MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Malvinas is central for Argentina, but 'there are a lot of other areas to work with the UK'
Argentina's foreign minister Susana Malcorra said on Tuesday the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty conflict “can't be sidestepped because it's a historic and central issue” for Argentina, although this “does not impede” acknowledging that relations between the two countries “have a lot of other areas in which we have to work”. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe propaganda “malvinista” has commenced! Beware!
Dec 16th, 2015 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can't be sidestepped but can be stepped over for now, while we trade and make dosh. Much better strategy, and somewhat more dangerous for the islanders, cuz the 1%ers don't care about anything but $$$$ (= cheap/labour and goods). Beware, this tactic has worked many times, don't trust the robber barons especially now they are licking their wounds over the oil debacle.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Translation: Another era where Argies focus on more pressing issues than the fantasy Malvinas.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another cycle clicks in until Argentina goes lefties and screwed up again in a few years
Argentina is finally doing what has been asked. To be civil and seperate the issue from normal state relations.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anyone who thought there was going to be a 180 turn on this matter is delusional.
” ... we must try to see if there are mechanisms to advance it”
Dec 16th, 2015 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hmm, sounds like platitudes for the ignorant masses to me.
Bye the bye - today is the 50th anniversary of the birth of Resolution 2065. A short and sad life, 2065 was fatally stabbed by its best friend Argentina in 1982. With masses of distributed cash it lingered on its death bed until 1985 when 2065 was finally put down at Argentina's request.
RIP Res. 2065
:-)
Actually, a lovely piece of 'side-stepping' whilst denying she really is doing so...
Dec 16th, 2015 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0This Dame sure knows the Diplomatic Dance!
I like her already :-)
(doesn't mean anyone should trust her, but I like her moves!)
Well, well, well.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here we have Malcorra taking one out of the BRITISH diplomatic playbook. Just like I predicted long time ago would happen.
But the most telling and funny thing is, the BRITISH in here immediately know not to trust her!
No better time to remember the old adage:
“It takes one to know one”
Now the British finally understand why I never trusted them. I know behind their “diplomatic veneer” of respect and appreciation of other nations, they truly neither respect, nor appreciate anyone. They think their way of thinking and doing is automatically superior.
Priceless moment of revelation! Thank you Mrs. Malcorra. You have without words revealed the fact
ANGLOS will be ANGLOS :)
“The Malvinas issue can't be sidestepped because it is an historic and central issue.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0But the annexation of Patagonia is ,as usual, another kettle o' fish.
Hypocrites
@7 You are up early, TTT, have you got a seasonal job? Santa's elf?
Dec 16th, 2015 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Diplomatic speak, that's all. I think the working relationship between Argentina and the UK will improve as long as there is trade to profit from. It is not the end of the issue but wasting so much time and money to have progressed the issue not one inch for Argentina while the country crashed was idiocy.
Before CFK there was a reasonable relationship between the British Embassy in BsAs and the Argentine politicians. Macri was friendly with the British Ambassador at the time. It wasn't a betrayal; it is not them and us; with us or against us; just sensible working relationships that benefit both parties.
How refreshing to have some adult attitudes to trade and politics.
UNGA 2065 XX Question of the Falkland Islands – 16 Dec 1965 – No longer relevant as it stated ‘peaceful solution’ and ‘interests of the inhabitants.’ Peaceful solution was broken by the events of 1982 and ‘interests of the population’ has been superseded by the international law on self-determination developed by ICJ Judgment and Advisory Opinions between 1971 and 2010 and is now ‘inalienable rights.’ UNGA 2734 XXV 16 Dec 1970 confirmed that new principles in international law such as the right to self-determination are interpreted into the UN Charter therefore self-determination supersedes all other obligations. https://www.academia.edu/10573354/UNGA_2065_XX_Question_of_The_Falkland_Islands_16_Dec_1965
Dec 16th, 2015 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0What if the British / Falklands ask to negotiate Argentina's sovereignty of it's EEZ beyond the Falkland's EEZ, and Argentina refuses?
Dec 16th, 2015 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's one of the major goals of British diplomacy in the region, to get Argentina to as they put it “have cooperation with the UK in fisheries”, code word for “sign a treaty that ties your hands to your back”, within your own territory?
Just as the Falklands and UK have no interest in negotiating the sovereignty of the Islands, neither should Argentina be faulted to balking at such a request of fisheries cooperation. There is no need to “cooperate”. If Argentina manages it's ocean well and so do the Falklands, then nothing further is required.
