MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
NATO presence in South Atlantic “inappropriate” says Brazil
Brazilian Defence Minister Nelson Jobim assured that the Brazilian government would express reservations towards any military plan intending to unite the North with the South Atlantic. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSo Brazil signs an agreement that will see it cooperating with UK forces that will be based in the Falkland Islands. In addition to allowing the OG to call into a Brazilian port this is another 'action' that identifies that Brazil doesn't give a toss about Argentine delusion.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 05:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil not sticking to the Argie script
Sep 16th, 2010 - 06:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I want to see Brazil arguing with the Fourth Fleet!!
Sep 16th, 2010 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0As Conqueror and most of the british lot here, you make everything a matter of force, despite the expectable long term reaction.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0After that, you ascend your surprised eyebrows and put a goodwill-treasoned-expression when other countries move out of your script.
Similar move you did a century ago against Venezuela and you started a lot of nationalistic movements that speeded up the grow of USA influence in Latam, replacing yours.
Sadly, we owe irrational nationalism to your actions.
Let´s see the Fourth Fleet arguing with Brazil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carabobo
Sep 16th, 2010 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carabobo
If you want to know what the British started. And we British lot don't make everything a matter of force. I don't recall any Brits advocating violent action against Argentines, or economic blockades or forcing Argentines to do anything.
“Let´s see the Fourth Fleet arguing with Brazil.”
Sep 16th, 2010 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just...lol.
5 Justin
Sep 16th, 2010 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don´t have doubts about the British help in our independence. In order to open new markets here and weaken your opponent, the Spanish Empire.
You changed the strategy after the Buenos Aires defeats, and smartly, started to help independence and development that resulted in some kind of informal alliance during a hundred years.
In 1902 you were making mistake after mistake, and you piss off every american with the Venezuelan blockade, USA took immediate advantage.
6 Zethee
Would expected from you more than literal reading.
@Conqueror We will when we have the nuclear submarine. Why are we and France building it in the first place?
Sep 16th, 2010 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The International Blockade of Venezuela in 1902, caused by Venezuela not paying their debts.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Venezuela#Civilian_presidencies_and_Crespo_ascendancy
Would that be what you're referring to.
Justin, and being blockaded by Britain and Germany.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It´s somehow off-topic...but the UK invented the concept of Default, so I can´t understand your surprise.
And the point was: some military actions just because you are warmongers use to come as boomerangs in the long term.
Actually, the 1900-1970 Latam nationalism fed a lot on the 1902 blockade.
Try with another blunt action of colonialism as you “LOLed” on the relationship 4th Fleet-Brazil. And sit down to see the consequences.
I have my reservations about Jobim words; I´m not so sure he is talking about 4ºFleet only or in the first place; he is talking in europe about plans to unite north atlantic with south atlantic. Brazil is like China in their diplomacy; they give little but steadies steps by steps towards their objetives.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK let me see if I understand your point.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You borrow money, which you don't pay back but apparently the UK “invented the concept of default”. Mmmm.
And in 1902 the UK and Germany blockaded Venezuela because it didn't pay us back which apparently means that in the days of the UN, following the dissolution of the British Empire a century later the British are expected to do exactly the same.
No and warmongers, no, because it may have escaped your notice the world has moved on, Britain doesn't behave the way it did a century ago.
It may have also escaped your notice but the 4th Fleet is an element of the USN not the RN.
Colonialism? No, it may have escaped your notice but the British chose to disassembly their Empire for a combination of reasons including financial, ideological and the aspirations of its former colonies. It did so largely peacefully, granting independence and avoiding the costly wars of independence that dominated so many European Empires in the 20th Century.
If you wish to continue down the path of viewing Britain in the 21st Century in the prism of the 19th Century, you will merely look foolish and ignorant as those who make remarks about the 4th Fleet taking on Brazil.
I'd like to put my remark in a context.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An extremely large part of the South Atlantic is composed of international waters. They are no business of Brazil or any other South American country. In addition, all vessels have the “right of innocent passage” through any country's territorial waters.
NATO currently consists of 28 countries, of which 20 have navies. As there is no external means of determining whether a vessel is representing NATO or its own national government, I fail to see how Snr Jobim can conceive of a method by which he or his country can avoid the presence of up to 20 navies if the governments of those vessels so choose.
Brazil may see the presence of NATO vessels as “inappropriate”. It may see the South Atlantic as an area of high strategic value. The fact is that there is nothing that Brazil, or indeed the whole of South America, can do about it. Nor would the wider international community permit any attempt by South America to make the South Atlantic its private preserve.
I turn to Forgetit. A nuclear submarine, eh! So what? All British and U.S. submarines are nuclear-powered. And those two countries alone have more nuclear-powered submarines than you could ever afford. But perhaps you mean a nuclear-armed submarine? Have you forgotten the Treaty of Tlatelolco? No nuclear weapons in Latin America or the Caribbean. You might claim that it only applies to the land, but then South America would have no right to object to nuclear-armed vessels in the South Atlantic. And all weapons, especially nuclear ones, have to be landed from time to time for maintenance. So your nuclear submarine is of little account.
Justin,
Sep 16th, 2010 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0take a look of the “ignorant” remark of #3 about 4th fleet, and only then accuse somebody!
You didn´t get the point that is clearly stated at 7: “And the point was: some military actions just because you are warmongers use to come as boomerangs in the long term”
Applies to everybody, including UK, USA... and Argentina, as you remember us every time you can.
And if UK´s bet is to live next 20 years from our oil...applies perfectly.
BTW & O-T, take a search about european (british incl.) financial defaults along history before legitimizing the 1902 blockade, beside the strategic fact that it ignited a century of regional nationalism that contributed to almost dissapearing Britain´s enormous influence in the continent.
Sorry, but in this context, I don´t mind if the 4th Fleet is Russian or Zimbabwean...unless it works as colonialist in our region.
@Conqueror
Sep 16th, 2010 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That no country can have complete domain over the South Atlantic, doesn't seem to be in dispute and doesn't need to be pointed out. Claim to the entire territory by any one country would be quixotic and widely opposed by countries in both sides of the South Atlantic. But, as the article itself implies and is shown by recent moves in the area, Brazil's intention is only to guard the region close to its oil findings from non-neighboring countries. And this can be accomplished - namely, by militarizing the area and extending claims of sovereignty over it. It worked for China, didn't it?
As for the nuclear submarine, I cited it because the nuclear agreement with France was signed 2 months after the IV Fleet activation. No one has ever suggested there's a connection between these two events, but that's my guess. And the agreement will include technology transfer, that is, Brazil will be able to produce the craft in its own territory in some years. And btw, by the end of 2010 Brazil's GDP will be 90% of that of the UK, with a much better balance of payments and stronger prospects for growth. So I don't think the UK can really afford more of such crafts than Brazil “could ever” do. That's a rather fantastic claim having in mind that BAE Systems is counting on the recent agreement with Brazil in order to counter the negative effects of Britain's defense budget cuts.
As for the Tlatelolco Treaty - Brazil can drop from it if it wants. Remember Noth Korea and the NPT? And btw, Brazil signed that treaty in 1968, and that didn't preclude it from conducting a secret nuclear program during the 80s.
Well Pheel.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1985, belatedly after delaying for nearly 20 years to avoid upsetting the regional bully Argentina, the UK devolved Government of the Falkland Island onto the Falkland Islanders bringing the islands in line with the rest of the British Overseas Territories. The islands have had self-government ever since.
The Falkland Islanders have chosen to issues licenses allowing exploration for oil in Falklands waters. Any revenue that results from oil will belong to the Falkland Islands not the UK.
Now I know that Argentina has colonial pretensions to the Falkland Islands and likes to pretend that the islands don't have self-government but thats the way it is. It is not Argentine oil, it belongs to the islanders and your half-baked pretension to the Falkland Islands based on 19th Century irredentism has no place in the 21st Century.
If you choose to make warmongering threats of violence as a result of the Falkland Islanders choosing to exploit mineral resources around the islands, we will simply ignore you. As Conqueror has explained his remarks to point out there is nothing to stop any navy sailing through International Waters, hell I can remember watching Russian ships taking a distinct interest in our ships from within our EEZ.
