MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Ice patrol HMS Endurance a complete loss, will be scrapped says MOD
The Royal Navy's former ice patrol ship HMS Endurance is to be scrapped after the Ministry of Defense decided the cost of repairing the vessel, which flooded off the coast of Chile in 2008, was too great. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOne less boat to be used for empire building then .sorry I mean 'globalization'
Oct 10th, 2013 - 02:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0No Marcos, she was used to help prevent empire building and she is a ship, not a boat.
Oct 10th, 2013 - 04:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Poor Marcos (figuratively and literally), I didn't see your comment on this article recently:
Oct 10th, 2013 - 05:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2013/05/20/almirante-irizar-en-route-to-becoming-another-major-scandal-for-argentina-s-navy
What a stark contrast between a country that works and one that doesn't.
So so glad you commented.
So sad when a real piece of history like this comes to an end.
Oct 10th, 2013 - 05:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0I still remember the dangerous game of cat and mouse Endurance played against the Argentine navy just days after the illegal Argentine invasion.
Despite being a huge bright red ship the Argies never did find it, and Endurance sailed east to meet up with the Task Force, and joined in the liberation of the Falkland Islands.
Goodbye and God bless Endurance, your place in history in the liberation of the Falklands from a murderous fascist regime, is assured.
It's a logical conclusion to the ship.
Oct 10th, 2013 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's a shame she's not economically viable but she served well and now is to be retired. I've been on Endurance a few times in the past and she was a very nice ship to be on (compared to Warships).
A wonderful little ship. I remember the Spithead review when she carried the Queen and the Royal Marines band was playing on the foredeck. Then, the attack on the Santa Fe and the Argentinian surrender on South Georgia. A proud ship. But most of the time she was a peaceful ship holding the RG bullies at arms length.
Oct 10th, 2013 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still,
Oct 10th, 2013 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0it will be replaced,
and the argies will still fear her..
It's Ministry of Defence.....NOT defenSe!
Oct 10th, 2013 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually 1982 was the previous HMS Endurance, current one now no more arriven on scene about 1990 I think and again was an ex Scandanavian vessel.
Oct 10th, 2013 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos how is you Ant Patrol Ship doing? You know the one still sitting burnt out in drydock?
Have you ever heard of the expression about glass windows and stomes!!
She has been replaced by another.
Oct 10th, 2013 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0What a shame Endurance isnt being replaced by a nuclear powered and armed aircraft carrier.
Oct 10th, 2013 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lets neutron bomb Argentina
Thanks Endurance.....though not the '82 version you will long be remembered by all Falkland Islanders.
Oct 10th, 2013 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Poor Marcos...poor simple turd....!
Oct 10th, 2013 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@1
Oct 10th, 2013 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was replaced by Protector ages ago-so there isn't one less-however it will help prevent the Argentinian empire from expanding......
@9 Islander
Oct 10th, 2013 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I stand corrected. Thanks.
The name HMS Endurance does bring up some emotive memories, though.
Is this vessel the HMS Endurance which was afloat in 1968? When Captain Buchanan was in command. When a B.A.S. Twin Otter ran out of fuel over the Peninsula and was refuelled by the Wessex helicopters. It was a wonderful ship. So sad that it will be scrapped.
Oct 10th, 2013 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@1 You'll have to clarify your statement. To the best of my knowledge, the UK isn't currently claiming anyone else's land. The same cannot be said for argieland and Spain. Your finger is pointing in the wrong direction.
Oct 10th, 2013 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@4 Wrong Endurance. The vessel you refer to served from 1967 to 1991. It was originally the Danish “Anita Dan”. THIS HMS Endurance was originally the MV “Polar Circle”.
@6 Again. Wrong vessel!
@16 No.
'Bullying from Spain - and nonsense from UN Committee of 24 ~
Oct 10th, 2013 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...What makes no sense, Mr Chairman, is a continued deafening silence by the C24 and a continued reference to a consensus decision between the United Kingdom and Spain which does nothing to advance our progress towards decolonisation.
What makes even less sense are some of the statements which have been attributed to the His Excellency Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, Chair of the C24, that he had stated that some colonial situations are defined as “special and particular” because they involved sovereignty disputes.
Mr Chairman, that statement is based on the entirely false and unsustainable premise that different principles could apply to the decolonization of the people of non-self-governing territories simply because a neighbouring state might stake a claim to the territory in question.
There is no trace in any one of the resolutions of the United Nations to such nonsense.
There is no customary rule of international law that, however stretched, might give rise to such a principle.
What there is, however, is a concerted effort by Spain and Argentina - working closely together as the two states that are staking claims to Gibraltar and the Falklands respectively – to try to create such a doctrine in order to avoid the application to our people of the inalienable right of self-determination...'
http://www.panorama.gi/localnews/headlines.php?action=view_article&article=10915&offset=0
@18
Oct 10th, 2013 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting what the ICJ says about self-determination:
'Furthermore, the subsequent development of International Law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-development applicable to all of them.'
paragraph 52 International Courts of Justice Advisory Opinion refers.
www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/53/5595.pdf
Even the UN Website on decolonization states, 'to monitoring the situation in the 16 remaining territories and (without exception) working to facilitate the advance towards complete self-determination of these territories.'