#11
Dec 16th, 2015 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I see that you don't really know much about fisheries.
Here is a bit of news for you....fish move about in the oceans. They don't recognise economic zones and are quite happy to swim in and out of what are considered territorial waters of adjoining countries.
To protect stocks of fish for EVERYONE'S benefit, it makes sense to ensure the long term survival of stocks by agreement between parties to protect spawning areas and prevent over-fishing.
I believe that you once advocated sweeping your seas clean to get at the islanders...if not you then another Troll.
To try and destroy the stocks for no other reason than to get at the Falkland Islanders is shooting yourself in the foot.
However Argies will always be Argies.
The EEZ is already demarcated. Has the UK asked for any EEZ outside what international law says they are allowed?
Dec 16th, 2015 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please provide a link to some Googled site that says otherwise.
For the love of God Nostrils you just make sh!t up.
Your persecution complex is really taking you over.
#11 Foolish man. Can you not see that co-operation in exchange of scientific data will benefit all those keen to protect fish stocks and take proper care of the environment. The SW Atlantic remains the only major ocean area of the world with no multi-lateral protection mechanism....because of RG foolishness over the Falklands. Time to grow up.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0A much more sensible approach to an almost intractable problem - but a problem of Argentina's own making. Yes the issue is historic and that is inevitable but what is not inevitable is making it a central issue. The main reason that this is the case is because the majority of Argentinians have been indoctrinated about the subject from the time they start primary school. If you put the “issue” into a better historical context (the colonisation of S. America, the interaction of the world's super powers in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries etc etc) you'd turn out citizens who would have a better understanding as to why we are where we are and might be a bit more accepting of the current situation as a result.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0#11 Actually the British have no major goals to achieve in the region and particularly not with Argentina.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0We simply do not care enough.
The Falklands fisheries are doing fine, thank you :-)
@7, 11. Enough information in the preceding comments to explain matters to any intelligent argie. But let's start a recap with Malcorra's statement. It isn't a “central issue” for Britain. And one would have thought that argies had plenty of other issues to concern themselves with. Without going over everything again, argieland's only remaining basis for its claim amounts to “We wants it, precious”. To which, if the British and Islanders, if asked, respond with “No.” Besides, I thought your view was that the Islanders are entitled to be where they are.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you might have considered that Britain has had at least 800 years more to learn about diplomacy. Far more expertise. The Spanish were always crap at it anyway. Your criticism is hilarious and implicit in your own words. Perhaps you'd like to identify one or more countries that doesn't think “ their way of thinking and doing is automatically superior.” What makes you think you're superior?
As I recall, argieland had a fisheries agreement with the Falkland Islands. In the good old days, before argieland decided that the Islanders don't exist, there was such an agreement that Uncle Nestor trashed when he realised it wasn't getting him sovereignty.
The reality is that, unlike its own belief, argieland is NOT the centre of the universe. It doesn't get what it wants just because it wants it. 3,000 Islanders are worth more to Britain than 43.4 million argies. And what impels that is your constant whining, whingeing and underhand methods.
Here are tips for the whole of argieland. Consider the extent of the Falkland Islands that argieland wants. Consider the extent of the territory that Britain has given away. The Islands are the homes of a considerable number of people who have been there for generations. Far more generations than can be claimed by the 83% to 85% of argies that originate in Europe. And more justifiably than the contract workers of Chagos who were never indigenous.
The new argentine government has no intention of giving up on the theft of the Falkland's.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@16
Dec 16th, 2015 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If that is genuinely the case, then it's a welcome sign.
It is welcome, we can happily deal with a difference of opinion, but Argentina needs to get with the program and understand that the future of the Falkland Islanders will never be negotiated over their heads. They will always have the last say on their own future and the referendum couldn't have been clearer.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On this issue there is nothing to talk about, but if we avoid it, we have lots to discuss.
Yawn.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As long as fisheries are out of the question, as well as British military ships docking in Argentine ports, I think all the rest is up for grabs.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ending the harrassment of the Falkland Islanders, and re-allowing British civilian vessels into the ports could certainly be negotiated.
That woman 'malasomething' learned nothing at the UN. She is just one more Argentinean malvinazi!
Dec 16th, 2015 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Philippe
Philippe
Dec 16th, 2015 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a waste of a comment. You said nothing other than lie.