And I really don't care whether we have influence in South America or not. If its just that you wish to air your pre-conceived prejudices against any particular nation you just go right ahead. But don't be upset if I correct any foolish or ignorant comment.
5 JustinKuntz
Sep 16th, 2010 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And we British lot don't make everything a matter of force. I don't recall any Brits advocating violent action against Argentines, or economic blockades or forcing Argentines to do anything.”...WHAT?!!!!
My friend, you missed a part of the history (i do not know if it was on purpose or you forgot it). What can you tell me about the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado (1845)?.
”During the 1830s and 1840s, the British and French governments were at odds with Rosas' leadership of the Argentine Confederation. Rosas economic policies of protecting the national industry with high tariffs, combined with his attempts to incorporate Paraguay and Uruguay to the confederacy, were in conflict with French and British economic interests in the region. During his government, Rosas had to face numerous problems with these foreign powers, which in some cases reached levels of open confrontation. These incidents included TWO NAVAL BLOCKADES, the French one in 1838, and the ANGLO-FRENCH of 1845.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuelta_de_Obligado
Greetings
Err yes, we're discussing events in the 21st Century and the your response is to drag up a 19th Century historical event completely unrelated to the matter at hand?
Sep 16th, 2010 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I suppose the point about dragging up crap from a Century ago went right over your head and you felt the need to go that little bit further.
So why you made reference to the Battle of Carabobo (1821) in comment 5?
Sep 16th, 2010 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 019 D-SE
Sep 16th, 2010 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0because they use history only when its useful to their goals.
They can´t afford that Malvinas issue is plenty of colonialist history. As is Gibraltar. But they use Utrecht when its useful and trash it when it´s not.
So, they try to focus on a fait-accomplit stance, which is the will of present population. That IS very important but it´s not the only point in discussion.
Behind this politically correct assertion, the UK wants the wealth, as ever. “I want the treasure”, said Whitelocke in 1806, Rhodes 100 years later in SA or could be said by Thatcher´s son in Guinea 200 years later.
Deeper is an unbalanced feeling of superiority that legitimizes their rights. So, any mistake made by Argentina/Latam/any-“brownie”-country is bad, and the same mistake/attitude/etc made by UK is “part of the past”/doesn´t apply/is not warmongering.
In this context, finding win-win solutions is practically impossible. Everybody, specially islanders, should look for them, but they can´t understand that.
Good point pheel talking about win-win situation. That´s the situation british commentators don´t want to talk about because they know they are the only factor that can be removed from south atlantic; we can´t remove argentines or kelpers only uk can be removed for that win-win situation.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think that in the future the win-win situation would be argentina accepting kelpers selfdetermination but selfdetermination as we know it in this part of the world and not british interpretation to sustain a colonial situation (paradox; seldetermination is a tool to end colonialism). Ergo recognizing their independence but demanding the british total withdrawal from south atlantic; and in this matter perhaps brazil can play an active role.
21, Billy, It's fantastic to see an Argentine commentator recognising (at last!) the Falkland Islanders themselves.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, I have to disagree with what you say about British commentators not wanting to talk about the possibility of the UK no longer being present in the South Atlantic.
Firstly, I can't think of a single British person who doesn't respect the right of the Islanders to determine their own future. If the Islanders decide that their future lies in independence (or even as part of Argentina, however unlikely that may be), the UK will accept that. Britain has always said that the wishes of the Islanders are paramount.
Secondly, as far as I am aware, there is only one type of self-determination. You, perhaps by accident, hit the nail on the head when you say that there is a “paradox”. Because there is no paradox. Britain no longer has any colonial ambitions, nor the wish to sustain any colonial situation. It merely wishes to ensure that the Falkland Islanders are the only ones who determine the future of the Islands. If you can see that, then there is no paradox. Surely that is the more obvious answer, rather than some dastardly plot by the UK to keep Argentina down!
Finally, it is a bit hypocritical to say that if the Falkland Islands achieved independence that this would only be recognised by Argentina if Britain withdrew from the South Atlantic. Whether or not Britain withdraws from the Falkland Islands after Falkland Islands independence depends only on the Islanders. Argentina cannot interfere or presume to put any pre-conditions on independence.
And then there are the other sub-Antartic islands (South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, etc) and the British Antarctic Territory (which are a totally separate matter from the Falkland Islands), which are administered directly by the UK. Whether or not the UK withdraws from these areas is a matter purely for the UK, not the Falkland Islanders, not the Argentines and not anybody else.
@15 Forgetit. If you think someone is after your oil, militarize away to your heart's content. If you want to locate a country keen on stealing other people's property, you need to look south not north. Feel free to extend your sovereignty over as much ocean as international law permits.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was aware of your “secret” weapons program. And it was in the 70s, not the 80s. And that tells everyone how much reliance can be placed on Brazil's truthfulness and adherence to international treaties. Thinking about the Treaty of Tlatelolco reminds me that the treaty says nothing about naval nuclear weapons and, just as Britain declined to accept Argentina's claim over a vastly-extended area of ocean, the world is quite capable of doing the same in respect of Brazil. Remember, a claim to greater territorial waters is not legal until recognised in international law.
A brief word to DSE. Welcome. I do hope you are a person interested in engaging in intelligent debate.
Now to the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado. I don't know what your history teaches, but the unbiased historical record shows that one General Rosas was attempting to interfere with the trade with cities further upstream and Paraguay. It's right there in the wikipedia article you quoted. Or didn't you read that far?
Pom; what you are talking is not a win-win situation for southatlantiquers; you are pretending argentina to accept your selfdetermination & british presence; that´s a defeat-defeat situation for argentina; do you think that argentina will ever accept that? that´s the reason of actual conflict.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By the way; Malvinas, Georgias, Sandwich & Antartica are not separate entities, they are all part of argentina´s continental shelf and part of the same geopolitical block.
Perhaps in the future we will see an independent kelperland as an enclave inside argentina´s continental shelf living in peace, cooperating, making business and lot of argentines visiting the Reconciliation Binational Park at Darwin itsm.
24, Billy, when are you going to get it into your head that Argentina has no say in relation to the principle of self-determination of the Falkland Islanders. That is purely between the UK and the Falkland Islands. If the Islanders want independence and the UK agrees, the Islanders get independence. If the Islanders want independence and the UK does not agree, the Islanders can unilaterally declare independence. Like Kosovo did.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has no say whatsoever in relation to the Islands. Whether they remain British, whether they become independent is up to the Islanders themselves. No one else.
And please don't bang on about the principle of self-determination not applying to the Islanders because they are an “implanted” population! If this were the case, then the entire Americas could not have become independent, as all their populations were massively “implanted”. In fact, the situation in the Falkland Islands is very much clearer, as there never was any indigenous population there, unlike everywhere else in the Americas, where entire populations were subjugated and/or exterminated by the colonists (be they Spanish, Portuguese, French or British).
The other islands and the BAT are a matter for Britain to decide upon, not Argentina and not the Falkland Islands.
The sooner that Argentina comes to terms with the fact that the fate of the Falkland Islands and the fate of the other islands and the BAT is not in their hands, the sooner everyone can live in peace.
Perhaps in the future we will see an independent kelperland as an enclave inside argentina´s continental shelf
Sep 16th, 2010 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wouldn't hold your breath silly billy, you cant even bring yourself to call the Islanders Falklanders,instead using Kelper in a derogatory manner
“when are you going to get it into your head that Argentina has no say in relation to the principle of self-determination of the Falkland Islanders.”
Sep 16th, 2010 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps the same day that you realize that to have a win-win situation for the people that lives in south atlantic (argies & kelpers) you must ask your british lords to leave the region: Malvinas, argentine continental shelf, Georgias, sandwich and all pretentions over antartica.
Deal?
Mr.Stick; I will never use the term kelper any more the day the kelpers became citizens of the world instead of british colonial subjects. Today kelpers are kelpers.
But, Billy, that is for the Falkland Islanders to decide in respect of the Falkland Islands and for Britain to decide in respect of everywhere else. Argentina has no say. Why should it?
Sep 16th, 2010 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina never had sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and it never set foot on any of the other Islands (aside for a few weeks in 1982 on the Falklands and South Georgia). Britain's claim to the BAT was in place for decades before Argentina and Chile even made a claim, so why does Argentina even presume to make these demands?
