Falkland Islands elected lawmakers with be delivering speeches on Thursday before the United Nations Decolonization Committee as petitioners requesting C24 de-lists the Islands from the Non Self Governing Territories, upholds the Falkland Islanders right to self determination and frees them from the continuous Argentine bullying and harassment. Read full article
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
If they refuse ........ delist the Committee.Jun 25th, 2015 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
The UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. The future of the islands will be decided by the islanders alone and not by a committee of foreign dictators and corrupt regimes.Jun 25th, 2015 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Deadlock will continue until Argentina gives up its lies and intimidation. In the meantime potential invaders should beware of Spearfish and Typhoons.
Good luck to the Islanders. There's no scrupulous person who can dispute their request.Jun 25th, 2015 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
”...”hopefully tomorrow (Thursday) a consensus declaration will be approved by C24 repeating UN calls for resumption of (Argentina/UK) dialogue ...
You forget it was Timerman who ended the last dialogue with the UK by refusing to negotiate in good faith, with the legitimate inhabitants of the Falkland Islands there to represent their own interests.
Add to that your previous refusals to negotiate in good faith, by demanding that you be guaranteed sovereignty regardless of the outcome of any negotiations.
If you had any factual claim to sovereignty, you could recover the Islands before the year is out by taking the UK to the ICJ for a ruling on sovereignty.
The fact that you're trying to avoid that proves your claim is based on a lie. You cannot recover” the Islands, because they've never belonged to you. That's the truth.
If you want dialogue, you should first agree to stop lying.
The wonderful C24 committee:Jun 25th, 2015 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
If Argentina really were serious about pursuing their claim, as opposed to perpetuating their grievance, they would be actively pushing for delisting themselves, since it's the Falklands presence on the list that guarantees the right of self-determination.Jun 25th, 2015 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
But never mind, once again we get to laugh at the spectacle of Argentina claiming in the name of decolonisation that its colonial inheritance allows it to colonise the Falklands Islands regardless of the inhabitants, warmly applauded by an assortment of nutters, dictatorships, and implanted colonial populations of Latin America acting in flagrant breach of its mandate.
Alejandro Betts will not be appearing this year apparently - as he's been outed as a fraud by the Clarin news group. Nor Nelson Gleadale who is apparently having visa problems with the USA - an excuse which hardly stands scrutiny, as access to the UN is pretty well guaranteed.Jun 25th, 2015 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
So - who will speak at the C24 today? Just Timerman and Filmus perhaps?
The Groundhog Day Committee!Jun 25th, 2015 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Timmerman- The heroic and Brave Foreign Minister who ran from a meeting with the British Foreign Minister about the Islands - as soon as he heard there would actually be democratically Elected representatives of the islands there - the people his Government claim do not exist and do not have any rights to have a say in their own future and homeland!-Jun 25th, 2015 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
But Argentina would of course take into account our interests!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I defy ANY Argentine to stand up and support this hypocritical two faced Attitude of the their Govt.
Falklands delegates will again ask Decolonization Committee to delist the IslandsJun 25th, 2015 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
and the decolonization committee will not give a flying fuck again
@9Jun 25th, 2015 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Thus proving once more that the decolonization committee is in flagrant breach of its mandate. Thanks for pointing that out.
“We are commemorating the event because we believe that art, as the UN are calling us to build a better world, more humane, more peaceful, fairer”, said Timerman at the opening.Jun 25th, 2015 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
But, it what way could the world be ”better, more humane, more peaceful, fairer” just by transferring a territory from one state to another state aganist the wishes of its inhabitants?
I don't get how the UN can be so thick, I'd understand the need for negotiations if there was a huge segment of the Falkland population that was and remains pro-argentinian. But, there wasn't then and there isn't such today. So, on what basis is there anything to talk about? The one thing that might have provided a legitimate reason for talks simple has never existed, and doesn't exist and that would have been a sizeable segment of Falklander's wanting to be Agrentine. It would be the same as the UN lecturing a country on deforestation calling on them to negotiate with timber companies, only problem the country they are lecturing never had any forests in the past or now. That's the sort of mentality that is in the UN.Jun 25th, 2015 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Why doesn't Timmerman use this opportunity to hold dialogue with the Falklands delegates as they'll all be together in the same place?Jun 25th, 2015 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Surely someone will mention this hypocrisy just to make him shut up.
