MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, June 24th 2019 - 19:46 UTC



Malvinas question dispute: new phase in Argentina/UK relations will create favorable conditions

Friday, June 22nd 2018 - 09:02 UTC
Full article 21 comments

Foreign minister Jorge Faurie reiterated before the United Nations Decolonization Committee or C24, that Argentina wishes to establish a dialogue with the UK to solve the Malvinas Islands dispute, and underlined he believed that “favorable conditions” for such a scenario have been created and are advancing. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Brit Bob

    'The minister also recalled that the Argentine constitution establishes the recovery of the insular territories as an objective, and at the same time the commitment to respect the way of life of the Islands inhabitants.'

    Section I, of the Argentine Constitution affirms a ''legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the they are an integral part of the national territory'. Over many generations, history and geography text books particularly have reinforced this belief, relying primarily on the principle of uti possidetis juris (as you possess under the law), ( A Geopolitical Perspective on Argentina's Malvinas/Falkland Claims, Keeling D.J. quoting Daus, F.A. Geografia de la Argentina, Buenos Aires, 1984).

    Falklands - Argentina's Imaginary Territory (1 pg):-

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Jack Bauer

    What's the point of “negotiating”, when Argentina doesn't understand the meaning of the word ?
    If Argentina believes that 'conditions are favourable', a first sign of goodwill would be for it to remove that ridiculous clause from their Constitution, recognize the islanders' right to self-determination, and limit their ambitions regarding the FI to increasing trade and having a friendly relationship...
    Other than that, there's nothing to discuss.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Enrique Massot

    President Mauricio Macri won't do anything beyond posturing to advance Argentina's claim on the Islas Malvinas. He has the Argentine elite's typical submission to the central countries before anything else.

    Unfortunately for the U.K. and the islanders, Macri's future as president beyond December 2019 appear unlikely barring an improbable, 'miraculous' event.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Jo Bloggs

    Is Jorge Faurie speaking in the photo above? He looks like he is, and if so, could his team look any more bored if they actually tried? They’re probably thinking about all of the REAL problems they need to attend to back at home rather than wasting their time with a fantasy.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Rufus


    The only practical way for Argentina to get the Falkland Islands is with the consent of the Falkland Islanders. Macri's actions (i.e. making Argentina slightly less of an economic basket case) are so much less destructive to the malvinists cause than the Humourous Hctor, Ambush Alicia or any of the other band of nut-jobs from the previous decade.

    Although, to be fair, I've got a better chance of walking to the Falklands than any of them do of advancing their cause. As you point out, just because the current president isn't a complete trainwreck doesn't mean that the next one won't be, and won't make up for the minimisation of the damage done.

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • gordo1

    Enrique Massot

    As I believe you live in Canada and this is an English speaking forum why do you insist on referring to the Falklands archipelago as “Islas Malvinas”? Islas Malvinas should only be used on a Spanish speaking forum! NABO!

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    Technically, shouldn't 'nabo' also only be used on a Spanish speaking forum? ;)

    As for the dialogue, Macri's cooperation will not make Britain negotiate sovereignty any more than the Kirchner's threats, the only difference is the amount of collateral damage to the parties.

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Something happened when was replying yr last post under 'Brazil's industries lobby' sent without my sending it (???)

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • gordo1

    Demoon Tree

    You are, as usual, quite right! BUT, as this individual seems to be immune to any sensible debate I decided to use a word that, surely, he MUST understand.

    Jun 26th, 2018 - 06:36 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Jack Bauer

    Continuation of “Brazil's industries lobby...”....left the computer for a while, when got back the post had ‘gone’ ; Anyway....

