MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, October 6th 2022 - 14:23 UTC
United States ambassador to Argentina, Mark Stanley admitted he would like to see negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom on the Falklands/Malvinas question, but “I admit it is a very complicated issue”. Read full article
Complicated issue - Perhaps he should have read Narnia's constitution.
Why is this even a story, of course every Argentinian politician wants negotiations on the Falklands, but what they want is not acceptable and never will be,
“United States ambassador to Argentina, Mark Stanley … it is a very complicated issue”.
“He (Biden) said: ”I believe that my resolution which clearly calls for us to state whose side we're on - which is the British side …”
“According to General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960 entitled Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter, a Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
• Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
• Free association with an independent State;
• Integration with an independent State.
In addition, by the Declaration on Principles of International law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as approved by the General Assembly by its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, the General Assembly solemnly proclaimed the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States, including the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. In that principle, it is stated that the establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
According to The Mail on Sunday we know that ”The (USA) Americans admitted they may have inadvertently encouraged the Argentinians to invade the Falkland Islands, it emerged last night. talking about some work of the CIA.
Is this a case of another un-intelligent USA American under a very anti-English pro-Irish and not particularly clever president is saying something really stupid?
While Reagan was instinctively on the side of UK, this wasn't true of all other USA politicians and civil servants (some Irish republican groups actually sent money to bomb England and England didn't retaliate as far as I know, but we should think about it if non clever” enemies of England start butting in with their empty heads, building a problem where there isn't one as this intellectual light weight is trying to do today).
We don't really need the wisdom of USA lightweights to look in to this problem which has been resolved in 1982 thank you very much!
So please USA inform yourselves properly before you talk about what you don't know or shut up, don't go and start another Falkland war as you may have done last time in 1982!
The US was clearly on the side of the British in the Falklands War, Biden is correct. From Operation Black Buck...
While the Chiefs of Staff Committee were convinced that the operation was feasible and stood a good chance of success, the civilians at the Ministry of Defence were not so certain, and there were political implications to using the base at Ascension for offensive purposes, as Wideawake was technically a USAF base. The United States Department of State was consulted, and affirmed that it had no objection. Authority to proceed with the operation, codenamed Black Buck, was given by the War Cabinet on 27 April.
This is a complicated issue” only for Argentines. If they drop the claim all will be just fine. There are a lot of much more complicated issues going on around the world at the moment. There is no Malvinas question” today. It got its answer forty years ago.
Imoyaro, not sure if you are correct about the Ascension islands, as i understand it they are part of the BOT St Helena grouping and there is a RAF station there, and they dont n need America permission to land there,
The US is probably and seemingly showing an interest due to Arg showing an interest in joining the BRICS groupng, which along with Brazil would make 2 countries in the region Not good for the USA to have China and Russia operating within their sphere of influnence.
The point is, they consulted the US state department, and there was no objection.
Mark Stanley eh, marvellous, it’s all in a name, does he drive a car with the number plate H982 FKL???
The hand of Jeremy Clarkson perchance???
Does he know he is going to have to change it to Mark Puerto Argentino???
All USAF bases on British soil are signposted and marked on maps (if they are marked) as RAF XYZ, only when you get to the gate do you see a sign USAF XYZ.
They did need permission to stock up on American kit and supplies, including the latest model Sidewinder AA missiles. The Americans were ‘good allies’ in that campaign.
Pugol, yes i know all American bases on British territory are called RAF, but there are also RAF people based on the island, my brother who served there confirmed it,
As I said:
‘They did need permission to stock up on American kit and supplies, including the latest model Sidewinder AA missiles. The Americans were ‘good allies’ in that campaign.’
Your brother talks too much.
Pugol i am not disagreeing with what you say, the point i was making is that Britains armed forces did not need prermision to dock at the Ascension islands, also why does my brother talk too much, all he said was there are RAF people based there,
Not arguing the permission to dock, am I.
Classic politician's lie. And worse still, poor potato brain Fernandez might even see it as something to go on when he goes to Washington.