Nostrils
See, you are capable of a post that is both rational and agreeable. I wholeheartedly agree with what you wrote.
“and we must try to see if there are mechanisms to advance it”, pointed out Malcorra during a meeting at the ministry with a group of friends of Colombia”
Dec 16th, 2015 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes there are. look realistically at what the Islanders have and offer them something better to encourage them to become Argentinian.
That is the only way other than invading the Islands and overpowering the UK military.
But that is not going to happen.
The Falkland Islanders would automatically lose by not being British and would be even better off independent than becoming Argentine.
Or she could try a proper examination of history and accept the reality that Argentina's claim cannot possibly match both the British claim and the Islander's right to be there through longevity.
“And more justifiably than the contract workers of Chagos who were never indigenous”
There have ben several generations of Chagos Islanders born on the Chagos Islands. There are graveyards to prove this if you care to look. The fact they did not own the plantations is irrelevant. Several generations that have been there nearly, if not as long as the Falkland Islanders, whilst not being originally indigenous have lived on and been born in the Islands. Therefore if the Falkland Islanders have the right (regardless of whether in the past the FIC, previously the main employer,was not always based in the Islands) to live on the Islands (which they do), so have the Chagos Islanders, unless you are saying that every single generation of Chagos Islanders were shipped in?
The Islanders kicked out of the Chagos, were not first generation islanders.
In fact the same flawed argument that the Argentines apply to the Islanders.
It is interesting to note that the British in WW2 operated RAF Diego Garcia, a Sunderland base without gassing the Chagos islander's dogs and expelling them from their homeland.
There were no acts of sabotage or the Islanders relaying any secrets to Adolf. They simply got on with their lives.
“...mechanisms to advance it”: Sun Tzu wouldn't have been so obvious.
Dec 16th, 2015 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As long as the islanders want to remain British,
Dec 16th, 2015 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0then that is the end of any argentine argument.
@25 Pete Bog
Dec 16th, 2015 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“There have ben several generations of Chagos Islanders born on the Chagos Islands. The fact they did not own the plantations is irrelevant.”
The fact that they didn't own the plantations is very relevant. No Chagos Islanders ever so much as owned a blade of grass on Diego Garcia.
This is a comparable scenario:
A man owns vast estates and he hires workers to work on those estates. He provides housing for his workers on the estate, but they don't own anything. The workers get married, have children, and when they grow up their children work on the estate.
This continues for several generations. The descendant of the man who owns the estate decides that it is no longer commercially viable, so he sells it lock, stock and barrel to another man. The second man decides to repurpose the estate and doesn't require the workers any more. So they are fired and asked to move off his land and out of his properties. But the second man is a decent man and pays a local council lots of money to rehouse the former workers. The council pockets the money and gives the former workers nothing. So the man, being a decent man, pays compensation directly to the workers.
Several decades later, the children of the workers (most of whom had never even set foot on the estate), demand that the owner of the estate give all the land and property to them, because some of them or their parents happened to have been born on that land.
Does the man just give up the property that he legally bought to a group of people that never owned it? Of course not, it is a ridiculous suggestion.
Yet this is precisely what the Chagos Islanders want. Never mind the fact that they never owned the Islands. Never mind that there is no fresh water on the Islands so they couldn't survive even if they could return (all fresh water is imported). Never mind that they accepted compensation offered in good faith. Never mind that they've lost every court case regarding this.
So it is relevant.
Who determines WHO “owns” the islands? YOU? When did the Falklanders come to “own” the islands, but the Chagossians never did? You see, when the British “discovered” (didn't) the Falklands, they also were crown property no? So why did the Falklanders get to own it, but the Chagossians no...
Dec 16th, 2015 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe the Falklanders have a “magic wand”.
You see, you are treating the Chagossians as property without any soul, to be shipped at will against their will. So much for your claims that Argentina should enter the 21st century, because Britain supposedly did. Your reasoning proves the exact contrary. Still up to the old tricks.
Your reasoning is no different from things like “Dogs and Indians not allowed” signs in the Subcontinent not that long ago.
The only difference is one group is WHITE ANGLO, the other isn't, and that one group stands in the way of British expansionism and colonialism, and the other enhances it.
Get out of here you imperalist, colonial fascist.
When did Argentineans come to own Argentina?
Dec 16th, 2015 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is nuance in all the examples but you are just totally incapable of beginning to understand that Nostrils.