Britain and the Falkland Islanders are not interested in there being a win-win situation for Argentina. I don't make this remark in any way meaning to be unkind to Argentina. It is simply that Britain and the Falkland Islanders do not accept the Argentine claims, Britain has de facto sovereignty and sovereignty is non-negotiable. Argentina is irrelevant.
You're beating your head against a brick wall.
You are repeating like a cassette the same old argument, nothing new, nothing to be surprised. The same old argument leaves all of us in the conflict; enjoy it, but you must know that according the historical and regional trends we are seeing perhaps in the future it will be unsustainable and dangerous for kelpers the same old argument. I think you must move on and stop being the shield of your british masters for nothing to became free citizens of the region.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr.Stick; I will never use the term kelper any more the day the kelpers became citizens of the world instead of british colonial subjects. Today kelpers are kelpers.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yep the Argie N word
Billy, the Falkland Islanders are free. Free to choose whether they wish to remain British, whether they wish to become part of another nation or whether they wish to become independent. But it's their choice. Not anyone else.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is you repeating the same old same old. Just because the Islanders don't want to be Argentine, you accuse Britain of clinging on to them and the Islanders incapable of throwing off a colonial yoke. You just can't seem to grasp the reality.
Fantastic, the complete lack of logic, the two faced hypocrisy and they piously talk crap and trash talk everyone else.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pheel asserts historically the British have only ever had a malign influence in South America. I point out that its crap referring to events that show it isn't true. Don't you get it, the British are only there to defend the Falkland Islanders from further Argentine aggression. We get nothing from it.
Then apparently we invented the term “default” for South American states who conveniently don't bother to pay back what they owe and apparently some event in 1902 was all our fault. I simply point out no it isn't and some other prat pops up going even further back.
The point about hurling abuse for historical events clearly doesn't get across because now they're going back 300 years,
And for using history to support your arguments. Oh please, Argentina even tries to claim the Papal Bull has meaning in the 21st Century, the ramblings of just about the most corrupt pope that ever existed means nothing. If anyone is trying to assert some form of moral superiority using events from history its you, you piously spout crap about 19th Century events conveniently forgettting that Argentina in the 19th Century holds no moral high ground. Its complete hypocrisy.
And speaking of win-win situations, utter crap. It has no intention to negotiate, no intention to find a middle ground, it insists it has to have its way. You invent an illogical irrdentist claim that you self-reinforce with lies and half-truths and it leaves no room for any compromise or indeed even for a face saving way for Argentina to climb down.
And if a win-win situation is for an independent Falklands and we get to leave that part of the South Atlantic, great. That we'll be happy with.
But as usual a win-win situation is only on Argentina's terms, unsurprisingly so. Right you may now continue with the trash talking.
THIMC
Sep 16th, 2010 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I “think” that the two paragraphs below by Falklander belonger PomInOz accurately represent the current official British position on the “Disputed Islands Issue”.
1) ”Britain and the Falkland Islanders do not accept the Argentine claims, Britain has de facto sovereignty and sovereignty is non-negotiable”.
2) ”The sooner that Argentina comes to terms with the fact that the fate of the Falkland Islands and the fate of the other islands and the BAT is not in their hands, the sooner everyone can live in peace”.
My personal position (curiously, quite similar to the current official Argentinean position) is that:
1) We already “live in peace” and we will continue to do so.
2) We are commencing, co-operating and co-existing with all Nations and Territories on Earth; except the “Disputed Islands”.
3) Our primary objective is to get the whole of Latin America to adopt point Nr. (2)
4) Our secondary objective is to achieve an unambiguous position from the UN on the “Disputed Islands Issue”.
And Think if you want an unambiguous position from the UN, you simply ask the ICJ for an opinion.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing to stop you.
And not that is not the British position. The British position is simple, it is up to the islanders to decide for themselves.
Oh please, Think. You say that Argentina's primary objective is to get the whole of Latin America on side. Argentina ask for actions and not just words from its LA brothers. And yet it is Britain that gets action from Brazil in the form of a defence treaty.
Sep 16th, 2010 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for an unambiguous position from the UN; you'll never get it, as the only unambiguous support has to come through the Security Council and Britain has its veto. In any event, the UN is not the relevant body, but the ICJ, and we all know that Argentina won't go near the place!
@Conqueror
Sep 16th, 2010 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The nuclear agreement with Germany was signed in 1975. Nuclear reactor technology was transfered to Brazil in 1978. The parallel nuclear program was dismantled in 1991. So, the secret nuclear research was conducted mostly during the 80s. It was in 1987, after all, that Sarney announced the nuclear cycle had been mastered and that Brazil would proceed to enrich uranium at 20%.
And yes, “the world” might not accept a claim over an extended area of the ocean by Brazil. That's already happened. And that's why I'm saying the area should be militarized even if no agreement with the UN is reached.
And the UK-Argentina affair is sui generis. It doesn't apply to Brazil, for there's no country with which it can clash the way Argentina did with the UK. Does a NATO member have recognized claims over an area near Brazil's oil-findings? No. So there's no reason why NATO can clash with Brazil over this issue. If it does, however, it - or more properly, the US - will be showing it has interests in the region.
As for your suggestion that potential thieves of Brazilian oil are to the south, not to the north, of the country -- is it necessary to remind you that Argentina had nothing to do with the latest attempt in oil piracy the world has seen - the Iraq War? I don't mean to be petty toward the UK, though. The threat, imo, is really the US, a country whose disrespect to international law is widely recognized and whose foreign policy is pretty much unpredictable precisely because its necessities are manifold.
(35) PomInOz
Sep 16th, 2010 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“Argentina ask for actions and not just words from its LA brothers. And yet it is Britain that gets action from Brazil in the form of a defence treaty”
I say:
That's the beauty of this chess match......
The more economically entangled Britain becomes in the South American board, the more willing it will be to sacrifice a pawn.
Billy, if you want a win-win situation then open a position in RKH or DES! Still a bit of a gamble but it is good fun watching the paper profits buid up!
Sep 16th, 2010 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the more willing it will be to sacrifice a pawn
Sep 16th, 2010 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An advanced passed pawn that threatens to promote can be especially strong
I dont think so think
“That's a rather fantastic claim having in mind that BAE Systems is counting on the recent agreement with Brazil in order to counter the negative effects of Britain's defense budget cuts.”
Sep 16th, 2010 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know where you got that idea from, BAE is the largest defence contractor in the world, brazil isn't even a “home market”.
They're maing a mint in the USA.
I don´t know if argentinian or british posture are well fundamented. Someone wrote “the British are only there to defend the Falkland Islanders from further Argentine aggression. We get nothing from it.” Mmm that is strange. You always say that the FI are independent, you talk about the self determination. In my opinion there lot of economic and politic interests. Those interests doesn´t belong to a nation like England but to minority groups. The english don´t win anything with all this. I think this conflict has three parts. But the third is not Britain or England, just those economic groups that operate all over the world (of course the other two parts are Argentina and the islanders).
Sep 17th, 2010 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Somebody wrote about the argentinan debt. Those economic groups “helped” Argentina because they know that country couldn´t return the money back. It is a control mechanism (I can´t see any help in that). The debt was contracted by the dictatorship. The same that invaded the FI. Too much conincidence ¿don´t you think?. That makes me think, and I seriously doubt that this conflict is betwen two nations and the islanders. That could be a very simplified version.
Good luck
@Zethee
Sep 17th, 2010 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Check this article by the brit FT: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d6adeb4-bf6a-11df-965a-00144feab49a,s01=1.html?ftcamp=rss
“The UK is to sign a bilateral defence co-operation agreement with Brazil – one of the world’s fastest-growing arms markets – as it competes to secure lucrative overseas contracts for its weapons industry against a background of defence spending cuts.”
(...)
“BAE, for example, has been told to prepare for the possibility that the UK scraps plans for a fleet of new aircraft carriers, even though the company already has two new ones under contract, with one already being built.
”To compensate, the government has promised to help industry sell its equipment and services abroad, mainly to developing countries such as India and Brazil.”