The right to self-determination is now recognised by the UN C24 as being applicable to all the territories including the Falklands and Gibraltar. The issue has been decided whether Argentina/Spain likes it or not and there are clear principles that govern how decolonization is to be handled and there is no ad hoc state by state mechanism that can be shaped to please Argentina or Spain.
It is about time that the UN C24 is brought to book and told to stop pandering to Argentinian/Spanish national aspirations.
Sixty-eighth General Assembly
Oct 10th, 2013 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fourth Committee
3rd Meeting
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm
@19 Brit Bob
Oct 10th, 2013 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'It is about time that the UN C24 is brought to book and told to stop pandering to Argentinian/Spanish national aspirations.'
Good link and spot on mate, it's time for reform of the C24. The C24 should be doing its job, actually supporting the NSGT. But unfortunately the C24 is corrupt, many of its members or Argentine sympathisers, who support territorial colonialism!
But don't forget the what the countries of the UNGA agreed...
'...the Assembly would further reaffirm that, in the process of decolonization, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which was also a fundamental human right...'
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm
@19 Don't be silly , please. Something about the ICJ:
Oct 10th, 2013 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The Court's workload covers a wide range of judicial activity. To date, the ICJ has dealt with relatively few cases. However, since the 1980s there has been a clear increase in willingness to use the Court, especially among developing countries. After the court ruled that the U.S.'s covert war against Nicaragua was in violation of international law (Nicaragua v. United States), the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986. The United States accepts the court's jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis.[3] Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings. However, such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council, which the United States used in the Nicaragua case.“ ”The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of even cases to which they consented in advance to be bound.[29] Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc.. Therefore it is very likely for the member states of Security Council to avoid the responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States.” Isn't it funny that the permanent members of the ICJ are also the permanent members of the UNSC and have the veto power to avoid the responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice? and who is one of these permanent members of the ICJ and the Security Council? That's right, the UK.
I guess he will make a point one day..... just not today it would seem!
Oct 11th, 2013 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0@22
Oct 11th, 2013 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0So what? Imagine the massive propaganda value if Argentina won its case. Some of the 80% of the UN that doesn't support you might even be led to change their mind.
Gonzo22. As I understand it, the United Kingdom did invite the Argentine to put its case before an international Court . For a time the Argentine went along with it, but suddenly withdrew.... I wonder why ?
Oct 12th, 2013 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@22
Oct 12th, 2013 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If your case was historically watertight, and if there was no such thing as the UN charter you'd be in there like a shot.
You think you can bypass the Falkland Islanders as if they don't exist.
Your problem is that they do-and your historical case is so weak it isn't credible. based on ifs and circumstantial maybes-nothing to do with the make up of the ICJ.
Mapuche, Kolla, Toba, Guaraní, Wichí, Those names mean something in the Argentine, but for the outside world, they were some of the tribal names of the Indians that lived there. Before, that is, mostly Latin, extraction Europeans moved in and took away their country. At least there was nobody living on the Falkland Islands, so the British threw no indigenous population out. This silly claims that the Argentine put forward as proof of ownership, could equally well be the same as for France, Spain, The United States, and Uruguay. The Argentine have never had an indigenous population living on the Falklands . The did in the 1830s ask permission to set up a port there, but the British then realised that the permission was a underhand way of seeking possession and they turfed them off
Oct 14th, 2013 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@27
Oct 16th, 2013 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina never had a 'colony' on the Falklands - ever.
The Vernet colony was a business venture by a (naturalized) citizen of the United Provinces, but consisted mostly of Europeans. Vernet had notified the British Consul & was given permission to be on the islands, so long as he reported on the British possessions. Long after the colony ended, Vernet still regarded the islands as British.
When Vernet was incensed that the American Sealing ships were taking huge numbers of seals & not paying any royalty to him, he asked the United Provinces to send their military to stop them. Buenos Aires were very concerned that doing so might antagonise the United Kingdom & not wanting an invasion of the mainland (again), they instead made Vernet the civil & military commander & urged him to do it himself.
Vernet seized 2 American ships, but the third got away & raised the alarm. In retaliation, the US military damaged Vernet's colony & warned that there should be no further attacks on US ships.
When the British became aware that:
a) Vernet had carried out 'executive actions' without the appointed authority of the Crown, and,
b) by seizing US Ships had antagonised a country that Britain had been at war with in the previous 2 decades, and,
c) by exerting the 'authority' awarded by the United Provinces, he was seeking to obtain possession of the islands (for the UP) by peaceful prescription,
the British Government realised that they had to act and send a warship.
The British did not know (at the time this warship departed) that there were plans to send a UP garrison to the islands. The British warship arrived only a couple of months after the UP troops. It was fortuitous that they did, because when the Americans learned that UP ships were yet again interfering with US sealing ships, the US Navy was about to send a task force to deal with the problem once & for all. The arrival of HMS Clio removed the need for this, because Captain Onslow ordered the UP garrison to leave.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!