MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, July 6th 2022 - 12:53 UTC
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reiterated his good offices to help resolve the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the UK, but also pointed out “as long as the parties are willing to engage”. Read full article
Mr Ban Ki-moon, we hope that you work hard and impose his good offices and fix this problem as soon as possible, we want the Malvinas Islands back again to their owners and The Argentine Government to respect the population implanted with all its rights, language, cup of tea at 5pm, culture, etc,etc
I still dont get why you guys want them so badly!!
For strategic reasons?? i hear you are all just good peacful people so it cant be for that!
For the natural resources? well if you are happy to keep the current population there, then just talk to them and share the wealth!!! Still no need for a flag a change of flag etc
National Pride???? Ahhhh...........I think i have it! Its about pride and nothing else, just something for the RG's to strut about!!!!
Did I miss something?
Has Moon asked the Falkland Islanders what they want yet? Might be important to wait until after the referendum before getting into any talks, should the Falkland Islanders express an interest in doing so.
While some Argentines may actually believe that their government might respect Falkland Islands customs (ie, cup of tea at 5pm) and language, unfortunately, it is highly doubtful that the full measure of rights could be adequately respected.
For example, if we use the ranking of Britain as an indicator of Falkland Islands rights, we see that there is a significant advantage enjoyed by the Falkland Islands over Argentina in terms of rights, as defined by Corruption Perception Index, UN Human Development Index, Freedom index, etc, etc.
Better that only after bringing rights and standards enjoyed by Argentines up to Falkland Island levels, would be wise for Argentina to initiate a request for engaging the Falkland Island Government in any exploratory talks.
3 JohnN Has Moon asked the Falkland Islanders what they want yet?
There isn't such a thing, they are British, ilegally living in Argentinean soil.
@4 You are exactley the sort of pig headed arrogant tit, that is not helping the issue in any way!
A ”pig headed arrogant tit” says at (5)....:
You are exactley the sort of pig headed arrogant tit............
The only ”pig headed arrogant tits” in here are the ”British pig headed arrogant tits” that think that, by planting a few ”British pig headed arrogant tits” on any stolen territory, can invoke the self-determination right of those ”British pig headed arrogant tits” to keep the afore mentioned stolen territory under the control of some other ”British pig headed arrogant tits”.........
@6: remind us why the Argies have more moral right to inhabit their land than the Falklanders?
So think! You just added your self to the list!!! Your atitude is also antiproductive. And while you, (and there are brits doing the same) keep harping on and not taking other peoples ideals into consideration, the merry-go-round keeps turning. Turning to NO positive end!!!! YAAAWWWWWWNNNNN
And i think you like it that way, as it gives you and the other simians something to do.....some way of giving yourself purpose, some way of pumping yourself up!
basically your attitude is that of a school yard bully!
I am pig headed and arrogant. Love it! At least I can back it up and i do not have to suffer the shame of living with a chip on my shoulder like the Argie contributers.
Mr Moon can shove his office where the sun doesn't shine.
@4 There isn't such a thing, they are British, ilegally living in Argentinean soil.
I think you're getting confused with the Flora and Fauna that your president says dictates sovereignty. That lives 'in' the soil.
Argentines, they're not even educated so you cannot even have a normal conversation with them.
10: so it was a bunch of vegetables that told CFK she had sovereignty rights? I think we already knew that.
The Secretary General can hardly do otherwise than offer his good offices since that's exactly what he was told to do by the club members. Those very same members decided, procedurally, many years ago that the situation in the Falkland Islands was special and particular and that consensus has not, procedurally, been changed since then. We shouldn't expect anything other than support for the agreed position from a club official no matter how high profile/paid. We could, however, show more interest in just what exactly those conclusions and recommendations arrived at so long ago were. I must get round to asking the C24/C4 secretariat to publish them electronically.
Secondly, I hope the President, in return for the SGs thanks for providing troops, offered her thanks to the fund contributing nations for paying for their services in US$. Every little helps as the saying goes...
They also offered good offices for the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan and the 1998 Iraq crisis so glad the success rate won't be affected.
He's said no more and no less than his position requires him to say. An offer of good offices is not an offer to arbitrate, and certainly not a gesture of support, it's simply an offer to act as facilitator in any bi/tri-lateral negotiations should it be asked of him.
That's his job! (or at least part of it)
The Secretary General, as is correct diplomatic way, is replying in a completely impartial way unlike the chair of the UN.C24.
