MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ case triggers controversy in St Vincent and Grenadines
The Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines Dr Ralph Gonsalves said that he does not regard himself as a “water carrier” or the “president of a fitness club”, as he defended his decision not to meet with two legislators from a “colonial country assembly” in reference to the Falkland Islands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSome things seem to get lost in translation. :-)
Mar 05th, 2012 - 06:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0It would seem to be about a Prime Minister getting in a huff for not being treated as importantly as he believes he should be.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 06:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0“in their quest for self-determination”...It is clear that, despite the propaganda efforts made, whether the principle of self-determination is applicable or not to the present inhabitants of the islands is not something having received international recognition at all. Quite the opposite. This article is also interesting in many other aspects: how the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) MLAs are dependent of the UK, how former British colonies perceive UK arrogance in treating with them...
Mar 05th, 2012 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0@3
Mar 05th, 2012 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marcelo, the issue at hand has nothing to do with the Falklands. what this is about is third world country's starting to consider themselves first world country's. It would put your continent on the map if they could bring to heel a major power like the UK. not only would there be dancing in the streets of BA but also many other countries who would rub our noses in it.
It is the one big reason why you would never ever get the Falklands.
although its not a nice thought i'm coming round to the idea that in time Argentina must invade the Falklands if only to save face with its neighbours. It will be egged on and egged on and will eventually do it AND once more be put in its place. about this issue.
It must be great at the minute for all you RG's to go around thinking you have loads of support but after you have got it and got nowhere with it, everyone will then ask what you are going to do next. If you do nothing then you will have to do something.
Taking on the UK is fraught with problems for you and at no time in history have we ever given in to bully's and children. We wont be starting now.
This is starting to hot up and just brings forward the day when you will invade again, making the same mistake you did in 1982, and once ore your forces will be sent packing and made even weaker.
@3 UK Arrogance? We trade with these countries all the time. Just because they have a different opinion doesn't mean they think we're arrogant. It's just called a difference of opinion. Not everyone has to be so unipolar as the Argentinians where only one opinion is allowed. Besides, you're not even a real Argenine as you abandoned your country and the only connection you have to Argentina is your current spate of cultural leeching.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0@4 The only thing that matters here is the relationship that the UK has with the Falklands. The UN is clearly completely lost. So the only thing we have to think about is making sure we have a 'Mature' relationship with the remaining self-governing territories. This has nothing to do with any external powers.
As a side note. I think St Helena and possibly Tristan de Cunha are getting airports, which will both make it easier to fly all the planes out in case of attack from Argland and also make it easier to get Falklanders to places in Africa.
It shouldn't come to that (an invasion) especially if oil produces the sort of wealth for the islanders that allows the intentions of Argentina to be adequately monitored and the Islands to be appropriately defended independent of a burden on the UK tax payer.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0My take on Mr Gonsalves' position is that it is one most heads of government would take to lobbying by sub-national legislative body members from a second country about its relations with a third country. It is all the more understandable if that second country is the former colonial power and the High Commission (Embassy) even hints at making assumptions about access to conduct that lobbying. There are people in many countries who believe that UK thinks and acts as if it is still the great world power it once was and needs to be reminded that it isn't. Sometimes our responses in comment sections fuel that perception. This episode also gives a small insight into why UN C24 is still seized with the “special situation” in the South Atlantic.
@6 The C24 doesn't have a clue what it's doing. It's a collection of braying despotic virtual dictatorships from the third world greedily wringing their hands over land they can steal. The Special Commitee on Decolonisation simply doesn't do any decolonisation, and seems to just spend it's time discussing how to trim land off other countries to the benefit of the members concerned.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Goodness knows how and why the UN continue to fund it... and why isn't Dokdo on the list?
Some interesting ones there it's true: Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, East Timor, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Grenada, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Ivory Coast, Mali, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Russia, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia and Venezuela.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not Argentina you will note but, hey, I'm not here to defend the C24. The UN continues to fund it because it costs the organisation nothing in the bigger scheme of things A very small secretariat and a draw of some resource from the political and translation departments. Nations are representatives from the national delegations so cost nothing and there is no will in the GA to change it. None of the four remaining Administering Powers - the UK, France, New Zealand and the US – are members. France and New Zealand both formally participate in the Committee’s work in respect of their two territories.
Other apparent colonies such as Dokodo or Liancourt Rocks as I prefer to call them, Ceuta, Mellila, the Canaries, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, the Sovereign Base Territories on Cyprus et al are not there because no member of the UN family (ie a States such as Japan, Morocco, France, Cyprus) has proposed them or the Committee accepted them as non-self governing territories.
A bit of post 2WW history helps to understand why there is a C24 - just look at when it was set up and what it was set up to do (end residual “salt water” colonialism by European powers and the related suppression of the rights of native peoples). A bit of understanding about how supranational organisations work (consensus for change) helps understand why it is still going.
@8 I agree with the essence of what you are saying. However, it is quite clear that many of the remaining non-self governing territories (Pictern) and self-governing territories (Falklands) have developed 'mature' relationships with the UK and remain a protectorate because they choose to do so (referendum results, angry greedy neighbour, etc).
