Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN


Machjo
#1
BBC News - Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN (external - login to view)

While I can see Argentina's point, it does take two to Tango. Why could Mercosur not allow ships entering their waters to fly the Flakland-Islands' flag?

Sure they're free to let anyone in they want, but if they want peace, giving some friendly gestures would be helpful towards thawing relations too.

And as for the UN, I don't see what it can do other than request that the British be more sensitive to Argenine sentiments. Beyond that though, if Falklanders want to remain British, chances are the Un will respect their wish. At most, it might simply request the two nations try to work out more cordial relations between each other. But again, it takes two to tango here.
 
Colpy
+1
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

BBC News - Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN (external - login to view)

While I can see Argentina's point, it does take two to Tango. Why could Mercosur not allow ships entering their waters to fly the Flakland-Islands' flag?

Sure they're free to let anyone in they want, but if they want peace, giving some friendly gestures would be helpful towards thawing relations too.

And as for the UN, I don't see what it can do other than request that the British be more sensitive to Argenine sentiments. Beyond that though, if Falklanders want to remain British, chances are the Un will respect their wish. At most, it might simply request the two nations try to work out more cordial relations between each other. But again, it takes two to tango here.

The Islands are British, the citizens wish to remain British, the Brits kicked Argentine arse there in 1982, at the cost of lives. They have shed blood over it, and Argentina should now STFU.

The way to avoid conflict is NOT friendly gestures that encourage a pushing of the envelope. The way to avoid conflict is to quietly make it very VERY clear that if you are harassed while going about your legitimate business, the reaction will be immediate, overwhelming, and violent.

No negotiations, no compromise, no BS.

I darnst Ya to step over this here line Varmit.
 
Machjo
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

The Islands are British, the citizens wish to remain British, the Brits kicked Argentine arse there in 1982, at the cost of lives. They have shed blood over it, and Argentina should now STFU.

The way to avoid conflict is NOT friendly gestures that encourage a pushing of the envelope. The way to avoid conflict is to quietly make it very VERY clear that if you are harassed while going about your legitimate business, the reaction will be immediate, overwhelming, and violent.

No negotiations, no compromise, no BS.

I darnst Ya to step over this here line Varmit.

Argentine and Mercosur is not helping matters at all with its rules banning Falkland ships flying their flags either.
 
Spade
#4
It is not as cut and dried as Colpy pretends it to be.
gulfnews : Falkland islanders will be sold out sooner or later (external - login to view)
 
Machjo
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

It is not as cut and dried as Colpy pretends it to be.
gulfnews : Falkland islanders will be sold out sooner or later (external - login to view)

It would be tricky to give the Falklands back to Argentina when the local population all want to remain British.

The best scenario I could see would be that the UK establish some kind of free trade and free labour-movement deal between the UK and Mercosur with some kind of agreement that sovereignty over the Falklands goes to whoever the majority of Falklanders want to govern them (which at this point in times appears to be the UK). This would mean that sovereignty over the Falklands would remain British but that Argentinians would be free to live and work there as they wish.
 
#juan
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

It would be tricky to give the Falklands back to Argentina when the local population all want to remain British.

The best scenario I could see would be that the UK establish some kind of free trade and free labour-movement deal between the UK and Mercosur with some kind of agreement that sovereignty over the Falklands goes to whoever the majority of Falklanders want to govern them (which at this point in times appears to be the UK). This would mean that sovereignty over the Falklands would remain British but that Argentinians would be free to live and work there as they wish.

As long as they pay for any land they use. Let the islanders determine the price. There is not a lot of what one might consider
good land on those islands and the climate is crap. Argentinians might decide they don't want the land as much as they thought they did
.
 
Blackleaf
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

BBC News - Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN (external - login to view)

While I can see Argentina's point

I can't. I don't believe that Britain is "militarising" the Falklands. But even if it is, it is only doing so because of Argentina's sabre-rattling and aggressiveness.

If Argentina carries on it might find itself on the receiving end of several Tomahawk missiles.

Quote:


And as for the UN, I don't see what it can do other than request that the
British be more sensitive to Argenine sentiments.

I don't see why the British should be "more sensitive" to Argentine sentiments. The Argies are wrong and they are not having the Falklands.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

It would be tricky to give the Falklands back to Argentina when the local population all want to remain British.

