MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Ambassador Kent: “Bilateral ties improving but Falkland islanders will define their own future”
The British ambassador to Argentina, Mark Kent, underlined the United Kingdom's intentions to “improve” bilateral relations and admitted a meeting between President Mauricio Macri and Prime Minister Theresa May within the framework of the G20 was possible. However, he made it clear that with regards to the Falkland Islands question “the islanders have the right to define their own future.” Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe time is right for the flight negotiations to happen after 8 months since the initial statement was made in November. Too late for this summer but we're patient people. A stop in BA won't be a popular idea to many Islanders but I for one don't mind at all.
Jun 18th, 2017 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What did Susana say about self-determination:
Jun 18th, 2017 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0While Argentina strongly supported the principle of self-determination, that principle was not absolute, Malcorra stressed. “It cannot violate the territorial integrity of existing States,'' (Susana Malcorra, Minister for Foreign Relations, Argentina, Special Committee on Decolonization, GA/COL 3298, 23 June 2016).
Falklands – Self -Determination: https://www.academia.edu/11325329/Falklands_-_Self-Determination_single_page_
Hi Jo,
Jun 18th, 2017 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Are the Islanders concerned with any sinister implications of flights originating in BA ? Is that a factor?
Do they currently have any pre-screening control over who boards the incoming flights?
Some LATAM countries protect their sovereignty very carefully.
Cuba is very strict. We have been instructed at times to open all window blinds before landing, and a count made of all passengers and crew, double checked and presented to authorities on the ground.
Before being allowed to disembark, armoured cars would position themselves on either side of the aircraft with weapons trained and officers scanning the Windows with binoculars.
Routine security.
Surely, Argentines on flights from BA shouldn't be offended by a similar security procedure, if the FIG deems it appropriate.
@TT
Jun 18th, 2017 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Why on earth do you think anyone should be using Cuba as a model?
We're trying to improve bilateral ties, not worsen them. ;)
Love to know who the views are the Ambassador is taking when he speaks of a potential
Jun 19th, 2017 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse +12nd flight landing one day in Buenos Aires? That would NEVER EVER be acceptable to us Islanders and will never happen! Totally damn stupid - allowing an airlink with the Capital of the Enemy!!! FCO really gone off the trolly on this one!
The ONLY 2nd airlink that would get approval here is a direct on from Santiago- and reluctantly with a once a month each way stop in Neuquén(very close to flight path)
as was approved and about to start pre the Kirschner dynasty anyway.
It s also the ONLY route that can make economic sense - 2 flights a week from Santiago in summer and reduce back down to 1 in winter.
Troy
Jun 19th, 2017 - 06:07 am - Link - Report abuse +2The concern is that the Argentine Government would be able to too easily interfere with the flight and impose ad hoc restrictions and use it for political mileage. I can't see how they couldn't do that wherever the flight stops in Argentina.
We do screen inbound passengers already regardless of their passport.
Argentina has a denouncing claim against the Great Britain regarding the attack of its settlement 1833. What on Earth does the future of the Islanders have to do with that? Are they going to arbitrate between the two countries? No, so it would not be until Britain recognizes the Argentine dispute and it starts having talks with Argentina regarding how to resolve it today and for tomorrow, that the Islanders FUTURE would not be discussed.
Jun 19th, 2017 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -3It's the simplest of logics, which Britain obvious to everyone in the world, avoids. What the world does not very easily see, is how Britain wants to capitulate with its own significance and description of the conflict and substitute the Argentine argument through the power of the media and political economic influences.
No one is asking the Falklanders to do anything. The islands are not even theirs, they are Britain's. And yes, it IS and occupation, by definition. Yet stories like this continue to try flood the language of the dispute with the same phrases. Stupid phrases, like “We want to stay British”. ... Who can make you not be British?
No worries... whole truth will never go away. And Britain will be responsible for children on the Falklands one day asking their parents ”Why is that man saying that we just don't understand how we robbed at gun point the Argentine their sovereignty rights to the Falklands? Is that how we came to be Dad, through taking this land and expelling others by force? And how come we never wanted to negotiate or talk about it, when that's what countries normally do?