He is not supporting the views of either the Argentinians or the British.
@14 The offer, specifically mandated as it is by members, is a clear indication that there is something to negotiate. That something, so far as the agreed UN position is concerned, is predicated on the political judgement, arrived at in Cold War/Post War circumstances and preserved in UN amber, that the Islands belong to Argentina and are occupied by the UK (at least I think those were the C24 conclusions made back when I was a child). It isn't as simple as that's part of his job.
The Buenos aires Herald is reporting that last weeks fiasco was the end of the visible campaign of antagonism by the Argentine government against the Falklanders.
Looks like they might have got the message and probably been tipped the wink that the UK have done their political work behind the scenes - as it should be done.
@17 Replacing the visible with the clandestine? She did warn that patience was running out with the evident failure of noisy diplomacy. As she is not getting her own way, overflights and landing permissions would eventually be withdrawn. Criminal and civil cases in Argentina might be next, leading to Interpol warrants against oil executives, UK military personnel and FI residents alike. Think has warned that abnormal activities are planned to disrupt the thing that Argentina fears most - international backed oil extraction in
Maybe we should take a leaf out of North Korea's book and accidentally sink an Argie tub.
if “both parties are willing to engage”
This does not mean Moon is insisting on talks-he is neutral.
@6 That is the sort of inflexible approach that makes a resolution to the conflict almost impossible. The world could accuse Argentina of the same thing. After all it's a colony, whose creation had more impact on its origional inhabitants the the Falklands ever could (given the Falklands did not have origional inhabitants).
On that basis alone, why should the British concern themselves about accusations of stealing territory by a people who are, using their own logic, also a bunch of thieving pirates? This is putting aside the Brits own version of events which indicates they are the legitimate owners anyway.
Frankly every discussion about this issue ends in the same circular debate and the same arguments used - Pointlessly circular.
Grow a pair Moon. It's embarrasing seeing the head of the UN get pussywhipped by the likes of CFK.
To be fair, this is a good move by Ban Ki Moon. He's basically understood that without any modicum of trust being given by the Argentinians, there isn't any likelihood of the British sitting down to discuss anything when they're basically quoting from the Charter. He's being independent, which is good.
What he needs to do next is close that abortion of a committee (C24) that apparently just marginalises the people it's supposed to represent, ignoring everything from referenda to self-governance, in some attempt to pass sovereignty over these territory to some equally corrupt morally vacuous nation. Then I think the UN will start back on the climb up to making sense again.
Come on Uncle Ban, get your house in order.
At the end of the day Argentina and their trolls will bark all day because that is all they can do, all their rhetoric, propaganda,misinformation, faked history and lies they are all noisy barks without no bite. Nothing will change Falklands will remain free and British as that is what they wish under.....wait for it.....
SELF-DETERMINATION, If the rabid dog (KFC) does not like it then go to the I.C.J!!!!
otherwise keep barking its all quite useless but highly entertaining.
@1 There will be NO imposing. Note that he has said if both parties are willing to engage. Important word IF.
@4 Really? They hold legal title to the land. It is a British territory. They hold British passports.
@6 Possession is 9/10ths of the law!
What else is the UN supposed to say? How anyone cane read this as a show of support for Argentina is beyond me.
Meanwhile this peace-loving nation, Argentina, continues to militarise the Caribbean and before that they militarised the Persian Gulf but if the UK moves a ship or a prince anywhere near one of its own territories they get attacked for it by an impotent Argentine government.
You are nothing but an arse crawler and a disgrace to democracy,
The UN are a bloody disgrace, and no one has any confidence in it anymore .
Its all just anti British rhetoric .
By cowards and yellowbellys .
..... both parties willing to engage...
which both parties ?
Tory Party !...Labour Party !
Interesting that in spite of Argentina's blathering about British “militarization” of the Falklands territorial sea, the 2012 Global Peace Index puts UK at 29, but Argentina less-peaceful at 44.
Global Peace Index: www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/
How do we manage to bomb strafe and shoot our way round the world and still stay ahead on the peace index? That must take talent.
Think- back to the old rant again on squatters I see?
Tell me -you are not an indigenous Patagon are you - your ancestors came originally from Europe correct?
Assuming the answer to above is yes - then please answer this?
What would you say to the remaining indiginous native population of Argentina if they asked all of the non indigenous people to leave, and return Argentina to the descendents of those who lived there before the Europeans arrive?