Britain can't give the islands "back to" Argentina, because Argentina has never owned the islands, so it's impossible to give them back.

Quote:

with some kind of agreement that sovereignty over the Falklands goes to
whoever the majority of Falklanders want to govern them (which at this point in
times appears to be the UK).

That is already the case. International laws on self-determination ensure that the islanders already have the capability to decide whether they want to be British, Argentinian, or whatever. But the Argentinians just don't seem to accept that law.

Also, Britain doesn't govern the Falklands. The islands are not a British colony or even a dependency. They are a British Overseas Territory, and are so by choice, The Falklands govern themselves. They have their own elected MPs sitting in a little parliament building in Port Stanley called Gilbert House. The only things that Britain is responsible for is the islands' defence and foreign affairs.

Quote:

This would mean that sovereignty over the Falklands would remain British but that Argentinians would be free to live and work there as they wish.

Argentinians are free to live and work on the islands.
 
DurkaDurka
+1
#8
Poor Brits trying to hang on to their Island, one of their last trophies from their colonial days.
 
Blackleaf
#9
Argentina has no more claim to the Falklands than Canada does to Alaska

Here’s an interesting idea you might not have considered before: let’s force Alaska to become a part of Canada. It is, after all, separated from the rest of the United States of America by some 500 miles and connected to Canada by a border more than 1,500 miles long.

Perhaps this suggestion sounds ridiculous? It shouldn’t, at least if you support Argentina’s claim to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. With the UK having just deployed one of its most powerful warships to the region, and Prince William having begun a six-week deployment to the Islands in his role as an RAF search-and-rescue pilot, frustrations are once again boiling over in the Argentine capital Buenos Aires. Read more: Argentina has no more claim to the Falklands than Canada does to Alaska — MercoPress (external - login to view)

I'm proud to be from the Falklands - and proud to be British

Daily Mirror journalist Rob Burnett, a Falkland Islander, tells us what life is like on the Falkland Islands (which are the same size as Northern Ireland) and of the islanders' desire to be British.

“There’s nowhere else I would want to live,” says Dan Fowler. “From the sense of freedom to the amazing nature on your doorstep... it’s just a great life. As 12-year-olds we were going off on our bikes for a day at the beach, or going fishing, and our parents had no worries about us being out on our own all day. The freedom was amazing.”

Nick and Dan reflect the large number of young Islanders who, having been educated abroad, return to make their lives – and insist that their beloved home remains British. Read more: Falkland Islands population determined to remain British - Mirror Online (external - login to view)















Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

Poor Brits trying to hang on to their Island, one of their last trophies from their colonial days.

1) The islanders want to be British. Therefore, in the opinion of all right-minded people, it would be wrong and cruel to hand them over to a country they don't want to be part of. If you are so against international laws on self-determination then you'lll have no problem in Britain taking back the vast swathes of Canadian territory it once owned. of course, it won't matter what most canadians think of the matter. We'll just ignore them.

2) The Falkland Islands are an independent, sovereign nation. You thinking that they should belong to Argentina would be like me saying that Canada should belong to the United States.

3) An Englishman was the first person to see the Falklands. That was way back in the 16th century, centuries before Argentina even existed. The British and the French also claimed and settled the islands at about the same time, long before the Spanish laid claim to them and long before Argentina even existed. Therefore Argentina's claim to the islands is very weak.
 
lone wolf
+1
#10
States bought Alaska fair and square.... Now, the panhandle, on the other hand, was a bone of contention to BRITISH Columbia
 
Blackleaf
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

States bought Alaska fair and square.

And Britain claimed, and settled, the Falkland Islands fair and square, when there was no such thing as Argentina.

Britain and France also claimed and settled the islands before the Spanish, Argentina's colonial masters, did. France then gave their portion of the islands to the Spanish. Fair enough. But then the Spanish, in the late 18th century, tried to kick the British off their part of the islands so that Spain can have them all, even though the British were there before the Spanish were!

Then Argentina was born and started saying that the islands belong to them, even though they had been British for decades.

And now Argentina is still claiming the islands are theirs even though, as I've already pointed out, Britain had them before Argentina even existed and despite the fact that Argentina has NEVER had the islands.

A similar analogy would be of the United States laying claim to the former British colony of the Bahamas, just because the islands are off the coast of Florida, even though the people of the islands don't want their nation becoming American.

