Galtieri revisited?

[Lazy Lob]

Bugger financial crises and the Leopoldo effect.


From Times Online
February 16, 2010
Argentina grants itself power to blockade Falkland Islands
Hannah Strange in Caracas and Frank Pope in Stanley

(Jeremy Cresswell)
The Ocean Guardian ship: plans for the ship to begin offshore exploration drilling near the remote islands has caused a row
Argentina has said that it is taking control over all shipping between its coast and the Falkand Islands, effectively awarding itself the power to blockade the disputed territory.

According to a decree issued by President Kirchner, all ships sailing through the waters claimed by Argentina must hold a permit. The measure looks set to deepen a row over conflicting claims to oil beds lying inside the Falklands’ territorial waters.

Argentina still claims sovereignty over the islands it calls “Las Malvinas”, nearly three decades after the end of the Falklands conflict in which more than a thousand people died.

Tensions over the islands remained buried until the discovery of potentially rich energy reserves in the Falklands’ seabed. Argentina protested to Britain this month over plans to begin offshore drilling near the islands.

Today’s decree amounts to an Argentinian move to control all traffic from South America towards the islands, including an oil rig due to arrive today and start drilling next year.

“Any boat that wants to travel between ports on the Argentine mainland to the Islas Malvinas, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands . . . must first ask for permission from the Argentine government,” Aníbal Fernández, the Argentinian Cabinet chief said.

He said that the decree would force all ships bound for the islands or travelling through waters claimed by Argentina to secure the new permit.

Argentina is trying to prevent British oil companies exploiting what experts say could be substantial oil reserves. Buenos Aires has been enraged by Britain’s refusal to stop explorations in the face of its long-standing sovereignty claim. Last week it detained a ship, the Thor Leader, which it said had been illegally transporting pipes to the Falklands.

The impending arrival of the Ocean Guardian rig has increased tensions farther, amid reports from waiting crew members on the islands that it had been shadowed by Argentinian jets during the final stage of its journey from the Scottish Highlands.

Last week Argentina vowed to take its complaint against Britain to the United Nations. Jorge Taiana, its Foreign Minister, warned that his goverment would take “all necessary steps” to defend its claim on the islands, 300 miles from the coastline.

Geological studies estimate that up to 60 billion barrels of oil could be buried in the seabed around the Falklands, making it a reserve on the scale of the North Sea, which has so far produced 40 billion. The majority of the exploration rights have been awarded to London-based Desire Petroleum, which will drill in the area for the first time since Royal Dutch Shell abandoned its bid in 1998.

The islanders have tried to shrug off the prospect of a new conflict. “There has been an economic blockade of the Falklands from Argentina for many years now,” said Roger Spink, the director of the Falkland Islands Company. “It’s something we’ve come to expect. ”

Britain has more than 1,000 military personnel on land and more than 300 at sea in the region, as well as four Typhoon jets, a destroyer and a patrol boat in the region.

[happyslapper]

hahaha!

Just laugh, then put the kettle on. It's what we've done every time these idiots open their mouths.

[CMNot]

At least we are far better placed nowadays.

[armored_diplomacy]

Just an(other) idiocy for internal consume.

I feel embarrased by that woman and her husband.

110057

[happyslapper]

The saddest irony is that before the prospecting, seismic surveys, and proper exploration took place (back in 2000) we signed an agreement with Argentina to split revenue. As it happens, I was against the idea, but just imagine what hat could do for the oh-so-fragile Argentine economy, not to mention the potential to sooth relations more than ever before.

But guess what... when Argentina was imploding in a swarm of riots and a worthless currency in 2005, Nestor Kirchner unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in a wave of ''Malvinas Argentinas!! Volermos!!''.

It's funny to see them get so self-righteous and worked up about it. Short memories huh?!
They've made their bed.

[ChrisBV]

The saddest irony is that before the prospecting, seismic surveys, and proper exploration took place (back in 2000) we signed an agreement with Argentina to split revenue.

Funny thing: when Argentina signed the Joint Declaration back in '95, it was clearly established that the signature of such agreement altered neither the status quo of the Islands nor the Argentine claims of sovereignty, although for Argentina, making a deal with the UK - in order to conduct surveys and possibly extractions of hydrocarbons from underneath British-controlled soil - would seem like a form of concession, consent or acquiescence: after all, for Argentine companies to conduct surveys within the Falklands territorial waters, the British would have to "let them in", that is, letting the Argentines drill on British-controlled territory. Wouldn't it seem odd for Argentina, I mean, to accept not necessarily British sovereignty but British control over territory considered (in paper) by the Argentines as "Argentine"?

