MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina reaffirms “exclusive authority” over all Falklands’ hydrocarbons activities
Argentina reaffirmed “exclusive authority” over all hydrocarbons activities in the Islas Malvinas territory and maritime spaces in a strong release to commemorate June 10th, Day of Argentina’s Sovereignty Rights over Malvinas. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“ .... the colonizing enterprise sponsored by the governor of the Islas Malvinas, Don Luis Vernet .... ”
Jun 11th, 2010 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now that's funny, I thought he was working for us :-)
Hang on ... I don't suppose this communiqué is in any way similar to last year's ??? Or the year before ... ??? Just a thought :-)
That's a lot of fancy words just to say “get off my land”. He's starting to sound like a cross between Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il
Jun 11th, 2010 - 06:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is this guy ever going to actually do anything? If the exploration for hydrocarbons is illegal then the ICJ should make a judement on the matter. It is apparent that Tiana and CFK are fighting for their political survival. It is a shame that they have to use the Islands to deflect from their political failures but their argument is so transparent as they have refused to take the matter to the ICJ. Are the Argentine citizens happy to be held in such contempt by thier leadership as they continue to ignore the most important issues that Argentina? Election in 2011 anyone?
Jun 11th, 2010 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Patagonia revisited:
Jun 11th, 2010 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0(“Confidential” Please don’t read if you are not a Falklander. Thanks)
Guys:
What about fulfilling the dream of Orélie-Antoine and declare the “Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia” including this time all the Islands and half of Antarctica.
If we need a King, we could always ask the Norwegians.
They are nice chaps, lots of oil-money, know how to drink, their women are pretty and they are at home already. (Grytviken, Queen Mauds land, you know.)
Then we could send those stuffy Londoners and insupportable Porteños packing.
What do you think?
Here's another idea....why not leave the Falklanders to do as they please and just get on with running your own country?
Jun 11th, 2010 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0So much for confidentiality!
Jun 11th, 2010 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0May I see your permanent resident permit please?
“Therefore any pretension to authorize the accomplishment of the referred activities which do not emanate from the Argentine government, constitute an illicit action both for Argentine Law as for international law”.”
Jun 11th, 2010 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0What international law? Does he not mind making himself look an idiot by making stuff up?
If this were true then Argentina would be forcing the rigs out of the waters - which they won't. Conversely I have no doubt that the Royal Navy would become involved if Argentina started to drill in Falkland waters.
So if they have exclusive authority, where is this authority in the afor mentioned disputed area?
Jun 11th, 2010 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One thinks there is alot of talk huffing and puffing and visible flexing of muscles but that is all, for there to be a lighting storm you must see lightning not just hear Thunder.
Love the Gazebo bit though, reminds me of Freshers when the various societies and clubs try to get you to join, the face value of the words hides the reality behind the true extent of actiona modern day parody of Argentina's stance on this issue.
They say lots of words but action is lacking, didn't CFK in one of her indigant fire and brimestone anti-colonial speeches say every international body will be Lobby so far I just see most international body's being lobbied are ones with Argentina's friends in them?
The same arguments and the same rhetoric tried over and over again, you would think that the Powers that be in Argentina were lobbying to belatedly to save their jobs ... oh wait!
Dream on, dagoes!
Jun 11th, 2010 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We'll wait, sleeping a a long dreamy siesta under our sombreros señor.
Jun 11th, 2010 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Si... Si... Si....
“ousting the Argentine population”
Jun 11th, 2010 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which never happened, demonstrably and utterly false. Why do they feel the need to embellish their claim with falsehoods? The inevitable conclusion is that they have no confidence in it.
Just learning from the Masters.
Jun 11th, 2010 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This procedure has served you well for hundreds of years.
Has even totally persuaded an otherwise sceptical and independent thinking people.
Could you give us some examples Think?
Jun 11th, 2010 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You haven’t apologized yet and I have eaten all the wild Haggis.
Jun 11th, 2010 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I apologise. I think you owe me an asado, full Argentine, morcilla, chinchulines, mollejas, chorizo criollo, slabs of steak of all kinds and even a slice of ubre, I'm not squeamish...
Jun 11th, 2010 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Examples please?
Not so fast dear........
Jun 11th, 2010 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The original document, duly certified at the diplomatic representation of the Republic of Burundi in the Plurinational State of Bolivia clearly states:
“You will have to apologize (and give my Malvinas back) before I cook you dinner.”
First show me my Malvinas and then you can get all the ubre you can eat.
