MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Malvinas for Argentina and sea outlet for Bolivia” demands Morales at OAS meeting
As anticipated in the opening speech of the 42 OAS General Assembly hosted by landlocked Bolivia, President Evo Morales put on the discussion table his country’ aspiration for an outlet to the Pacific Ocean linking it to Argentina’s sovereignty dispute with the UK over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSo they attacked someone, lost, lost moral right to territory because of it, and are now moaning for sympathy. These Romans are crazy.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don´t know if this guy is crazy, fool or who knows what but anyone knows that Malvinas issue has nothing to do with the sea outlet that he aspires.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 03:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are they going to demand the return of East Prussia to Germany too?
Jun 04th, 2012 - 05:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0“If the Malvinas are for Argentina, then the sea outlet is for Bolivia”
Jun 04th, 2012 - 05:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0If ??
LOL
I say build a very high, thick concrete wall around the lot of em, until evolution fixes all their problems for them!!!!
Jun 04th, 2012 - 06:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas for Argentina, sea outlet for Bolivia”and Cristina Kirchner for Miss World
Jun 04th, 2012 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0To remind people how bias and deluded the OAS is, read the follow statement from 1982.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 07:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Remembering first, Argentina had illegally invaded British sovereign territory imprisoning many of the local population.
‘Organization of American States
Resolution 2
29 May 1982
The Twentieth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs resolves:-
(1) To condemn most vigorously the unjustified and disproportionate armed attack perpetuated by the United Kingdom, and its decision, which affects the security of the entire American hemisphere, of arbitrarily declaring an extensive area of up to twelve miles from the American coast as a zone of hostilities, which is aggravated by the circumstance that when these actions were taken all possibilities of negotiation seeking a peaceful settlement of the conflict had not been exhausted;
(2) To reiterate its firm demand upon the United Kingdom that it cease immediately its acts of war against the Argentine Republic and order the immediate withdrawal of all its armed forces detailed there and the return of its task force to its usual stations;
(3) To deplore the fact that the attitude of the United Kingdom has helped to frustrate Javier Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary-General of the United Nations;
(4) To express its conviction that it is essential to reach with the greatest urgency a peaceful and honourable settlement of the conflict, under the praiseworthy efforts and good offices of Mr Javier Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and to lend its full support to the task entrusted to him by the Security Council;
(5) To urge the Government of the United States of America to order the immediate lifting of the coercive measures applied against the Argentine Republic and to refrain from providing material assistance to the United Kingdom, in observance of the principle of hemispheric solidarity recognised in the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance;’
Another South American nut job, they seem to be as common as bananas down there. “I wanta this, you can hava that - we are all a happy”.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0The comments from Australia !
Jun 04th, 2012 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Typical South American whinging. Bolivia and co pick a fight against Chile, Chile responds, Bolivia lose territory. Moral of the story idf you're going to start a fight, don't complain if you end up losing it. A strangely similar story with Argentina's illegal attempts to colonise the Falkland Islands. @7 Nice one. Conclusive proof that the OAS are headcases and living in fairy, never never land.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0@7 - Funny how their resolution is was not binding on the UK, yet the UN security council resolution ordering argentina to withdraw from the falklands islands was binding on Argentina, which they choose to ignore.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0What is also funny is the OAS deployed the UK actions as acts of war, completely ignoring the fact that Argentina themselves committed a clear act of war by invaded british sovereign land. The UK was therefore merely defending its sovereignty and its subjects, that happened to be called falkland islanders, which britain like any other nation is duty bound to defend it sovereignty and subjects - whether they live in or are part of the mainland or not!
@7 It was very odd indeed that the OAS issued a statement asking one of its members to do something. I think it can only have been a draft.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0@11 Teaboy2
Jun 04th, 2012 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Remember we mustn't let facts get in the way of their delusions.
South America was an un-unified block of countries in 1982, willing and able to fight each other or even stab each other in the back when necessary.
In 2012 - we see nothing has changed. Argentina, for all their talk of South American solidarity, immediately return to form and stab both Chile and Peru in the back. And then they cry when they lose support of these countries.
@11 re@7
Jun 04th, 2012 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ye good point, I forgot to mention the binding UN Security Council Resolution, that Argentina ignored.
The source is below.
http://www.falklands.info/history/82doc.html
Note.
The OAS have no authority, they are not the UN. For them to issue resolutions, and think anyone outside Latin America is going to read them, let alone listen to them, is comical.
@13 yeap something they conveintly forgot, or was a threat of war with argentina to much for them, one has to wonder!
Jun 04th, 2012 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0@14 - Exactly mate, they just make up resolutions and expect those that are not bound by there resolutions to obey lol. I guess they clearly thought they had the bigger boots, what a pity for them that we had the steel toe caps! ouch lol
Argentina has destroyed Mercosur and made utter fools out of Unasur. Are they going to do it again? I hope the US and Canada will not appease them.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Demands, demands, demands, like aggressive toddlers.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 017: Well he does look like his mum cut his hair with a bowl on it...
Jun 04th, 2012 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Bolivia was born to independence in 1825 with a sea outlet to the Pacific”
Jun 04th, 2012 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0In your dreams, Evo. In your dreams...
Bolivia is the successor state of “Audiencia de Charcas”, a landlocked dependency of the “Virreinato de la Plata”, which did not have any access to the pacific ocean at all.
To achieve his objective, facts will have nothing to do with it.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just as a consideration, has anyone read UNCLOS PART X? What does Bolivia want that UNCLOS doesn't already give it?
