MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Malvinas jurisdictional acts are ‘invalid’ for Uruguay, but UK flagged vessels welcomed in Montevideo
“Any jurisdictional acts coming from Malvinas is invalid for us” and therefore Malvinas flagged vessels are barred from Uruguayan ports, a decision which is extensive to all Unasur members, said Uruguayan Foreign Affairs minister Luis Almagro. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules28 or 34 - ??
Dec 20th, 2011 - 07:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0And he didn't know that the Falkland Islands has had its ensign since 1861 ??
Wow - still, it'll be Montevideo that suffers.
Almagro's opinion that any jurisdictional acts coming from the Falkland Islands is invalid for Uruguay or UNASUR members is mistaken. Falkland Islands jurisdictional acts are enforceable under UN Charter Articles 2, 73 and 74 and the UN Treaty prevails over any decision by UNASUR by UN Charter Article 103. The political and economic persecution of the Falkland Islanders by UNASUR members and Uruguay is an indictable offence under the Rome Statute of the ICC
Dec 20th, 2011 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Res ipsa loquitur. UNASUR members opinion is one thing and their acts and omissions ultimately illegal and unenforceable when their obligations to the Falkland Islanders under UN Treaty are breached. The The Falkland Islanders Government and the British Government are entitled to remedy
But obviously I won’t tell anybody what they have to do”.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes leave that to the Argie bullies
Well i think its time the UK and the falkland islands raised the issue with mercusor members banning Falkland flagged vessels and the hostile acts of argentina harassing vessels partaking in innocent passage with the UN general assembly. As one thing is for sure, a General assembly resolution is legally binding and failure of any nation to compily with it would lead to economic and financial sanctions along the lines of those faced by Iran and north korea.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now i wonder how many of these latin american countries will actually continue to support argentina if we were to get that general assembly resolution? Err i bet non of them will be willing to disobey the UN general assembly when under threat of facing such sanctions.
Domingo, from what you post in #2, it would seem that res judicata is applicable, rather than res ipsoa loquitur, as there is conscious action rather than negligence, and rulings of higher courts and agencies are already established in Articles.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0General assembly resolutions are not legally binding - only security council resolutions are.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland island vessels should just copy the Cunard Line who have just registered all of their ships under the Bahamas flag.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Geoff, you make a good point in stating international law and international obligations are already defined by the UN Treaty Charter Articles and are “already judged” in terms of international law.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The ICJ would need to consider the UN Treaty itself and applicable resolutions no doubt. The odd thing is that Argentina voted for resolution 1514(XV) and the UN GA confirms Resolution 1514(XV) covers the case of the Falkland Islands so there appears to be agreement
I suppose one should give Almagro and his accomplices the benefit of the doubt, insofar as their failure to consider the implications of direct repression against the Falkland Islanders under the Rome Statute and UN Treaty and neglect their obligations and duties in this regard to refrain from such repression; In this sense I think the matter speaks for itself
One assumes Uruguay's breach of their duty of care to the Falkland Islanders is by blunder rather than intent, although if it were calculated to support Argentina's systematic campaign of political and economic persecution of the Falkland Islanders then it is a more serious error of judgement
Presumably Almagro is taking advice on not only how to implement the political decision in accordance with Uruguayan law but also in regard to Uruguay's responsibilities under international law
I hear that 18 Galician fishing vesels have a Falklands flag. Anyone got any info on this ??
Dec 20th, 2011 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently Spain is really annoyed, as are many in Urguay :-)
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1271651-promete-garre-que-se-construira-un-submarino-nuclear-en-el-pais
Dec 20th, 2011 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1271651-promete-garre-que-se-construira-un-submarino-nuclear-en-el-pais
Argentinian´s 2012 defence budget include firts steps to build a nuclear submarine...
General assembly resolutions are not legally binding - only security council resolutions are.OHHHh uk is part of the security council....Res 502,says nothing about the uk to use force.....The security council regarding Malvinas is INVALID!! uk was the other party and at hte same time judge.....Any court of law will have nullified that......uk is finished..
Dec 20th, 2011 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0IsMa - Argentina's first steps mean opening the crates that have contained that old sub for the last 10 years. Hopefully in 2013 you'll get some more money to do something else :-)
Dec 20th, 2011 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marv (who used to be someone else) - Argentina signed up to the arrangement in 1945 - no good whinging about it now. But remember, if you start something, make sure that you can finish it!