They didn't seem to mind back then. Yet, President Kirchner's administration unilaterally terminated the Declaration arguing violations of Argentine rights and Argentine sovereignty. Go figure...

[happyslapper]

Recent history has shown us that the Argentine Government is beyond whimsical. They flit in and out of agreements as it suits them, and alter history on an almost weekly basis.

Take this for example:
''Very good afternoon to all and all: Mr Prime Minister and Tobago Trinder, I want to thank you and your people with the hospitality we have received, and to address all heads of state, prime ministers and prime ministers, men and women who regularly attend the V Summit of the Americas °, with the hope of this being the first step to a new regional order.

I announced who introduced me as the president of the country where he held the IV ° Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata. That reunion, a true turning point in relations on the continent, it may be remembered as the summit in which various countries of our Americas, with different historical experiences and perhaps also with different ideas, we said no to the FTAA. But I think there was something more than that, I think that meeting in Mar del Plata symbolized the birth of a new form of relations between the countries of our Americas, is that decades of history of our continent gave us the experience that many fundamental times since the United States of America was conceived in our relationship with countries as a form of subordination to criticism, any proposal we made. At that time I think we opened a new form within the meaning of plants in our ideas, our experiences, and give an answer to what for decades was a lot of trauma. First by the cold war that divided the world into something and I was bipolar, in an East-West conflict to our region that meant harsh dictatorships, military, and paradoxes such as the expulsion was in the'62 years of the OAS of the sister republic of Cuba. Among the grounds for such expulsion is argued that their adherence to Marxism-Leninism, its accession to the bloc of the Soviet Union, then the other pole of conflict, endangering the hemispheric unity and violated the principle, enshrined in hemispheric Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, the TIAR. I say paradox because 20 years later, in 1982, my country, Argentina was attacked by a country that did not belong to the hemisphere and there was not applied the doctrine of TIAR. The present mood of controversy not merely as an example of double standard and paradoxes of how we have felt the American people respond to this conflict. After that came the Washington consensus and that was the tragedy of our social economy.''

- CFK at last year's America's Summit.

Unbelievable. I still cannot believe she said it.
http://blogs.perfil.com/presidencial/index.php/2009/04/17/inauguracion-de-la-v-cumbre-de-las-americas/

[LineDoggie]

I've no plans for the next few months, if y'all want some help. Even bring my own M1A

[Lazy Lob]

I've no plans for the next few months, if y'all want some help. Even bring my own M1A

Which side are you offering help to? p-)

[Billy No Mates]

But guess what... when Argentina was imploding in a swarm of riots and a worthless currency in 2005, Nestor Kirchner unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in a wave of ''Malvinas Argentinas!! Volermos!!''.

I guess their not the first politicians to put short term populism,over long term prosperity,after all why should they care as their not likely to share the same hardship as the general population .

[LineDoggie]

Which side are you offering help to? p-) Why the Tea Drinkers of course......

[mwinyi]

but those islands are thousands of miles away from Britain

if anything they are more Argentinian than Britain

[happyslapper]

but those islands are thousands of miles away from Britain

if anything they are more Argentinian than Britain

itz coz we iz evil piratz. innit

But seriously, if your concept of sovereignty runs no deeper than sheer proximity, then find a golf club and beat some sense into yourself.

[Lazy Lob]

but those islands are thousands of miles away from Britain

if anything they are more Argentinian than Britain

So when are those europeans going to let the Toba, Wichí, Mocoví, Pilagá, Chulupí, Diaguita-Calchaquí, Kolla or Guaraní decide? Even if they had dropped a turd on those islands.

We can all draw sodding lines in the sand. It just depends where your itch is.

[3rdMillhouse]

Treat the argentinian government the way they deserve to be treated, by showing them the middle finger.

[LineDoggie]

but those islands are thousands of miles away from Britain

if anything they are more Argentinian than BritainHmmm

Lets see

British living on the Flaklands: 3,140 (military not included)
Argentines living on the Falklands: 0

Next question

[ChrisBV]

but those islands are thousands of miles away from Britain

if anything they are more Argentinian than Britain

Why?

Their inhabitants - that is, the people who built the towns and settlements, worked the land and have been living there for nearly two centuries - are British. Why would they be "less British", then?

