MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, September 27th 2022 - 08:19 UTC



Argentina has bent over to please the UK while gaining nothing in return

Thursday, October 17th 2019 - 09:56 UTC
Full article 47 comments

By Facundo Rodriguez (*) - It's now been three years since the British and Argentine governments signed the Foradori-Duncan agreement and committed to taking “appropriate measures to remove all obstacles limiting the economic growth and sustainable development” of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Jo Bloggs

    ‘Our country has solid arguments, both historical and legal, and that is our main strength.’

    Sounds like an ideal case for the ICJ.

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Livepeanuts

    Argentina has got investment in return, however Argentina has not respected the Falklands identity and economic interests, wherever it sees an exposition or even a game it leaps up to ban and persecute the small islander community.
    One can only wonder what the “Argentines bending over means”, where have the bent anything? Their bullying is unchanged .. show me.
    As they say, go to the ICJ if you have rights to defend, if it is “political might” and “military might” that counts for Argentina then good luck aginst the UK! So many have tried that before, you should know.

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • RMN

    Oh dear! Is it any wonder that Argentina isn't trusted by the Islanders. Never a word uttered about how Islanders may benefit (probably as they wouldn't.) under Argentine dominance. Once upon a time I might have viewed this issue in terms of global politics and maybe thought there was a degree of point to the Argentine claim. However, statements such as those by this Rodriguez chap only serve to show how successive Argentine governments don't give a monkey's for the Islanders but continue to use the Falklands as part of it's fairy-tale story used to divert attention from a history of failings.

    Incidentally, what were the benefits to Britain? The fishing and flights issues have been of direct benefit to the Falklands.

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Terence Hill

    “The United Kingdom still refuses to meet its international obligations to negotiate a solution to the sovereignty dispute.
    Rodríguez is a lawyer and lecturer in international law”
    “There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
    Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie
    So that makes you an absolute liar, no surprise as you come from a land of liars.

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Islander1

    RMN - Correction- The Islands have not benefitted from flights issues at all either! As yet there is no additional flight - and a fair chance there never will anyway if a certain lady wins the Arg Presidential election on 10 days time! OK she is to vice-president on paper- but believe you me it will be her who sets policy.
    Actually Flights have diminished- 17 years ago we had a weekly flight and numerous charter flights from Chile - now we have just the weekly flight and charter flights very difficult to get overflight approval on so hardly ever happen.
    A couple of joint scientific fisheries research cruises have happened - but that is all - and most likely they will also sadly be axed by the Lady as she cares not a damn cent even if her attitude ruins Argentine fisheries by overfishing in their zone!
    The whole article is just the usual Argie Fantasy Electioneering verbage.

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Think

    Jo Bloggs..., me dear adopted Kelper...

    ***“Sounds like an ideal case for the ICJ.”***..., you say...

    Indeed it might..., I say..............., eventually...

    But first we'll give yet a try to the good auld “Hamburg Süd” pressure methodology oriented at the FCO and at that select group of ~3,000 Engrish squatting neighbors of yours...

    It worked fine in the seventies where the FCO and us were very close to a relatively satisfactory agreement...

    To put it in MLA Roberts own words..., we will test the new Kelper and FCO generations for their endurance..., natural sort of pragmatism and sense of spirit that will help them find a way to survive...


    Oct 17th, 2019 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Roger Lorton

    “What the agreement did not include was any specific reference to the long-standing sovereignty dispute over the Islands” ??

    Well, it wouldn't, would it? Heard of the 'sovereignty umbrella' Facundo, which this agreement was covered by? Whether it was a good agreement for Argentina is an entirely different question. One which I personally have little interest in. If Argentina wanted a good deal, then it should have negotiated more effectively. Hardly the Islanders' problem.