At some point these continued attacks are going to be considered an act of war which might be very good for the British economy and populism.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11: The UN Security is valid with respect to breaches of the UN Treaty by Argentina. Argentina shall obey the UN Security Council and shall be held accountable if Argentina does not fulfill its lawful obligations to the Falkland Islanders
Dec 20th, 2011 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@13. Nah. They shall be ignored or a work-around found whilst the correct legal organs adjudicate the unlawful ban
I bet the Uruguayan diplomats in private simply urged those affected to simply make use of other flags and make an unimportant concession; in any event I'd presume market forces to do so to maintain business
The Argentina plan shall be to claim a diplomatic 'victory' and MERCOSUR and UNASUR shall cash political credit with the Argentine Executive as quid pro quo
It will be interesting to see what excuses shall be used to save face when the inevitable reversal of the ban shall be required by the competent authorities
14 Domingo
Dec 20th, 2011 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It will be interesting to see what excuses shall be used to save face when the inevitable reversal of the ban shall be required by the competent authorities”
Yes, though I suspect Uruguay will come of worst in this.
It is difficult for a country of 4.5M population to stand in the way of one with 40M and a mentally irratic President. She is likeley to do anything but take the blame herself.
seem to me or Perfidious Albion is nervous ? well done Argentina....again.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marv (who used to be someone else) - Argentina signed up to the arrangement in 1945 - no good whinging about it now. But remember, if you start something, make sure that you can finish it!
Dec 20th, 2011 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sure Argentina will finish,Malvinas issue for sure,until the brits pirates are out,for good!!The issue is far from finished,is just starting!
Well, let us know when it has started, we've been waiting 30 years for round 2
Dec 20th, 2011 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For those that are saying that the vessels will simply dock at Brazilian ports, I have news for you: Brazil has been strictly enforcing the ban on the Malvinas flag since january of this year. (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/222613/Falklands-ship-ban-by-Brazil)
Dec 20th, 2011 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Ministry of Defense has reiterated that all Brazilian ports are closed to ships or aircraft engaged to the Malvinas. (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/222613/Falklands-ship-ban-by-Brazil)
Brazil has also stepped up their unconditional support to Argentina, not only to the Malvinas but to the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and all adjoining maritime spaces. Brazil and Argentina issued the “Joint Declaration of the Malvinas” on August 3, 2010 - a legal binding document by which Brazil not only reiterates their support, but makes the issue a priority of their foreign policy.
Sorry Brits, you will have to look for support elsewhere - we, Brazilians, are with Argentina!
____________________________
As Malvinas são Argentinas!
@19: Thank you Brazil! :)
Dec 20th, 2011 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@All:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uKYqc8jSmw
”Foreign Affairs ministers agreed to extend to ALL MERCOSUR STATE MEMBERS THE BLOCKAGE TO BRITISH FLAG SHIPS (I mean not only ilegal Falklands flag but UKs flag indeed) PRETENDING TO MOVE TO MALVINAS”
How do you like them apples?
Go sail to Saint Helena!
19 “As Malvinas são Argentinas!
Dec 20th, 2011 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you Brazil!
”I have been told and has a Union Jack in a corner and a small sheep on a blue background in the rest”, said Almagro“
The Uruguayans, the Brazilians and Argentinians lovers of a good barbecue put that ”small sheep” where it belongs, our Chilean friends are preparing the grill...
“At some point these continued attacks are going to be considered an act of war which might be very good for the British economy and populism.”
Dec 20th, 2011 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Typical Yankee right-wing warmonger who thinks there's only one kind of good government spending, that of military nature. Your new username is very fortunate, fredbdc. BTW, the Iraq War did nothing to your country's economy, AFAIK. The most prominent effect of the war was to indebt the USGO. Did you know that, from the early 2000s up until the financial crisis, the US was one of the very few countries that didn't manage to size the opportunity and reduce public debt? - and this, during a so-called conservative government! And because of the US debt, you guys have so little fiscal leverage to deal with the today's crisis - and the debt belongs for a very large part to your foremost geopolitical rival, China. Good job. And good job with turning Iraq in a disaster that will either fall into the hands of radical Islamists or will become an Iranian client state.