Think, I first heard your call for independent islands and patagonia from a TDF Governor back in the 1970s - lightheartetdley I admit! Well since then we,ve made some progress - Today London only does in the Islands what we approve of and control nowadays - does the same apply over there yet?
Jun 11th, 2010 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JA: ROBERTS ##
Jun 11th, 2010 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0as you know , I am from Turkey...
just a question from History for you ...
While in Ottoman Empire ,the British Ambassadors
and their families' habitations were forbidden in the
inner city of İstanbul in the between years of 1596--1781.
Do you know the reason why ?
if you know.. please you would say.. don't be ashamed..
Dear Islander1
Jun 11th, 2010 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The “Orélie dream” is, of course, a “Teaser”.
Just to get out of this gridlock of “Argie-Demons” and “Brit-Saints” you know.
The book The last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell
Jun 11th, 2010 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 01965
“Britain proposed a thirty-year moratorium on discussions of sovereignty, according to then secret Foreign office papers; British negotiators had accepted the principle of British renunciation of sovereignty subject to certain conditions and a transition period before withdrawal”.
It is time to do it again.?
The British no longer accept that principle, if indeed they ever really did (these are opinions expressed by authors, but what were their sources?) .................. so no, that time has long gone and the matter is now in the hands of the Falkland Islanders. Indeed, if any negotiations were ever to start the Argentine side would find themselves sitting opposite Falkland Islanders!
Jun 12th, 2010 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nope, that is incorrect, Britain had agreed to consider transfer of sovereignty to Argentina as:
Jun 12th, 2010 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0a) Britain had no desire to retain the islands
b) The Falklands were considered too small to be granted independence.
Britain at no point accepted Argentine claims, it simply seemed a convenient solution to the FCO, who were ignoring the wishes of the islanders. Transfer to Argentina was effectively destroyed by the Falkland Islands lobby, who were so successful largely because Argentina was unstable and managed to shoot itself in the foot on numerous occasions; such as when the FIG were persuaded by the FCO to go to Argentina to talk about transfer the reception granted by Argentina was so overtly hostil and negative they cut the trip early convinced that Argentina would not respect their wishes or rights.
Hoytred is quite correct, the matter is now in the hands of the Falkland Islanders to sort out and in many ways that is entirely down to Argentina's attitudes.
The argument or discussion on historical claims is now over for ever. The only principle that now exists is that of self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter. For so long as the Falkland Islanders wish to remain a British Overseas Territory, that is their freely-expressed democratic right. And for so long as they wish to remain British, they will have British support.
Jun 12th, 2010 - 10:23 am - Link - Report abuse 021 Hoytred
Jun 12th, 2010 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say: The British no longer accept that principle, if indeed they ever really did (these are opinions expressed by authors, but what were their sources?)
I say: “The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, Sir Lawrence Freedman”
The best written source about the Issue money can buy.
Corrected many of my misconceptions.
Could help many of the “SUN ” readers in here.
About the futility of Argentinean regional diplomatic efforts:
One scenario: Chile, Uruguay and Brazil declare an embargo against any “Falklands related economical activity”
Not so impossible now where Britain’s best friend and defender of democracy, Mr. Augusto Pinochet is no more, an old leftwing “terrorist” is President of Uruguay and the clear position of Brazil are taken in consideration.
Investors and the “Free Marketeers” would have to recalculate their profit margins. Don't you think?
Anyhow, I am not putting my money in South Atlantic oil shares. Are you?
As long as the Argentines dont get their cloven hoofs on the Islands,thats fine by me
Jun 12th, 2010 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cloven hoofs?... Stick up your junta?... Hmmmm....
Jun 12th, 2010 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You ARE a “Sun” reader.
Right?
Think! FYI I am holder of shares in FOGL, RKH and DES! Iam already counting my newly acquired wealth and am pretty happy with how things are moving. Your belief that other South American nations would not wish to be involved in a new Hydrocarbon industry is wishful thinking. Brazil is already the staging post for ships moving to and from the Islands. All the verbal agreements mean nothing when the lure of the $ is involved. If Argentina does not wish to gain through collaboration then one or more of you neighbours will me more than happy to benefit. If you think long enough it is obvious! The FIG and the UK have received no documentation or resolution to suggest otherwise.
Jun 12th, 2010 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do not have money in oil shres in the South Atlantic ... if only because I do not have the spare cash ..... Hey but I wish !
Jun 12th, 2010 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Authors are just people with opinions ... nothing more .... and I know ... I have had a few books published too .....it does not mean very much !