37, Think, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! That's nearly as funny as those Argentine numpties in Argentina demanding an Argentine-owned ship be returned to Argentina-ownership! And, yes, it's still making me laugh! Is this part of your new stand-up comedy outine?!
Sep 17th, 2010 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0(43) PomInOz
Sep 17th, 2010 - 05:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ Is this part of your new stand-up comedy outline?! ” You ask...........
It could well be…… It’s always easier to negotiate with a Brit when he’s happy :-)
But no, it’s not…..
1) It’s a lesson learned in the 70’s, when the British government agreed with Argentina to ”leaseback” the Islands because the UK economical interests in Argentina were deemed more important than that little outpost. (An agreement you broke)
2) It’s a lesson learned in the 90’s f when the British government agreed with China to ”handover” the enclave of Hong Kong because the UK economical interests in China were deemed more important than that exotic outpost. (An agreement you couldn’t break)
3) It’s a lesson learned in the 00’s f when the British government agreed with Libya to ”liberate” the only prisoner of the Lockerbie bombing because the UK economical interests in Libya were deemed more important than that “justice”. (An agreement you offered yourself)
Reading all the stuff “in here” about Malvinas can make you forget that those Islands are not the centre of the universe and that they will be sold when the ”conditions are right”…….
Think, you're losing it.
Sep 17th, 2010 - 05:27 am - Link - Report abuse 01. The British Government never agreed to a leaseback of the islands. Negotiations were taking place, but it never went through. No agreement was broken.
2. Britain had leased parts of Hong Kong from China for 99 years and simply gave them back (as well as other parts of the area that weren't leased), as per the agreement.
3. The British Government did not agree anything with Libya. The release of the prisoner was decided upon by the devoled Scottish Government on compassionate grounds, against the wishes of the British Government. That whole BP thing is absolute rubbish.
I know that the Falklands are not the centre of the universe. Something that Argentina and the vast majority of Argentine posters here don't seem to realise.
Try to realise, Think, that the Falklands will never be “sold” to Argentina, unless the Falkland Islanders want them to be.
Nice try think,back to the drawing board
Sep 17th, 2010 - 06:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0You Argies made us go to war,we wont give,sell,lease or share, unless the Falklanders agree.
(45) PomInOz
Sep 17th, 2010 - 06:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”Try to realise, Think, that the Falklands will never be “sold” to Argentina, unless the Falkland Islanders want them to be.”
I say (and I have said this from the beginning in multiple posts):
We have realized it for a long time ago….That’s why our strategy is to ” neutralize” the economy of the Islands……In the best case you all will move on and get a life somewhere else (you seem to be a good example)….In the worst case, many will continue to live their ”quite quiet” peaceful sleepy lives in the islands without the presence of British business (maybe you could open a gigantic nursing home for the Royal British Legion veterans at Mount Plasant)
That’s why our strategy is to ” neutralize” the economy of the Islands……
Sep 17th, 2010 - 06:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Might take a while think, the Spanish just love their Rock Cod
It doesn't appear that the Argentine “strategy” of neutralizing the Falklands economy is working too well, though does it? It seems to be going as well as one of Baldric's “cunning plans”!
Sep 17th, 2010 - 07:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is no way that Argentina can maintain any sort of effective blockade of the Islands and, if oil is found in exploitable quantities...Well, I'll leave you to join up the dots.
I'm afraid to say that I'm not a very good example of moving on from the Falklands, as I only went there for 12 months originally, but stayed for 12 years. If it weren't for my Aussie wife, I'd probably be there still!
42 Forgetit87:
Sep 17th, 2010 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0I've read the headlines. Where does that say that BAE has to rely on brazil?
Half of BAE's income comes from the US, as it is the only non US companty allowed to work on US secret projects. It's also the prime defence contractor for Austrailia, Saudi Arabia and conducts large ammounts of business in Sweden.
This deal from brazil isn't really large, they would only make 2.9 billion IF all the ships were to be built in the UK and maintained there, which is not the case, only the first few will be built here, and then the rest will be built in brazil to promote a warship building industry.
The majority of the money they will make from this deal will be upkeep of the ships over the next 20-50 years time.
(49) PomInOz
Sep 17th, 2010 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the Input......
You are the “perfect” example.... Went to the Islands as a kid..... FIG financed your school years.... sports activities.... healt care....and tertiary education.....
When all those expensive bills were paid by the FIG, you run off to the other side of the planet with a “she convict” :-)
We should consider the idea of organizing an Aussie Sheila Cruise to the Malvinas to take the most abled bodied man out of the equation :-)
@Zethee
Sep 17th, 2010 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0I said BAE was counting on the agreement to compensate for the budget cuts, something that is definitely supported by the article's content. Here again:
“The UK is to sign a bilateral defence co-operation agreement with Brazil – one of the world’s fastest-growing arms markets – as it competes to secure lucrative overseas contracts for its weapons industry against a background of defence spending cuts.
(...)
“BAE, for example, has been told to prepare for the possibility that the UK scraps plans for a fleet of new aircraft carriers, even though the company already has two new ones under contract, with one already being built.
”To compensate, the government has promised to help industry sell its equipment and services abroad, mainly to developing countries such as India and Brazil.”
If you don't think the agreement is important enough, then you go discuss that with them, for all I said on the subject, I took from their words in the text.
Good move Brazil; now Mercosur has another bargain card in the BAE situation. British workers will not want to see Brazil and Mercosur in anger.
Sep 17th, 2010 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr.Stick; Rock Cod is a second class product, they are trying to sell it because first class products (hake & illex) are almost depleted. Poor Rock Cod.
Pom, you said “It doesn't appear that the Argentine “strategy” of neutralizing the Falklands economy is working too well.”
I will answer you with some numbers:
In 1900 Usuhaia population was something like a few hundred; 2010 Ushuaia population is 60.000 and growing. Stanley population in 1900 was 2000 people; 2010 Stanley population is 2200 and decreasing.
Argentine strategy is working fine; and it will work better in future, you can bet that; the negotiated path is the only viable solution, historical trend clock is running...tic tac tic tac.
You said Argentina is irrelevant; ok, but please try to convice Mr.Huckle or Dick Sawle about that, because the only thing they talk about is Argentina in recent comments at home and abroad.
51, Think, no sorry, you must have me confused with smeone else. I went to the Islands to work for 12 months in my mid-twenties, having been born, brought-up, schooled and gone to university in the UK. That I stayed for 12 years in the Islands shows that I thought that it was fantastic place. I think that you'll find that the vast majority of people feel that way about it. You'll find it very difficult to get anyone to move.
Sep 17th, 2010 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 052 Forgetit87:
Sep 17th, 2010 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BAE makes around 30 billion a year, the deal with brazil is looking to bring them about 2 billion over ten years.
As i said, BAE is not relying on brazil or india.
BAE is relying on the US and UK(even with the cuts). The carriers which could be cut( i doubt this) even if they are cut, they've made more money off the project currently than the entire deal with brazil.
Some of you (specially brits) might explain me why the United Nations incorporated the Malvinas Islands in the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories? Because acording to the United Nations, are non-decolonized. So what is the role of the british argument (talking about that the islands are not a colony) in this theme?
Sep 17th, 2010 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories#Former_colonized_territories_which_have_become_independent_states
Dassault
Sep 17th, 2010 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I couldn't find Malvinas on that link,do you mean the Falklands?
57 stick up your junta
Sep 17th, 2010 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas= In spanish
Falklands= In english
Ok, so now you are a happy man?. Please answer the questions in comment 56 (not this last question ;))
The Falklands is defined as a self governing territory of the UK, which is not a colony, but a group of peoples who govern and run themselves independent of the UK legislature (house of commons) , yet rely on the UK executive (head of state), to represent them abroad, and defence matters.
Sep 17th, 2010 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands Constitution enacted in 1985, cemented this political independance, by placing supreme legislative power in the hands of the FIG, rather than appointed goveners.
And if they didnt face the bully Argentina, they would not need us for defence
The Falklands are included on the List of None Self-Governing Territories because in 1947, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland identified them as a colony. That is the only reason.
Sep 17th, 2010 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are many other examples of dependent territories that are not included. For example Tibet is not included as China did not declare it.