I'm afraid to say that the Argentinians are in the wrong.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Feb 9th, 2012 at 01:42 PM..
 
DurkaDurka
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post



1) The islanders want to be British. Therefore, in the opinion of all right-minded people, it would be wrong and cruel to hand them over to a country they don't want to be part of. If you are so against international laws on self-determination then you'lll have no problem in Britain taking back the vast swathes of Canadian territory it once owned. of course, it won't matter what most canadians think of the matter. We'll just ignore them.

2) The Falkland Islands are an independent, sovereign nation. You thinking that they should belong to Argentina would be like me saying that Canada should belong to the United States.

3) An Englishman was the first person to see the Falklands. That was way back in the 16th century, centuries before Argentina even existed. The British and the French also claimed and settled the islands at about the same time, long before the Spanish laid claim to them and long before Argentina even existed. Therefore Argentina's claim to the islands is very weak.

I'm not saying the Island isn't British, it's just funny how protective you are of your "rock".
 
Blackleaf
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

I'm not saying the Island isn't British, it's just funny how protective you are of your "rock".

The Falkland Islanders are British, therefore Britain is right to want to protect them.

Also, Britain, unlike Argentina, is respecting UN laws of self-determination, which states that peoples such as the Falkland Islanders have the right to choose which country they want to belong to. As long as the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British then the islands will be British. And the more Argentina keeps sabre-rattling and being aggressive towards the islands the less likely it is that the islanders will ever want to beome Argentinian. The Argentinians are doing themselves no favours with their aggressivness towards a sovereign nation. The more and more they keep annoying the Falkland Islands the more and more the islands will wish their islands to be linked to Britain,

It is therefore Britain, not Argentina, which respects the wishes of the islanders.

Also, Britain is responsible for the islands' defence. Therefore Britain WILL do all it can to kick the Argies out of the islands should they launch another illegal invasion.
 
lone wolf
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

And Britain claimed, and settled, the Falkland Islands fair and square, when there was no such thing as Argentina.

....

I'm afraid to say that the Argentinians are in the wrong.

Who are you arguing with and why would I really care?

Afraid to say someone's wrong? What sort of Englishman are you? My grandmother would smack you with her stiff upper lip....
 
Spade
+1
#15
I believe, two thousand years ago, Rome conquered what was then a nuisance of barbaric tribes off the French coast. I think Italy should lay claim to Britain; after all, empire is empire.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

I believe, two thousand years ago, Rome conquered what was then a nuisance of barbaric tribes off the French coast. I think Italy should lay claim to Britain; after all, empire is empire.

Let's not forget the Saxons and the Danes!
 
Spade
#17
Self determination? Palestine? Britain? Remember Ireland? India? Equitorial Africa?

Sorry, you are right, EagelSmack. Denmark rules!
 
EagleSmack
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post


Sorry, you are right, EagelSmack. Denmark rules!

No need to be sorry. Rome did conquer Britain. Only unrest on the borders of Rome caused them to abandon the British Isles. The Britons were well on their way to becoming Roman before the Legions left.
 
Spade
+1
#19
Denmark it is! And, of course, the Danes will share with the French and Scandinavians. Danes aren't overly possessive,

Nunc, Britannia non est insula Romana.
Last edited by Spade; Feb 9th, 2012 at 03:33 PM..
 
EagleSmack
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Denmark it is! And, of course, the Danes will share with the French and Scandinavians. Danes aren't overly possessive,

The Viking Invaders came from many places in Northern Europe but it was the Danes that made up the bulk of them. I've read a lot on the Viking Invasions, Celtic Britain, Roman Britain, etc. Fascinating stuff.
 
DurkaDurka
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

The Viking Invaders came from many places in Northern Europe but it was the Danes that made up the bulk of them. I've read a lot on the Viking Invasions, Celtic Britain, Roman Britain, etc. Fascinating stuff.

I thought they came from Minnesota?
 
EagleSmack
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

I thought they came from Minnesota?

Those Vikings SUCK!
 
Spade
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

I thought they came from Minnesota?

I've heard of Minnesota...

Empire State of Mind Parody - Minnesota State of Mind Spoof Parody - YouTube

 
Cannuck
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

It is not as cut and dried as Colpy pretends it to be.

It never is.

Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

I've heard of Minnesota...