The British don't care so much about this aspect of your future ... and apparently, neither do you. What you do care about is like monkeys imitating the model of a world you've never seen, using popular independence holidays other countries righteously have, as if you had fought for your land, worse yet at the expense of insulting an entire nation for something an occupying military dictatorship did of their own initiative, behind the back
@Patrick Edgar. ”Why is that man saying that we just don't understand how we robbed at gun point the Argentine their sovereignty rights to the Falklands?“ Argentina has no sovereignty rights to the Falklands. Argentina has been invited to take their ”so called” claim to the ICJ but they decline to do so. Because? They would lose.
Jun 19th, 2017 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Still as daft as a box of rocks Pat. What Argentina has been protesting about is of no great consequence and more than how long they've been doing it. Argentina's claim has always been entirely spurious.
Jun 19th, 2017 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There was a dispute between Spain and England. Spain lost. Argentina was never on the pitch - indeed never in the game.
Of no importance.
The matter is settled.
Pedgar
Jun 19th, 2017 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +2What happened or didn't happen nearly 200 years ago is totally irrelavent. What matters is what the Falkland Islanders themselves want. It's called self-determination. Don't bother to reply with the tired old Argentine line of “they are not a people so they are not entitled to self-determination” because at best it is nonsense. Check out UNESCO's definition of a people if you want.
Whether we want to or not we can't set the world back to 1833 because if we did most of the countries in the world would not exist, certainly not in their present state.
So why not try to make Argentina into the country it should be as opposed to the country it is.
“ So why not try to make Argentina into the country it should be as opposed to the country it is.”
Jun 19th, 2017 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So long as there are argentines, this will be the case.
Patrick Edgar
Jun 19th, 2017 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I really think you should just retire from this debate immediately. Your thoughts are not coherent and make no sense at all. Good bye and good luck!
“So why not try to make Argentina into the country it should be as opposed to the country it is.”
Jun 19th, 2017 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1That might be difficult to do from Hawaii.
@Patrick Edgar
“Who can make you not be British?”
The British government? They did it once already.
Just wondering when MP will report about Cristina Fernandez' senator candidacy in October. It did make the news in Argentina.
Jun 19th, 2017 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Enrique, she is such a stupid cow,or are all Argentines stupid. Everyone knows she is only doing it so she doesn't face prosecution.
Jun 19th, 2017 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0reekie, MercoPiss is too busy reporting on European news to be concerned with how CFK is planning to avoid being sent to prison.
Jun 19th, 2017 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +3We do see some other media covering the events:
“ Disgraced Cristina Kirchner to run for senate seat in Argentina - Removed from the office of president, charged with corruption, she now wants to return to politics as a senator. Aaaaah, the marvels of Latrine politics....”
“ Former Argentina President Kirchner Ditches Peronist Party for Senator Bid - Kirchner seems willing to take the risk of losing the spot by not running with party support, and thus disappearing from the political arena altogether....”
“ Argentina: A New Political Party Further Divides the Opposition - .....Now, the opposition will be split into three main blocs and may end up fighting for the same votes. Besides Fernandez's new party and the Justicialist Party, there will be the Renewal Front, headed by lawmaker Sergio Massa. To create a stronger front after the primaries, the Justicialist Party and the Citizen's Unity Party could try to work out a political alliance, but for now Macri may have the divided opposition his coalition needs to hold on to power. ”
Marti, and to think that some on here think the UK has political problems, the mind boggles.
Jun 19th, 2017 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Patrick Edgar
Jun 19th, 2017 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Argentina has a denouncing claim against the Great Britain regarding the attack of its settlement 1833. What on Earth does the future of the Islanders have to do with that?” That is completely untrue as the historical has shown. Do you live under a rock? self-determination, is absolutely binding international law.
“Who can make you not be British?”
Jun 19th, 2017 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who can make you not be European is a similar thought I've pondered lately...
Imagine all those folk that have been born European Citizens in the UK...
Citizenship taken away...just like that...
Where is the choice...where is the self determination of millions...
Voicey is even more confused than his considerable usual.
Jun 19th, 2017 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -1There are those who simply play the fool, and those who don't need to pretend.
What is confusing...?
Jun 19th, 2017 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Have you ever seen a British passport...?
European Citizens....
...and soon not to be...who is taking away that citizenship...the British Govt....
Well see, if you understood natural sovereign human rights to this planet, instead of being a system brain, you would have a clue as to what I'm saying.
Jun 19th, 2017 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Is sovereignty a man made system notion, or is it real in our hearts and minds?