The best thing about all of this is that we won't have to listen to self- righteous Argentines banging on about the UN resolutions or international law. Or in fact calling us 'pirates'.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because you actually are pirates, and you have no regard for international law or the UN. In fact you've given us the perfect bargaining tool, as well as annoying your neighbours and making them look like pansies.
And you're still pi**&^$ in the wind. None of this is going to make any difference to your case at all. What do you all think is going to happen here? That we'll all suddenly want to become Argentines? After you've shown yourselves to be disgusting bullies?
This has the feel of mass hysteria to me. You've all lost the plot.
This is also just all political nonsense, and it will blow over you can be sure of that.
** 21 Alejandro
Dec 20th, 2011 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the wines are from me....!!
sooner or later, they will push it to far, to go backwards,
Dec 20th, 2011 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but your only advantage is the fact, the british goverment chooses to do nothing at this point,
perhaps you should be wondering [why]
16 so_far (#) Dec 20th, 2011 - 02:53 pm Report abuse
Dec 20th, 2011 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0seem to me or Perfidious Albion is nervous ? well done Argentina....again.
Sounds like someone else's words....ogara.
shut up idiot. grow a brain.
# 26 livin' in argentina
Dec 20th, 2011 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i think is confirmed....our dear squatter´s masters are nervous. Their time is almost up.
About your nickname.....you live in Malvinas right ?
8 Domingo
Dec 20th, 2011 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I suppose one must give Almagro and his associates for the benefit of the doubt if their lack of consideration of the consequences of direct repression against the inhabitants of the islands in the Rome Statute and the Treaty of the United Nations and the abandonment of their obligations and duties in this regard to refrain from such repression and in that sense I think that the matter speaks for itself
Dear Sunday:
The Falkland Islands are and belong to South America, in the Argentine Sea. The Rome Statute is applicable in Europe and South America. You want to justify the beginning of colonialism and imperialism in South America.
In addition, all international agencies have been issued in this regard. As much as MERCOSUR, UNASUR, CELAC, and United Nations resolutions on decolonization committee and the general resolutions resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49 ), 1982 (37 / 9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39 / 6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25) .
Remember this is fundamental. The Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are in South America.
Just read the resolutions of international organizations to realize that jurisdiction are the Falkland Islands.
I recommend reading the following link.
http://observatoriomalvinasunla.blogspot.com/
Thank you.
Raul 28
Dec 20th, 2011 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Remember this is fundamental. The Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are in South America.”
just a quick one - Your geographic atlas is not giving you good info.
These are all South Atlantic island groups;
only TFI are closer to SA than to the Antarctic Continent.
But the proximity to the nearest continent no more makes TFI 'belong to' Argentina than does it make Hawaii 'belong to' the USA.
If proximity were the prevailing argument, the British Isles, the Republic of Ireland, the Shetlands, the Orkneys, the Faeroes, etc, etc, would 'belong to' various countries of continental Europe.
This argument is as patently untrue in the North Atlantic as it is in the Southern Atlantic.
29 GeoffWard2
Dec 20th, 2011 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have not read the link. Please do not ridicule the opinions of others without having read the arguments. Please read and understand contextually what I'm saying.
Go back
observatoriomalvinasunla.blogspot.com/
South America is a continental land mass. The Falkland Islands, South Georgia and Sandwich Islands are Islands; whether these Islands are continental islands or not is unimportant regarding sovereignty according to international law
Dec 20th, 2011 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0South American countries which are members of the UN are bound by the UN Treaty and whether members or not are accountable to the UN Security Council. That's a fact
I read the link; it was a declaration in support of action against the Falkland Islanders. I read the claims. There was no evidence to read to support the claims
UN Treaty says the Falkland Islands belong to the Falkland Islanders and prevails over any other agreements between any member states
Clearly South American countries need to take a great deal of care.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I quote: ”Piracy is of note in international law as it is commonly held to represent the earliest invocation of the concept of universal jurisdiction. The crime of piracy is considered a breach of jus cogens, a conventional peremptory international norm that states must uphold. Those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity).
So by their admitted actions for the purpose of inhibiting trade, such countries can be considered to be enemies of humanity. Obviously, sensible people already knew that Argentina is an enemy of humanity. I'm just surprised that Brazil and Uruguay also want to become enemies of humanity.