IT is not the case as you imagine that some clerk in the UN pulled out an atlas and decided which territories are colonies or otherwise. It is not the case as you assert that the UN incorporated the islands, it was solely because the UK declared them.
They remain on the list for largely political reasons, the C24 being domoinated by South American nations sympathetic to Argentina for reasons of a common racial heritage and nations such as China who are collectively less democratic than the Falklands.
And the C24 long ago ceased to have any useful function, its original purpose was rather noble in seeking to assiste the peoples of European Empires on the path to independence. However, its purpose has long been perverted into a platform for nation states like Argentina to grand stand territorial claims, whilst ignoring the very people they are charged with representing.
For example, both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands have invited the C24 to visit and find out for themselves the wishes of the people living there. They have not had the common courtesy to do so.
Now having addressed your question and answered it fully, will you please do me the courtesy of reciprocating.
There is nothing to stop Argentina referring its claim to the ICJ, the ICJ can deliver a definitive binding judgement on Argentina's claim.
Tell me why won't Argentina go down that route?
What i do not know is what will be the role of Argentina as Major non-NATO ally in this case?
Sep 18th, 2010 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If in doubt about whether or not we are a Major non-NATO ally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally
Didn't the Kirchner's renounce that status when they nationalised the Lockheed Martin plant?
Sep 18th, 2010 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@58 No, we're not happy.
Sep 18th, 2010 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quit with the Malvinas crap completely and forever. As long as you use that word, there is no chance for peace.
I haven't found any information about that. We still remain a Major non-NATO ally, despite of the nationalization of the Lockheed Martin plant.
Sep 18th, 2010 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bush in 2002, established the following countries :México, Brasil, Canadá, Chile y Colombia, as important allies in his new national security strategy. In the facts this step means the loss of the extra NATO ally status. (Come on man, we are talking about George Bush, the same guy who said about Europe , “the old Europe”).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina. Find there our foreign policy.
Greetings.
@58 To continue.
Sep 18th, 2010 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can call it the Falkland Islands.
You can call it Las Islas Falklands.
You can call it Las Falklands.
Use of the “M” word suggests that you have some right to name places that are not yours to name.
Perhaps if you're good for a couple of hundred years, we might let you call it by your meaningless gabble. Until that time comes, have the courtesy to call the territory by the name used by its owners.
@Zethee
Sep 18th, 2010 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't really know about your numbers. But my statement that BAE is seeking new partners to compensate for the cuts, come from BAE and UK government themselves. If you think you know more about the company's situation than those two sources, then go argue with them.
I've never said that Brazil and India will become the main sources for profits to that company (and btw, if US's current situation doesn't get any better, expect BAE to depend more and more on new partners). I've said they are important to compensate for cuts. I think that shakes a little your pride or something, and you don't want to accept that.
65 Typhoon
Sep 18th, 2010 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My friend I really feel sorry for you. :-(
I don't care if you like it or not, but let me show you something:
1) In spanish (my native language) the islands are called: Islas Malvinas.
In english the islands are called: Falklands Islands (dispite of Hillary Clinton has called them Malvinas :-)).
Both forms are accepted!.
2) “Perhaps if you're good for a couple of hundred years, we might let you call it by your meaningless gabble.”
Mmmmmm I have the impresion that you are referring them as a colony. Just like Justin said in comment 60: “The Falklands are included on the List of None Self-Governing Territories because in 1947, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland identified them as a colony.”
3) “have the courtesy to call the territory by the name used by its owners.”
Man, it's a disputed area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina (find there the map of our big country (almost in the middle of the page), and you will see the colored area in disputed). Please take your time to read the 31/49 UN resolution.
Greetings.
Ps: “Quit with the Malvinas crap completely and forever.” (comment 63)
Mind your language. ok?
66 Forgetit87
Sep 19th, 2010 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, you said they was “relying” on brazil, which they aren't. BAE is always seeking new partners as its a miltinational comapnty but yes, the UK government is helping them as there is cuts over the next 5 years.
My numbers do no disagree with the articals. The fact that BAE systems is the largest defence contractor in the world is not disputed. If the US was to cut it's military budget by 50% it would still be the largest spender on defence in the world, And BAE is working on many projects with them.
“In english the islands are called: Falklands Islands ”
Call them what you like Dassault, they ARE the falklands islands, they speak english and fly the union flag.
2: you keep banging on about how bad conolys are, yet to install a foreign government(yours) on to an unwilling population would be colonisation at its heart, justify that.
@Zethee
Sep 19th, 2010 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't even use the word “rely”, so I don't know why you're quoting it.
What I said to Conqueror was the following:
“that BAE Systems is counting on the recent agreement with Brazil in order to counter the negative effects of Britain's defense budget cuts”
I didn't say they were merely relying on Brazil; I said they were relying on it to counter the budget cuts. And of course a company is almost always seeking for new partners, yadda-yadda, but the FT article explicitly said BAE is being aided by the UK government in this respect in order to compensate for the cuts. That is to say, this is a recent trend in BAE businesses. Do you not believe this? Go write FT.
That the US will remain BAE Systems most important partner for some time, is something I haven't questioned. Yes, the US and the UK might cut their defense budget and still offer plenty to offer to BAE. But that will decrease the company's production - even if in absolute terms it remains large. Thus, it will need to compensate for it somehow.
This is also why William Hague, your Chancellor, is saying the UK will cease pandering to the US like it did in Blair's years - because, even if the US remains the most powerful country in the next years, its current situation is not a favourable one. As such, to be Washington's poodle is no longer of great benefit.
68 Zethee
Sep 19th, 2010 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0“In english the islands are called: Falklands Islands ”
Call them what you like Dassault, they ARE the falklands islands, they speak english and fly the union flag.
First of all, please take your time to read the previous comments next time. (Read the comment 65 from Typhoon, and then my answer in com. 67).
2: Nothing related to the case exposed in comments 65 and 67.
Just curious DSE.
Sep 19th, 2010 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you aware that until the 1930s, most Argentine text books referred to Las Islas Falkland. Malvinas is a corruption of Isles Malouines, the original French name for the islands. The only Spanish name used was “Islas de Sansón y de los Patos”, though whether Gomez saw the Falklands or the Jason Islands is debatable. Like many things the Malvinas name is actually a resurrection in Argentina and most of the Spanish names used are invented - you even have a commisssion to do so. which I think is the point.
Also the islands WERE a colony in 1947, they now have devolved Government and are a British Overseas Territory.
And look up what a colony is. Its the imposition of an alien culture and Government against the wishes of the people - precisely what Argentina wishes to do in the Falklands.
“FT article explicitly said”
Sep 19th, 2010 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0And other articals don't. The one definition of rely is counting on, by the way it means the same thing.
It's good news, yes. But would this be any different if there were no defence cuts? no, india became a home market a few years back and BAE supplied brazil with it's last fleet of frigates.
BAE trading within the US has no effect on politics, it's just a company.
@67 DSE.
Sep 19th, 2010 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Couple of things to get straight at the outset. (1) I'm not your friend. (2) I don't feel sorry for you.
The fact that the territory is on List of Non Self-Governing Territories is irrelevant and merely displays the partisan attitude of the biased C24.
It is a territory that is only disputed by Argentina. Both Britain and the Falkland Islands are quite happy with the current sovereignty.
Now here's a couple of thoughts for you. You not only persist in calling the country by something other than its proper name, you assign Spanish names to its towns and features. Now, how would you like us to rename your country and all its cities, towns, features and shanties? And then constantly use them instead of the names you have chosen?
Anything else?
Gh-gh-ghostily quiet...What's the matter with you Argetines?!
Sep 19th, 2010 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Pom. Are you on the Islands?
Sep 19th, 2010 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No. No longer. I was. I left the Falklands about 6 months ago after being there for 12 years. Now I'm here in “convict-land”, but keeping a close eye on what is going on back there and, hopefully, contributing to taking the piss out of the Argentine claims!!!!!
Sep 19th, 2010 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you're interested, there may be a way to get in touch without using this board. Obviously we wouldn't want to put email addresses on here. The conduit would be Justin. You just need to be able to figure out the contact method from the sort of comments he writes.