Mr Beef
Jun 12th, 2010 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have read some of your previous posts where you push for the shares.
Go 100% for it.
It sounds nearly too good to be truth! (It usually is)
Hoyt.
Even if Jesus descended from Heaven you would call him an insignificant liberal outsider with not much to say in this specific matter.
They weren’t chess books I hope. ;-)
I will slip this one in quick (said the actress to the bishop) whilst think is watching the Argies play the 419ers
Jun 12th, 2010 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0FALKLANDS SON BRITISH
It's ARE, not SON
Jun 12th, 2010 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You spell as bad as Jorge.
No time to watch soccer!
A “Local Hero” just died in South Africa and he left me some Islands WSW from Jo’burg!
I got it on Email!
I’m rich!
As rich as (27)Beef.
Think (or is that jorge)! Firstly call me Dr Beef as I have a PhD! Secondly you haven't read my posts very well if you think I am investing blindly. I know all about risk v reward and am hedged appropriatly. The truth is that my average on RKH is about 48p and the current SP is over 290p. In other words I have made a pile and after a flow test of Sealion I will be making even more. Argentina has already proven it is no threat to the drilling or to eventual production and it won't take the issue to the ICJ as it has no legal argument to present. If CFK and here corrupt cronies get the boot next year then it is likley your new leaders will be much less jingoistic and if Argentina declines to collaborate the another partner will present itself. A rational business choice will take presidence over a dubious an ineffective ideological one. Your refernce to Jesus is an attempt to do what exactly?
Jun 12th, 2010 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Make money not rhetoric is my motto! Happy days!
Wowww...
Jun 12th, 2010 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your numbers are better than Bernie Madoff's.
I know.. I know.. You are mad at Jesus because he threw you out of the Temple.
But I was speaking to Hoyt.
He knows who the King is!
Islanders we strongly disagree how to solve this old dispute, however we will pay the same consequence of an oil leak in our waters. Look the disaster of British Petroleum in US Golf of Mexico states, is just matter of time when it will happen here.
Jun 12th, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't have to worry, the current exploration for oil is taking place in the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands, not yours. If I were you, I'd be more worried about Petrobras. Oh, and the oil spill off the coast of Louisana, Florida and so forth can be traced more to the operators of the rig and associated companies - like Transocean, Halliburton and Cameron International (all American) and the US Department of the Interior. Oh, and another thing. BP is the company's name. And it doesn't stand for British Petroleum. It hasn't been British Petroleum since December 1998. Oh, and “golf” is a game played with little balls. I can understand why it must have been the first word to come into YOUR mind. Still, chin up, they do say that size doesn't matter.
Jun 12th, 2010 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marco, BP has not been called “British Petroleum” for years. Get with the programme!
Jun 12th, 2010 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hoyt.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even if Jesus descended from Heaven you would call him an insignificant liberal outsider with not much to say in this specific matter.
They weren’t chess books I hope. ;-)
Sadly no, boring old law books, as for Jesus - well, you've got to keep an eye on that sort of radical :-)
Marco. to echo some replies you already have, here the companies have to work to very strict safety rules as used today in the North Sea and other European waters - are the USA ones as strict? Seems odd that a US company allowed the battery in the failsafe valve to go flat and not change it- that is one story so far. We wont know the truth until the inquiry finishes - and with the USA we may not get it even then! One thing is for sure: Even IF there is commercial oil offshore here and the industry goes for it - it will be at least 5 years lead-in time and within that time we can expect the industry to have come up with a solution to prevent this disaster from happening again. Also - the fields offshore here are downwind and down current of the Islands and Argentina, so heaven forbid it ever happens, but it would be well dissipated before it hit land anywhere.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0What is far more worrying for the Islands will be the level of safety standards employed on the Arg controlled rig that is due to start drilling in the spring to the west of us in your waters.
Think - As for the 1960,s Foreign Office papers- correct the Govt of the day was hell bent on giving us away for a while as they were in a “UK retreats from the world” phase with big miltary withdrawls from outside of europe and even no carriers to be built for the navy etc. They had not even thought to consult the people here - it became public and blew up in the then Govt,s face and plans were rapidly reversed - and the rest we know. That was the sort of thing colonial powers could do then - UK no longer has colonial powers over us and we have moved on. Just Argentina who wants to impose that same old fashioned colonial power over us today.
As Agentoo60 correctly says - today the only issue of relevance in 2012 is that of selfdetermination of the people.