    “The PSDB is claiming nothing, it’s just me informing you.” Apologize if appeared to be misinforming you, but wasn't aware of such claims. As far as I can remember, the 1st ‘bolsa’ started abt 30 yrs ago, with Paulo Maluf, ex-governor of SP (now under house arrest), giving needy families 2 litres of milk/day...other programs of this kind were created (but all with corresponding obligations) by FHC's wife, and it was these that Lula unified under the title of BF...with fewer, unsupervised obligations. Expansion under Lula, was limited to the increase of recipients, not the benefits, that’s why I have said his main interest was to convince people that he was doing the maximum for them, while really doing the bare minimum.

    Ciro Gomes has started to show his true colours…has said that if he wins, he’ll nationalize all the oil-fields that were auctioned off to foreign oil companies …typical of the radical nationalist and communist that he is, but this type of rhetoric is music to the ears of crooked politicians and the unions, but bad for the economy, as PB does not have the capacity to operate them all.

    The ballot IS secret, but the idiots are too stupid to realize this.
    Under Temer, the only change in the BF was its increase in value. If only people realized it is here to stay, its political use might stop. The BF debit card is a pre-paid card. Highly unlikely the recipients have bank accounts.

    You’re right, the opposition should question government, or cooperate when necessary, not systematically oppose everything. Doubt UK politicians switch parties before elections like they change their underwear. Here, dozens do, most only after personal advantage.

    Lula/ Castro founded the FdSP…joined by all the more radical left-wing parties in LatAm.
    Fast driving was sort of addictive, but in the end good sense prevailed.

    Jun 26th, 2018 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I guess the various bolsas, some starting 30 years ago and some created more recently, and created by different parties, was what the article referred to. And if Lula greatly expanded the recipients then they may well wonder if another president might reduce them again.

    Like I said, the people receiving the BF can judge for themselves how well Temer continued it. I guess no party is likely to outright abolish it now, though. That would be too unpopular.

    I wonder about that secret ballot. Seems unlikely that a lot of people would fail to notice their vote isn't public, and more likely that there is some corruption or other dodgy dealing that means they are not secret. Either that, or they rely on the handouts and know the oligarchs won't give them if they lose, so they try to make sure they win.

    Pre-paid card is not surprising, bank accounts would be much harder to set up, but could be useful to the recipients in their own right, that's why I wondered about it.

    RE Ciro, Norway nationalised their oil fields and made a great deal more money from them than Britain, who privatised everything. But the Norway government is generally forward thinking and has very little corruption, unlike Brazil. Does the government make a decent amount of money from the privatised oil fields? It's not always the case.

    “Doubt UK politicians switch parties before elections like they change their underwear.”

    No, it's rare to change party. With only 3 big ones (in England), there is much less overlap between them making them less likely to switch.

    Jun 26th, 2018 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Temer’s administration has attempted to moralize the program… a few 100 thousand ‘bolsas’ (out of 15 million) were cancelled due to fraud, as the recipients no longer qualified…already working and back on their feet, but thinking they’re clever by saying nothing.…plain dishonest.

    The original BF concept has already been accepted by society, which is only against the abuses.

    Well, if as you suggest, many wouldn’t realize their vote is not public, just reinforces the idea that many have no idea what’s going on…making them easy to manipulate by unscrupulous politicians.
    The fact BF recipients don’t have bank accounts probably stems from the fact that banks wouldn’t accept customers who have nothing to deposit, as they’d have the cost of administering an account, getting nothing in return.

    Re oil, you need to remember just one thing : Ciro’s intention is to control PB and (very likely) use it politically (including stealing) as it was under Lula….very different to Norway, where the national fund (or whatever it’s called) benefits the people.
    The auctioning of oil fields in Brazil has two reasons : first and foremost, PB totally lacks the financial capacity to explore them (a law that demanded all new oil fields have PB minimum participation – now revoked – simply meant nothing would happen), and second, the auction winners need to pay handsomely for the exploration rights.

    Brazil’s political system, with 32 parties (with tons of overlap), destroys any attempt to moralize Congress….it’s no better than a whorehouse with everyone angling for the best position…the notion that they are there to legislate in benefit of the population, is totally lost on them.