[armored_diplomacy]

Hmmm

Lets see

British living on the Flaklands: 3,140 (military not included)
Argentines living on the Falklands: 0

Next question

But ... you didn´t answer that question ... :-|

The nº of citizens by itself is an argument as weak as the mere territorial proximity.
Try again ;-)

[timetraveller]

The way I view it is .. they are tryin to take advantage of the situation because the Uk is busy with Afghanistan ..

But still I wouldn't be surprised there is A Sub already in the area ...awaiting to launch a few tomahawks if it ends up kicking off again ...

All future barneys and Arugments will be over Natural resources imo

[mwinyi]

Britain has no moral high ground on Malvinas considering what they've done to Diego Garcia Islanders

[happyslapper]

It wouldn't surprise me either if an SSN is lurking around down there. Likewise HMS York will almost certainly have been moved to a more useful position.

I don't think it has anything to do with Afghanistan, but it has everything to do with President Kirchner's catastrophic approval ratings, and the Argentine psyche (hopefully Argentine members of this board understand, and do not find that offensive).

Someone else said that the Admiralty must be cracking open the champagne bottles right now; on the eve of the defence review, Government is reminded of the need for a strong Navy, and to remember that Britain's security is not centred around the Helmand Valley. It's good news for all the services, but particularly the RN.

There's more than a little historical deja-vu at play here. In 1982, Britain was obsessed with the Soviet threat. The Navy was obsessed with countering submarines, the RAF with penetrative strike missions, and the Army with formation warfare on the German plains. And most importantly, MI6 had only one agent to cover the entire South American continent.

Now things are different, we have a smaller military which is equipped to tackle a borad range of threats, especially expeditionary warfare, and the Falklands are no longer an almost non-existant place in the public's mind, or out of the focus of the Intelligence Services.

However, we were/are once again becoming obsessed with a single theatre, a single type of warfare. Hopefully this will remind Westminster that there is a world beyond Helmand.
It does make me wonder what was said at the emergency meeting in Whitehall which no doubt has happened over the past few days....
''What ships do we have?''
''None, they're all either flying a Chilean flag, en-route to the scrap-yard, unserviceable, or playing chase with somalis''.

Hopefully there were some red faces.

[happyslapper]

Britain has no moral high ground on Malvinas considering what they've done to Diego Garcia Islanders

The same DG that's a) a completely different case, and b) put right by a 2002 court decision.

Give it a rest.

[ChrisBV]

(...) but it has everything to do with President Kirchner's catastrophic approval ratings

Ok here it goes:

...

...

... Lady K. can't think straight under all that Botox :oops:

I had to say it :oops:

[CMNot]

But ... you didn´t answer that question ... :-|

The nº of citizens by itself is an argument as weak as the mere territorial proximity.
Try again ;-)

Democracy. If the Islanders wanted to be Argentinian, they would be. End of argument.

[armored_diplomacy]

Democracy. If the Islanders wanted to be Argentinian, they would be. End of argument.

Please re-read my post:

"The nº of citizens by itself is an argument as weak as the mere territorial proximity"

You are adding an extra element: that people´s will (+150 years of history)

Again: just because the majority of the people living there holds one citizenship (since 1983), that does not (or shouldn´t) enable any country to claim sovereignty on that land just based on that argument itself.

[happyslapper]

They held citizenship before 1983, but it was Overseas Territories citizenship. Until the 70's, British territory was too expansive to allow uncontrolled migration. It's the same as with many modern-day large countries, China with it's strict internal migration being a classic example.

[armored_diplomacy]

They held citizenship before 1983, but it was Overseas Territories citizenship. Until the 70's, British territory was too expansive to allow uncontrolled migration. It's the same as with many modern-day large countries, China with it's strict internal migration being a classic example.

Just read that some minutes ago.
Relationships between those territories and the UK is a quite interesting subject indeed.

[CMNot]

Nevermind, Happyslapper covered it.

[armored_diplomacy]

Nevermind, Happyslapper covered it.

You look kinda worry anyway ...
(I wonder if I made my point clear, ´cause from different ways we´re arriving to the same point :-))

[CMNot]

If Argentinas strongest argument for sovereignty is geographic location then 'Las Malvinas' will be remaining British for a long time to come. That is my argument.

[happyslapper]

This is why they reinvent history as they please, CMN.

If it doesn't suit their 'cause', they hire in their very own Tom Clancy to shift it round a bit.

[armored_diplomacy]

If Argentinas strongest argument for sovereignty is geographic location then 'Las Malvinas' will be remaining British for a long time to come. That is my argument.