A MercoPress article that isn't (yet?) showing up under the Falklands Region heading is about a recent statement by Nick Clegg, the British Deputy Prime Minister.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0I quote, “We believe that the rights, sovereignty and preferences of the Falkland Islanders have a primordial importance”.
A subtle shift from, “The UK has no doubt about IT”S sovereignty, etc ... “ to ”... sovereignty .... of the Falkland Islanders..”
Interesting!
Argies should talk to the Islanders, not the hand
Jun 13th, 2010 - 06:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mega bridge building would make sense me thinks,but good old Argie pride wont allow them
To Hoytred
Jun 13th, 2010 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Right.....You keep an eye on Jesus....
And on Nick Clegg. A liberal with such a family background can’t be trusted!
Maybe a job for agent 0060 ?
We know where he stands!
To Islander1
You mentioned earlier T.d.F.... in the 70ies.... Gob. Lloret maybe?..... hope not...... did you ever met the Goodall’s? or Nicasio Urquizo?... Nice Old Timers...
About self-determination..... The UN Charter declares:
“All Peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
As a legal principle, not a precise rule, it embraces a high degree of generality and abstraction.
One contentious issue is the definition of ”Peoples”
As you know, the dichotomic Argentinean arguments are:
1) That you Islanders are not a distinct ”People” you are just normal citizens of the Republic. (That’s why you all have been granted Argentinean Citizenship)
2) That you were “introduced” by force.
So let's sit back and enjoy - and may the best man win.
I thought we already had :-)
Jun 13th, 2010 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0My dear Barrister
Jun 13th, 2010 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0?????
Witty Saying, perhaps?
JA can't reply to my @18 question !! ##
Jun 13th, 2010 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0another question to any Brits commenter ..?
====why Britons had not eat tomatoes in 400 years ?====
by the way ,,, sometimes i would ask any questions about Brits folk....
historic phares ,Brits global history...for Brits commeter to test them .!!
Arquero:
Jun 13th, 2010 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0I hope Britons get as much embarrassed by their own morons as you embarrass us!
That's because I don't sit at the computer 24-7 waiting for stupid questions from you Arquero. Franky, I could not care less if British diplomats were allowed to live in central Constantinople between 1596 and 1781 or not.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks the Lord!
Jun 13th, 2010 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0“54-56 Arquero” does not understand any Spanish.
That reduces drastically the odds of him being an Argie.
He must be an “agent provocateur” send by agent0060 or something :-)
JA: Roberts ## come on please !
Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0== peas porridge in the pot nine days old !!== ????
*************************************************
Think ##
seguro ! i am not --ICCAE-- member ( pronounced “ icky ”) !!
Argentina 1 Nigeria 0 |!!!! USA 0 England 0
Jun 13th, 2010 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 049 Bubba
Jun 13th, 2010 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You wish, you Xenophobic Anti Anglo-Saxon Brownish Supremacistic Bloody Argie!
ENGLAND: 1 / USA: 1
Hahhhh.....
GOTCHA!
OUTCHA!
It is interesting to note that the legally elected governor of Buenos Aires Dorrego was murdered by the Unitarian goverment of Lavelle & when General de Rosas was elected Buenos Aires governor in 1829 his legal Federal government declared all acts of the illegal Unitarian goverment of Lavelle, between December 1st 1828 to 5th December, 1829, null & void. It is also interesting that the UK government formally rejected Lavelle's declaration by formal diplomatic protest, in some detail, as incompatible with the UK's rights of sovereignty due to original discovery, settlement in 1765-1774 & continued assertion of sovereignty, which in international law formally preserved the UK sovereignty claim. Also the AR ratified the “Convention between Great Britain & the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences & the re-establishment of Friendship” peace treaty in May 1850, which agreed the Falklands were British. Furthermore Spain did not recognise the AR until 1859 & no territories were inherited from Spain, although some were taken by force by the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isn't the government of AR ignoring the FIG, formed by UK in accordance UN resolution 1514(XV)? The FIG exercising their rights under UN resolution 1514(XV) & it would appear that AR is breaking its internationally binding obligations under resolution 1514(XV) & it's obligation under resolution 2065(XX) to ”proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended... with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions & objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands”
Bearing in mind 1514(XV) being very important, as 2065(XX) reaffiirms that 1514(XV) covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
“JA: Roberts ## come on please !
Jun 13th, 2010 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0== peas porridge in the pot nine days old !!== ????”
THIS is supposed to make sense? Obviously another South American student! Or lunatic! Or clown! Or cretin! Or dimwit! Or politician!