Sep 19th, 2010 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 077, Typhoon, thank you. I have sent an email to Justin, hoping, but not knowing, if it's the right way to get in touch with him! If it is the right way to get in touch with him, he should know that it is, since I've signed off with my proper name and, if he googles my signed-off name, he will know straight-away that I've been a long time in the Islands! Mind you, I suspect that there are a fair few people here who are from the Falklands who know who I am...I've said too much...!!
Sep 19th, 2010 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(77) (78)PomInOz
Sep 19th, 2010 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Uhhhh ……………How “cryptical you are in your communication…………. you Brits
Maybe I could contribute………………….
“Harrier61”, Conqueror and “Typhoon” share the same email as our good old friend and MercoPress poster: “Agent0060”
You can find “agent0060” ( Brian Riches) email in the comments section of the following Irish Sun article:
http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/3a8a80d6f705f8cc/id/622599/cs/1/
There he expresses some niceties as:
““I will be glad to travel to South America and execute potential terrorists, i.e. anyone incapable of accepting FIG and UK sovereignty.””
As we can deduce from his “agent0060” nick he is a “double O” agent, with license to kill :-)
We could also deduce from his “ Typhoon” nick that his ”Ejector Seat” is not working properly :-)
But....You will surely be able to find a way of fitting such a “patriotic offer” of killing Britains enemies into your strict interpretation of the word terrorism…
Won’t you?
Errrr...no, still as confused as I was before! However, welcome back, Think. I take it that you've been fully briefed now and are ready to go again?!...
Sep 19th, 2010 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still stalking Think? Not surprising.
Sep 19th, 2010 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(80) PomInOz
Sep 19th, 2010 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Boy……… Do I really have to chew your food for you?
“Thypoon”, “Harrier61”, Conqueror and “Agent0060” are the same person.
The first three of them have a lively debate in here answering each others rhetorical questions and even dialoguing a bit :-)
“Agent0060” suddenly disappeared from Mercopress after I first linked to his comment in the Irish Sun volunteering to kill people and other no-niceties.
If you want to contact Justin Kuntz just search Facebook…. It’s the one with a sheep on the flag.
And…….. You must have me confused with somebody…… I’m nobody…… Who would ever want to brief me?
Ejector Seat” is not working properly :-)
Sep 19th, 2010 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You will be pleased to know Think
Typhoon Quick Reaction Alert in the UK and Falkland Islands have already been modified.” :-)
Clearly, it's not just you who has to chew food for me!
Sep 19th, 2010 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, I got what you were saying about who “Typhoon”, “Harrier61”, etc, is/are/were, but that leaves me still perplexed about how to contact him/her/it, as I'm not a facebook/wikipedia/etc user!
Good to see that you still have your sense of humour though...! Recognising that one is a “nobody”, confused as we both are (about who we both think each other is too!), is a good start!
A good start..............?
Sep 19th, 2010 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now.................. this is not the start.
It is not even the beginning of the start.
But it is, perhaps, the start of the beginning.............
Nice to see that you know your Churchill.
Sep 19th, 2010 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In which case (as has been said before here), you'll know how stubborn the Brits are when demands are made of us!
Winston was the embodiment of good old fashioned British stubbornness, obstinacy and inflexibility as you say……
Sep 19th, 2010 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe that’s why his compatriots dropped him so hard after serving his purpose?
Irrespective of which side of the British political spectrum you are talking about, when it comes to outside influences, we dig our heels in.
Sep 19th, 2010 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher invoked the example of Churchill during the Falklands War of 1982: “When the American Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, urged her to reach a compromise with the Argentines she rapped sharply on the table and told him, pointedly, 'that this was the table at which Neville Chamberlain sat in 1938 and spoke of the Czechs as a faraway people about whom we know so little'.”
Sep 19th, 2010 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice British mythology.......
Sep 19th, 2010 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But contradicted many times in recent history.....
Example?..... Hong Kong........
(Spare me the: “We had an agreement whit the chinks”……….. what happened with the “paramount irrenunciable self-determination human rights of the 7 million Hongkongians?)
@#89
Sep 19th, 2010 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't take too much notice of the macho image Thatcher cultivated, the Government did negotiate and offered compromises; something remarked on by Perez de Cuellar when he expressed his amazement at just how far the British would bend to avoid war. The general consensus at the time in the British miltary was that the Falklands couldn't be retaken, the British offered plenty of concessions.
It just suits neither side to admit that now.
@79 Well Twinky. You reckon you've found out my/our deep dark secret? Of course, we all know you're guessing. But will you ever know the truth?
Sep 19th, 2010 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 90
Sep 19th, 2010 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You may be wondering, “Wait a minute, Britain just grabbed Hong Kong. Where did the lease come in, then?”
The British grew increasingly worried about the security of their free port at Hong Kong during the second half of the 19th century. It was an isolated island, surrounded by areas still under Chinese control.
In 1860, at the end of the Second Opium War, the UK gained a perpetual lease over the Kowloon Peninsula, which is the mainland Chinese area just across the strait from Hong Kong Island. This agreement was part of the Convention of Beijing that ended that conflict.
In 1898, the British and Chinese governments signed the Second Convention of Peking, which included a 99-year lease agreement for the islands surrounding Hong Kong, called the “New Territories.”
The lease awarded control of more than 200 surrounding small islands to the British. In return, China got a promise that the islands would be returned to it after 99 years.
But we can beat the crap out of the Argies
Hong Kong,
Sep 19th, 2010 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Returned as promised, we had an agreement. In addition, the majority of the population were ethnic chinese and did you stop for one second to ask what their preferences were?
In addition, the British got guarantees for the population of HK, which by and large the Chinese have respected.
Actually did you have a point or were you just waffling?
71 JustinKuntz
Sep 20th, 2010 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Are you aware that until the 1930s, most Argentine text books referred to Las Islas Falkland.”
My answer about that is: Take your time to read the argentinean's history between last decades of 19 century and the first part of the 20 century until the first government of Perón. You will see the strong influence of the british government in our policy, economy and services (trains transports, etc), and our puppet government licking your investments, taking a profit from them to their pockets.
Then from the first government of Perón until our times, the british influence started to fall.
73 Typhoon
“The fact that the territory is on List of Non Self-Governing Territories is irrelevant and merely displays the partisan attitude of the biased C24.”
Jajaaja everytime that you see resolutions from recognized international institutions against your arguments, you say that they have little relevance, or “merely displays the partisan attitude of the biased C24”. With persons like you, is impossible to discuss.
I would like to take the case to the ICJ (with judges not representing any parts in the conflict) and, if we had a ruling in favor of our claim, your government would take out the islanders from the islands? Mmmm I don't think so.
I would like to take the case to the ICJ (with judges not representing any parts in the conflict) and, if we had a ruling in favor of our claim, your government would take out the islanders from the islands? Mmmm I don't think so.
Sep 20th, 2010 - 06:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why dont you give it a try? instead of trying to bully, thats right bullies are cowards
THIMC
Sep 20th, 2010 - 07:04 am - Link - Report abuse 020/09/10
In short: The Uruguayan Government denies permission to the HMS Gloucester to enter into Montevideo ………….
http://www.larepublica.com.uy/politica/424486-gobierno-no-autorizo-ingreso-a-buque-de-guerra-britanico-custodia-de-las-malvinas
Nice :-)
#97 Since you haven't identified a point, to simply spam a link, I'll presume you didn't have a point.
Sep 20th, 2010 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0#95 I'm well aware of Argentine history, equally there is a principle in International Law known as acquiesence. If you don't protest a claim or acquiesce, then it lapses. Now your revisionist historians may choose to portray those Governments as “puppets” but during that period Argentina grew so prosperous it was the 5th richest nation on the planet. Argentina's fall is entirely due to the policies and irrational investments first pioneered by Perón, equally so are the many regional conflicts justified by revisionist histories, indoctrinated into children.
Another one for you. Perón was told the British diplomate Bill Hunter-Christie that the claim to the Falklands was nonsense but “it was a useful device to unite the people”.
As regards the C24, again I make the point that it was only ever there because of the actions of the British. The purpose of the C24 is to represent the people of dependent territories, not to provide a platform for nation states to grand stand territorial claims. It utterly fails in its mission and despited regular invites has NEVER visited the Falklands. I suppose the lack of 5* accommodation is the reason.
