“Twice Great Britain offered to return Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty to Argentina, and Argentina frustrated the two opportunities”, and one of those offers involved the government of Margaret Thatcher, revealed diplomat Andrés Cisneros, Argentine deputy foreign minister with Guido Di Tella in the nineties. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesCisneros admits he is not sure if some day the Islands will be ”returned“ to Argentina.
Apr 03rd, 2017 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse +4Can't 'return something' that has never been owned.
Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina:
https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina
representing the interests of both sides I have yet to hear anyone, and I mean anyone who has stated what the Argentine government can bring to the negociating table that would be in the interests of the FALKLANDER ISLANDERS Anyone?
Apr 03rd, 2017 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse +3He has got it wrong ! Hepatia has more insight than Cisneros.
Apr 03rd, 2017 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse +4She keeps repeating 10 years ....on a movable starting point.
Any way, who can predict 50 years ahead...at least he is being realistic. Maybe Argentina will be an attractive country by then....or not !
@golfcronie
Apr 03rd, 2017 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse +5”what the Argentine government can bring to the negociating table that would be “ in the interests of the FALKLANDER ISLANDERS ”
I'm waiting as well.
The Argentine attitude appears to be offering the same as in the 1970s, (flights from Argentina, oil supplies, fruit, University, schooling medical help etc etc).
But the stakes are raised because the Islanders now have access to all these and would have had if the decrepid British governments of the 1970s had approved Shackelton's recommendation for an international length runway for Stanley.
I don't think Argentina is capable of working out that the interests of the Falkland Islanders can't be automatically translated as Argentina's interests.
The interests of the Islanders can only be defined by the Islanders.
In my opinion, it is in Argentina's interests to be friendly with the Islanders, so they can make money out of the Islands by providing and getting paid for labour, services and goods.
However , an Argentine might say it is in their interests to maintain a farcical claim on the Falklands for the next million years, getting sweet FA from the islands, whilst wasting millions of pesos on a claim they cannot win.
I therefore would have to give way to Argentina getting nothing whatsoever from the Islands, because as an Englishman I cannot define what 'Argentine interests' are.
Offered? Now there's another distortion. Options were put forward - all subject to a veto by the Islanders. All likely to be vetoed by the Islanders. There were never any offers to cede the Falklands. Risible
Apr 03rd, 2017 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +5RL, I think something was lost in translation, but I think I am being too kind. You are right the UK would not go behind the FALKLANDERS back and cede the FALKLANDS.
Apr 04th, 2017 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse +1Of course the UK would not go behind the islanders. They put them there and brainwashed them so they could keep the land, same as every other state. Duh.
Apr 05th, 2017 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse -2England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Apr 05th, 2017 - 02:03 am - Link - Report abuse -2MM A bit like Argentina in your way of thinking then. Italy and Spain and Portugal colonised South America did they not ? Pot calling the kettle black HaHa PMSL You are my friend a complete hypocrite.
Apr 05th, 2017 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The Malvinas will return Argentina within 24 years.
Apr 06th, 2017 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse +1The Argentine attitude appears to be offering the same as in the 1990s: 'Winnie the Pooh'.
@MM
Apr 07th, 2017 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +2They put them there and brainwashed them
Ironically because of your being brainwashed, you do not understand that the majority of settlers in the Falklands emigrated.
They were not dumped off by the military and there were no convict colonies.
If the British had done what you say, the population of the Falkland Islands would be at least 50 000 by now.
You cannot get your heads round the fact that the islanders are there because their ancestors wanted to go, they weren't press ganged and only people who could thrive in the tough conditions went.
Indeed your country thinks that because a few Chelsea pensioners were settled by the British government, that means the whole population was. In fact some of the Chelsea pensioners requested to return to Great Britain because life on the islands was tough so implanting was not a good idea.
Therefore that is why a small determined population are on the islands, because their forefathers wanted to be there, emigrating with their own money, unless they went to work for another company.
You have this thing about implanting because that is what the Spanish did in Argentina, so you think that the UK thinks the same way as you do.
Thankfully, we don't.
You call the UK colonialists precisely because your attitude is to colonise the Falkland Islands, but the UK has given increasing freedom to its overseas dependencies, with more regard for the people than the land itself. Argentina , who wish to copy the worst excesses of the Spanish empire, don't care about people, just the land, that's why when Argentina had the chance between 1973-1982, there were not floods of Argentines queueing up to settle in the Falklands.
The Spanish attitude when they were in the Falkland Islands was to run Port Louis as a penal colony.
That is because no one wanted to stay and settle, therefore the Spanish soldiers were implants, because they returned home, none stayed on to settle the islands after.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!