Given the reality of the situation since the 1982, the ONLY way the US and UK might consider the semblance of something that could be construed by the Argentinians naiveness as a measure of honor and respect for another fellow nation in this world (which it still wouldn't be); would be if Argentina demonstrated through a stable governance in solid economic alignment policies with what the US wants from Latina America, suddenly demonstrating unwavering alliance against Russia and China, perhaps willing even to drop Chinese business ventures for example, and at the same time giving the US a sense of continuity in the overall governing environment in Congress, showing clear economic recuperation and so forth. THEN and only then might the US and UK see Malvinas as a hinge around which to secure and tie in Argentine integration in its war against the world for planetary domination. And it wouldn't even start with sovereignty concepts even, not immediately anyways. It would start by seeing if Argentina was willing to prove its allegiance by subordinating its military or working with the British on the Islands, and at the same time allowing American military installations on the continent and so forth, as a lure to have Argentinians tricked and believing they are moving closer to recuperating their islands.
Because everything is about cheating, lying, bullying, fake narratives, trickery, false offers, etc etc with these people.
Because everything is about cheating, lying, bullying, fake narratives, trickery, false offers, etc etc...
Why Trimonstruosidades, what an exact description of Argentina's conduct over the last 2 centuries! ( ie since independence...)
“Because everything is about cheating, lying, bullying, fake narratives, trickery, false offers, etc etc with these people.”
The historical view of Argentina has been observed. As the US chargé d'affaires Francis Baylies wrote about Argentina in 1832
...The revolutions of these people are seditious; their knowledge. chicanery and trickery; their patriotism, their liberty, a farce...
Baylies held that the US should sign no treaty ...for we would abide by it, and they would consider the violation no greater offense than a lie told by a schoolboy.”
To the present day as constantly defrauding and reneging on every contract or treaty. But what else can be expected of a people that aspire to be dishonest vis-à-vis viveza criolla.
Another crackpot conspiracy theory from Trimonde, are you a member of Trumps crazy Q Anon club, and to quote yourself, lying cheating bullying fake narratives trickery etc etc is everything that Argentina has been since it was created, what a sad and nasty bitter little boy you are,
Actually, Trimonde is right in one respect, it doesn’t matter what they do, they don’t get the Malvinas.
It could even end up with the British claiming Patagonia and TDF, which they have a better claim to than Argentina has to the Malvinas and forcing Argentina to negotiate sovereignty about that.
That would ‘subordinate’ them and they are daft enough to fall for it, after years of indoctrination, from cradle to grave including refresher classes at work, easy sell.
Lucky for us the entire system is rigged against them, we must do all we can to keep it that way.
Loose lips sink ships: Not all USA Americans were good allies, we were specially lucky and must thank the Gods for Reagan and his fantastic defence secretary Caspar Weinberger, I have seen some CIA documents which were against the UK in that newspaper, it is bad if anybody can come out and muddy the waters as this one has done!
A statement like that lives on for ever, nothing but trouble and spreads all overy the papers in Argentina like wildfire. Then Argentina goes around twisting more arms and as you may have seen recently forcing even further indoctrination.
The CIA had a lot to do with operations in which Argentina helped in central America and South America
As far as I can see, where there isn’t a statement to ‘latch on to’ they just make one up.
Like the current furore about S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands violations of UN resolution, when there are no UN resolutions about S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands.
The indoctrination can only increase as the reality on the ground contradicts the narrative.
They can only make more noise about it as they cannot change it and at least that can be portrait (in country) as doing something, however ineffectual it my look to an outsider, it’s food and drink to the faithful.
On the “Argentina insists Malvinas negotiations with UK … “ thread, was the following claim.
“Memorandum issued by the Foreign Office's Investigation Department on September 17th, 1946 concludes”
“the British occupation of 1833 was, at the time, an act of unjustifiable aggression which has now acquired the backing of the rights of prescription”.164
Whatever an unqualified bureaucrat has to say on the subject of international law.
Is well refuted by the following judges of the International Court of Justice.
...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law by Robert Yewdall Jennings a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994.
Moreover, Argentina is barred from using territorial integrity as an argument. As it is a post UN law and cannot be applied retroactively.
The jurist Rosalyn Higgins President of ICJ arrived at a similar conclusion when she pointed out: 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 Argentina’s acquiescence. 1
1. Rosalyn Higgins, Falklands and the Law, Observer, 2 May 1982.
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!