The fact that Islands (not just the Falklands) are demanding to be taken off the committees list is breathtaking. It's high time the committee is disbanded as those who chose to decolonize have already done so long ago. The committees mandate from the UN & the limits of its powers were quite clear, they were their to help those people who wished to decolonize achieve that goal & they have no authority beyond that especially not to force them into it. Any recommendations or demands from this now defunct group especially by some of it's members who have questionable objectives are meaningless & without authority.Jun 25th, 2015 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
@5. I took the time to read this;Jun 25th, 2015 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
There's a lot of it. Perhaps the Falklands delegation could take the time to read it out to the C-24.
Then follow the example of Gibraltar. Offer the chairperson a first-class return air ticket to the Islands. Offer to pay for any other members of the committee and their staff.
And pose some interesting questions:
1. The Committee's mandate includes a requirement to visit territories. Why has the Committee never done so?
2. The Committee has no mandate regarding sovereignty. What is argieland doing here?
3. The Committee does have a mandate to see the relevant territories de-colonised. Has the Committee read our Constitution? What alterations to it or our governance does the Committee believe are essential for de-listing? And how many members of the Committee are capable of reading English and comprehending it?
15 Conqueror (#)Jun 25th, 2015 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
You have hit the nail on the head.
The Falklands have repeatedly invited the committee to send a delegation.
As they have refused to even reply they C-24 in my eyes has no mandate.
Why Argentina has not understood yet that Falkland Islands are not under their sovereign?Jun 25th, 2015 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Adios Falklands said to Argentina 33 years ago. Another war will be the full understanding? UK will delivery it, no question about.
New York, USA
@5Jun 25th, 2015 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
As usual, being the pathetic, lying, typical Anglo that you and the others are, I find it very amusing (and telling of the sickness of the Anglo mentality), that you actually believe that the description of ...warmly applauded by an assortment of nutters, dictatorships, and implanted colonial populations of Latin America acting in flagrant breach of its mandate..., somehow magically ends at the Mexican-US border, and that all those tens of millions of blond, blue-eyed, or milk skinned brunettes squatting all over the North American continent are just undiscovered, unrecognized original natives.
And then you wonder why the entire planet has such a dim view of the USA and Britain. Two of the most disonorable cultures ever on Earth.
@18Jun 25th, 2015 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Tobi, either the Clown College of Mendoza still hasn't established a logic department, or you haven't been paying attention in class, but evidently you're still bedevilled by the logical fallacy that if X is guilty of Y, Z must be innocent of it. Pretty much all of your posts depend on this, but unfortunately it just isn't so.
In the present case, the colonial origins of the countries in the northern part of the American continent do not mean that the population of the southern part is indigenous. In fact, for the most part you are either carpet-baggers yourselves, or the descendants of carpet baggers, as your predominantly Italo-Iberian origins would attest. As such, you are the beneficiaries of colonialism rather than the refutation of it, and if you had half a brain in your head would make rather less of a noise about it.
I fear you're also mistaken about the prevalence of anglophobia. It certainly exists, but Argentine anglophobia is a highly specific strain that is spread through the Argentine education system (such as it is), and therefore tends to affect primarily Argentines. The entire planet is largely immune from it, as e.g the 53 countries of the British Commonwealth might suggest to those not afflicted.
But if it's a comfort to you, be my guest.,
@8Jun 25th, 2015 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
But Argentina would of course take into account our “interests”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would argue that it is against the Islander's interests to be excluded from talks concerning their future.
@15 Agreed. It's time the C24 started fulfilling it's mandate.
So you think Cuba and Syria are bastions of freedom ?
The inclusion of South American countries on the C24 is blatantly to provide support for Argentina. The members of the committee should be neutral, not biased towards one side or the other. Hence who could blame the UK for ignoring them, after all, Argentina ignores practically every agreement it has ever signed-so you cannot blame the UK for doing the same.
Although 2065 is defunct, but also according to the wording, in the Islanders favour, according to the Franks Report (1983), the lslanders were present at talks between the UK and Argentina.
Argentina seems to translate, the interests of the population as the interests of Argentina
Pete Bog - Hit the nail on the head!! Yes indeed Argentina would of course ensure that our interests would be what Argentina decides and wishes - as they have already said that we are irrelevant and have no rights in our homeland!Jun 25th, 2015 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
And yet still they continue to bark up the tree!
@20Jun 25th, 2015 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Argentina has no right to take over the Falklands by forcing the islanders. Agree.
The Falklanders have no need to discuss sovereignty. Agreed.
But the Falklanders want to discuss other issues with Argentina...
Argentina does not wish to discuss it with them. Isn't that our right?
Further, Buenos Aires can only hold discussions with sovereign states. The Falklands are not a sovereign state, so they have no rights to negotiations with Argentina, in anything.