Please note 'universal jurisdiction'. For those who have a problem with this term ”Universal jurisdiction or universality principle is a principle in public international law (as opposed to private international law) whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish, as it is too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.“
It might be an idea if some of these little two-cent countries thought about what a real nation might do to some ”enemies of humanity“. Some might think that blowing an ”enemy of humanity“ would be an international public service. Argentina might be well advised to steer clear of big grey boats flying the White Ensign. But keep your eyes and ears open for ”lost“ vessels. Have to stop rogue states thinking they can just make it up as they go. Headline: ”Unexplained loss of 7 Argentine naval vessels!”
So now a psychotic warmonger - perhaps the only poster on this forum against whom anti-terrorist legislation has ever been applied - wants to warn peaceful countries against being enemies of humanity. And I thought his nurse would've taken care of his shit-eating problem by now.
Dec 20th, 2011 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 032 Conqueror
Dec 20th, 2011 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So for its shares admitted to the inhibitory effects of trade, these countries can be considered as enemies of humanity. Obviously, the sensible people already knew that Argentina is an enemy of humanity. I'm surprised that Brazil and Uruguay also wants to become enemies of humanity.
Conquistador: You're pathetic and pitiful Should we be afraid? Are we going to throw bombs for thinking differently to Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay?
You talk about piracy when England experienced 500 years of history of piracy, theft, genocide and the slave trade. Just read a little history of the world to realize who the enemy of mankind. UK continues today with its humanitarian bombing civilians with U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Again I ask who is the real enemy of humanity in 500 years of history?
Ask Amnesty International, the Nobel Peace prize and other human rights organizations and tell you which country is the enemy of mankind.
Please ......... please ...
You need an examination of conscience !!!!!!!
Rolly - long dead Resolutions have no meaning, and no force !
Dec 20th, 2011 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Piracy ?? 1820 - July 20th, John Quincy Adams, in a letter complains, ” There is scarcely a Buenos Ayrean privateer which has not committed piracy of every description – it appears that at Buenos Ayres itself commissions of Artigas have been sold to the Captains of the Buenos Ayres privateers, who have gone to sea, and used one or the other commission as suited their purposes… There is not a day passes but we hear of new crimes of this description committed under the flag and commission of Buenos Ayres …”
On July 27th, Jewett attacks the Portuguese ship Carlota which is en-route to Lisbon, in an act of piracy.”
My conscience is clear !
The Islands have never been Argentine.
Now I know all your spurious arguments to the Falklands, but please enlighten me as to why Argentina claims South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
I do like a laugh :-)
35 Redhoyt
Dec 20th, 2011 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dear “small” Redhoyt
It is my custom and education, and mock underestimate the opinion of others. Already explained several times the same. I remember the link:
www.cuestionmalvinas.com.ar
http://observatoriomalvinasunla.blogspot.com/
As you know your reactions, you can, cursing every time you want. I do not care. I will treat you with respect also.
May God help you.
36 Raul
Dec 21st, 2011 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0You don't treat us with respect. You are the real enemy of humanity as far as I'm concerned. Hiding behind Britain's 500 years of history and using it as an excuse and a diversion doesn't change that.
Hels teeth Rolly, you should see me when I'm not being respectful. !
Dec 21st, 2011 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0I can see you are not an aficionado of english humour - We do Mock so well ;-)
Your first link doesn't workd, and your second is just old hat!
No new Resolutions Rolly, old ones are passed their sell by date. Nothing for the UK to comply with.
34 Raul
Dec 21st, 2011 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don’t wish to counter act you, but, you cannot go back 500 years, as this would be unfair and bias towards the English,
You must go back to as far as ?
As you Argies tend to descent from Spanish and italy, [mainly so im told][could be wrong]
But please remember, that the Spanish were pirates and uncounted pirate before the English,
Also the Romans, and the Greeks and Egyptians, before them, and the empire going back over 2-5,000 years, before England even existed,
So to be fair, we only learned from other Europeans,
Just a thought .
.
@ 1 No, he only knew that Malvinas the insignia was removed in 1833 and replaced by an illegal in 1861.
Dec 21st, 2011 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 29 We're not talking about sovereignty by geographical proximity.
Do not forget, the islands were occupied without continuing a diplomatic process to resolve the problem.
The Argentines arguments are not geographical grounds. The arguments are historical - legal.
@ 31 In none resolution, the O.N.U. recognizes the islands as the property of the islanders or U.K. or Argentina.