As I understand it, under modern international law of today, FIG is constituted under UN Resolution 1514(XV). The Falklands were listed as a Non-Self-Governing Overseas Territory & the UK as their recognised administering power, subject to 1514(XV) which requires that:
Jun 13th, 2010 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Immediate steps shall be taken, in... Non-Self-Governing Territories... to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will & desire... in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.”
& “Affirming that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth...”
& “Declares that:
The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination & exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations & is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status & freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and their territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights & the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples & their territorial integrity.”
Where terroritorial integrity refers to the rights of the freed Teritory
Notice how many bits of the foregoing Argentina DOES NOT observe.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina does not want the Falkland Islanders to, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth...”
Argentina does NOT, apparently, believe “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination & exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations & is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”
According to Argentina “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status & freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” except the Falkland Islands and any other territory they fancy.
In 1982, Argentina demonstrated its contempt for the principle that “All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.”
Actually, Argentina probably already meets most of the criteria for a “rogue state”.
I think I may suggest to my elected representative that the UK proposes a motion to exclude Argentina from the United Nations for its persistent breaches of the UN Charter.
Agent006
Jun 13th, 2010 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The primordial question now is:
Does Agent 006 have a “Licence to kill” ;-)
LOl ;-D
Jun 13th, 2010 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Think... all “official” double-oh agents have a licence to kill! Even in Pink Panther movies!
@Agent006: Well, Argentina voted for resolution 1514(XV) whilst the U.K. abstained.
So as a UN member it is bound by its vote & its obligations to the UN. If it breaks them, the UN Security Council can legally enforce its obligations on AR, including use of miltary force. I see no reason to exclude AR from the UN, only for the UN to hold the AR & the UK to their internationally legally obligations under 1514(XV).
Resolution 2065(XX) reminds both AR & UK that even if they agree who has sovereignty peacefully under 2065(XX), be it either UK sovereignty AR sovereignty or joint sovereignty, whatever their sovereignty rights are these are removed by resolution 1514(XV) which applies to the case of the Falklands Islands (Malvinas) & requires that:
“Immediate steps shall be taken, in... Non-Self-Governing Territories... to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will & desire... in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.”
Yes, interestingly AR has paid no reparations or compensation for its international crimes, where in 1982 AR cost a lot a innocent people their lives in enforcing UN SCR 502 & destroyed much property & wealth. It also was reckless in the manner it laid mine fields has failed to clear these safely under its international obligations
AR has no grounds to claim South Georgia, South Sandwich or British Antarctica, but it does, illegally.
AR increasing international instability is a big risk for AR. The UK populace now regard the AR & its people as untrustworthy enemies, indoctrinated in an irrendentist revanchist nationalist state policy, acting wholly illegally against UN resolution 1514(XV)
AR risks attack & destruction of its mainland infrastructure by the UK in any future conflict, previous constraints no longer hold
Could somebody please tell me which side this Domingo character is on?
Jun 13th, 2010 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And what is he trying to say?
Hi Think. I'm on nothing at all. Just considering, the likely outcomes of AR continued escalation into a second conflict.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I mean, its unlikely a future conflict over the Malvinas instigated by AR is unlikely to be limited to the Malvinas themselves, rather would in all probability be met by the UK with strikes on AR infrastructure by air & sea compatible with their military doctrine to deter, coerce, disrupt, defeat & destroy enemies.
Right now, the UK modest military presence on the FI is simply to deter. However, were a shooting war to begin, then it is obvious to me the UK military would use its deep strike assets to destroy AR's capacity to wage war then & into the foreseeable future. The UK's naval & air force assets have the capability to do this today, unless there are political constraints. However, as 1982 proved, it was militarily costly to allow AR unrestricted use of its mainland bases without fear of destruction. If Buenos Aires is the centre of gravity of AR's will to fight, then destruction of Buenos Aires as a functioning city is a legitimate military aim to defeat AR. War is a serious business & the UK understands what is required to win & also the horrible cost of modern mechanised conflict, something AR has luckily never experienced. Perhaps this is why UK prefers very peaceful & detente diplomacy cf. the hysterical AR nationalistic diplomacy which is designed to escalate tension.
Were the UK mainland ever to be threatened by AR or UNASUR that would warrant a NATO response, possibly nuclear, but the UK has its own nuclear deterrent, which it is free to use in defence of its nation state at any time.
One would hope that AR will put friendship & cooperation as the right way to improve agreement over sovereignty issues.