I would rather him take action (if he can) and retire the C24.
Comment removed by the editor.
Nice picture, not just because of Cristina's beauty but it almost looks like a handover - and if she really doesn't serve a third term, maybe she could succeed Mr Moon as UN Secretary General; she'd be the best ever holder of that office I'm sure =)
No wonder they call her the witch,
You still did not improve a thing briton.
You are still stupid...
@34 It's fun to see you make a joke at last, with some sarcasm. Normally you're just so serious because of that problem you have, and now you've only gone and made a joke!
There isn't such a thing, they are British, ilegally living in Argentinean soil.
You might want to ask the NATIVE south americans about the europeans that claim their land is called agentina in that case.
If Dorothy would just apologise for dropping that house on Cristina's sister, maybe we wouldn't have all this trouble.
#33 Is that an admission of her spellbinding beauty briton???
@16 I'm not going to bother with a point-by-point dissection of your post, explaining in detail just how wide of the mark you are. Why? Because you wouldn't care and wouldn't listen. I know this because the information is already all over the comments on this site, but you just keep ignoring it. It would be a waste of my time (and probably yours in reading it). Suffice to say that not one part of your post is accurate or a reasonable conclusion based on Mr Moon's statement.
@39 Hahaha, See you used sarcasm again! That was hilarious because clearly she's not beautiful and guys would retch into their mouths.
You're becoming funnier, BK... much funnier.
Ban Ki Moon is as ever being totally diplomatic in his responses, as usual he is not backing Britain or Argentina !.
I do not envy him his job.
Falklanders don't want talks. thus no talks from the uk. thus both parties are not willing to engage.
Surely the ICJ is the place where sovereignty ought to be addressed?
Argentina has seen fit to use it for other disputes, why not for the Falklands if it is such an obvious case
I must admit, I think the CFK action has been an orchestrated campaign to run concurrently with the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War to prevent humiliation at home. She's basically run out of things to try now in any case.
@44 KFC = CFK (pisstake)
@40 Ok, if you say so. The General Assembly never did pass a resolution approving the conclusions and recommendations of the C24 or if they did someone got them to pass another one changing their minds. And no one ever asked the SG to offer his good offices he just patrols the world looking for nations he can offer to help. There, my world view has been changed and you didn't even need to present anything other than assertions. You must be very proud.
@47 You're correct on the first part, no such GA resolution has ever been passed. If you believe otherwise, find it and prove me (and others here) wrong.
The SG offered his good offices BECAUSE IT'S HIS JOB when a member state mentions negotiations between themselves and another member state.
(47) Cmd McDod
You seem to be having more discussions with brainwashed British turnips than with us Argies ;-)
I personally think that your above posts; except No.(47) are quite accurate............
Regards to the Missus ..... and lots of Roo tail chews for Nigger & Nelson.
@48 BTW Think, the stats from PriceStats show Argentina's inflation rate is actually reducing - it was an annual equivalent of 45% in April, but reduced to 39% in May. It's still reducing, latest spot monthly figure is 1.89% (roughly 25% annual) and has been in continual decline every day since the peak of 3.51% in early May. Looks like I could well owe The Red Cross £10 :) An occasion when I'm happy to lose a bet.
Maybe he should grow a pair.
You know the old saying, 'it's better to choose a side than sit on the fence and get shot at by both'.
I assume when Ban Ki-moon says both parties he is talking snout Argentina and the Falkland Islands Government.
The British are only involved to ensure fair play, after all. :0D
I'm happy you're losing that bet too..................
Hope it helps you to understand how wide of the mark most of the Anglo /Neoliberal Press comments about Argentina are.
It seems that a turncoat complained because I called her a witch,
Who puts spells on men?
And the slimy coward who did the grassing, has proved my point,
Whoever you are,
We hope you get mowed,
But it says your inflation is way over the 'official' figures published by your government. Even with this reduction, Argentina is in deep sh!t, and is already in recession.
Not a good place for any economy to be, especially one to whom the international finance bodies are slamming the doors in its face and refuses to throw good money after bad.
I truly hope that this doesn't get any worse for Argentina, because at times like these it's the poor and middle income families that suffer most. Unfortunately the people who make your policies are completely detached from reality and have already stashed their dollars in overseas bank accounts, so they don't actually care.
They've made their quick buck, and soon it's going to be time for them to skedaddle with their ill gotten gains.