As regards the ICJ, were Argentina to win then the British would respect the verdict. We have a track record in that regard, unlike Argentina which refused to accept its ruling over Beagle.
However, Britain wouldn't lose, that I'm confident of.
The reason we are so willing to go to the ICJ is because we know we would win.
Sep 20th, 2010 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0No fair judge in his right mind is going to subjugate a group of people.
so, we have 4 nasty warmongers that were only 1.
Sep 20th, 2010 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The amplified power of “the dark side of the force”?
Perhaps his mental thick fog doesn´t allow him to see clearly. Need us argentinos to flight safe. Curious similarity to some recent lost planes :-)
“Jajaaja everytime that you see resolutions from recognized international institutions against your arguments, you say that they have little relevance, or “merely displays the partisan attitude of the biased C24”. With persons like you, is impossible to discuss.”
Sep 20th, 2010 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jajaaja please list the member countries of OAS that have a representative on C24. With people like you, it isw impossible to discuss.
As Humprey Bogart always says at the end in Casablanca:
Sep 20th, 2010 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Guys, this could be the beginning of a beautiful regional friendship”
http://ruso.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17157&Itemid=38
http://ruso.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17157&Itemid=38
Chile…………. is out of the equation ……………
Uruguay……… is getting out fast…………..
Argentina ……. needless to say………
Brazil………….Dilma gets elected in October then……..
Geeeee….. Things are moving quickly down here since February…….
Boys, you better remember to stock on candy at home…. (and food….and fuel :-)
Boys, you better remember to stock on candy at home…. (and food….and fuel :-)
Sep 20th, 2010 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/royal-fleet-auxiliary/rfa-flotilla/rfa-fleet-today/ :-)
Even better.......
Sep 20th, 2010 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0More expensive...
@104
Sep 20th, 2010 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chicken feed :-)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/marketforceslive/2010/sep/17/rockhopper-falklands-economic-worries
The principle of self-determination of peoples, including the United Nations Charter does not apply to the Falklands (Malvinas) issue for two main reasons:
Sep 20th, 2010 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0a) The inhabitants of the islands aren't an original people of the islands, if not a British population transplanted after expulsion of the Argentine population from the islands in 1833.
b) The main limit to the self-determination is the principle of territorial integrity.
1) When Great Britain recognized Argentina as an independent state, hadn't made safeguards with regard to the Falklands (Malvinas), as the Argentine state fully recognizes, recognizing their sovereignty over all its territory, including the Falklands (Malvinas).
2) The clear demonstration that Britain is not safe in their arguments, is the elusive conduct to carry on negotiations on sovereignty.
3) The states have no right to submit to international law, are required to adhere to the rule, as Britain has the obligation, and this being stronger for being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to comply with UN resolutions. For example the 31/49 UN resolution.
http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution3149.html
This is my opinion. Please have the courtesy to respect it. Like I have the amability to respect your opinions.
a) The inhabitants of the islands aren't an original people of the islands, if not a British population transplanted after expulsion of the Argentine population from the islands in 1833.
Sep 20th, 2010 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong, that's a barefaced lie. Human rights are applicable to EVERYONE in the world. Self Determination is a human right.
Also, by that logic argentina is not entitled to self determination and your government is an illegal body and as such can't claim anything.
“The main limit to the self-determination is the principle of territorial integrity.”
No. This may have been the case in the past but no longer.
A) The expulsion of the residents of Vernet's settlement is a myth it never happened:
Sep 20th, 2010 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To whit:
Pinedo of the ARA Sarandi documents that the residents were urged to remain, he took 2 couples back with him of their volition.
Thomas Helsby a resident of Vernet's settlement kept a diary, it documents this period and shows no one was expelled.
Charles Darwin visits in 1833 and again in 1834, he documents the residents presence.
Fitzroy also documents their presence in his diary.
The death of Manuel Coronel in an accident in 1841 was the cause for great mourning, he was a popular member of the early settlement.
Antonina Roxas another of Vernet's settlers amassed a huge fortune and became a major land owner in Stanley.
Others resident in January 1833 are still there in 1851 when the census was conducted. Its a lie, it never happened.
b) self-determination is not limited by territorial integrity., The Argentine use of this term in the UN declaration is a perversion if its original intent. The purpose of this phrase was a device to stop colonial powers from breaking colonies into smaller units with the aim of retaining mineral or other resources. It was a device to protect the people of dependent territories, not a device to deny them self-determination. In case you haven't noticed the recent judgement at the ICJ over Kosovo confirms this.
1) No but typical of Argentina to pervert a treaty. In 1825, Argentina had no control over the Falklands whatsoever, Vernet's settlement wasn't established till 1828. As usual the inconvenient fact that Vernet sought permission from the British for this venture is ignored.
2) Utter crap. The circumstances under which Britain was prepared to negotiate were always under the proviso that the British had no doubts about their sovereignty.
3) 31/49 in no way recognises or endorses Argentina's claim
I suggest you read other sources regarding self-determination, the UN has consistently ruled that it has primacy.
I know many brits do not like to talk about it but the forced expulsion of the population of the Chagos islands, the islanders were offered no recourse to self-determination nor the citizens of Honk Kong when it was returned to China.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0My opinion.
@
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hong Kong was leased,and handed back to china
Chagos islands was wrong,so should we turn our backs on the Falklands?
Ale,
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am perfectly happy to talk about the Chagos Islands, having been involved in the campaign in the UK to allow them to return for nearly 15 years.
Yes, what the British Government did there was utterly disgraceful and was an utter abrogation of their human rights. I would go further and point out that the FCO would have happily done the same to the Falkland Islanders in a heart beat. The FCO negotiated with Argentina options for a transfer of sovereignty; and before you wet your knickers it had no doubts about Britain's case for sovereignty. The cynical judgement of the FCO was that the islands had little value for the UK and dumping them on Argentina was worth improved relations. What stymied the FCO plans was that the Falkland Islanders were able to rally friends and organise a Parliamentary Lobby to frustrate the FCO plans.
So other than exploiting the plight of the Chagossians to make a cheap point, did you have a point?
Again Hong Kong was leased, the majority of the population ethnic Chinese, it was returned as promised with guarantees for the population. Your point?
@106 DSE
Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0”1) When Great Britain recognized Argentina as an independent state, hadn't made safeguards with regard to the Falklands (Malvinas), as the Argentine state fully recognizes, recognizing their sovereignty over all its territory, including the Falklands (Malvinas).“
Be so kind as to identify when Great Britain recognised Argentina. If you are referring to 1825, Britain didn't recognise Argentina. It recognised the United Provinces of South America that, at the time, did not extend much beyond the current province of Buenos Aires. To recognise sovereignty over a territory over 900 miles away is inconceivable, particularly as we are talking about the age of sail. A sailing ship would be pushed to cover 200 miles a day, making the Islands a minimum 5 days travel away.
”3) The states have no right to submit to international law, are required to adhere to the rule, as Britain has the obligation, and this being stronger for being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to comply with UN resolutions. For example the 31/49 UN resolution.”
I have no idea what your first 10 words mean. The Falkland Islands are not a UN member. They have no need to comply with the UN. UN Resolution 31/49 makes a request. UN Resolution 31/49 is a resolution of the General Assembly. General Assembly Resolutions are non-binding. No-one needs to pay any attention to them.
You might want to note that UN Security Council Resolutions ARE binding on UN members. But Argentina has ignored at least one of those.
You might want to think about this. Those of us who support the Falkland Islanders have seen all this before. Unless you have something NEW, you're wasting your time. Don't let that stop you. You stick the arguments up, we'll knock 'em down. Question is......do you have a mind open enough to be persuaded? Or are you so wedded to the claim that nothing will change your mind? In that case, debate/discussion is pointless.
106 - DSE
Sep 21st, 2010 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0”1) When Great Britain recognized Argentina as an independent state, hadn't made safeguards with regard to the Falklands (Malvinas), as the Argentine state fully recognizes, recognizing their sovereignty over all its territory, including the Falklands (Malvinas).”