AR continue to push its old & highly flawed imperial territorial claims internationally, in direct contravention of resolution 1514(XV), which frees the Islanders & FIG from any regard for UK/AR opinion, only their own
Ok..... ....Interesting.........
Jun 13th, 2010 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And may I ask what attracted you to this forgotten corner of the world?
Hoytred 21 - “Indeed, if any negotiations were ever to start the Argentine side would find themselves sitting opposite Falkland Islanders!”.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why would Argentina (or any independent nation) would sit opposite to a group of inhabitants of a non-independent territory of another nation?
The Falklanders have no authority to discuss issues related to foreign affairs which are responsibility of the UK.
The sole idea is absurd. Cannot wait to see the inhabitants of Ceuta sitting in front of the Moroccan government to discuss sovereignty instead of Spain.
To be honest, it was a few months ago, when I read in the news the issues surrounding the oil drilling around these disputed territories & read the diplomatic escalations & increases in tension made by the AR government, begining with the
Jun 13th, 2010 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, having read resolution 1514(XV) and 2065(XV) it is hard to reconcile the AR rhetoric from Minster for the Exterior , Jorge Taiana, with AR's legal international obligations, which supercede & overide any AR or UK claim of sovereignty.
It seems to me the only way to resolve this crazy dispute is for the Islanders themselves to take their case to the ICJ & to formally claim their rights under 1514(XV). The Islanders have the right to declare free association. Right now, they choose British nationality & protection due to historical ties, not least caused by the illegal AR aggression of 1982 when they a peaceful people were attacked and subjugated to AR military imprisonment & threat was made on their lives, from a regime which murdered thousands of its own people in contravention of all human rights & whose criminals are yet to be brought to international justice.
Looking at the Islanders rights under resolution 1514(XV), it is hard to see how AR or UK can dispute them. Indeed under resolution 1514(XV), both the UK & AR have no legal international rights to the Malvinas, rather the only people with enforceable legal rights are the Islanders themselves.
Thus AR & UK have no international rights or claims to the Malvinas, only the Islanders themselves.
Therefore AR's Minister for the Exterior should not make these illegal public claims. It is propaganda & ignores international law under resolution 1514(XV) which applies to the case of the Malvinas & of which the AR is a signatory. The AR propaganda is hugely hypocritical in my humble opinion.
I think AR's state policy will never overcome the Islanders rights under 1514(XV) & therefore AR should change policy & seek friendship & cooperation with the Islanders.
@Devils advocate, it's not true that the Falkland Islanders have “no authority” to represent themselves in foreign affairs. On the contrary, the Falkland Islanders delegate those powers to the UK, but in some instances, like petitioning the C24 committee and in other fora they choose to represent themselves. Nothing absurd in that. Argentina does not like this.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?l=e&id=34389&ndb=1
What does Ceuta have to do with the Falklands? Anyway, Ceuta is an integral part of Spain while the Falklands are not part of the UK, so there is a difference.
Devils advocate - Mr. Roberts has answered your question for me although the Morrocans would disagree over the issue of Cueta which they keep demanding that Spain hands back!
Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK has given the FIG all the authority it needs and that's exactly who Argentina would be facing in any (hypothetical) discussions. And why not?
It concerns me that it is AR policy to create conditions for their own military intervention on the Islands again, by asking UNASUR nations to support their flawed national interests in an attempt to isolate the UK & draw the UK into a wider diplomatic dispute not only against the Islanders interests, but against the UK's own national interest. Presumably hoping to change UK policy & to isolate the Islanders. However, to me this strategy is flawed because the UK is a full member of the EU & NATO, thus any escalation shall see equal escalation with its allies. Similarly, the USA's regional dominance is being challenged by UNASUR, so it is not necessarily in the US interest to allow UNASUR to supplant its authority as a world power in its own home region. Also now the UK has fought & won a costly war against AR aggression, the UK populace regards AR intentions w.r.t. the Islands with extreme mistrust. In its unprovoked attack of 1982 the AR unwittingly put the spotlight on this forgotten corner of the world. The UK see the AR as a bully that must be stopped.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The danger is that AR's policy of escalation could lead to nationalistic demands to renew conflict & for the AR to attack & occupy the Islanders again, as they did in 1982. Nationalism is a dangerous card to play politically & has sadly led to many wars. The politicians of today *think* they can control it, but they are wrong. If AR's economy fails, it is possible that the National Socialist movement or New Triumph party will win power & form a new junta dictatorship. The moderate AR politicians are playing with fire.