I really don't care if the UK ignores treaties and resolutions (which they do), as long as they then don't lecture others on ignoring treaties and resolutions. But alas, PM after bigmouthed PM can't help but get on their morality high-horse and tell other nations to obey all regulations when they themselves do meet these standards.
That is just annoying, and duplicitous.
Yet all I see is you calling the southern carpet-baggers (what is this?) squatters. You never call the northeners squatters. So my supposed logical fallacy is BETTER than your complete disregard for logic period.
Anglophobia is not so... it is only Anglo Awareness Acknowledgement, we are taught what the Anglos tried to do in Argentina, destroy our culture and genocide our people, on three occasions. First two by killing us all, third by trying to starve us (along with the rotten French).
I would think you have enough brain power to figure out that if another country tries to blast its way into yours, or blockades with ships trying to starve you, the locals may not like you down the line.
I personally fully admit to Anglophobia though, And Europhobia, and Ameriphobia, and all other forms of foreignphobias.
@22Jun 25th, 2015 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Thanks for proving my point.
Otherwise, I've never called anybody a squatter. In fact the only people I've ever heard using the term are Malvinistas and latino supremacists who seem to believe they have more right to be there than anybody else. I can't quite figure out how that works, myself, and I've yet to hear a comprehensible explanation, but maybe one day.
Good luck with your phobias. They're not considered positive attributes in other cultures.
'Further, Buenos Aires can only hold discussions with sovereign states. 'Jun 25th, 2015 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Is there some part of the Argentine Constitution or some Argentine law that forbids it to discuss anything with a dependent territory? Because if you think there's some kind of international law that forbids a sovereign state to negotiate anything at all with a dependent territory of another sovereign state, I ask you where do you get such nonsense?
@24Jun 25th, 2015 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Foreign law does not apply in Argentina, sorry to inform you.
It would be ridiculous for Buenos Aires to deign the Falklands the same diplomatic status as herself, when clearly they are not.
I wonder how London would react if we started negotiations with Scotland on the side, without consulting London.
Get it now?
Just because the UK thinks one part is a dependent territory and another is not, does not mean everyone in the world has to view it like that.
Argentina view is the UK overseas territories are not recognized as anything politically speaking. That is independent from my belief that those territories have the right to associate with the UK and be left alone by Argentine obsessions. However, Argentina is under no obligation to sit down with them just because the UK says we should. Discussing anything with a dependent territory is ludicrous, like talking about renting a room in your home by discussing it with your teenage children.
#25Jun 25th, 2015 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Foreign law does not apply in Argentina, sorry to inform you.
That's perfectly why your country has violated numerous treaties, IMF accords, the Geneva Convention, International Court rulings, human Rights...
...frankly, you don't even follow your own laws...
That's why last time your nation became so lawless, a shopkeeper's daughter had to come down and kick Argentina's arse.
Foreign law does not apply in Argentina, sorry to inform you. Jun 25th, 2015 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Why? Is Argentina unique among all sovereign states? Doesn't apply to Argentina even though Argentina insist it applies to the Falklands. Though, of course, Argentina is wrong about what foreign law applies.
'It would be ridiculous for Buenos Aires to deign the Falklands the same diplomatic status as herself, when clearly they are not.'
Who says Argentina has to do this to be able to negotiate anything at all? Other states manage to negotiate without doing so.
'I wonder how London would react if we started negotiations with Scotland on the side, without consulting London.'
Nobody has suggested any such thing. Did you read the part of the link where it mentions a letter of entrustment? Which gives a territory authority to negotiate over a particular issue, and says what the authority covers and what the UK's involvement would be.
'Argentina view is the UK overseas territories are not recognized as anything politically speaking.'
By Argentina. The US, for cexample, clearly thinks otherwise. Else it wouldn't have negotiated an agreement with Bermuda.
'However, Argentina is under no obligation to sit down with them just because the UK says we should. '
Here 'should' does not mean a legal obligation. It means advice to do so if Argentina wants to achieve something with its claim. It doesn't have to if it doesn't want to. But my query was about your statement that it can only hold discussions with sovereign states. The only impediment to Argentina discussing anything with any non independent territory is Argentina itself.
Gollum has ben at it again and again and again.Jun 25th, 2015 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
This started on the front page early on but has been pushed off to 'The Falkland Islands' section.
Don't know if Gollum's photo is an old one or somebody has told him he looks like an even bigger cunt in those big glasses.