Think- still waiting for your reply to 31?
@48 I used to think that Resolution 2065 (XX) Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 16 December 1965 had bee passed and that ”The General Assembly, Having examined the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Taking into account the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), and in particular the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee with reference to that Territory, Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Noting the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands,
1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).....”
But I now realise I was alone in my understanding. Thank you for putting me straight.
Two peas in a pod,
Rotten to the core,
Shake hands in front of the cameras,
While totally ignoring the poor,
In Syria they scream and cry,
In Africa they starve and die
As long as Cristina can shake your hand,
She will persuade others to steal your land.
@49 Dogs duly treated but how many times do I have to tell you - the dog's name is Gibson and (pre-emptive this one) don't call me lad.
Thank you for your support in what I'm convinced is a factual rather than an emotional argument (on my part at least). I'm on what appears to be a one man mission to track down those conclusions and recommendations but once the C24 is over I'll pester the secretary to have the chapter made readily available.
Lady McDOD is asleep in front of the TV at the moment. When her maid wakes her I'll pass on your regards. Sleep well yourself if you can.
@56 We seem to be at cross purposes here - I was referring to there not being a UNGA resolution that represents the current C24 position (that the islanders don't have the right to self-determination etc), rather than the C24's position back when it had some relevance (the 60s, when true colonialism still existed). It refers to 1514 and the UN charter which conclude that all peoples have the right of self-determination and that decolonisation efforts should be in the interests of the inhabitants of the territory. Besides, as has been stated here innumerable times on here, the UK complied with 2065 and carried out negotiations, the Falklanders rejecting the proposed deal cooked up between the two nations. When Argentina was invited to return to the drawing board the junta took over before an alternative could be worked out. Obviously no decent govt would hand a territory over to an authoritarian regime. The invasion overtook this also and rendered the resolution essentially void.
As my first post stated, all this has been put up on this site endlessly - your mind is made up, so trying to change it is a waste of my time.
@59 My mind is made up that it is time to walk the dogs and go to bed. However, I will reflect on your post and may come back to you in the morning if anything novel or contentious comes to mind.
There's a big difference, the people that moved to Argentina from Europe or many other places around the world, was not the result of an invasion nor they claimed any part of this country for their country of origin. They become part of Argentina.
What a lot of huff and puff.
The US congress would like too see Rg Land kicked out of the G20:
@60 Very true! Besides, we're arguing on the Internet over world affairs, a navel-gazing exercise to say the least.
Looks like the US are getting fed up with the corruption and lies in Argie land too!!
The FIG should get in touch with Ban Ki-moon and offer to pop over to the UN for a nice chat with KFC at her earliest convenience. As a good-will gesture the Falkland Islanders should offer to provide the tea and biscuits :)
@59 Let me turn the question back on you. If the ancient GA resolution (we both agree; a product of its time) said that the FI was a special and particular example of colonialism (imposed by force in the 19th Century), which GA resolution or treaty was it that introduced a statute of limitations or squatters rights into international law? The voiding is your assertion. I see no evidence that the international community agrees with you.
Argentina's democracy is barely the timespan of a decent length mortgage in the Western world. It is not far enough away from the actions of the military junta and therefore still demonstrates what appears to be its innate resorting to aggression and force. Argentina's people did too little to oppose the military when they were in power and what was done by the military was done in their name whether or not they accept this. Argentina's behaviour is infantile in the World of democracy like a child throwing its toys out of the pram when it does not get what it wants. Mature democracies will not give in to this blackmail.
Against this, the United Kingdom is a long-standing, never-conquered democracy, a powerful member of the United Nations, a permanent member of the security council, an EU member, a NATO member, a Commonwealth member and a respected member of the international community.
Despite many attacks on the UK by terrorists et al over the years, including the attempted assassination of the Prime Minister, the UK did not give in to terrorists and those using force to achieve their aims. We never give in and we never give up.
The Falkland Islands is an overseas territory of the UK, and this will remain so. Perhaps it is time to incorporate the Falklands into the United Kingdom itself (as an autonomous entity), and remove any doubt that Argentina may have as to our position, or that of our British Citizens in residence there.
One begins to experience serious fatigue listening to the 'macho-moaning' emanating from Queen Christina and Lapdog Timerman. It is only a matter of time before they fade into irrelevance with this broken record.