Jun 04th, 2012 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now now Morales, how many times do we have to tell you: 'I want' doesn't get.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I thought his hair was a cow-pat! :o)
Jun 04th, 2012 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yay lets turn the clock back to 1879!, then 1833. Then lets change the map of europe back to 1918. Anyone in south amercia live in this century?
Jun 04th, 2012 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 01824 historic map... Alto Peru, the former region of Bolivia. I see no access to the sea there.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i.ebayimg.com/t/1824-Woodbridge-map-South-America-5-/00/%24(KGrHqIOKjQE4nEyLNROBON2I76%2Bsw~~_3.JPG
Any access to the sea for Bolivia can come via their friends Argentina to the South Atlantic and not via Chile.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ManRod,
Jun 04th, 2012 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 1866 border treaty between Chile and Bolivia set the border at parallel 24°S, so Bolivia did once have access to the sea. Before this treaty the area was disputed.
@27
Jun 04th, 2012 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But what is not in dispute is that after the 1850 “Convention of Settlement” treaty signed by Great Britain and Argentina, the Argentine government produced a series of maps in the 1870s and 1880s, most notably the 1882 Latzina Map which clearly showed that the Falkland Islands were not part of Argentina.
Britbob
Jun 04th, 2012 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Agreed
ManRod,
Jun 04th, 2012 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We took their access to the sea, there is no doubt about that. In fact we were the aggressor. Even well educated people here believe that we went to war to “defend Chile’s northern territory”. No, we went to war in Bolivian territory and then Peruvian territory.
The war broke out over disagreement on taxation. Chile seized the opportunity to secure a region that was economically already a part of Chile. Peru got involved through their own misguidedness and paid a very high price.
None of that changes the fact that it is Chile now and has been for a long time. Case closed, move on (that goes for Bolivia and Argentina).
Interesting that OAS Secretary General Insulza nor Morales mentions Falklands/Malvinas in opening remarks, but does talk a lot about other “most important tasks”: http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-203/12
Jun 04th, 2012 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To be fair to Morales, despite the Spanish name, he is apparently indigenous to the continent, so unlike so many of his 'compatriots' I suppose he does have some right to whine about how the immigrant colonists have divided up his homeland.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@32 your quite right. although the Falklands were never populated by any indigenous people. The Falklanders are the indigenous people there now.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Alexei
Jun 04th, 2012 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Right from the days of the Spanish conquest (500 years ago) there has been significant mixing of the races. It is therefore difficult to say if someone is indigenous or not.
In Chile most of us have some indigenous blood to varying degrees. In Bolivia that is also true, but they are indigenous to a far greater extent. I would say that about 70% of Bolivians are as, if not more, indigenous than Morales. However, it is irrelevant as we don’t know if his indigenous homeland was the Altiplano, the Amazon, Atacama or elsewhere.
Did you know that Raquel Welch was half bolivian.
“If the Malvinas are for Argentina, then the sea outlet is for Bolivia”
Jun 04th, 2012 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only way this makes sense is as a deal for support- “We'll back your claim if you back ours.”- and a deal guaranteed to split the OAS.
South America changes, the only petty countries are Chile, Brazil and Colombia subservient to the British Empire
Jun 04th, 2012 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chile -- Colombia are true ...not Brazil.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0notice CFKs spies are very quiet,
Jun 04th, 2012 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0mind you its hard when everybody else is laughing at them .
@36, 37
Jun 04th, 2012 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So the countries that make economic progress are subservient to the British? What century do you live in?
@34 No I didn't know that. I did know though that there were no indigenous people in the Falkland Islands. The closest thing to an indigenous or 'aboriginal' 'Malvinista', as you might call them, are the people who live there today, immigrants from various parts of Europe, whose ancestors have inhabited the islands for many generations.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@40
Jun 04th, 2012 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree.
CFK lies again.
Jun 04th, 2012 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#6 “Cristina Kirchner for Miss World”
Jun 05th, 2012 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'd vote for her, as I'm sure would many who see beauty and strength of character as complimentary rather than incompatible =)
This clown (Morales) is trying to gain some support for his goverment and like many of this corrupt presidents of this banana countries (full of ignorant people) around here appeal to the nationalist issue when they have a mess in their countries and all of the fools vote for them again so they can keep stealing... the same story of ever. By the way OAS or OEA weighs less than a popcorn pack so nobody cares what they say.
Jun 05th, 2012 - 02:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0The problem in Bolivia is to have a Bolivian born president.....When they can have a Chilean president they will start to be a country and not a “tribu” (tribe)....
Jun 05th, 2012 - 04:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is a gift to the moron & clown Evito, representative of the stupidity kingdom of Bulivianers.....Will be he what those citiziens deserve ? Thought that's the basic reason why he is at the Office.
Chilean representatives at the OAS summit must leave that meeting and return to Chile if that clown monkey don´t excuse with our country.
just more talking,
Jun 05th, 2012 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the result will be the same as before .
@36 Britain doesn't have an empire. We are in the 21st century not the 19th.
Jun 07th, 2012 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 047.
Jun 07th, 2012 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0he has no clue as to what century he lives in,
Please support this new page aimed at covering Falklands current affairs and keeping the Falklands free of Argentine rule! Please sign in and click the “like” button on the page to subscribe to our news feeds -
Jun 11th, 2012 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.facebook.com/Britain1592
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!