    As for Facundo's 'solid arguments,' these are nothing but rehashed distortions of history. Buenos Aires was warned twice about trespassing in 1829 and 1832 but declined to discuss the matter. Argentina can hardly complain if the UK has also declined to discuss the matter since effectively dismissing BA's 'solid arguments' presented in 1833. As for Argentina's attempts to base its 19th-century claims upon 20th-century legal theory, there has never been a serious attempt to go to arbitration, or the League of Nations after 1920 or the ICJ after 1946. UPJ is just a legal theory, inapplicable to 19th-century reality. Revolutionaries emancipate themselves, they do not inherit. And BA never achieved 'effective occupation' let alone sovereignty after declaring its pretensions in 1829; existing (barely) on East falkland only for just 2 years before the Yanks threw them off. Going back in late 1832 only to get thrown off again by the Brits. 'Effective' just does not come into it.

    You waste our time with your fantasies child lawyer. If you cannot get a good deal, don't ask for any deal.

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “It worked fine in the seventies where the FCO and us were very close to a relatively satisfactory agreement...” No it didn't as it was in complete violation of UN Charter's binding obligations.
    “UN Charter; DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained ..of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, ..b. to develop self-government, ...”

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • RMN

    Islander 1 - I agree. Maybe I should have put this a bit better though. What I meant was to challenge the continued implication that the Islands and Britain are one and the same, and all the “squatters” “Usurpers” nonsense.

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Roger Lorton

    The FCO threw some ideas about in the 1970s Think, but none were ever close to being a 'deal' as each and every one was subject to Islander approval. Your memory must be fading...

    I should have added with regard to the child lawyer's article above, that this is about Macri and the Presidential elections and not about the Islanders at all.

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Think

    As for Roger Lorton's 'solid arguments,' these are nothing but som mouldy auld Royal Patent Letters..., written by an obscure & mouldy auld Royal State Secretary... for the benefit of the mouldy & auld Imperial Royal Engrish Crown...

    Letters Patent..., by the way..., contested by anyone non Engrish & everywhere not under Engrish dominion since their siring...


    Oct 17th, 2019 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -8
  • Roger Lorton

    What 'Royal Patent Letters' are those Think? Names? Dates? Anything?

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Think


    You ain't got no even no Engrish Royal Letter Patents..., copper...???

    What in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have you then got as “solid argument” then...???

    A 243 years auld..., non-existing plaque...???

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • golfcronie

    Hey Stink you knobhead, can you not stink of anything original except the “ Engrish squatters ” what about the Argies then, they must also be Spanglish squatters.

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Roger Lorton

    What have we got Think?

    426 years of history Think. Effective occupation Think. Spanish recognition in 1863 Think. No competent challengers since then Think.

    The lead plate left in 1774 confirmed British sovereignty. We have never let it go.

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Think

    1) Effective military occupation including Argie deportations since 1833..., alright...
    That's your force... and your weakness..., copper...

    2) No much competent challengers since then..., alright to...
    --- Ten days from now..., we'll try harder... Honest Guv...

    3) Lead plate...? What lead plate...? Independent witnesses? Paintings? Drawings? Anything?

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Roger Lorton

    1) Deporting trespassers given two written warnings (1829 & 1832) is no offence .... argie

    2) Ten days from now, Argentina will do what it always does .... fail

    3) The report from William Clayton in the national archives at Kew stating clearly what he wrote down (FO/78/1/123 & ADM 1/1610). Reported in newspapers such as the Derby Mercury of Sept 16, 1774. Witnessed and recorded by Penrose in 'An Account of the last Expedition to Port Egmont in Falkland's Islands, in the Year 1772. Together with the
    Transactions of the Company of the Penguin Shallop during their Stay there'. Pub. 1775

    Buenos Aires had it from 1776 until 1806 (a petty act of theft) after which it was returned to England by Beresford. Also reported by one Luis Vernet in his Report of the Political, and Military Commandant of the Malvinas (Informe del Comandante Politico y Militar de
    Malvinas) in 1832.

    Listed as lost in the fire at the Great storeroom of the Tower of London on October 30th, 1841.

    Enough for you to swallow ...... old man?

    Oct 17th, 2019 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Think

    In short.........................................................................................................copper...
    No independent witnesses..., no paintings..., no drawings..., no nothing...
    Just some fasle empty words of some honourless Engrish pirates...
    And to top it all off..., you say that you had it... and you “lost” it...!
    As the great Eddie Izzard would put it...:
    No lead plate..., no Country...
    Chuckle..., chuckle...

