MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, May 26th 2019 - 02:13 UTC

“Falklands/Malvinas current policy is a losing option and leads nowhere”

Wednesday, November 12th 2014 - 03:19 UTC
Full article 148 comments
Trying to dislodge the Islanders of their soil, after eight generations is unfair. They have been shepherds all their lives” argued Escudé Trying to dislodge the Islanders of their soil, after eight generations is unfair. They have been shepherds all their lives” argued Escudé
The Argentine political analyst mentioned the Channel Islands as a case to look at and which involves Britain and France splitting land and maritime space. The Argentine political analyst mentioned the Channel Islands as a case to look at and which involves Britain and France splitting land and maritime space.

Argentina's current policy on the Falklands/Malvinas Islands sovereignty is a losing option because it is a 'maximalist' attitude with the purpose of ‘full recovery' of the disputed islands, said Argentine political scientist and writer Carlos Escudé.

 “It's not leading anywhere, it's pure rhetoric. It's useful to attract votes of those less educated and that's all” insisted Escudé who argued that ”if we are going to impose on the poor Islanders the same fortune as the Argentines, it is non democratic nor wished by the Islanders or understandable for western peoples which they see this Argentine 'thing' as an eccentricity, more appropriate of Macondo (*) from deep South America“.

Given this background Escudé proposes for the dispute a territorial agreement and compensation

”Before giving up the territory, the counterpart should be a British acknowledgement that Argentina has a 50% right over the fisheries surrounding the Malvinas. This is pure logic because trying to dislodge the Islanders of their soil, after eight generations is unfair. They have been shepherds all their lives and since the Islands history“, argued Escudé.

But fisheries are something in which Argentina should participate and it is perfectly attainable because ”there are numerous examples in international Law by which maritime jurisdiction is split ad hoc“.

Escudé then mentioned the Channel islands as a case to look at and which involves Britain and France.

”The islands are next to the French coast, like the Malvinas are on the Patagonia shelf. Britain and France reached an ad hoc agreement by which the maritime space surrounding the channel islands is a narrow circumference and the rest French. They are British enclaves surrounded by French sea“.

Escudé went on to say that ”if we are willing to be reasonable and start to demand a solution on those terms, the proposal will look more reasonable not only for the third world countries that gang-support us, but also for the French, Germans. The British will find it difficult to explain why the channel islands solution is valid for UK and France and not for Argentina and Britain“.

When asked about a possible solution to the conflict by which Argentina fully recovers all the Islands territories and surrounding sea but in 100 years, Escudé was rather ironic.

”A hundred years from now many things can happen, including that Argentina ceases to exist. To talk in these terms is like having a crystal ball“.

”Argentina is an entirely defenseless country. Since the Malvinas conflict the defense capacity has been degraded to infinity. Currently in military terms Argentina is a midget but not before UK, but before Chile. In a hundred years time I don't know if Argentina will exist because we exist thanks to Brazil and Chile that are in agreement that we can continue to exist“, underlined the Argentine political analyst.

Likewise ”if Argentina was strong, I wouldn't be making these proposals, but pretending to apply power policies when you don't have them, it is clearly counterproductive, because your are condemned to lose more than what you win in a systemic approach“.

”Argentina is in no position to impose absolutely nothing, but if policy was intelligent we could discuss agreements that could bring certain benefits to Argentina. What we have currently generates no benefit at all. It has become a problem for a long list of governments to come”, concluded Escudé.

(*) Macondo refers to the small Colombian town in the Amazon jungle on which Nobel Prize winner Gabriel Garcia Marquez books are inspired.

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Troll in The Dark

    There is no reason to spend money on a military that cannot defeat all opponents. It is like spending thousands on a security system of a house with no doors. In such a case, better not to have any security system at all, and just hope for the best and invest the money elsewhere. Perhaps on some top-rate personal weapons. In country terms, I would invest in an anti-aircraft/missile shield.

    The British will never agree to the solution you proffer because quite frankly, they don't have to. I get it. But even if they did, they have been enemies of Argentina for 200 years, always undermining this country in direct and surreptitious ways. Britain would never agree to anything that might benefit Argentina in any shape or fashion.

    Nov 12th, 2014 - 03:40 am 0
  • Troy Tempest

    “Argentina's current policy on the Falklands/Malvinas Islands sovereignty is a losing option because it is a 'maximalist' attitude with the purpose of ‘full recovery' of the disputed islands, said Argentine political scientist and writer Carlos Escudé.”

    “Maximalist attitude”?
    Does that mean Maximo and his La Campora propagandists will continue the existing K agenda, after his Mum is gone?

    The Islanders are entitled to carry on in their traditional livelihood of nine generations, as shepherds.
    Or they can diversify and turn their hands to fishing, scientific research, tourism, or oil production - whatever they wish.

    That's fair.

    Why should they restrict themselves or hand some of it to a jealous neighbour who cannot manage their own industries?

    Already tried negotiation of resources and sovereignty - argentina was not satisfied- they took the islands by force and killed 3 Islanders, and 250 British military.

    By the 1990's, the UK and Arg negotiated resource sharing and came to an agreement.
    Subsequent President Nestor Kirchener was not satisfied and tore up those agreements.

    Seems pretty futile, trying to share anything with ARGENTINA - it's never enough, and then they get pissy...

    Now, the Falklanders are moving ahead without them.

    Nov 12th, 2014 - 04:11 am 0
  • Troll in The Dark

    The best long term status is what exists today, but without Argentina applying “sanctions” or constantly raising the Falklands as an issue. In other words, end all restrictions, stop talking about the islands, leave the people there in peace, and then pretend that neither the Falklands nor the UK even exist. That would be a boon for Argentina.

    Nov 12th, 2014 - 04:20 am 0
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!