Everything is black or white. The massive amount of disappointment you carry around because of that narrow worldview must be staggering.
@31
Dec 16th, 2015 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For all your purported discernment prowess of “black and white”, you had to resort to ad hominems about “Argentines owning Argentina”, in lieu of having no ability to expound on the distinguishing “nuances” vis-a-vis the Chagos.
Lepecron just said the Chagossians are to be shipped like cattle because they don't own anything (still don't know who decided THAT), and you could not even manage to refute something as simple to denounce as that.
I may be all black and white but at least can use what “little” ability I have. You however...
Wow Nostrils you still haven't learnt how to argue a coherent point.
Dec 17th, 2015 - 01:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Did you already forget what you had written in post #29?
“Who determines WHO “owns” the islands? YOU? When did the Falklanders come to “own” the islands, but the Chagossians never did?”
You asked a question and I extrapolated on it to show you how difficult that question is to be answered. If you could have answered my question then perhaps yours wouldn't even be asked.
But you INSISTENT need to feel persecuted all the bloody time.
It is no wonder you have so many difficulties learning and no wonder you have such a deep persecution and inferiority complex.
And your disabilities (intellectual not physical) means you have to twists someone else's words to say “Lepecron just said the Chagossians are to be shipped like cattle”.
No he didn't. Stop lying.
@7 tHroUGH_THE_lOOKING_GlASS
Dec 17th, 2015 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0says:
“Now the British finally understand why I never trusted them. I know behind their “diplomatic veneer” of respect and appreciation of other nations, they truly neither respect, nor appreciate anyone. They think their way of thinking and doing is automatically superior.
Priceless moment of revelation! Thank you Mrs. Malcorra. You have without words revealed the fact [that, their way of thinking and doing is automatically superior.]”
--
Glad you have finally understood, old chap. Yes, possibly, the British are vastly superior to you, they are just very polite about it.
I just can't believe that it took you so long to realise it...
(or maybe I can believe it, and did know that it would take you many years to understand such a simple concept, and I am just being very polite and condescending to an obviously inferior personage, not that I would ever admit it!)
Cheers!
Trebles All Round!
PS: Reading further down the thread, I see that Skip is playing you like a 'puppet on a string'. hahaha!
kinda proves my point....
===========
also @12 Clyde15
great post, thank you
@32
Dec 17th, 2015 - 03:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, you are right, my mistake.
He said the Chagossians ARE cattle.
@33
I know you as British think you are genetically superior. I just don't and so that's where we clash. I just have no respect for such ideology that has no proof in science whatsoever.
Appreciate your honesty.
@29 Tobias
Dec 17th, 2015 - 05:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well there is a difference.
In the case of the Falkland Islanders, they arrived to colonise the Islands which were British territory, to develop them and live there. They could, therefore, claim parts of the land as their own for farming and other such things (in a similar way as to how the whole 'new world' was colonised - but without having to steal the land from the native inhabitants 1st.)
In the case of Diego Garcia, it was French territory, and certain Frenchmen claimed parts of the land for plantations. They then imported workers from Mauritius, and paid them a wage to work on the plantations. The people who came to work on the plantations understood that they were being employed to do a job. Just because their 'job' lasted several generations doesn't actually give them right and title to the land (see my post above @28).
However, the plantations were never really commercially viable, especially as there is hardly any fresh water on Diego Garcia, so ALL fresh water has to be imported to this day. You should look up Diego Garcia on a map. It looks vaguely like a Christmas stocking, the land mass is tiny, with a lagoon that is huge, and I mean huge when compared to how much land there actually is.
So even if the British decided to leave Diego Garcia tomorrow and gave the land to the descendants of the workers of the plantations, those people could NOT survive without having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (perhaps millions) to import fresh water. No only to drink, but for their plantations, should they wish to start them up again. So they couldn't actually survive, because how would they pay for it?
Their plantations wouldn't be commercially viable (hence why the original owners sold up), so there would be no money, so they couldn't buy fresh water. Therefore they would either die or have to be removed.
Diego Garcia is useful as a military base, which is what the UK repurposed it as.
Nostrils
Dec 17th, 2015 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ilsen DIDN'T say that.
Stop lying. It's pathetic and supposedly a trait you find despicable in people.
@36
Dec 17th, 2015 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am reading “between the lines”, no lying involved.
