MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Unasur ‘won’t collapse’ as happened with TIAR during the Malvinas war
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner praised the success of Unasur and forecasted that the South America Defence Council will be far more effective and robust than the previous experience with the TIAR, which “collapsed in 1982 during the Malvinas war”. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules'Mrs. Kirchner went on to say that the current concept of defence has to be different'
May 27th, 2011 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0as in 'offensive'?
well she got that right...offensive old cow
Well no wonder the last treaty collapsed, they had no clause about what do when a constituent nation was doing the attacking :)
May 27th, 2011 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spot On no 2
May 27th, 2011 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0This speech really tells the world what this daft 'old bird' really has on her mind. If she remembers correctly, Argentina did the attacking. Argentina attacked an Overseas British Territory - the British did not attack Argentina, they attacked an occupying force on OUR islands and sunk ships that entered our territorial waters. Let's be clear here, the Argentines cannot even manage to mange their own affairs - a country rife with poverty, crime, institutional corruption and a federal police force that is behind organised crime sponsored in the main by elements of the Government. I could go on! What right does Argentina have to try and impose its rule on British Overseas citizens that really wish to avoid Argentina's tin-pot mentality? Blah Blah Blah Cristina - not a chance in hell, the British public would not allow any government to give in to your demands.
May 27th, 2011 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0She obviously feels a bit isolated.
May 27th, 2011 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1982, Argentina was threatening to attack Chile after it had seized the Falklands to “recover” the Beagle Channel Islands.
May 27th, 2011 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(Co-incidentally the same maps that sank the Argentine case because they showed the Beagle Channel Islands as Chilean, also show the Falklands as British.)
That the TIAR did not support Argentina resulted from a number of factors, not least of which was the fact that is was Argentina that was the aggressor and also because it was threatening further aggression against a member of the TIAR.
Today, if the election were held this Sunday in Argentina, Cristina would win by 45% in the first round, and the second Biner Alfonsin or just come to 15%. this tendency increases with time.
May 27th, 2011 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Malvinas/Falklands conflict is not a question only she is more, transcends those in power in Argentina.
She has managed to grow global awareness of the conflict. Latin America supports the claims, both the Unasur as MERCOSUR and the United Nations.
It is a way of dealing together with economic and military aggression of United States and Britain in 200 years of history.
As the world public opinion is internalized conflict over the Falklands, many countries are sympathetic to the claim of sovereignty. And even in the UK itself believe it is possible to reach an agreement acceptable to both parties. Just so long to see newspapers and websites specializing in this area.
The main error of many is to underestimate the leadership of Cristina, her womanhood, in Argentina and Latin America where he holds a considerable consensus in its favor.
Spot on #2.
May 27th, 2011 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN does not support you claims Rolly ..... and the world doesn't care ... haven't you figured that out yet ?
May 28th, 2011 - 03:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unasur may not collapse (hopefully), but it will not be led by a donkey into war.
May 28th, 2011 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let's hope that no leader of a Unasur member nation turns out to be a donkey.
Since when has the UN recognized Argentina's spurious claim. The nearest the UN has got to it is to suggest negotiations and that the Islanders best interests are paramount. In fact this reads as the UN taking the aide of the Falkland Islanders and their rights to self-determination.
May 28th, 2011 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only way to see if Unasur is willing to support Argentina in any future conflict is for Argentina to invade the Falkland Islands. Fortunately for Argentina and Unasur, Argentina has neither the will nor the capacity. This is why she has mentioned the war in this context.
Although if Argentina was to mount an invasion (Hypothetical) I doubt you would see a military response against the UK from any other Unasur nation.
Ah shaddupa you face, bigron!!!
May 28th, 2011 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How did England took possession of the islands, by pacific means?...lest not forget!
Of course its easy to forget those little details when they are not convenient to your agenda, isn't?
“Cristina Fernandez recalled that TIAR, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, which established that if any American nation was attacked by foreign country, all other nations in the continent would come to its aid, was a major disappointment.”
May 30th, 2011 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0But, dear Cristina... why is it a dissapointment? During the period of the TIAR's existance, luckily such a constellation has never come true to enforce the treaty!
If the Unasur is intended to support conquest wars, hopefully my country (Chile) will get out of this leftist Unasur joke club.
@12 Lordwog,
May 30th, 2011 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0We know how we got possession of OUR lslands. What has it got to do with you or your silly country? We haven't forgotten. They are not your lslands and never will be, so you shut up & go away,bully.
@ 12 Lorwog, how did Argentina took posession of Formosa away from Paraguay for example? By pacific means?
May 30th, 2011 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0hummm....
@15 Eaxctly the same way Chile did this .....
May 30th, 2011 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Anexión a Chile del Departamento del Litoral, Bolivia; y del Departamento de Tarapacá y la Provincia de Arica, Perú”
yes, Artillero... we had a war with Bolivia an assured a territory, which was disputed since beginning of the independence of our both countries.
May 30th, 2011 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Peruvian territories were a “bonus” without a doubt, because they put their noses in a conflict, which was none of their business, expecting some reward in the alliance with Bolivia. It didn't pay out.
The crucial point is, we are not CLAIMING something at all on the continent, which we do not exercise the control of. Do you see the difference here regarding the complicated position of Argentina with the Formosa-Malvinas relation? (in order not to say hypocrite... ups...)
Well? , we are not comparing apples to apples ....
May 31st, 2011 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“How did England took possession of the islands, by pacific means?”
May 31st, 2011 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No-one died when we retook our islands. The first time Argentina took controll your men went around killing people, the second time caused a war.
The Islands have had almost 200 years of peace apart from the times Argentina stuck her nose where it's not wanted.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!