the UN and distributed to households in Gibraltar the detailed literature in Spanish and i

    May 26th, 2010 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    in English on the UN concept, explaining what constituted the right to self-determination and what the decolonisation options were.

    As regards Spain’s and UK’s position that the 1713 Treaty was still valid the Seminar was informed that the Treaty had to be seen in the context of the values that existed over 300 years ago and that for this reason as well as giving UK the right to transfer the territory to Spain it also required that Muslims be prohibited from entering Gibraltar and granted English ships the concession to transport slaves from West Africa to the Caribbean, incidentally the home of the Chairman of the C24. All these clauses were now in flagrant breach and conflict with the UN Charter and therefore invalid.

    Finally, Mr Bossano told the Seminar that it was true that Spain had entered the tripartite forum in the hope and expectation that it could be used to create a climate that would enable the sovereignty negotiations to be resumed under the Brussels Process but he assured the Seminar that the support in Gibraltar for the forum was not on this basis.

    The Gibraltarians had no wish or interest in entering into a conflict with Spain and therefore supported any machinery designed to improve mutually beneficial cooperation and good neighbourly relationship. However, it did not want to mislead either Spain or the UN. Improvements in cooperation had to be on the basis of mutual respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each of the two countries, Spain and Gibraltar.


    There was no way that Gibraltarians could be induced to forsake or forgo their sacred right to self-determination, their national identity and their sovereignty in return for material benefits from Spain. Such fundamental human rights were not for sale and the people of Gibraltar would not deserve the support of the UN and the C24, if they were willing to sell their birth right, which he assured the Seminar participants, clearly they were not.

    May 26th, 2010 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    Can I assume that the Falkland Islanders argument will be something along the same lines ???

    May 26th, 2010 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • agent0060

    This should be required reading for all Argentines. Of course, it will still have to be explained to them that it completely negates all their claims on the Falkland Islands.
    Incidentally, how do we all feel about a standard response to all Argentine, or apparently Argentine comments on the lines of

    May 26th, 2010 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • jorge!

    ............“The United Kingdom seems to believe that the law can only be applied to others and not to them.”............

    - Thta's right! Maybe someone should put these “people” on earth!!!! Maybe someone from middle-east!!!

    Every ship navigating from or to argentine ports without permission from our government should be taken to Comodoro Rivadavia port to be dismantled!!!!

    May 26th, 2010 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LegionNi

    14 Jorge - “Every ship navigating from or to argentine ports without permission from our government should be taken to Comodoro Rivadavia port to be dismantled!!!!”

    I would really like to see Argentina try that one.

    May 27th, 2010 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    “Every ship navigating from or to argentine ports without permission from our government should be taken to Comodoro Rivadavia port to be dismantled!!!! ”

    That is a fantastic idea. Please implement this policy as soon as possible. Does anyone know where I can buy a large bag of popcorn for the event?

    May 27th, 2010 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • globetrotter

    Comments in #14 by dip stick again :-)))) I would propose that, the UK and argentina do agree to TALK about the issue of sovereignty, lets talk about this issue and draw on the available facts, accept the offer of mediation by ICJ and UN...let us see what happens...

    May 27th, 2010 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • agent0060

    Argentina will never dare approach the ICJ. After all, all of Argentina's claims rest on history, whilst today sovereignty depends on self-determination. Argentina is, of course, an immigrant nation and in no position to point a finger. But they could at least try in a sincere attempt to look more ridiculous than is already the case. It is a country(?) filled with Spanish and Italian immigrants and their descendants. They are most certainly not indigenous and it must be questionable whether they should have the right to self-determination. Perhaps Britain could support Spain's claim to its rebel colony?

    May 27th, 2010 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • jorge!

    17 globetrotter, there is no offer of mediation made by ICJ, they don't do offers. Please continue with your anti-fatherland comments, you represent the argentines we don't want anymore.

    16 Idlehands, I have a better idea, you can buy popcorn to see how your country goes under!!!!!! LOL

    May 28th, 2010 - 04:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Tomsk

    Jorge, adding multiple exclamation marks doesn't make your arguements any more vaild. They just highlight your own ignorance.

    What you fail to comprehend is that these sort of 'Peronista' spountings by your country and it's struggling leader, make it an international laughing stock ...just like it was back in 1982.

    Successive Argentine governments have conditioned the populace to such a degree of nationalistic myopia that no factual discussion can remove it.

    May 28th, 2010 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • jorge!

    Don't give too much credit to yourself!!! If Argentina is a laughing for you, it doesn't mean it is a laughing for the rest of the world. You british tend to believe the world turns around you, but I have to tell you, that doesn't happen anymore since many decades, sorry and relax!!!

    May 28th, 2010 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Tomsk

    There are those exclamtion marks again.

    May 29th, 2010 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • agent0060

    Going back to the article:
    You don't DEMAND anything to which you have no justifiable claim.
    Now if Argentina was to go down on its collective knees, lick the Falkland Islanders' boots and ask whether they could have a couple of per cent of the oil revenues in exchange for deleting a certain clause in its constitution and re-educating its population, it MIGHT get somewhere!

    May 29th, 2010 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!