Mar 05th, 2012 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0The situation with the C24 leads to it tabling discussions that have nothing to do with it's remit, nor the remit of the UN. The reason the smaller territories remain within the protection of the UK is so that they're not abused by undeveloped countries like Argentina. However, the C24 seems to have manifested into exactly that, a forum for the third-world countries to bully these smaller territories, something that it was designed to prevent. The UN has places for territorial disputes to be discussed, called the ICJ or Court of Arbitration.
So going forwards the C24 gets further and further away from it's remit and ends up where? It's not the ICJ so it's not there to resolve disputes and it's already in a bad place, so where is it actually going to end up before someone eventually pulls the funding on this sinister cabal?
It will remain the talking shop it is today; a place where frustrated states led by bitter politicians can continue to rail against the injustices they perceive to have been perpetrated against them over the years by bigger, wealthier and more powerful states.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you are quite right. The UN committees and the GA are forums for political debate and through it the development of international norms and laws (not legislation as such otherwise it would be a world government and we wouldn't want that). I too would say the UN ICJ is the place to go for disputes over territory. After all, the only real question is was UK legally right to act as it did in 1833 under the laws and norms of international relations accepted at that time and this should be tested in a court not public assembly. If it was legal then the rest is straight forward. If it wasn't then no matter how many generations of people have lived there it remains an illegal colony on the territory of another state - there being as far as I know, no time related “squatters rights” in international law.
I believe, but don't know, that UK was legally and morally right in 1833 and hence support UK and the Island population against the state of Argentina in this dispute for what that is worth. It is clear that others disagree but can't know either. It should be tested.
I'd agree. I don't think we're capable of arguing epistemological 'truths' in order to answer this question, as clearly both sides will put emphasis on different historical periods that do or don't justify what happened, either by treaty or implication.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Under the question of ethics, is it right or moral to allow the Argentinians to eject these people from their land after they have lived there for so long. I personally believe it is not, and their rights to freedom should be protected. I personally believe that frustration, greed and corruption fuel the Argentinian's position, and although the UK will benefit from some of the oil proceeds, the main benefit is less the falklands being less dependent and independent access to the Antarctic region.
Reading this through,..I still don't what he (Gonsalves ) is saying. Maybe he is secretly “the president of the fitness club.” He seems to have a position but,.. not really.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@12 I'm not a president of a fitness club either, so I know what he must be feeling like.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Poor old Gonsalves of the St Vincent and the Grenadines, he is stuck between a rock and hard place. On the one hand, he depends on Britain for economic aid, on the other, a lot of the people are at least part descended from the war like Caribs, who have blood ties with Chavez’s Venezuela, what balancing act.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 03
Mar 05th, 2012 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“in their quest for self-determination”
Fundamental misunderstanding - The Falkland Islanders aren't seeking self determination ... they have it already.
”This article is also interesting in many other aspects: how the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) MLAs are dependent of the UK, how former British colonies perceive UK arrogance in treating with them”
You couldn't be more wrong. Cameron is right its pointless negotiating with tossers like you.
As for Goonalves. His comments are noted, the British Establishment has a long memory. His words will come back to haunt him.
”As I made it plain to the British high commissioner, I did not refuse to see them because of any scheduling program. That is what an official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told them. I told them the truth. The persons in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, not the minister, wanted to tell them something that was diplomatic. The British are our friends.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Reads like a excerpt from Yes Minister.
When Turk and Caicos islands wanted to declare independence from Britain, they enjoyed no right to self determination. His government was removed by Britain, and a dictator was imposed.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17 buxcador
Mar 05th, 2012 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes because the then PM Misick had started moves toward independence just to dodge a commission of inquiry, which were examining reports of corruption by his Administration, so the Governor had to take over while this took place and the civilian populace was largely welcoming of this enforced rule.
The Governor is not a dictator, he is there to expose corrupt governments and to protect the people from them, Argentina doesn't know what it's government is getting up to while theyare distracting the mob with the Malvinas.
”So what am I? Am I the president of the fitness club,“ he said, dismissing those ”who want to say I am arrogant. I am not a weak leader”.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He comes over as arrogant and weak to me. It will all change if the money stops flowing from Britain. Then we will see HOW strong he is.
Typical Caribbean politician.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 018 cof cof cof cof cof
Mar 05th, 2012 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0incredibleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
how you always manage to put things the way you like and have an argument of whatever behind
@ 10 Doveoverdover
Mar 06th, 2012 - 03:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you that the issue should be referred to the ICJ. Unfortunately, neither the UK nor Argentina appear to be prepared to do so.
The following link may provide some clues as to why this may be so:
http://www.ejiltalk.org/why-the-falklands-dispute-will-probably-never-go-to-court/
@22 Betelgeuse
Mar 06th, 2012 - 04:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marko Milanovic is a Serbian lawyer who lectures at the University of Nottingham. He is not impartial and has an axe to grind with the UK over its role in the eviction of Serbian forces from Kosove and the UKs support for Kosovo ever since.