Minnesotans are funny

httpwwwyoutubecomwatchveAPMmwZUNrM

 
Blackleaf
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

I believe, two thousand years ago, Rome conquered what was then a nuisance of barbaric tribes off the French coast. I think Italy should lay claim to Britain; after all, empire is empire.

Those tribes weren't a nuisance BEFORE Rome conquered Britannia. They only became a nuisance AFTER they conquered Britannia because, of course, they didn't want the Romans there.

And I'm English. My ancestors were the Anglo-Saxons, who came to Britain after the Romans left and were never part of the Roman Empire. The Anglo-Saxons came from modern Germany and Denmark, which were never part of the Roman Empire. It was the Celts - the Scottish and Welsh - who were conquered by the Romans in Britannia.

Also, you are completely wrong what you are saying above. Italy should NOT conquer Britain because it is not something that the British people want. They want to be British, not Italian. It would be against UN laws on self-determination.

Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Self determination? Palestine? Britain? Remember Ireland? India? Equitorial Africa?

Sorry, you are right, EagelSmack. Denmark rules!

There has never been an independent state known as Palestine. I know a lot of pro-Palestinian people don't realise this but, if you studied the history of that area, then you'll see that's the case.

I don't remember Ireland and India when they were British because I wasn't even born them but I do know that Britain gave independence to those two nations according to their people's wishes.
 
EagleSmack
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

And I'm English. My ancestors were the Anglo-Saxons, who came to Britain after the Romans left and were never part of the Roman Empire. The Anglo-Saxons came from modern Germany and Denmark, which were never part of the Roman Empire. It was the Celts - the Scottish and Welsh - who were conquered by the Romans in Britannia.
.

I bet you got a little Dane in you too! Those Danes did so much BLEEPING of the Anglo-Saxons during their invasions it would be practically impossible not too!
 
Blackleaf
#27
Transcript of a Press Conference held by British Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant in response to the Foreign Minister of Argentina’s Press Conference on the Falkland Islands



“Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen. My Name is Mark Lyall Grant, I’m the permanent Representative of the United Kingdom at the United Nations. I thought I’d just say a few words in response to Mr Timerman’s press conference a little while ago. Some of you will have seen the letter that I wrote to all my Permanent Representative colleagues a couple of weeks ago on this issue in response to certain claims from the Argentinean government. But I want to just highlight a few of the basic facts which you didn’t hear at the earlier press conference.

The first is that the United Kingdom have been in the Falkland’s since 1765 before Argentina existed and has had sovereignty over the Falkland Islanders and Falkland Islands since then. We have never in all the history since then, implanted or expelled any civilian population from the Falkland Islands. The Argentine military expedition was sent for 3 months in 1833. At that time Argentina as a state did not even include Tierra del Fuego on the continent of Latin America. That only became part of Argentina 50 years later. That military garrison was expelled by the British, but no civilians who were already there were expelled at the time. We made it clear that the civilian population was happy to remain. Now, that 3 months period in 1833, plus the 6 weeks after the illegal invasion by Argentina in 1982, are the only 2 times that the Argentinians have actually been in the Falklands. In 1850, the United Kingdom and Argentina ratified a convention for the settlement of existing differences thereby acknowledging that there was no territorial dispute between the two countries. In the next 90 years after 1850, Argentina made only one diplomatic protest about the Falkland Islands. There have only been regular protests about the Falkland Islanders since 1939. This history goes to show that there is no question over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

The key question is about the self determination of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands and that is a principle that is enshrined in Article I of the UN Charter. Like other overseas territories of the United Kingdom, the Falkland Islands has its own constitution and the UK has no intention of imposing any change in the sovereignty status against the wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands.

It is unfortunate that Argentina changed its constitution in the 1990s to make it incumbent upon the Argentinian government to obtain sovereignty over the Falklands. If the Falkland Islanders themselves ask for a change in the status, then we would do everything we could to help them achieve that.


Firepower: Royal Navy destroyer HMS Dauntless in the Falklands

And lastly, the charge from Mr. Timerman about militarization of the region by the United Kingdom is manifestly absurd. Before 1982, there was a minimal defence presence on the Falkland Islands. It is only because Argentina illegally invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982, that since then we have had to increase our defence posture. Nothing has changed in that defence posture in recent months or recent years. All the issues that he referred to, the 6 monthly missile tests, the deployment of ships, has been going on for the last 30 years. The only thing that appears to have changed is the politics in Argentina. The idea that the accusation that the British Prime Minister has talked about militarization of the situation is simply wrong.

