MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Malcorra taunted in Congress over the UK/Argentina statement and South Atlantic chapter
“I disagree with the text of the statement, but I do not believe it is a treaty”, said lawmaker Elisa Carrió during the debate on the issue 
“The statement does not have the characteristics of an international accord and thus does not commit the sides”, argued ambassador Gonzalez 
Ex ambassador Alicia Castro said the statement was in effect an “international accord” and that the wording includes three times words related to “accord”. 
Filmus denied Falklands' self determination arguing Falkland Islanders were implanted by the British Crown and as such are “part of the colonization process” A leading ally of President Mauricio Macri's precarious coalition in Congress and chair of the Lower House Foreign Affairs committee, held another special session to address the September UK/Argentina Joint Statement, which she argues is not an “accord or treaty”, but nevertheless strongly questions the South Atlantic chapter which calls for lifting economic sanctions on Falklands' trade, fisheries, connectivity and oil development.
“I disagree with the text of the statement, but I do not believe it is a treaty”, said lawmaker Elisa Carrió during the debate on the issue agreed by Susana Malcorra and Foreign Office minister Sir Alan Duncan last September, and also invited to the debate International Law experts, notorious Kirchnerite personalities such as Daniel Filmus the ex-head of the Malvinas Issues department and ex ambassador in London, Alicia Castro, plus militant Malvinas veterans.
As expected a clear majority said the joint statement was in effect “an international treaty”, and some believe it was mostly drafted by the Foreign Office. The only voice in support of lawmaker Carrió was ambassador Guillermo González, and old hand in the Argentine ministry and currently president of the Argentine delegation to the Administrative Committee of the River Plate shared with Uruguay.
“The statement does not have the characteristics of an international accord and thus does not commit the sides”, said ambassador Gonzalez who nevertheless defended the Argentine government's position to yield and accept UK pretensions of facilitating air links with the Falklands/Malvinas as long as they call in Argentine territory.
”The alternative to this is to keep waiting for a moment when our (sovereignty) rights are naturally recognized“, he added who also underlined that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 20/65, which acknowledges the existence of a dispute over the Islands sovereignty is ”outdated“.
However his words were immediately questioned by ex ambassador Alicia Castro who said the statement was in effect an ”international accord“ and that the wording includes three times words related to ”accord“. She also claimed that Malcorra was ready to facilitate UK's oil and fisheries industries in the South Atlantic and for this the government is prepared to endorse legislative changes, ”which have been approved to protect the natural resources belonging to the Argentines“.
Ms Castro also recalled that during her years in London in more than an occasion the Foreign Office had approached her with similar initiatives regarding Falklands oil, fisheries and air links, ”very similarly drafted“ and which obviously were dumped.
Filmus the former head of the Malvinas affairs office under the Kirchner administration rejected the fact that Resolution 20/65 was ”outdated“ and again denied the Falklands' self determination arguing Falkland Islanders were implanted by the British Crown and as such are ”part of the colonization process“.
The debate, which Carrió said is scheduled to continue in the coming weeks, came a day after President Macri called on coalition members to stop publicly bickering and squabbling, and after hosting the controversial lawmaker for a long dinner at the presidential palace.
Apparently Carió has been very critical of Malcorra particularly on what she describes as three major blunders: the wording of the joint statement, convincing Macri to sofen its criticism of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and the Chavista regime, and finally openly aligning the Argentine government in support of Hillary Clinton in the recent US election.
In effect the joint statement had already been debated in the Lower House with the attendance of deputy minister Carlos Foradori, in absence of Malcorra, who was strongly questioned for having missed the invitation. Carrió took the opportunity to again express her disenchantment with Malcorra and which caused a hilarious reply: ”to be honest she didn't turn up because I didn't invite her”
Allegedly Carrió with a long political career, including running for president, supports air links to the Falklands with calls in Argentine territories, and the joint exploitation with UK of hydrocarbons and fisheries in the disputed waters.
Top Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules-
-
-
Read all comments'...and again denied the Falklands' self determination arguing Falkland Islanders were implanted by the British Crown and as such are ”part of the colonization process“.
Nov 18th, 2016 - 09:49 am +3So Filmus if you take away the Implanted population (your words not the UK's), you are left with an unpopulated island.....any new population would be implanted and a colony and therefore go against 2065. Don't think they he thought that one through.
2065 is not about sovereignty, it is about decolonisation. Two different subjects.
Or is Filmus suggesting that the Islands remain unpopulated from now on? Or is he suggesting you just take away the 'British' population but leave the 'non British', but they are still implanted aren't they Mr Filmus.....you really need to think that through a little better.
Dear Argentina, you have never legally owned the Falklands therefore your claim is spurious.
Nov 17th, 2016 - 10:36 am +2The concept that Argentina had inherited the Falkland Islands from Spain is false. The law of the time did not accept inheritance without settlement and stated that 'an unopposed settlement of some years was necessary” before sovereignty was accepted. (The Law of Nations, Vattel, Cpt XI, p337) Vernet had sought acquiescence from the British consul in Buenos Aires on two occasions before establishing “his” colonies and the British protested when he was appointed military and political governor by the BA. Authorities. Jewett had no settlement. The concept of uti possidetis juris (inheritance of Spain) is only customary international law, applicable to those who choose to use it. Great Britain, France and Brazil have never opted to use uti possidetis juris and UPJ has “never” be used in “any” court or tribunal without the consent of both parties.
There is ample evidence that this has been the mode of applying / not applying UPJ over the past 150 years:
https://www.academia.edu/28967823/Falklands_Uti_Possidetis_Juris
You have 'NO CASE'.
Boo!
How childish in their world of fantasy .. The infamous Malvinas anthem “himno de Malvinas” was sang for the first time during 1941, when the first plans to invade the Falklands were also made . ..At the time when the Argentine fascists and Mussolini's disciple Peron himself saw great opportunities to come by British properties as London was being bombed, to their dismay London didn’t fall.
Nov 17th, 2016 - 11:31 am +2During 1946 Peron began the indoctrination of his people according to the New Argentina of Peron doctrine “La nueva Argentina de Perón” which enforces the brainwashing of the children filling their heads with lies. Peron hadn’t been able to steal the British infrastructure of Argentina nor the British territories on its borders.
After two generations this fascist policy generated a war where the young Argentines thought that they were fighting a just war about causes that went back centuries, when in reality they were fruits of the wise guy or “vivo” Peron who with his fascist colleagues had invented it all in 1941. They resurrected the situation which had been resolved by the Arana Southern Convention of Settlement ratified by both countries in 1850, after which all Argentine maps reflect this fact, putting the Falklands and the Chilean islands Picton, Nueva and Lenox also claimed by Argentina for “political” reasons outside Argentina. All the “claimed” islands by Argentina were well outside Argentina’s own maps, now illegal in Argentina. These maps were partly why Chile won TWO international arbitrations not recognized by Argentina.. this is also why Argentina doesn't recognize jurisdiction of the International Court.. this is also why Argentina refuses to go to the International Court. The first territory Argentina invaded in March 1982 was South Georgia, which it was invited to dispute in the International Court during 1947 to 1956, it preferred to use force rather than the magical rights it tells its children that it has: that can't expire, or be altered, or resigned to!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!