@ 35 Piracy? J.J. “Hook” Onslow, all said.
@ 38 Benny “Red” Hill maybe? The UN resolutions are unalterable, do not expire with the passage of time, my friend.
laugh as you may,
Dec 21st, 2011 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0but this time you may have pushed your luck to far,
does not it would be better to talk and find a solution?
Dec 21st, 2011 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just a thought, briton.
Marv 33 -
Dec 21st, 2011 - 03:12 am - Link - Report abuse 01833 - January 3rd, Commander Onslow orders his men to lower the Federal Pact flag and hoist the Union Jack in its place. The ensign is folded with due respect and returned to the Sarandi with the message that the British had found, “a foreign flag in the territory of His Majesty.”
The 'foreign flag' was obviously put up in error. Seemed the right thing to do, to hand it back :-)
The Falklands were properly occupied in 1833 by British forces. But you are right - there was no diplomatic process with Spain. They didn't complain !
All Argentina has is geography - certainly nothing historical or legal.
The Islands are listed as a non self governing territory under Article 73. So yes, the Islanders are recognised as the owners.
Piracy - Jewett, Mason nuff said
Wrong, Resolution expire under the pressure of changing events and realities. And if they never die, why bother to have them every year between 1982 and 1988 ??
There are no 'live' Resolutions concerning the Falklands.
Why talk? No solution required :-)
Brazil, Uruguay, and every other country in Latin America has the right to stop trade with any territory they deem to be a colony of usurpers. UN is not going to do anything to stop that.
Dec 21st, 2011 - 05:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Malvinas Government/FIG can just do trade with South Africa and other countries that want to take them in, in case all South America shuts British occupied Malvinas ( I doubt it, but they might get serious with it).
I say that Malvinas/FIG agrees to hand over GRAN MALVINA/WEST FALKLAND to Argentina, and Argentina and all other countries that say that support her in the region accepts British sovereignty in SOLEDAD/EAST FALKLAND and S.Georgia/S.Sandwiches islands, and drop all these hostilities immediately.
I DO NOT AGREE with Argentina wanting sovereignty of ALL of the islands. I think they should just settle with GRAN MALVINA/WEST FALKLAND.
The Kelpers keeping Soledad/East Falkland plus UK giving them direct control of S.Georgia and Sandwiches, they would still be very rich with oil and fishes.
Soledad/East Falkland + S.Georgia and S.Sandwiches = still MUCH more land than Gran Malvina/West Falkland and MUCH more territorial waters.
This is a fair solution to this problem.
No, andean you are wrong. Brazil, Uruguay, and every other country in Latin America have no rights to stop trade with any territory their politicians arbitrarily deem to be a colony of usurpers because to do so would be unlawful
Dec 21st, 2011 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Every country in Latin America is bound and restricted by its lawful obligations to the Falkland Islanders and Great Britain by UN Treaty and their World Trade Organisation agreements
Andean, most nations are members of the UN where they express their desire to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples
Therefore it does not follow that extreme politicians of LatAm countries may act as judge and jury outside of lawful courts against the Falkland Islands and its peoples based on their own arbitrary and biased opinions. In fact the opposite is true. Such action is expressly prohibited by UN Treaty and UN GA Resolutions
UN members agree to use the UN to settle disputes. The proper UN Organ to hear Argentina's claim is the International Court of Justice; this is where Argentina should take its claim. It does not
If Argentina is unwilling to respect the rule of international law and to make its claim at the ICJ, then Argentina is wholly unjustified to try to circumvent the UN and its UN Treaty obligations by seeking to coerce and blackmail the Falkland Islanders by its use systematic political and economic persecution against them
Argentina and its MERCOSUR allies are wrong to persecute the Falkland Islanders; instead they should provide their support to Argentina through the UN ICJ
The Permanent Court of Arbitration is an alternative of course. Owing to the question of whether the UN actually has any powers to settle sovereignty disputes, it may even be a better choice.
Dec 21st, 2011 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sits in the Hague and probably shares the same judges.
It's been available to Argentina since 1899.
But then, Argentina does not have a good history of accepting judgments it doesn't like.
If Argentina thinks that regional organisations are going to make any difference then I think that they're going to be disappointed.
Sadly the reality is that the UN is remarkably powerless in these situations. So the Falklands will be maintained by a strong right arm - a British one. And Argentina will say that's 'unfair', which is kinda funny :-)
I suspect the irony misses them completely!