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • rule_britannia

    Facundo: try Googling these two headlines and you will see that Argentina receives plenty and could receive much more in return:

    Argentina Held Back on Letting U.K. Aid in Submarine Search (2017).

    Why does the UK give £2m in aid to Argentina? (2014)

    Imagine if we had to put up with this crap from Germany and Japan with whom we fought a full-scale war with no holds barred.

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Roger Lorton

    Thought that would be too many facts for you to swallow old un.

    Original documents. News articles. Contemporary publications.

    That lot ain't nothing Think. Not unless you are a dumb Malvinista.......... oh, but then you are.

    Had it, never lost it.

    Chuckle, chuckle? Sounds like an old Malvinista dribbling into his soup.

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Think

    Me dear copper...
    That's the general problem with your ...
    Buried in your own “heap structure” of information..., you hide your own personal biased contradictions.and incongruencies..., laddie...

    Want a couple of freshly backed examples...? ...:

    1) You confirm above the actual inexistence of the said offending lead plate by stating...:
    ***“Listed as lost in the fire at the Great storeroom of the Tower of London on October 30th, 1841.”***
    But..., a couple of hours later you completely change your deposition stating that..:
    ***“Had it, never lost it.”***
    - C'mon Copper...Pull your act together... A twelve years old, first time shoplifter, would do better...!

    2) You tell us..., loud and clear that..., for the Engrish...:
    ***”Deporting trespassers given two written warnings (1829 & 1832) is no offence .... argie”***
    Well... why didn't you tell us that before..., copper...?
    We will give them Kelper trespassers two written warnings (2020 & 2023) and pronto..., “no offence done”..., à bientôt..., the drinks are on me..., lets go fishing together...

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 07:51 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Swede

    The “Kelpers” are no “trespassers” or “squatters”. Many of them have lived in the Falklands (or Malvinas if you prefer that name) more generations than most of the Argies have lived in Argentina. If you call them trespassers all people of European origin in the Americas must be trespassers on land belonging to amerindians. So they should all go “home” to Britain, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, Germany, Russia &c &c. But that is of course not realistic. The difference in the Falkland case is that there was no indigenous people there, so they could stay.

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • imoyaro

    I look forward to the day that Missiones, Formosa , and Chaco provinces are returned to Paraguay, sans the Kurepi squatters. Any comments, Kamerad/Komrade Rique, you murderous racist, genocidal pervert? I thought not ...

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • golfcronie

    The only time STINK that Argentina bent over was in 1982 and then they took it up their rears.
    All STINK wants is an audience sad old twat.

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    I repeat..., once again...

    1) From our side of the Anglo/Argentinean Malvinas/Falkland dispute..., the whole misery starts with the Engrish Imperial militar agression..., occupation..., deportations and repopulation of the Islas Malvinas in 1833...
    - An Engrish Imperial militar agression and occupation we Argies are contesting to this day...

    2) The British Citizens currently squatting in Malvinas will get every chance to regularize their personal situation taking in full consideration their acquired rights any squatter gets after a prolongued usurpation period...

    3) National sovereignity over the disputed ~14,000,000km2 territorial land..., sea and ice area in the South Atlantic..., is a completely different cup of tea...


    Oct 18th, 2019 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    Cap... who?

    Had it, never lost it - I was talking about sovereignty old man.

    BA was trespassing in 1833 Think, the islanders have never been trespassers. Not on any realistic assessment. And the whole 'thing' started in 1765 Think, long before ArgieTina existed. The 'thing' being between Britain and Spain, the latter recognising British sovereignty in 1863.

    Argentina was never in the game Think. Never has been - still isn't.