22 The_troLLimpic_gamesJun 25th, 2015 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
UK ignores treaties and resolutions I agree that the UK has ignored none-binding advisements from the UN. But, has followed it's required UN Charter obligations to the letter, which is binding international law. So there are no treaties that the UK isn't in compliance with.
#25 (someone who's been sniffing too much glue)Jun 25th, 2015 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You know what happens when nations don't follow international law?
Some get away with it, and others get their arse kicked like Argentina in 1982...
Argentina has violated numerous treaties with Chile alone, failed to IMF accords, violated numerous times the Geneva Convention, ignored International Court rulings, the US Federal Court...
I have friends in Argentina that I admire, but there still are too many of la Cámpora ready to vote for Peronist politicians yet.
@26Jun 25th, 2015 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
As usual, your complete lack of even high school education shows limpid through the water.
Tell me where does it say that foreign law applies to Argentina, or any nation. Nations are free to decide which treaties the want to NOT sign, sign, or change their minds upon and withdraw from!
WHAT PART OF THIS DON'T YOU GET AND WHY CAN THE UK DO THIS BUT ARGENTINA CANNOT????
Same, foreign law does not apply in Argentina. Why? Because we say so. Simple as that.
Other states can do as they please. If they want to sign a treaty with Liberland, go ahead. Just because others do it does it mean Argentina has to do it?
I guess you are the type who will ingest kerosene and then put a match in your mouth if those around you do so.
Argentina has its own position, only sovereign states are accorded 1-on-1 talks.
Other countries can do what the wish, you can insult us for our position, but you can't change nor can you do anything about it. Our call.
And it is not an impediment, what possible benefit could it bring Argentina to negotiate with the Falklanders... our OWN waters??? (since the Falklands clearly have stated their territorial waters and EEZ are not up for discussion). So one must assume that the Falklanders want to discuss the waters off the coast of Trelew, Bahia Blanca, Mar del Plata , etc.... Which is absolutely insane for us to even vouchsafe consideration.
So has Argentina, it has violated no binding resolutions.
Return all the stolen camera equipment and maybe then we could start talking. It would help if you stopped being a bunch of petty thieves, looking for holes in all the wrong places.
6 The_troLLimpic_gamesJun 25th, 2015 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
...Argentina, it has violated no binding resolutions What a liar in 1982 Argentina violated UN Security Council legally binding Resolution 502. ..the Council demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces. ...Resolution 502, which was in the United Kingdom's favour, gave the UK the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and claim the right of self-defence. ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502
Limmping troll 31.Jun 25th, 2015 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Please tell me what has Argentina to object about in the principle of 3 parties sitting at a table to discuss issues of mutual benefit and co-operation?
You do not mention the S word on either side - just sit down and start talking - and start learning how to get along and respect.
And start trying to undo all the hatred and distrust that 12 years of Kirscheners have bred in the Islands.
foreign law does not apply in ArgentinaJun 25th, 2015 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Oh yes it does!
As an example, the International Criminal Court can order the obligatory arrest and deportation to another country for prosecution of your president while she's on a visit in Brazil. There are many other examples as well. Defiance of an ICC order can result in international sanctions.
The US Federal courts can at time order you to comply US law as CFK has painfully learned the hard way.
@34Jun 26th, 2015 - 03:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I'm flattered you think Brazil is a territory of Argentina, but alas it is not. So while in Brazil she could be subject to your scenario, not in Argentina and no one can do a damn thing about it can they.
ICC sanctions? Don't make me laugh. Is the US part of it? I thought so.
Argentina can withdraw any time no problem.
US law? When have they been able to apply it within Argentine soil?
So try harder next time.
That was 35 years ago? The UK violated the UN Charter itself in 2003!!
Let's remember the articles the UK blatantly and criminally breached then:
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1
To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace...
SUPPRESSION OF ACTS OF AGGRESSION... What did the UK do?
BRING ABOUT BY PEACEFUL MEANS... was 2003 Iraqi Freedom” (tell me how free are they now under ISIS), peaceful??
ARTICLE 2, SECTION 3
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...
WHAT DID THE UK DO?
ARTICLE 2, SECTION 4
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state...
WHAT DID THE UK DO?
In principle, the objection is that three party talks are superfluous. They are unnecessary waste of taxpayer money. But even if that was not an issue... what could be possibly discuss?
Will you discuss sovereignty? Of course not, nor would I ever expect you to do (unlike what is said of me here I respect your wishes).
So what else is there to discuss? Argentina has no interest in discussing fisheries or any such other vacuous subjects, we have no reason to. You have our Economic Zone, we have ours. You do as you please in your own waters, we do as we please in ours. You have no vote, say, or control over our waters outside your 200km radius.