Britain recognised United Provinces in 1825, not Argentina, and you had no presnece on the Falklands in this year anyway. If we had recongised Argentina in 1825 and you had a presence on the islands in that year your logic might be sound. It would still be irrelevant however as same logic would also apply to the Convention of Settlement and Friendship as follows.
When Argentina ratified the convention of settlement and friendship in 1850, they neglected to make safeguards with regard to the Falklands, the treaty settled all differences, Britain was in full possesion of the Falklands at the time and fully asserting its sovereignty, yet Argentina did not safeguard their claim in the treaty.
Using your own argument and your own logic Argentina hasn't had a valid claim to the Falklands since before 1850, if in fact it ever did.
Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Falklands ....
Sep 21st, 2010 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why so many conflicts around the world? Why so many explanations?
Why don't you let people live in peace?
Peace!
Only people disturbing the peace are Argentine. Why can't you let a small island community be.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr#114, Interesting, you mention “Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Falklands ....”I will add Chagos and many more. All this conflicts have something in common and UK is in the middle of all these conflicts. Can they be all wrong?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gibraltar.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain demands the return of territory, ignoring the wish of the inhabitants.
Falklands,
Argentina demands territory it never owned, ignoring the wishes of the inhabitants.
Hong Kong,
Returned as promised, respecting the wishes of the inhabitants.
There is a theme, developing and it usually involves respecting the people living there.
Chagos Islands,
Britain didn't respect the wishes of the islanders, point of fact pointedly ignored them.
Your point?
116 Ale:
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You might have noticed that the empire was once a quater of the globe, most of it was given independance with a couple exceptions.
We respected peoples wishes to act independantly.
We only have issues with Argentina and Spain as both nations wish to force there government on the people who live there.
No, zethee, you have issues with Argentina and Spain because you kept both territories during a long time using military power. Curiously, the right for retaining Gibraltar was supported by a treaty that you trespassed retaking Malvinas.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Recently, using a fait-accompli, you started to talk about people who live there.
Mr#118, Sorry but I disagree with you, UK has issues with most of the countries that the british empire invaded in the past.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr#118, Sorry but I disagree with you, UK has issues with most of the countries that the british empire invaded in the past.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Examples please?
No Pheel. Britain retained Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands because it chose to, and when the people living in those countries were asked, they expressed a deep repugnance for Spain and Argentina.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for our military force? Still got it. Want to have another go?
“As for our military force? Still got it. Want to have another go?”
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you want to have another naval museum under the sea?
Do you want to have another naval museum under the sea?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Along with argie airframe reefs
DSE, don´t wast your talent...it´s the only rational that they have: “we have the guns”.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What matters is what WE are going to do in next 50 years around this issue, not what some british warmonger barks.
They need an emotional answer to get a life.
@123 How many more of your aircraft do you want to lose? Oh, I forgot. You don't have that many do you?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British capability has increased immeasurably. Want to try some submarine-launched cruise missiles?
Last time, we slapped your wrist. If you start something else, be sure you have the guts to carry it through.
Don't waste your time with Pheel. He wishes a lot!
How many more of your aircraft do you want to lose? Oh, I forgot. You don't have that many do you?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why we need aircraft, if we can fire missiles like Condor I,II,III, from our country (specially from Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego)?.
We are developing these beautiful boys.
We are developing these beautiful boys.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How old are you DSE?
Mr warmonger of many names#126. About aircrafts :
Sep 21st, 2010 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The RAF will shrink to its smallest size since the First World War, under unprecedented cuts being proposed at the Ministry of Defence.
Well Nelson Jobim has nothing to worry about, the British forces Falklands and the FIDF aren't part of NATO.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ale RAF's size in ww1 4,000 aircraft, bloody odd shrink that?
DSE trust me on this ICBM's are not very effective point defence systems for aircraft and missiles alike. I suppose its the equivalent of trying to swat a fly with a tree.
Type 45 destroyers have anti ICBM capability.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please name the article in the Treaty of Utrecht that forbid the UK from establishing a settlement in the Falklands?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will answer if you tell me how many articles has the Treaty of Utrecht.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0More dangerous than that is Lula and Dilma by making friends around the world just like dictators only in order to irk US and some European countries.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I will answer if you tell me how many articles has the Treaty of Utrecht. ”
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Which treaty, there are more than one. Do I take it you can't.
@127 DSE. Shame about the Condor. Condor I wasn't a military missile. In 1997, you assured the US Congress that you only had 2 and they were to be destroyed. Did you lie? Condor III? Rumours.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, every British submarine already has Tomahawk cruise missiles that are launched sub-surface. How many per submarine? Not telling.
Think on this. The last time you kiddies decided to start something, we mostly left your country alone. Want to see Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego obliterated? You want to fire missiles at a territory with a population density of 1 person for every 1.5 square miles? I understand the population density in Santa Cruz province is 2 per square mile.
Do you know what a land-based missile site is? It's a target.
136 Typhoon
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“you assured the US Congress that you only had 2 and they were to be destroyed. Did you lie?”
You believe everything you read?
“Think on this. The last time you kiddies decided to start something, we mostly left your country alone. Want to see Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego obliterated? You want to fire missiles at a territory with a population density of 1 person for every 1.5 square miles? I understand the population density in Santa Cruz province is 2 per square mile.”
You started to talk about war, and all that crap. You can't talk about something else. Example your comment 122: “As for our military force? Still got it. Want to have another go?”
My answer: 125 Pheel
“DSE, don´t wast your talent...it´s the only rational that they have: “we have the guns”.
What matters is what WE are going to do in next 50 years around this issue, not what some british warmonger barks.
They need an emotional answer to get a life.”
All said.
“Do you know what a land-based missile site is? It's a target.”
“No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver, ni peor sordo que el que no quiere escuchar.”
”Why we need aircraft, if we can fire missiles like Condor I,II,III, from our country (specially from Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego)?.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are developing these beautiful boys.“
So, who wanted to talk about your useless out-of-date missiles.
Last time I heard any thing about ”beautiful boys” from your part of the world it was (1) a guy called Mengele and (2) a shill for paedophiles.
Here's another saying you can hang on to. There are none so stupid as South Americans, especially Argentines.
138 Typhoon
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who started to talk about war? You (i know that your arrogance doesn't let you see, but don't worry i can stand stupids like you).
“Last time I heard any thing about ”beautiful boys” from your part of the world it was (1) a guy called Mengele and (2) a shill for paedophiles.” No pirate, they were EUROPEANS, like you, the same Human waste.
Ok my pirate. Do you want to talk about nazis?. Let see:
1)http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
4) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
5) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
6) And for me the worst genocide: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
Shall i continue?.
“Here's another saying you can hang on to. There are none so stupid as South Americans, especially Argentines.”
Here's another saying you can hang on to . There are none so genocidal as Europeans, specially british.
Write all the shit you want. End of discussion. Bye Nazi.
UK=Nazism.
Typhoon=British
Typhoon=Nazi
Ps: If you are going to write about The War of the Triple Alliance, let me tell you that was financed by your country.
And about the Conquest of the Desert take your time to read it fully.
Bye Nazi.
Pirate, ah gadzooks not the pirate jibes.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The War of the Triple Alliance - you borrowed the money, it wasn't financed. Borrowing the money does not excuse the acts that were perpetrated by your side or any of the sides in that war.
Conquest of the Desert? Well tell me, do they still vandalise Roca's statue in BA with allegations of genocide? At least some Argentines acknowledge it as such.
May I also remind you that you are the product of a European Empire, that the majority of Argentines are descended from Europeans and European immigration and Argentina has through much of its history denied the inheritance from its indigenous peoples to promote a European identity.
May I recommend:
Indigenous Struggles and Contested Identities in Argentina Histories of Invisibilization and Reemergence
By Gaston Gordillo
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
and
Silvia Hirsch
INSTITUTO DE LINGUISTICA, UNIVERSIDAD DE BUENOS AIRES
May I also suggest you read up on Godwin's Law.
Meanwhile I'll note the usual resort to closing down debate and ignoring of awkward questions.
Justin, 135
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If there are a group of treaties named Utrecht, why did you ask me the number of the article?
Your arrogant mode made me answered #133.
There is an article and is related to other pacts and treaties.
Surely you had found out which.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!