I have no time now, I have to be somewhere near the Centro Civico at 7 am. I will answer Lepricon's post later.
Never mind : The Falklanders own their island: take look; that is the reality. Fleas who argue who owns the dog are a nuisance to the dog, but they don't have control. If the Fantasy is that the British are Colonialists, then the Fantasy is that the Islanders wish to be so; they are not going to be Free by becoming Argentinian possessions. Still, discussions and arguments may be entertaining without affecting the facts.
Dec 17th, 2015 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@37 Tobias
Dec 17th, 2015 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No you aren't reading between the lines you are just making stuff up and digging yourself deeper into a hole and making a bigger fool of yourself than usual.
It's difficult to trust you, Tobias, when you constantly change your name, tell lies, and spew your racist bile.
There was a time, Tobias, when you stated that you supported the Falklanders right to self determination. But then went out the window with another of your fake personalities. There was another time when you stated that you wouldn't post on any other Falklands related thread...that last about 10 minutes before you broke you word.
There is nothing to read between the lines in my or ilsen's post. What you lack is an argument, so you deliberately make things up.
It would actually be amusing if it didn't make you look so pathetic and desperate for attention.
Aw, poor Tobias, your secret revolution didn't only fail, it never got started. Your 'wait and see' what happens in 2013 went by and the only thing that happened was the Falklands referendum. No revolutions. No invasions. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
You're all mouth and no trousers, Tobias.
@29 'Your reasoning is no different from things like “Dogs and Indians not allowed” signs in the Subcontinent not that long ago'
Dec 17th, 2015 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The signs 'not that long ago' actually said 'dogs and South Africans'..............
Argentina has no claim whatsoever on the Falkland's and they know it,
Dec 17th, 2015 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if one was to leave and give the land back to its original inhabitants, then Argentinians should start leaving now,
pathetic hypocrites all of them,
leave the Falkland's along to live in peace,or
take it to the ICJ or soddy offy..
It was interesting today to see that James Peck has gone public and described being used, chewed up and spat out by TMBOA. I'd share the link but I'm sure Mercopress will pick up on the story in due course.
Dec 17th, 2015 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ms. Malcorra will do nothing but talking about it. Just empty words to avoid fueling the opposition and the cheap patriotic overestimated malvinist side of the country. They all know and fear what Macri thinks deep inside about the FI.
Dec 18th, 2015 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0@28
Dec 18th, 2015 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The fact that they didn't own the plantations is very relevant.”
When they are resettled they will be set up with jobs on the airbase , running tourism and helping with the Marine Protection Area, so they will have the opportunity to own something.
Whilst there have always been Falkalnd Islanders that have run business on the Islands , pre 1982 the Falkland Islands Company was owned by Coalite who I believe were not based in the Falkland Islands
Most Islanders worked for the Falkland Islands Company , but that does not mean those that did were ineligible Falklnd Islanders.
Post 1982, the Falkland Islands have bought (nationlised) much land that belonged to the FIC and sold it to Falkland Islanders who have made a great success.
I see no reason why the Chagos Islanders should not be helped to vbe more proactive in running things when they return in a similar vein to the Islanders that reduced FIC holdings in the Islands .
The Chagos Islanders maintain that one of the Islands (they did not solely live on Diego Garcia) has an extremely high level of rainfall and in any case they managed alright for well over a hundred years.
“Never mind that they accepted compensation offered in good faith”
Most of the compensation went to the Maritius Government . The Islanders did not see much of it
Despite receiving much of the money, the Mauritius government housed the Chagos Islanders in slums with no water and electricity, but thankfully some live in Crawley which is better.
According to your theory, Vernet's mixed race settlers should have been kicked off the Falkland Islands in 1833, because Vernet owned the settlement.
However some stayed on, they had no problem being under the Union Jack. Why should their decendants be evicted?
It is not true that the Chagos Islanders have lost all their court cases, there have been numerable British courts that have found in their favour.
The present resettlement study by HMG is going very well.
Very interesting first reactions of Argentina's new Government. Dispute exists and both leaders have recognised this. The path of dialogue will lead to the mature relationship Cameron looks for. And Foreign Minister Malcorra made it very clear. Dialogue is the only way forward
Dec 19th, 2015 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is nothing to “dialogue” about.
Dec 24th, 2015 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You want what we have & we do not want or need you.
You hold no cards & have nothing to offer except threats.
Tough luck for you.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!