He may be right, but having studied law I know that a lawyers favourite phrase is 'on the one hand this and on the other hand that'.
@22 Why the hell would the UK take this to the ICJ? The UK doesn't have a sovereignty issue with the Falklands, because we own it, and always have owned it. The only people who seem to have an issue, and therefore should take it to the ICJ are the Argentinians with their weird not-history.
Mar 06th, 2012 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0If someone wants to steal my walled, I don't take it to arbitration to see if he should have my wallet or not. That's just nonsense.
Argentinians, face facts, you're the only ones with the sovereignty issue.
i) This morning, at 9:00 a.m. Argentine Time, the link to Mercopress lead instead to Microsoft's information services site, logo and all. And it worked, sending you right there. Hacking or just a web glitch?
Mar 06th, 2012 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ii) The Falklands/Malvinas sovereingty issue and its inhabitants' self determination want, are, in my humble view, two separate branches of the same tree. I believe that these two have to be treated independently from one another, despite the British ancient and somewhat false historic ownership declarations, 'invasion' alibis and foolish wallet-stealing comparisons.
In my view, the islanders can well stay as British as they may want and live in their own houses in their own plots of land, forming part of an Argentine province speaking their preferred language, adoring the God they may choose, keeping their British passports, their social communities, their own provincial government (the Argentine LegAss), their school sports' welly-throwing, darts at The Globe, Poppy Day Service, British Legion &c, just as there are some other 100,000 British and Anglo-Argentines who hold British Passports and live in different places of Argentina, say, the Welsh in Patagonia, a stepson of mine in B.A. City and two of my grandchildren in Pinamar. None of these people feel they are better or worse than others here. Some 'ensigns' and banners, and certain hymns, should of course be excluded from any official acts, although if it were my responsibility I might accept these as co-ensigns, flags, banners and hymns, for some time and only to respect tradition, a most valuable treasure. Onwards Christian Soldiers is sung every Sunday in the local Anglican/Presbyterian churches, so I see no reason whatsoever to ban it.
I understand, however, the fear of islanders to be 'downgraded' to 'common' Argentine subjects, but I hope that one day our governments will switch sides, fight the good fight, and return our country to the lines of morals and conduct she should have never left.
@25 Argie
Mar 06th, 2012 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“In my view, the islanders can well stay as British as they may want and live in their own houses in their own plots of land, forming part of an Argentine province ”
No one was asking for your view, you are a brainwashed irrelevancy.
The Falklands will never be part of Argentina
22 Betelgeuse
Mar 06th, 2012 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have read this 'essay' for that is what is is. It is NOT a legal opinion and the author displays a synical approach to serious questions of the merit of his writing.
It is clearly yet another kite flying excercise without any merit.
If Argentina were sure of their case they would take it to the ICJ and crow about it when the won. They have not done this and the reason is blindingly obvious to everyone except LatAm conspiritors of CFK.
@25 “The Falklands/Malvinas sovereingty issue and its inhabitants' self determination want, are, in my humble view, two separate branches of the same tree. I believe that these two have to be treated independently from one another, despite the British ancient and somewhat false historic ownership declarations, 'invasion' alibis and foolish wallet-stealing comparisons. ”
Mar 06th, 2012 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no sovereignty issue. It only exists on the Argentinians side because of their curious not-history and their wish for some islands called 'las malvinas' which don't exist. The UK has no soveriegnty issue over it's mature relationship with any of it's territories, only other greedy third world or bankrupt countries seem to.
The only issue with the wallet metaphor is that you don't like it. It's very similar logically to the situation with the Falklands, and it's very simple to understand. Because of this it's powerful, and it creates cognitive dissonance in your mind against the brainwashing you've received. I'm not stupid.
The fact is, the Islanders are more likely to become the Country of Falklands than it ever is to become annexed to Argentina.
@26
Mar 08th, 2012 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“No one was asking for your view, you are a brainwashed irrelevancy”
This was a very arty-farty, vainglorious, stupid expression that can only come from a tofee nosed, non thouroughly-raised person. Please don't use it again.
Whose views do you like? Yours only? To set the record straight, this is a blog where everyone can write and put their views down provided they're posted in an acceptable English, Yorskshire, Essex, Aussie or even American English. Kindly stay away from expletives, respect the right of others and perhaps they may respect yours.
Lack of these basic principles was why the islands were relieved of their original occupants, occupied by foreigners, invaded and retaken. History repeats itself, mainly in its folly.
@29 Argie
Mar 08th, 2012 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You state the blindingly obvious, that you can write your bigoted view on this blog, you do, but then somehow don’t expect to be challenged on it and by being too presumptuous with you opinions expect to be told so.
Also you are full of accusations; I haven’t used any expletives with you, although it’s tempting, you are so conceited.
An example of this is:
“Lack of these basic principles was why the islands were relieved of their original occupants, occupied by foreigners, invaded and retaken. History repeats itself, mainly in its folly”.
Only someone full of themselves, would write such piffle. Please don't do it again
Sorry if that seems too toffee-nosed for you.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!