I agree with your last paragraph. So why does Argentina still harrass the FALKLANDS about exploiting their natural resourses. ie Oil and Fisheries. You Sir are a complete hypocrite.Jun 26th, 2015 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Argentina can talk to meet and talk to the Falkland Islands whenever it wishes.Jun 26th, 2015 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
It just doesn't want too.
It doesn't need reams of incoherent illogic from Nostrils to vainly try to find a reason why it can't happen.
@36Jun 26th, 2015 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The harrassment is the current government, it hasn't always been the position of Argentina.
However, it has always been the position of the Falklanders that Argentina MUST sit down and strike treaties with them, on the topics THEY WANT, about ARGENTINA'S OWN WATERS AND TERRITORY beyond the Falkland's Economic Zone.
And that if we don't, we are bad neighbors, evil, unreasonable, etc.
So their sovereignty is not negotiable, their waters are not negotiable, their activities in their waters are not negotiable... but our waters, our activities, and even our sovereignty are???
The Falklanders want Argentina to sign papers that severely limit our own economic activities, our own sovereignty, and our own actions within Argentina (with heavy input by the FALKLANDS and UK), while they can just do as they please with Argentina having no say.
Argentina gives them simply the logical, correct answer:
35 The_troLLimpic_games Your intent to try and apply the following to the issue to Islands to wit: ARTICLE 2, SECTION 4 “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state...” retro active application is barred under international law since the the issue stems from 1833 and the article you quote is from 1945. ...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion....Jun 26th, 2015 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994
In addition: https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=74+A.J.I.L.+285&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=4f06bee01df0bc39e3c9b9044a70d8e9
Plus,It is a well-settled principle of international law that the rules of law contemporaneous with the acts in the distant past, and not the present rules of law, control their legal significance. Otherwise havoc would be wreaked regarding titles to territory...p.1235 International Law,Intertemporal Problemsin ENcyclopedia of Public International Law 1234-1236(1992) D'Amato, Anthony https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=74+A.J.I.L.+285&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=4f06bee01df0bc39e3c9b9044a70d8e9
under the doctrine of intertemporal law and pursuant to the general principles of none-retroactivity of the law, the title to territory conquered and annexed at a time when international law allowed allowed acquisition by a conqueror, remains legally valid...
International Law: A Dictionary by Boleslaw Adam Boczek https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=74+A.J.I.L.+285&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=4f06bee01df0bc39e3c9b9044a70d8e9
@22Jun 26th, 2015 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Argentina does not wish to discuss it with them. Isn't that our right?
Yes it is-but Argentina keep whining about the UK not talking to them about the Falklands. The UK )according to 2065) cannot ignore the interests of the Islanders, so have to include them in talks?
So Argentina says it wants to talk, but when Islanders are invited (as they were pre-1982) to talks, Argentina says it doesn't really want to talk.
It is Argentina's right not to talk. But that appears odd when they say they want to.
@40Jun 26th, 2015 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Do not worry about it, it is the twisted logic of the Hispanics, they all seem to be made from the same block of wood. They want to talk on THEIR TERMS only.
Who is trying to tell Argentina what to do in their own waters?Jun 27th, 2015 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Nostrils really needs to stop listening to the voices in his head.
@42Jun 28th, 2015 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You Anglos are. In fact you want to take over our economic waters. That is the ultimate goal of the UK, as it has been for 200 years, economic, political, and if possible territorial control and usurpation of Argentina.
It's not odd, I have explained it before many times.
Argentina wants to talk, about sovereignty.
You in the UK do not and will not discuss it. (about the only thing I understand about the UK, and about the only policy action of the UK I agree with).
As I have said, since the Falklands are neither an integral part of the UK nor a sovereign nation, Argentina will refuse to talk to them because Buenos Aires cannot under Argentine laws accord such status to them (of a sovereign state that has the right to ask for talks with Buenos Aires, a sovereign state), when even the UK itself (the Suzerainty), does not give the islanders that status.
Since Argentina ended the fisheries and oil treaties and has no desire of discussing them further with the islanders or the UK (after it was discovered that the UK and islanders wanted to use the treaties to take over Argentina economic resources, and curtail its sovereignty in our own EEZ, while at the same time in duplicitous fashion stating Argentina had no say in the Falklands EEZ), then Argentina will not sit down with either party to discuss cooperation on fisheries, climate, rigging, vessels, tourist flow, etc.
Since neither party has anything the other side is interested in talking about, then it makes sense.