Okay, I’m happy to take questions.”

Q. “The Foreign Minister of Argentina said Britain is now introducing nuclear weapons into the region. Is this true? If so, why? And what about the statement from the UK about Argentina acting like a colonial power. Do you think that this kind of rhetoric is helpful in the current situation ? And are you willing to accept Ban ki-moon's good offices to be a mediating force in this dispute?”

A. “On the nuclear issue, as I said, nothing has changed in the British defence posture around the Falkland Islands. Clearly that defence posture, as I said, increased significantly after Argentina illegally invaded after 1982, ignored the Security Council resolutions for them to withdraw, and they had to be militarily defeated to persuade them to leave the Islands. Obviously, since then, for the safety and security and well-being of the population of the Falkland Islands we have had to increase our defence posture. We do not comment on the disposition of nuclear weapons, submarines, etc., but it is well known that, of course, as part of our overall deterrence posture there are submarines on patrol all around the world at any time. So it's not a question of anything new in what he is suggesting.

On the question of the rhetoric, we are not looking to increase the rhetoric. We have not started a war of words, but clearly if there is an attempt to take advantage of the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War by Argentina, then we will obviously defend our position and defend it robustly. We are responsible for the defence and the security for the people of the Falkland Islands, and they can be reassured that we will carry out that defence in a robust way if necessary but we have no intention of ratcheting up the rhetoric on this issue.

I haven't spoken to the UN Secretary-General since his meeting with Mr Timerman so I can't comment on that but the statement I saw that he issued was exactly the same statement that he’s issued on previous occasions when the issue has been raised with him by the Argentineans.”

Q. “One of the reasons why this... happened the way.. how he explained it... is that the posture that has been adopted by the British navy, especially the introduction of nuclear submarine there and the alignment of all kinds of radar equipment and so on, and basically would the United [Kingdom] reduce the tension by taking the submarine out and so forth, and then sit down and talk with the Argentinean if that is a possibility?”

A.”What he failed to answer is why is there any British defence posture of this sort in the region? We are not threatening any other country, let alone Argentina with whom we have good relations and want to have good relations. It is a purely defensive military posture and nothing has changed in that posture for the last 30 years. The big change in the defence posture was after 1982 when the islands which were not sufficiently protected to prevent an Argentinean illegal military invasion, so obviously after that we have a responsibility to the Falkland Islands, as we do to our other overseas territories to ensure their defence. Nothing has changed in that. The deployment of a ship that he mentioned, that is a routine deployment replacing a ship that was already there. Nuclear submarines, I don’t know how he knows of where the nuclear submarines are. I certainly don’t. That’s the whole point of the defence deterrence is that the submarines go around the world in International waters and no one knows where they are. That is what makes them a deterrent.”

Q. “One thing that has changed and that some people say might be at the crux of this whole new layer, is the explorations in oil and gas in the region? Can you address that issue? Is that the problem from Britain? Is that a problem for Argentina?”

A. “Well, it may be a problem for Argentina. It may not be coincidence that this new bout of rhetoric has come about after there was some suggestions that there may be oil and gas reserves in the Falkland Islands’ waters, but as far as we're concerned, the Falkland Islanders have every right to exploit their economic resources in their own waters and if they do exploit those resources it will be for the benefit of the population of the Falkland Islanders, not for the benefit of the United Kingdom.”

Q. “Is there any problem in initiating a dialogue with you and anyone else that... (indecipherable)”

A. “Well, we have had a dialogue in the past with Argentina. What has been disappointing is that they broke off that dialogue in 1995. We think it would be very useful to have a proper dialogue with Argentina on a range of issues concerned, to do with the Falkland Islands, including trade, including fish, including air links, including the environment. All these issues we did have a forum for discussion, a bilateral forum. Unfortunately, when they changed the constitution in a hostile way to say that it was now a duty of the government to obtain sovereignty of the Falklands, they also pulled out of that bilateral forum for dialogue, so it is they who have refused to discuss with us on a bilateral basis.”