Sovereignty is established by living there staying and growing socially and culturally. Not declared and owned from afar, as if Colonizing countries were given by god first dibbs on anything they want. You are simply fused into your archaic political morality.
The Argentine moved onto the islands simply to define their new home, they were consolidating, not expanding, which is what Britain to this day is still trying to do.
Britian may have written on some piece of paper that the islands are theirs, but they were not established there, and where not sovereign. They did not want to fight for the islands. But they knew how to take candy from a baby, the big men that you are.
In fact, one of the reasons Britain rushed right back down in 1833 (behind the bull shit reasons it wants everybody to subscribe by) was that it saw that Argentina would be a country that can and was establishing natural sovereignty and sort of say “close the matter”.
Now your country's strategy is to ride on what should have been Falkland Islander sense of self, deny Argentine history and ignore the country's claim, humiliating Argentina before the whole world (or before those that understand a thing or two about this) ... bribing with “economic favors and participation” to merely start giving back some dignity with an eyedropper.
... I would like to see what you do without the United States by your side.
Of course islanders would like very much to own the islands--however, reality is, sooner or later the rocks will be handed back to Argentina, and the islanders that wish so will probably find ways to stay there--hey, being part of the country (better governed at that time I hope) will have its perks and there would be mutual benefits--as they say, a win-win situation.
Jun 20th, 2017 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse -3Come on--asado is the best, arroz con leche is delicious, tango is the best dance that is, and you get to drink mate, the best infusion ever.
Patrick Edgar
Jun 20th, 2017 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse +2Sovereignty its clearly defined under the tenets of international law and not according to your subjective mumbo jumbo. According to jurist Rosalyn Higgins ”No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it. But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.80“ .
80. Rosalyn Higgins, ”Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
Reekie and Edgar, the poster children of delusion.
Jun 20th, 2017 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse +3Pa que sepáis
Las islas fueron, son, y serán británicas hasta que los isleños mismos quieran un cambio.
La Argenzuela fue, es, y será siempre un montón de bosta e impotentes fanfarrones.
Enrique Massot
Jun 20th, 2017 - 02:43 am - Link - Report abuse +2“Islanders would like very much to own the islands- … the rocks will be handed back to Argentina”. Not according to the precepts of the UN Charter as the Islanders already are the sole determinants. If such a criteria was attempted to be imposed against their will, then good bye UN. No more diplomacy, we would see a reversion to international law as it once was. Namely, ‘might is right’
Argentines have been crying over this Falklands thing for nearly 200 years and all it has really gotten them is the longest running possession of the Laughingstock of the Hemisphere Award.
Jun 20th, 2017 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse +1We didn't 'rush down' in 1833 Pat. As usual your understanding is flawed. Argentina was warned in 1829 and 1832. In fact we meandered down in late 1832, stopped off for a little rebuilding at Egmont in the December, before mooching over to throw the trespassers off Soledad in January 1833.
Jun 20th, 2017 - 04:35 am - Link - Report abuse +2They had been warned - twice.
Argentina thought we wouldn't bother, but then Argentina thought that in 1982 as well.
Britain has been in those islands since 1765. Spain didn't arrive until 1767. Argentina didn't even exist.
The matter was settled long ago Pat, the only people who can't accept that are the Argies.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Jun 20th, 2017 - 04:56 am - Link - Report abuse -4Patrick Edgar
Jun 20th, 2017 - 05:38 am - Link - Report abuse +1More nonsense - your addled brain is even more incoherent than your previous attempt.
Just go away, Argentine troll!
“Come on--asado is the best, arroz con leche is delicious, tango is the best dance that is, and you get to drink mate, the best infusion ever.”
Jun 20th, 2017 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse +1There speaks a numpty who is big on the megaphone but chooses to live in Calgary instead! He has never experienced British culture and thus knows nooooothing... A sad Manuel...qué?
Pray do tell me.what happened in 1833 to make The United Provinces of BA think that they owned the FALKLAND ISLANDS? Why do Argentina want the FALKANDS, I have never,ever heard apart from we claim sovereignty over the islands any reason for wanting to own them. And yes Edgar in those days might was everything. You only need to look at your own history, taking out the indeginous inhabitants did you not? Anyway at present it is 2017 and the FALKLANDERS OWN THE ISLANDS and until Argentina removes the question of sovereingty from the constitution nothing will happen.