#45 Domingo:
Dec 21st, 2011 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I honestly don't know where you are coming with all that bs from. No state is obligated to allow a ship to dock at their ports or even to provide safe passage through their territorial waters. It is a sovereign decision according to UNCLOS. We are talking about territorial waters not international waters.
If there were any impediment to the ban, I'm sure the legal team of the Itamaraty would be aware of such, and would have not signed the Unasur, Mercosur, and bilateral agreements on the ban. As a reminder, the Brazilian foreign ministry is widely regarded as amongst the most professional in the world. No offense, but I doubt that you have more knowledge of international law then they do.
47 Limongi
Dec 21st, 2011 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are missing a point. The loosers who are signing all these agreements DONT'T GAF that they may be acting unlawfully, they are banking on them not being dragged through the process of withdrawing their 'agreements', because nobody in the grown up world GAF about Argentina.
48 ChrisR
Dec 21st, 2011 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The “loosers” you talk about were elected heads of governement by the majority of their citizens. They have every right to conduct the foreign policies they deem appropriate and in the best interest of their respective countries. We, in Brazil, support our government's foreign policy and their decision to back the Argentine claim. Argentina is our closest ally, whom we share not only a border, but historical, cultural, economic and political ties. It is in our best interest to support them, as we might need their support in future endeavors.
And people do GAF about Argentina - it is one of the world's top emerging economies, a leader at the G20 and a regional power alongside Brazil. Not to mention one of the world's fastest growing major economies.
Yes, there are many of us in Brasil who do care about Argentina (even, perhaps especially, when they 'close the border' for our traded products), but we don't just care so much because they are a neighbouring state.
Dec 21st, 2011 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Neighbouring states are those that wage war on you first, as well as those that help you out when things go pear-shaped because of greatest commonality of circumstance and needs.
When you see things going bad you try to point this out - and this we do on this site all the time. Its nothing to do with loving or hating Argentinians as a nation or individually.
Personally, I find myself caring more and more for 'the common man', and less and less for the leaders and those living lives of high-level corruption. And this is true for all the countries I have ever lived in - the only difference is the extent of corruption. I HATE corruption, and I post most frequently on this topic. On Mercopress this tends, unsurprisingly, to feature South American countries.
“I find myself caring more and more for 'the common man',”
Dec 22nd, 2011 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0By “common man” Geoff means big oil companies who pollute the ocean.
Just in case there's any misunderstanding... :)
“I find myself caring more and more for 'the common man',” (Forgetit #51)
Dec 22nd, 2011 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Churlish comment, following some rather informative postings.
The 'common man' means everybody except the corrupt politicians and corrupt fat-cats that prey on the common man.
Forgetit's postings are a highly polar Curate's Egg.
The good is very, very good.
The bad is his blind, blustery (and illogical?) refusal to get to grips with the corruption debate, and his unwillingness to denounce corrupt individuals.
In spite of this polarity, we seem to get on pretty well.
Boo hoo, spare me from your self-righteous, “I am such a nice guy” theatrics.
Dec 22nd, 2011 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The 'common man' means everybody”
Then that includes big oil companies, n'est-ce pas? Please tell again that tale that Chevron is a responsible and efficient company.
Come on, Forgetit, you can do better than this :)
Dec 22nd, 2011 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Make it your New Year's Resolution that you will fight hard and publically against corruption in Brasil. . . . and you and I can be 'friends for ever'.
”Come on, Forgetit, you can do better than this :)”
Dec 22nd, 2011 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now you're pulling a Firgetit, aren't you?
Geoff, dear Geoff whom I consider an internet friend.
You're not a bad person; you're probably very honest in your own way. The way you've changed your opinion about the President is perhaps evidence of that. Your problem is that you have been tamed to focus all the might of your wrath against one very specific target; you have been trained to see evil in only one locus of power - a very demonized left-wing party who's currently in office - and to overlook, perhaps even sympathize with, other such loci -- powerful opposition parties, the media, big Western corporations, etc. That's why I'll always believe that your thought lacks nuance, that you feel so menaced by the current political system only because you ignore all the other threats against Brazil's welfare and future. Political corruption is only the beginning of Brazil's problems -- those are problems that won't be solved by mere regime change, as you seem to believe.