    But I know that unpalatable facts stick in your craw. I suggest you try that soup with a straw ;-)

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “Engrish Imperial militar agression...” was the only legal remedy open to the UK to counter your attempted piracy. Which was accepted by the international community at that time, and even today.
    “Not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern 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' ”
    Akehurst's Modern Introduction To International Law Peter Malanczuk
    “We Argies are contesting to this day...” Contest away, and continue to welch on your own signed international agreements. It's just another example of your national character of viveza criolla. You are so well known for your double dealing, hence the adage “actions speak louder than words”. So you can moan and groan all you want, but you'll get no where. As any any acts that violate the UN Charter entitle the UK to act to legally counter.

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    1) “CAP ISCE”..., me dear monolingal Engrish bobbie... That's Italian... Google it...

    2) You were ***“talking about sovereignty”***..., suuuure... Now you really lost it..., laddie...

    3) You suggest I eat my homemade tortellini minestrone with a straw..., huhhh...?
    I reckon that will be as difficult as finding an unbiased paragraph in your “Timeline” thingy...

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    All you have is thin gruel old un. Nothing of substance.

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Think

    Hark who's talking..., copper
    chuckle..., chuckle...

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    Whose flag flies there ... argie

    haw, haw......

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    So fitting for an Engrish Propagandist to Haw-Haw...

    Chuckle chuckle...

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • golfcronie

    STINK at least the UK never harboured the Nazi criminals, what do I hear you say in reply? Nothing I suggest.

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    5555 suit you better Think? hahahaha in Thai.

    Give it up old man, you are as impotent as your country and about as toothless. Enjoy your gruel.


    Oct 18th, 2019 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    Suuuure..., copper...
    See you around...

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Swede

    Are there any countries in the history of mankind which have gained territory through sheer nagging? Argentina has used many different methods throughout the years to lay their hands on this archipelago. From trying to seduce the population by sending christmas greetings to a full scale military intervention. All have failed. Now they hope that brexit will give them a new chance. But it will also fail.

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    SWEDE just above...

    You ask...:
    ***“Are there any countries in the history of mankind which have gained territory through sheer nagging?”***

    I say...:
    Quite a unsettling question..., specially when coming from a SWEDE...
    Well, the FINNS got the “Åland Isles” by sheer nagging them SWEDES...
    (And let's not forget the FROGS that got a terribly bad deal on the “Collectivité d'outre-mer de Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon”..., by sheer nagging the KANUKS...)

    -There are plenty of other such examples in the history of mankind..., but I'll give you the opportunity to eucate yourself..., SWEDE...

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Swede

    Well.Sweden lost Finland, which it had controlled for several hundred years, to Russia in 1809. We are not still whining about that and are not claiming it back. When Finland broke away from Russia in 1917 Åland Isles were included. As Swedish speakers the population there wanted to reunite with Sweden. They were afraid of being being absorbed into a Finnish-speaking monoculture. The question was solved by the League of Nations (the UN of the time). Åland got autonomy within the Republic of Finland with Swedish as its only official language. Nowadays I think they are quite happy, because it is almost an own country and between Sweden and Finland and it is demilitarized. If annexed to Sweden Åland had just been a municipality among others. After WW2 Finland lost territory in the east, including its third biggest city Viborg/Viipuri to the Soviet Union. Hundreds of thousands of people were deported to the rest of the country and had to be relocated in new homes. This was of course a heavy loss. But they had to accept it and they have also done it. Today they have normal relations with Russia and they are not calling today's Russian inhabitants “trespassers” or “squatters”. And this loss is just 75 years back. Argentina lost some islands they had controlled a few years and a garrison was sent back to Argentina. It was almost 180 years ago. But this is still big issue in Argentina. What is the difference between Argentina and Finland (and Germany which lost even more land after both WW1 and WW2)? Those countries have accepted the situation and live in peace with their former enemies and have no claims whatsoever.

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think


    Why did you ask your turnipy question if you knew about Ålandsöarna already...,huhhh?

    Why do you find it neccesary to tell me stories about a place I most probably know better than you...?

    Why do you find it necessary to compare three Nordic neighbours natural territorial conflicts with an Imperial European Power that sails to the far end of the world to attack not once..., not twice..., not trice... but four times a newborn country that never had attacked them...?