Jun 20th, 2017 - 07:57 am - Link - Report abuse +2Enrique
Jun 20th, 2017 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You point out all your “benefits” BUT the big minus is being lumped with Argentinians.
“ I would like to see what you do without the United States by your side.”
Are they on our side, I thought they played neutral on the Falklands.
Anyway we would still stuff you.
We would have predicted that reekie would hang his argie culture hat on something as obscene as their bordello dances, and an item as Spanish (not even argentine) as arroz con leche. In the better accommodations in the Cono Sur there are signs prohibiting the use of yerba mate in the rooms, since invariably the argies who suck on it will spill quantities of the stuff on floors, sheets, and furniture, and it creates terrible stains, as well as often clogging the poorly design drains.
Jun 20th, 2017 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Own ? ... Britiain “owns”, or thinks land can be owned on the premise of sovereignty. We don't think “we own” the Falklands or the Malvinas, we simply have established our government's sovereign right to the islands in 1827 (or 28)
Jun 21st, 2017 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse -2You like to say the “Falklands have always been British”. Well that is just an outright lie spewed by brains that have taken in all of the propaganda disseminated these last 35 years. The political form on which Britain and the Islanders stand on, today known as the FIG did not exist until 1843 (or 44?) In fact there was only one British citizen, outnumbered by Argentine or Southamericans, Welch, Scots, Hungarian or German ... and others living there when the Argentine brought their official representation. The English LEFT THE ISLANDS, there was no British flag flying when the Argentine recognized the Islands as a continuation of its newly consolidating homeland. No one protested because everyone knew the neglected and feeble circumstances of the islands habitation and administrative situation. In fact one of the reasons behind the creation of the Comandancia, was the absence of law in order. The Lexington blew away the installations not because they cared about the political situation of the islands. They did so because they did not want any regulation on the islands, and knew that small Argentina would be unable to respond immediately or do anything about the attack.
PE
Jun 21st, 2017 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have just revealed the extent of your ignorance in your above post.
You don't even know what “British ”means.......“there was only one British citizen, outnumbered by Argentine or Southamericans, Welch, Scots,”
The term British covered, at that time, ..English, Scots and Welsh. So saying that there was only one British citizen left is nonsense and indicates a sloppy and incorrect research which probably continues in the rest of your“submission”
Patrick, you are a seriously deluded individual. At least you are consistent with your delusions.
Jun 21st, 2017 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse -1Pedgar
Jun 21st, 2017 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse +1Who cares what happened or didn't happen 200 years ago.
All that matters is the here and now and the Falkland Islanders RIGHT to determine their own future.
You seem like most Argentines to be unable to distinguish between English and British. Just to help...an English person is British but not all British persons are English.
Therefore those 'Welch' (sic) and Scots were BRITISH.
Seems to have escaped your 'brilliant edification' that the Lexington was in fact the USS Lexington and as such a warship belonging to the United States of America.
There are a myriad of other holes I could pick in your statement but really who can be bothered..
And by the way I would recommend that you don't call someone who is Welsh Welch. If you don't know why I would recommend a good English dictionary.
kind regards.
@PEdgar
Jun 21st, 2017 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina has a denouncing claim against the Great Britain regarding the attack of its settlement 1833”
Most of the settlers in 1833 asked to stay on the Islands under Great Britain's administration.
These people were the originators of the Falkland Islanders, as some of these settlers died in the Islands many years after. Antonina Roxa, born in South America, was one of those settlers who chose to stay on the islands after 1833, going on to own a ranch near Stanley. The settlers therefore became Falkland Islanders.
You seem to forget, that Pinedo's British sailors did not stay on in the Falklands and that of the ejected militia, ten , were executed by the United Provinces for murdering Mestivier, the short lived commander of the United Provinces invasion force. The British did not harm a hair of any of the United Provinces militia in 1833, it was the United Provinces themselves that had ten of their own force executed.
The settlers were not ejected in 1833, and one of the reasons for the eviction of the United Provinces military ( the presence of which was protested by Great Britain), happened was that most of Pinedo's sailors were British born (i.e. they were not born in Buenos Aires), so they refused to fight their own countrymen. If the United Provinces had a claim, they would have fought Capt Onslow's forces, and returned before January 1834, if their claim was valid.
P. Edgar. Why were Pinedo's forces made up mostly of British sailors?
Why did Pinedo not staff his ship with men born in the United Provinces?.