:-|
(If that´s for me, I think you are telling that to the wrong person, since I´m not quoting that argument at all)

[Loke2]

I found this interesting piece at keypublishing:


First of all, the islands were not under British rule since before Argentina existed. They were occupied by the British in the 18th century but then the Spanish occupy the British garrison. As the Spanish accounts by then, the Spanish sovereignty over the islands was recognized then by England. When Argentina become independent, on 15 December 1823 England recognized the Argentine independence over all the territory Argentina claimed by then, including the islands, which were occupied by Argentina since 1822. On 2 January 1825 both countries signed a frienship and commerce treaty, where, again, England recognized the Argentine independence and they never claimed sovereignty over the islands, despite they were occupied by Argentina. Later, in 1833 the British invaded the islands.
The Argentinean claim is not only the proximity to the country but that when the Virreynato del Río de la Plata gained it's independence from Spain in 1816, the new country, by then called the Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata inherited all the territories of the virreynato (including the Malvinas / Falklands, which were in Spanish hands by then). Meanwhile, some parts of it become independent countries (Bolivia and Paraguay) and after the war with Brazil, when the negotiations for a cease fire took place with the participation of the UK, the UK proposed the creation of Uruguay to avoid a new war between both countries in the future (Uruguay was an Argentine province, the Banda Oriental, until the Brazilians invaded it).
Anyway, I think this forum is not to discuss who is the owner of the islands, as the discussion could be eternal, as both countries have their arguments.
At last, the UN mandate is not about the self determination of the islanders, only states that their "interests" must be respected, but not their wishes. That's one of the main discussions between both countries, because England always claimed the respect of the islanders wishes and Argentina only their interests. Also, the UN don't recognize the waters around the islands, nor the islands, as British but as an area in dispute. That's why the UN recognizes right to continue claiming and every year the UN calls both countries to negotiate a final solution.
I think that the Malvinas / Falklands issue is an example of how diplomacy could completely fail, as both countries are (at least that's what both say) looking for a sollution since 1962 and the prejudice for both was bigger than the benefits (more than 1000 people killed during and after the war and millions of dollars of material lost during the war, the cost to maintain the defense of the islands and losses on commercial deals lost), without reaching any sollution. I think that the main problem is "pride", nobody wants to be seen as giving up anything.
In my personal opinion, the best solution will be to share everything between both countries, as is the case of the tiny Martín García island on the Rio de la Plata, which is owned by Argentina and Uruguay and you can see both flags together. This decision was taken in the eighties after years of Uruguayan claim, despite all the people living there are Argentine, but Argentina, having the island since 1810, recognized the Uruguayan rights because the island is closer to Uruguay than to Argentina. The only "small" difference, is that Martín García island has no important natural resources.
England will loose part of the benefits for the natural resources exploitation, but could remove all the military personnel from the islands, reducing the expense on the islands by too many million dollars. This could also led to a better commercial relation between both countries, as was in the past, and also with all Latin America. The problem is that none of the two governments will accept to share sovereignty, so that will be a never ending problem, at least in the short and medium term.
...

Who tells you that Argentina didn't claimed the islands after the US attack. In fact, when the British ships arrived to the islands, there was an Argentine governor on them. The first Argentine protest against British invasion was also in 1833, as soon as Buenos Aires knew that the Argentine garrison was invaded. Please excuse me, but read more history before quoting.


I studied a lot the claims of sovereignty and the true is that no one has a convincing and objective point. British and Argentine say they arguments are solid, but the fact that the UN still says is a disputed territory is because they cannot accept the claims of none of the both countries because they are not convincing. I think that the rights of the islanders are important, as they are the only ones that lived there for so many years, but also is important to recognize that their families are not original from the islands. They are not descendants from natives of the islands, they are descendants from those who occupied an invaded territory.

It seems to me that this is slightly more complicated than what both most Argentinians and Brits claim.

[martinexsquaddie]

its not really international law did'nt really exsist or forbid armed land grabs in the 19th centuary argentinas genocide of the inhabitants of patagonia case in point.
after ww2 UN exsists makes these sort of land grabs illegal thats why argentina invasion in 1982 ruled illegal.
tough should have tried to reclaim before armed landgrabs when out of fashion. Ilsamders have been there for over 150 years too late and whining the iz evil piratz what done it just makes you look sore losers.

if we are evil pirates its means the FLYING SPAGEHETTI MONSTER IS ON OUR SIDE :)