    Oct 18th, 2019 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • golfcronie

    STINK why argue the toss every time ,do you like being a sad old git STINK?

    Oct 19th, 2019 - 07:17 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Swede

    Three more questions, but no answers.
    Could you tell me:
    Why is Argentina still so bitter and resentful abut the “loss” of some small islands with almost no civilian population it administered for a short time nearly 200 years ago, when Finland has accepted the loss of its third biggest city and the relocation of thousands of people just some 75 years ago?

    I am just trying to understand the Argentine behavior regarding the “Malvinas”.

    Oct 19th, 2019 - 07:24 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think


    If you really..., with half an open mind..., were...: ***“Just trying to understand the Argentine behavior regarding the Malvinas.”***..., you could start by reading the last three lines of my last comment...

    But..., as it clearly transpires from all your above comments..., you are..., by no means...: ***“Just trying to understand the Argentine behavior regarding the Malvinas”***..., I choose not do dialogue..., but just to debunk your constructed arguments...

    If you knew anything about Finland and the Finns..., you would know that about 70% of them are..., still today..., very bitter, resentful and hateful against the Russians and would like to recover their territories if they had a minimal chance...
    In short..., Swede...:
    The Suomis haven't “accepted” Shiat..!
    They are just very afraid (and with good reason) of the big nasty bear...

    And by the way..., Argentina has....,like most of the countries on Earth..., since its national birth..., had territorial conflicts with all of its neighboring countries...
    Conflicts that.., today have all been resolved by political means...
    Except..., of course..., with the Northern Hemisphere Engrish Imperial Pirates...


    Oct 19th, 2019 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “Engrish ... Pirates...” Your claim has as much validity as a 'flat earthers'
    Once again reiterating the truth and showing anything else on the issue that comes from Argentina is complete crock.
    The only pirates in the area were from “There is scarcely a Buenos Ayrean privateer which has not committed piracy of every description” John Quincy Adams July 20th, 1820. Such as David Jewett, and Louis Vernet

    Oct 19th, 2019 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • RICO

    “Some readers might argue that Britain also made a concession by helping identify unknown Argentine soldiers buried in the Darwin cemetery, on the Falklands/Malvinas. But this is humanitarian issue, not a concession, and something that should have been cleared up much sooner. That's not to take away the efforts made, in this case, by the Argentine and British governments, and by the International Committee of the Red Cross.”

    It is certainly not true that this was a concession by the British. The British were always horrified the Argentina did not want to confirm the identities of the dead. Argentinas refusal to cooperate in this in 1982 was a policy that continued until very recntly when relatives of the fallen shamed the Argentine government into doing something and asking to go ahead with the identification. Something that they could have done at anytime in the porevious 25 years.

    Oct 19th, 2019 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    “Conflicts that.., today have all been resolved by political means...
    An absolute lie there was a peace treaty, which was acknowledged as such in both the Argentine and the UK in their own archives, the Convention of Settlement, 1850. This is how legal scholars of the day and therefore nations viewed the effects of such a peace treaty to wit:
    § 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.

    Oct 19th, 2019 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Jo Bloggs


    I hope that nobody from the Falklands would argue that British cooperation in the identification of the Argentine fallen is an example of a concession; I fully agree with you. That’s why we never hesitate to agree to give our support to such humanitarian initiatives. If only the Argentine governmental organisers could one day try to act as transparently in making those arrangements as we do. That comment in no way whatsoever reflects the laudable efforts and commitment of Eduardo Eurnekian and his team.

    Oct 20th, 2019 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    THE FALKLANDS are facing fresh threats 37 years after they were successfully defended by British forces as likely new Argentina President Alberto Fernandez claims he will try to retake the islands, but he will face an uphill legal battle that makes it near-impossible to achieve.
    However, Argentina’s constitution makes this promise very difficult to fulfil.
    Amended in 1994, it suggests that Argentina can never take the islands by force.
    The documents instructs the nation’s government that any “recovery” of the territories must be done within the realms of international law.
    It reads:
    “The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.”

    Oct 26th, 2019 - 08:02 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!