At the end of the day, AR is bound by its UN membership obligations & by resolution 1514(XV) whether it continues to be a member of the UN or not.
Unfortunately, if the neo-nazis gain power in the AR, then military expansionism is likely. Sadly in such an event, then massive military defeat is the only lesson that will teach the Argentines they cannot threaten peaceful neighbours & succeed.
This guy Domingo can't be real!
Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Must be one of agent 0060 electronic warfare bots.
Well if you think Domingo's arguments are not real Think, then why don't you shoot them down with well thought out ripostes backed by facts instead of resorting to ad hominem nonsense?
Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hi Think! :-D I am real & I'm not a bot! Lol! But it's only speculation on my part w.r.t. where things may lead with the AR's Malvinas Policy.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I mean on one side AR makes gaining the Malvinas & UK territories of the South Georgia, Sandwich Islands & British Antarctic its state policy and enshrines this in its consitution. Right now, AR politicians are pursuing a two-fronted policy to attempt diplomatic isolation of the UK&FIG whilst also directing repressive economic & political measures against the free movement & trade of the Islanders. An act of provocation, which if ever conducted against strong nation states, could result in massive economic sanctions & perhaps open war.
I'm just wondering where all this AR rage is headed. Nobody suspected Hitler would come to power in democratic Germany, but I see strong historical parallels of the fragile democracy of the AR after 1982 with that of the Weimar Republic after 1918. If AR suffers a full economic collapse with hyperinflation, then similar economic conditions will exist in AR cf. the Weimar Republic.
Hopefully, there would be a full IMF bail-out to stop economic instabiliity becoming political instability in AR, but you never know.
What I do know is that AR's sovereignty claims to territory in South America & Antarctic is a continued form of Argentine colonialism from their formation in an age of empires. For me it is laughable that AR claim that the UK's actions & presence are “colonial” when the UK is fulfilling its obligations under UN resolution 1514(XV) whilst the AR is actively & illegally denying the Islanders their universal human rights under resolution 1514(XV), despite having given up all sovereignty rights by voting for this resolution & also by being a UN member.
It is strange the Argentines do not agree & encourage the peaceful independence of the Islanders from the UK, when they themselves obtained the same independence from Spain by force. I expected solidarity with the Islanders!
You are a funny fellow. From the Philippines by any chance?
Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina have tried invading twice, without result, I doubt that even they would be daft enough to try again. They couldn't possibly underestimate British reaction again ....... could they?
Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Think: me chupa un huevo lo que haga, boludo!
Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But even so, I would be happy to read your counter-argument or ideas rather than your mierda argumentum ad hominem.
paz hermano!
I can't wait for Domingo's next comment.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fascinating... When does Frodo appear?
@ J.A. Roberts: I can only presume Think(#) fails in his useless attempt at ad hominem because he cannot think of a counter argument to resolution 1514(XV) & AR's UN obligations to the Islanders.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm still at the Weimar Republik and the Unasur attack against GB :-0
Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lol. Ok, but when you catch up, you might also consider that AR's strategy to link the Malvinas to UNASUR could also be flawed because UNASUR's interests are not necessarily aligned with AR's interests. Especially those of Brazil its most important & most powerful member. I am wondering how much esupport UNASUR would be prepared to offer AR & whether it would act against UN resolution 1514(XV) or rather concede AR is bound by resolution 1514(XV).
Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0I expect Brazil will whatever suits them even if it contradicts the nice fluffy platitudes about regional solidarity, etc they might spout from time to time in fora like the OAS.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Man ...
Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are scary.... I'm speechless!
I'll have to give up on you.
Have a nice Evening.
At the risk of undermining Domingo's comments, although only someone of Think's ilk would read my comments that way, I hgave to agree with most of what he says from #51 onward.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I say “most” because of certain caveats. References to the “United Provinces of the Rio del Plata” might, depending on the date, be more proper to the “United Provinces of South America”. In reference to mine clearance, it is my understanding that Argentina agreed to pay the costs of mine clearance. Whether it has ever actually paid anything is another matter. It must surely be understandable that neither FIG nor the UK would be prepared to see Argentine military personnel on the Islands. Regarding the EU and NATO, it must be remembered that the South Atlantic is outside NATO's remit. Moreover, it is not clear whether the Falkland Islands are considered to be an EU Overseas Territory or an Overseas Territory of an EU Member State. In any event, EU treaties do not mandate military action in respect of Overseas Territories. In the light of recent pronouncements from Washington, the position of the US military is unclear. One thing that is clear is the need for the UK to require the removal of US forces and facilities from the British territory of Ascension Island.