    Jun 27th, 2018 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “already working and back on their feet, but thinking they’re clever by saying nothing.…plain dishonest.”

    Ah, that doesn't surprise me. I wonder how much they stole from the taxpayers compared to the politicians who arrange the benefits?

    And I don't think the voters in the NE don't realise their vote is not public. Rather I was thinking the candidates who hand out 'gifts' probably don't give them for individual votes. Instead they hand them out to everyone in the area, as long as they win the election there. It's a collective bribe rather than an individual one, and they don't know or care how any one person voted, but if enough people vote against the candidate then all lose their handouts.

    I would have been more surprised if they did have bank accounts, but I wondered if the BF caused them to be set up. I guess that would have made it for effort to administer and probably cost more, so not surprising they didn't.

    You're probably right about Ciro wanting to use PB politically, but isn't auctioning the oil fields also a big opportunity for the government to get bribes from whichever companies want to buy them?

    Jun 28th, 2018 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Agree, the amount the beneficiaries received iregularly, a few hundred million, pales in comparison with the dozens of billions stolen by politicians, but the point I'm making is that there is not one single case of where the use of public funds is not wrought in corruption ...those who should supervise the program and prevent fraud, are those corrupting it, and the beneficiaries profiting illegally, keep quiet.
    The propensity of the average Brazilian to take advantage of a situation (irregularly), even if at the expense of an individual, or of society as a whole, is very big. I've heard people brag about how a restaurant failed to charge a bottle of wine or something, and how that that makes them feel like they've had a victory...quite extraordinary really. The fact they've screwed someone else, who didn't deserve it, means nothing to most.

    You'd be surprised with voter ignorance when it comes down to understanding how the voting system works, let alone the more backward voters in the NE. It's probably not even about being afraid of not voting for the candidate who hands out gifts (in return for votes), but the lack of understanding, or of information that ends up directing them to the few, or only candidate they know.

    In Brazil, every single tender, or auction, not only regarding the oil-fields, is an opportunity for those (politicians) approving and organizing them, to pull in bribes. That said, it's probably better to have to put up with that 'one-time' bribe, versus the endless milking of the ventures if left in the hands of the government and its corrupt appointees. Once the oil-field is privatized, the politicians lose their control over its revenue....although they will indeed steal part of the royalties (Rio is 'the' example...Cabral and his cronies broke Rio). ...regardless of the corruption, business in private hands is usually run far better, and efficiently than when government-controlled (at least in Brazil...)

    Jun 29th, 2018 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “it's probably better to have to put up with that 'one-time' bribe, versus the endless milking of the ventures if left in the hands of the government and its corrupt appointees.”

    I see your point. And if the CEOs want a ton of money they usually just get the company to give it to them legally. Also its probably true that in Brazil things are better run in private hands. Here it's less obvious. I think I told you before about the UK railways being privatised, and the franchise where the buyers gave it back and it was renationalised and run by a government owned subsidiary? Although the nationalised line was making a profit and was one of the better operators according to statistics and customer reviews, the government insisted on privatising it again (I assume for ideological reasons). Recently, the new operator gave up the franchise, just like the previous one, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces yet again. I think the difference in whether state owned enterprises succeed is whether the government meddles in them politically or not, which is common enough everywhere and would be almost inevitable in Brazil.

    RE the NE, probably lack of information does play a role. Hard to know what difference electing another candidate would make, unless they are voting for the president. Whereas the benefit of more food and free sandals is obvious. Plus the rich candidates can buy time on TV etc.

    As for the people bragging about getting something for free, there are people like that in Britain too, but thankfully it isn't everyone. I suppose as long as people feel they are not getting anything from society, they will not feel like they own society anything either.

    Jun 29th, 2018 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Corruption in government is usually inversely proportional to the people's level of instruction and information. If the people are ignorant or disinterested, they give the politicians 'carte blanche' to do what they want. And the worst is that they don't learn through their mistakes.