Q. “What reason do you have to believe that the Falkland Islands are at risk... despite the invasion of 1982?”

A. “Well that’s a pretty good reason, frankly, that is a very good reason and unfortunately the fact that the constitution was changed after that, you know they’ve actually put in their constitution, that it is a duty, as part of the constitution, to obtain sovereignty over a territory of which they have never had sovereignty, on which there is a population that’s been there for 9 generations in flagrant violation of the UN Charter and the rights of self determination of those people. Now that is disappointingly a hostile posture that Argentina has taken towards the Falklands and so, of course, we have to ensure that there is adequate defence, but not more than adequate defence, in order to deal with it. One of the slides he showed you was supposed to show some sort of strategic network of defence around the South Atlantic. All that is complete rubbish. On the Falklands, yes, on the Ascension Islands which is staging post to get to the Falklands, yes. The other places, no.”

Q. “Mr Timerman mentioned Hong Kong and also Diego Garcia as 2 examples of other places where the UK... How do you distinguish that... It seems like in Diego Garcia, with the Chagosians tried to get a right to return and the UK opposed it. So, in that light, how can we take your statement that UK always respects the desires of people in territories like this, or can you distinguish these territories?”

A. “You have to distinguish these territories. Every situation is different. In Hong Kong for instance there was a treaty with China. It was on a lease hold, etc. So the whole thing is different and I don't want to draw comparisons between this. The facts in the Falkland Islands are very clear. It is a question, in our view, of self determination, because there is no issue of sovereignty. The claim of sovereignty is an entirely manufactured claim that has no basis in law and no basis in history, and therefore it’s a manufactured claim. Why on earth should Argentina suddenly decide that it has sovereignty over the Falkland Islands just because they happen to be 300 miles away? On that basis Canada could claim sovereignty over Alaska. It just doesn't make any sense. There is no historic, there is no judicial basis for the claim of sovereignty.”

Q. “You mentioned the 1982 war... (Indecipherable)... You already know the capability of Argentina is nothing compared to what it was then. So why not try to engage with the new government... to talk about many things... possibility of an umbrella... (indecipherable)... Why it is not possible some kind of dialogue.”

A. “To answer the defence question, why on Earth would we want to spend more money on defence of the Falkland Islands then is necessary? We’re all going through a difficult economic and financial times. Our defence budgets are under pressure. We are only maintaining what we think is necessary to ensure that there is not a repeat of 1982. And it’s all very well to say “the only” reason. That was only 30 years ago and was an armed military invasion in which over 900 people killed in that war was only 30 years ago, so I think Argentina has a certain responsibility to show that it has completely changed. Yes, it is a democratic government. Yes, it has said it wants to address the issue peacefully, but they have changed the constitution which puts on them a duty to obtain sovereignty. Now in terms of a dialogue, as I said, of course we're ready to have a dialogue with Argentina. We had a dialogue with Argentina and they broke it off, but we are not going to discuss the issue of sovereignty unless the people of the Falkland Islands say they wish us to do so. It is not for the United Kindom and Argentina to discuss sovereignty over the heads of the existing population, some of whom have been there, as I say, for 200 years.”

Q: “You have just said that it is a fact that you are going to use robust power to defend the rights of the Malvinas people to be as they are and at the same time Mr Timerman has said that they are not going to allow you to use that kind of language, the nuclearisation of the region of the Malvinas. Can you comment on these statements and also the presence of some countries, that you mentioned...(indecipherable)... “

A: “Well, obviously I can’t respond on who comes to the press conference, but I’m sorry, he is using emotional terms like nuclear. We have never talked about any particular defence equipment and certainly we never comment in public about any nuclear weapons. That’s not what we do. We are not trying to escalate any of the rhetoric, but we have a duty to have sufficient defence of the Falkland Islands and we will provide that and we have made very clear that we will do that and the more that the rhetoric is ramped on the Argentinean side, the fact that they’re coming to the United Nations, claiming militarization of the region, based on completely specious facts in an unjustified way is, of course, an escalation and we have to respond to that. I would not be sitting here today if Mr Timerman had not come to the United Nations to try and internationalise the issue and claim that somehow we were militarizing the region.”

Q. “Can you please sign and ratify the... (indecipherable) .... treaty.... we should have the region as a nuclear free area and also around those countries and so the presence of a nuclear submarine would be a violation of that treaty. That is why...(indecipherable)”

A: “Well, I’m not an expert on this treaty, but as I understand it, all the nuclear weapon powers have ratified the treaty and all of them comply with it. There’s no question of any infringement of Argentinean waters or anything. If there are any deployments of ships, submarines, it’s in International waters.”