Finally, consideration must be given to the wishes of the Falkland Islanders, one of which is that their country is NOT referred to as Las Malvinas. Unless Islander1 has a contribution, perhaps we might refer to http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/27/falklands-happy-as-british-overseas-territory-and-don-t-like-being-told-by-others-what-to-do
I'm afraid that I still consider the expulsion of Argentina from the UN, or a motion to that effect, would be a worthwhile move. It might bring the increasingly Hitlerite antics of Argentine politicians to a halt.
Agent 0060
Jun 14th, 2010 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You flatter yourself again!
I don’t need to read your comment I can smell them!
Like the one at thee bottom of this link!
http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/3a8a80d6f705f8cc/id/622599/cs/1/
A nasty little rascal you are, old chap.
@Axel: But Moreno's letter was dated 31 July 1849 & Palmerston replied on 8th August 1849.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Afterwards on 24th November, 1849 Argentina & the UK signed the “Convention between Great Britain & the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences & the re-establishment of Friendship” peace treaty, which agreed existing differences were settled, i.e. including the Falklands/Malvinas and that “perfect friendship” was restored between the two nations.
Then this peace treaty was ratified by Argentina & the UK in Buenos Aires on 15th May 1850.
Therefore, previous correspondence & interpretation of meaning between Moreno & Palmerston appears irrelevant, when the Convention of Settlement supercedes this correspondence & removes any misunderstanding or debate between the two countries.
MAlvinas Argentinas!!!!
Jun 15th, 2010 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas are not Argentinas !!! Why say otherwise?
Jun 15th, 2010 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas Argentinas!!!! End of sotory Domingo!
Jun 15th, 2010 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because there are a lot of uneduated Argentines here. They cant not see through our government who are trying to advert attention from problems at home. I couln't care about a few islands. Solve the poverty!
Jun 15th, 2010 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't have the ability to be a troll. You have to change your manners man, you sound like a british with british stupid arguments. No one diverts my attention, you are insulting argentine people's intelligence!!!
Jun 15th, 2010 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In respects of yourself, jorgy boy, he has good cause ! (you have done better with the exclamation marks this time, but a little more effort is required B- )
Jun 16th, 2010 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Seems to be that Glenn can’t get his “old rig” repaired in Brazil.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the Falklands and BP where cars:
In the case of the Islands they fervently explain:
Is a British Wauxhall not an Opel !
In the case of BP they vehemently declare:
It’s an Opel not a British Wauxhall !
Same car under the Bonnet.
Yup, looks like Think has run out of thoughts .......
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0NOOOO...
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just trying to reach all my fans...
.... looks like you've lost it!
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Buhhh. Nobody luvs me!
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge Rios said “you are insulting Argentine peoples intelligence”
Jun 16th, 2010 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL excuse me Jorge whilst I snort with laughter...
Rhaurie, vos también la tenés adentro!!!
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I ve lived for 2 years in Ushuaia, the capital of TIerra del Fuego, Antarctica & South Atlantic Islands Province (include Malvinas occupied) , now i return to BA to have another point of view and can compare about how live the two sizes : a democratic province with a democratic governor (Fabiana Rios) and a dictartoship gov. like Malvinas. In TDF we have university, oil royalties for de federal gov, taxes free, industrial prod, and 100.000 happy inhab., in Malvinas UK only mantain 2500 resentment inhab. plus 2000 royal army, without university education, only to clean their minds, with a virtual government, and now with oil exploration in Arg. waters. Lamentable
Jun 17th, 2010 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nitro, the Falklands aren't like Second Life. They don't have a “virtual” government. It's very much a real, flesh and blood, populated by real people government.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you ever been to the Falklands? How would you know how they live anyway? What is lamentable is your attitude. You talk about democracy and democratically elected representatives, yet at the same time you deny the Falkland Islanders democratic rights. Lamentable!
JASON, i have an answer for you in the articule of the 9th of june.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0axel arg
Jun 17th, 2010 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No-one is interested in your references to other comments you have made. If you can't comment here, quit.
nitrojuan
How long did you live in the Falkland Islands? What do you mean by the word “occupied”? Have you ever lived in a proper democratic country? Argentina doesn't count.
nitrojuan: Few points.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islands have not been under occupation since 1982. I believe they have their own education system, Also i've heard of Falkland islanders coming to the UK for higher education.
We have 1000 troops on the islands, not 2000. And the army is not the Royal army, never has been. It never received it's royal title.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!