    As you well suggest, the nationalization of the British railways was not necessarily bad, and that was probably because of the absence of political meddling in it...which, as you point out, would not be the case in Brazil. Also sometimes, like in the case of the railways, some lines are profitable, others not, making it difficult to keep out of the red, thus the common sense of leaving it in the govt's hands.

    I'd say that in the NE, the low level of education plays the biggest role in the lack of voter to buying time on TV, they aren't allowed to - the system determines that the electoral fund (R$ 1.7 billion) is distributed amongst the parties according to their representation in Congress, and the total time on TV (free for the parties) is also defined by the same this just perpetuates the power of the larger parties, making 'independent' renovation virtually non-existent.

    When it comes down to screwing an unfair government, first of all it's damned difficult to get away with it, and second, if caught you pay a heavy fine, but the idea of taking advantage of a fellow citizen in the same situation as yourself, stinks.

    Jun 30th, 2018 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “Corruption in government is usually inversely proportional to the people's level of instruction and information.”

    Probably explains why education has never been that great, especially basic education.

    It's not like there were no problems with nationalisation in Britain. When the railways were run by the government there was a chronic lack of investment, and they were out of date and run down. Plus they were losing money, and the government's attempt to improve things (by closing many lines) actually made things worse and left some towns without rail services.

    IMO the major problem with privatising them is that they are a natural monopoly, so you don't get the benefit of competition. Without that as a spur there is nothing forcing the private companies to increase efficiency and provide a better service. I think ideally we should look at individual cases and decide what option works best, rather than insisting on following a certain ideology whether or not it works.

    ”as to buying time on TV, they aren't allowed to - the system determines that the electoral fund (R$ 1.7 billion) is distributed amongst the parties according to their representation in Congress, and the total time on TV (free for the parties) is also defined by the same criteria“

    If that's true then what are the candidates spending all that illegally donated campaign money on? And if airtime is proportional to representation in congress, how do the small parties get anyone to vote for them?

    ”the idea of taking advantage of a fellow citizen in the same situation as yourself, stinks.”

    Agreed. There's really no justification for that.

    Jun 30th, 2018 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    “When the railways were run by the government there was a chronic lack of investment, and they were out of date and run down.”
    Isn't that one of the reasons they were nationalised, so that was state of them when the government purchased them.

    Jun 30th, 2018 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    To be honest I have no idea what the railways were like before they were nationalised. It was 70 years ago, my parents weren't even born.

    Jul 01st, 2018 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    “No idea what the railways were like before they were nationalised.”
    Economic state of british railways prior to nationalisation
    “In Britain during World War II, the railways were taken into State control. They were heavily damaged by enemy attacks and were run down aiding the war effort. After the war, the Transport Act 1947 provided for nationalising the four major railways.”
    Majority of Brits back rail nationalisation, Sky data poll shows - Sky News
    Jan 2, 2018 - Sky poll shows 60% of people would support bringing the country's rail ... A clear majority of the public support nationalising British railways, ...
    h ttps://
    h ttps://
    h ttps://

    Whereas, Argentina’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship Jorge Faurie told the (C24)committee in 2018
    “He noted that no United Nations resolution incorporated the principle of self-determination as a criterion in the territory’s decolonisation process and that application of that principle would require the existence of a people subjected to foreign domination.”
    Note, UN resolutions cannot negate UN Charter articles 73, and 103.

    Jul 01st, 2018 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Agree with your reasoning regarding the railways. A natural monoply says it all, which implies the government has to supply the service, whether profitable or not...anyway, it's funded by the taxpayer, not 'government' money. By privatizing them and then demanding that the new owner furnish a first class service - which the government didn't - and absorb huge losses, is senseless.

    “If that's true then what are the candidates spending all that illegally donated campaign money on? ”
    Part on the campaign, the rest on temselves....not difficult to deduce. As to the proportional airtime, that exactly my point - the powerful get more powerful....and stay in control...which encourages corruption, and disdain for the people....never said it was good..

    Jul 01st, 2018 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!