@47: I am referring to the ugly motive behind banning ships flying a 140 year old lawful ensign without lawful reason; no lawful reason is provided, only public statements about political solidarity, which have no lawful meaning. You say “sovereign decision”, which appears to mean an unlawful political decision
Dec 23rd, 2011 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What law or regulation has been breached that carries the formal legal punishment of a ban? How would such a ban be enforced or fined in court if no law or regulation has been breached? Port authorities can only legally act according to the law, not political direction and if public authorities act contrary to the law, they can be punished by the courts too - mere political direction is not sufficient as a defense for unlawful acts; they have to be shown to be acting reasonably with just cause in accordance with powers granted under the law and this what is missing from the political rhetoric
Sadly I suspect the Argentine aim is to deny the Falkland Islanders free expression of their identity and MERCOSUR member states collude to permit it; such systematic repression is prohibited under UN Treaty and the Rome Statute of the ICC and that is the ugly motive to which I refer
Acting as an accomplice in implementing systematic, unlawful and unjustified acts of repression against the Falkland Islanders is reprehensible
#56 Domingo
Dec 23rd, 2011 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No regulation has been breached. However, in Brazil, the president acts as the Head of State and Head of Government, and is responsible and entitled to set the country's defense and foreign policy directives.
In Brazil, the port authorities are under the direct command of the Brazilian Navy. The regulations, called “Portarias”, are issued by the Navy Command, which is subordinated to the Ministry of Defense. The president is both the Chief of Cabinet and the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.
President Rousseff decided to close the ports to Falkland ships, she has the authority to do so. There doesn't need to be a breach in regulation. It is a sovereign decision by the president.
In regards to UN Treaty obligations, the Supreme Court of Brazil has ruled that international treaties do not have constitutional equivalency, rather are at the same level as ordinary law (RE 80.004-SE/77). In other words, the Constitution is above any and all international treaties – including the UN Charter.
With that said, the Federal Constitution in its very first article states that:
Art. 1. The Federative Republic of Brazil, formed by the indissoluble union of the states and municipalities and of the Federal District, is a legal democratic state and is founded on:
I – sovereignty.
The Constitution continues to read:
Art. 20. The following are the property of the Union:
VI – the territorial sea.
Art. 22. The Union shall have exclusive power to:
X – legislate and regulate the regime of ports and lake, river, ocean, air and aerospace navigation.
Art. 84. The President of the Republic shall have the exclusive power to:
VII – direct the international relations of the Federative Republic of Brazil, maintain relations with foreign States and accredit their diplomatic representatives.
IV – issue decrees and regulations for the true enforcement thereof.
Forgetit (# 55 ): to summarise,
Dec 23rd, 2011 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(i) “You see evil in a demonized left-wing party currently in office - and to overlook, perhaps even sympathize with, other such loci -- powerful opposition parties, the media, big Western corporations, etc.”
My issues are not with the ‘wingedness’ of a ruling party. They are the ruling coalition’s mis-rule and misbehaviour. Were any other parties in office and doing the same thing, I would be equally vociferous. I am not Brasilian, so I have detachment, and I press for a more ethical future for the country.
(ii) “Political corruption is only the beginning of Brazil's problems -- those are problems that won't be solved by mere regime change, as you seem to believe.”
Political corruption conditions Brasil’s ability to manage its other problems. National development is a cumulative thing, and corruptly diverting (eg) 10% of a nation’s investment wealth every year increases the wealth gap and stops developmental programmes to cumulatively reach a critical mass – the step-change that jumps Brasil into the developed world (viz. South Korea).
With Dilma’s success, the solutions need not involve regime change.
(iii) “You feel so menaced by the current political system (so) you ignore all the other threats against Brazil's welfare and future.”
You are so wrong.
I post on: Brasil in Mercosur/Unasur/etc; TFI and trade restrictions; protectionism; education and the OECD; the Balsa Familia and the dependency society; favelas and hygiene; drugs and drug control; crime and weapons; infrastructure; transport and roads; Olympics and the World Cup; airport upgrades; defense procurement and deployment; the Landless Peasant Movement; Wikileaks and Brasil; deforestation and present policies; oil extraction and pollution; re-nationalisation; BNDES and development funding; colonial history, ethnicities and anthropology; globalisation and trading blocs; the world financial crisis and Brasil; etc.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!