Just by ignoring the British claim since 1690 by landing, and 1765 with the occupation at Port Egmont, does not mean that claim did not exist.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but the British did not turn up on the Falkland Islands for the first time in 1833.
And the RN had been patrolling the Islands seas after they left a plaque of ownership in 1774.
PaEdgar,
Jun 21st, 2017 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“here was no British flag flying when the Argentine recognized the Islands as a continuation of its newly consolidating homeland”
“newly consolidating homeland”, what does that mean?
Sounds a lot like another way to say, forceful military expansion outside of the original settlement on the River Plate, that was taken from Spain by rebellion.
Patrick, they're British. They're going to remain British. Get over it. Are there no mental health intervention services in your villa?
Jun 21st, 2017 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Patrick Edgar
Jun 21st, 2017 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“We ..have established our government's sovereign right to the islands in 1827 (or 28)” Bullshit! Their status as British legally is confirmed by former ICJ president, Rosalyn Higgins. Moreover, Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory in Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
Is further supported by the UNGA, when they “declared in 1970 that the modem prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created 'prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law'..” Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk.
Is Patrick Edgar for real? His ramblings are just plain illiterate and ill informed so I suggest we just ignore him.
Jun 21st, 2017 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Patrick Edgar
Jun 21st, 2017 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Lexington blew away the installations … They did so because they did not want any regulation on the islands…” Straight out Argentine viveza criollo, here’s the historical reality.
“There is scarcely a Buenos Ayrean privateer which has not committed piracy of every description - it appears that at Buenos Ayres itself commissions of Artigas have been sold to the Captains of the Buenos Ayres privateers, who have gone to sea, and used one or the other commission as suited their purposes... There is not a day passes but we hear of new crimes of this description committed under the flag and commission of Buenos Ayres ...”
John Quincy Adams July 20th, 1820
Patrick, did you know that it is now 2017 getting on for 2018 and still the FALKLANDS prefer to remain a part of the UK in so far as being a British Overseas Territory and will remain so until the FALKLANDERS decide otherwise.Just get over it.
Jun 21st, 2017 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Patrick Edgar
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 05:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be so confused about the natives of the British Isles and their nationality - Scots, Welsh, English, Yorkshireman, Lancastrians, Jordies, Hampshire Hogs, Londoners, Cornishmen, Ulster men and women(the majority) WE ARE ALL BRITISH! WE ARE THE UNITED - REPEAT UNITED - KINGDOM!
The Falkland archipelago is British - always has been and always will be!
Jo Bloggs
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks Jo.
Agreed, I see plenty of potential for problems.
Patrick Edgar
Jun 22nd, 2017 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Britian may have written on some piece of paper that the islands are theirs, but they were not established there, and where not sovereign.”
Lord Palmerston on 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, said:
“… a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain.”
it is amusing how islanders write about selfdetermination when in 1833 civilian argies were sacked from their homes,their daily routine , their lives, by british imperial troops.It doesnt matter if it was 200 years or 5 minutes ago.That disrupted many lives and created a conflict that existed through the years and still does.Sweeping it under the carpet will not make it dissapear.
Jun 24th, 2017 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse -4Nobody was “sacked from their homes”.
Jun 24th, 2017 - 04:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unless you mean, the UPS took the murderers and rapists of the Commander's family into custody for trial in BA?
Vernet - lies!
Jun 24th, 2017 - 05:11 am - Link - Report abuse -1Vernet
Jun 24th, 2017 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0LIar!!
Try reading Pinedo's report that exists in Argentina's own archives.
seen in Pinedo’s report made aboard the schooner Sarandí on 16 January 1833 after returning to Buenos Aires, AGN Sala VII, legajo 60, p. 22: “los habitantes que quisiesen voluntariamente quedar, que serian respetados ellos y sus propriedades como anteriormente…”.
Silly argies, still weeping over events nearly 200 years ago. A sure sign of the prevailing childishness of a toy country and its desire to remain so.
Jun 24th, 2017 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0P. Edgar made a fool of himself
Jun 24th, 2017 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This Mercopress site is really fascinating and good for a laugh, no wonder no-one takes it seriously, it is a laugh a minute, I find it highly amusing.The Argies are living or would like to return to 1833 and the British are looking to the future.HaHa
Jun 24th, 2017 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!