The wise thing to do (explains why they haven't done it!), would have been to woo the islanders ... but that would have required patience, something Argentina is short of, along with food, jobs, diplomacy, as well as foresight and hindsight.
Argentina is an aggressor. It knows no other way, and cannot demonstrate otherwise.
@67 You appear to be implying that UNGA resolutions are in some way binding - as I'm sure you're aware they are not.
The UK generally complies with them because it's usually the right thing to do - but when it isn't, it reserves the right to ignore them (as any sovereign UN member has the right to do).
2065 is 47 years old and has been so far overtaken by events that it is now completely moot. As you state, it was created in a very different age, when govts thought little of making grand decisions on others' behalf (Big hands on small maps is I believe the quote, can't remember who from).
I'm pretty sure that, had Argentina not had a military govt and subsequently invaded the islands they would now be Argentine. Some mutually acceptable agreement would have been reached between the three parties.
For the UK to have negotiated with the junta prior to the invasion would have been blatantly immoral and afterwards would have been totally unacceptable to the islanders (not surprisingly).
The UK is obliged by the UN charter and (sort of obliged by) 1514 and 2065 to consider the interest (not the wishes) of the islanders. At no point since 1976 has it been in the islanders' interests to be part of Argentina. During the NRP it would have been a human rights disaster to have given Argentina any measure of sovereignty and since 1983 it would have imposed a solution on them that could not have worked due to the total lack of trust the islanders have for Argentina - or not without mass deportation.
To do it any time post 2001 would be shackling them to a corpse (another political quote from an earlier era) and would undo 30 years of their hard work. The only solution for the UK is to bow to self-determination so the islanders can decide when and how much they can deal with Argentina.
By leaving it up to them it avoids forcing a solution on an unwilling population - which I'm sure you'll agree would be a travesty of human rights - we've learned since Diego Garcia.
(58) Cmd McDod
Dear chap….. You and I know that Nigger fully deserves its name…!
Besides…..Did you ever noticed Mr. Waters fascination with Nigger....?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgePEO7GUtE (At 1:02:40)
@69 A very good point on the interests of the Islanders. It is clearly more in the 'interests' of the Islanders to be linked to the UK (which allows them increasing autonomy according to the UN charter), and who are a more competent country than Argentina, than to be linked with Argentina which can't even run itself properly.
- We've learned since Diego Garcia................
What have you learned since Diego Garcia................?
People stil deported to misery.
Cold war base still there.
No compensation paid. (Except, what was it? 3,000£ head in the 80´s)
Good learners you are....!
'Think' your in no position to comment on how one country gets rid of someone it doesn't like as opposed to another. When the british government wanted to remove some people it payed them and moved them to other near by islands, and yes that is bad in principle but compared to the Argentine governments methods it looks rather lightweight, after all when the Argentine government wanted to remove some one they tied them up, bagged and tagged them and moved them by helicopter but instead of it landing at a location it threw them out over it.
@72 We've learned not to do that again! However, we can't really give Diego Garcia back because of the Americans, plus the islands can't sustain anyone without external supplies of water etc. But yeah, it's not the UK's finest hour and serves as a salutory lesson for British politicians on how not to do it.
@69 Very rational and accurate assessment. And now there is oil and gas too...
@70 Ah, Dambusters and Floyd, the icons of my youth...
Losers always complain,.
”(Diego Garcia) serves as a salutory lesson for British politicians on how not to do it.”
I hope so.............
Next time you pay a proper compensation to the people you remove.
(The Kelpers are a nice, white bunch of people.... They deserve more than the 3,000£ the Chagossians got..... At lest twice as much...... :-)
Difference is the Falkland Islanders will need no compensation whatsoever, as they are, happily, remaining in their homes, as their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents... and so on, back nine generations, did before them. So, everybody's allowed to stay in their homes and live happily ever after... unless some demented expansionist colonialist nazis get their way. Not very likely, as the Falklanders, unlike the unfortunate genocided indigenous peoples of South America, have backup.
About time that you paid compensation to the native Amerindians whose land you or your ancestors stole.
That is if you can find any. Your lot killed most of them.
l suppose you want to blame that on the Junta also!
No dear Thinkus, we're not moving & there is NOTHING that you can do about it.
Please join this new fb page - Falkland Islands Desire The Right - dedicated to Falkland Islands current affairs, keeping the islands free and poking fun at the loonacy of the Argentine government and their various claims and their internet trolls - https://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!
Get our news on your inbox!