Q: “So sovereignty is not negotiable for the UK. That’s what Timerman seems like he wants to sit down and talk to you about. Is that what you understand Ban Ki-moon has asked for as well, to sit down and talk about this issues other than sovereignty. And second question about the history, when did the Falklands become a self governing territory? Was it always the case from the very beginning.“

A: “I’m not sure I can answer your second question, but I’m sure you can find out when it became a self governing territory or Daniel can follow up with you. On the first, as is said, we have always been open to dialogue with Argentina on the Falklands. We had quite a intense dialogue for a number of years. And unfortunately Argentina pulled out of those talks in the 1990s, but we have made clear that we are not prepared to go into talks with the precondition that has been set in the Argentinean constitution and discuss sovereignty over the heads of the people of the Falkland Islands.”

Q: “It’s never about sovereignty?”


A. “And we have no problem with starting that dialogue. I don’t think we would need any third-party mediation to do that, we can discuss that anytime.”

Q: “What has Ban Ki-moon called for?”

A: “I haven’t spoken to him since he spoken to him since he spoke to Mr Timerman. He can explain himself. I’m just reading his press release as he issued. He was just saying, as he always does, that his good offices are available if both sides would like to do it, but we don't see any need for that.”

Q: “Do you expect from your allies, the European Union, a certain position on this issue. Do you expect that they will support a 100% Britain in this? What do you expect from the countries that Britain is part of the European Union or even NATO in this issue.”

A: “Well, I think on the sovereignty issue, certainly. The UK is party of the European Union and part of the accession when we joined the European Union, it was clear that the Falkland Islands was an overseas territory of the UK so all our European allies of course agree with us on the sovereignty issue. Last question.”

Q: “All weaponry goes obsolete over time, that war was over 30 years ago. Would you be comfortable saying that the British are simply keeping their weaponry current in this situation, after all you can’t have a 50 year old ship, or a 60 year old ship and ask it to do a modern job?”

A: “Well I think Mr Timerman was showing a picture of the latest Destroyer that was going down and it’s true that that is a new generation Destroyer, but as you say that is part of the normal updating of the British fleet. The fact that it is a newer ship talking over from an older ship is not an escalation of the military posture. It’s just a fact that is reflecting in the upgrading of our overall defence equipment.

Thank you very much.”

UK Ambassador responds to "manifestly absurd" Argentine claims

Is it time to disinvite the Argentinians from the Olympics?


By Abhijit Pandya
5th February 2012
Daily Mail

The respect for territories of other states is fundamental to the security of all nations, and the ability of countries to co-exist in peace. There was nothing wrong with the public protests this week in Argentina regarding the Falkland Islands, people have a general right to protest- albeit it over territory that many Argentinians still regard as being one of disputable ownership.

The protest is timed in the period leading up to the 30th Anniversary of the British-Argentine War over the Islands, a conflict that began when Argentina aggressively and illegally occupied the Falklands in April 1982.


Militant: Protesters hold Argentinian flags and banners with left-wing slogans

But what is bizarre, and problematic, is the behaviour and conduct of Argentina’s leading politicians in this run up to the Anniversary. Rather than use this as a period of consolidation of a new relationship or to get over past differences, a renewed and vulgar form of vocal attrition and belligerent threats has been pursued by them.

For example, there are the bizarre comments by the Argentine Vice-President, Amado Boudou this week regarding Prince William’s tour of the Falklands. Mr. Boudou is convinced that this is a deliberate publicity stunt by UK’s Government to distract from high unemployment and issues about Scottish independence.


Bizarre: Mr. Boudou believes Prince Williams' tour is a deliberate publicity stunt to distract from domestic issues in the UK

These comments are made shortly after repeated threats by the Argentine President, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to use her influence amongst other South American states to stop flights to the Falklands. A British Diplomat has recently said that it is very likely that an Argentine blockade of the Falklands is forthcoming.

Nothing has been said by Argentina so far to deny that it seeks to bring a ban of flights to the Falklands from the neighbouring state of Chile. The Argentine President threatened to do this in a speech to the UN last year unless Britain refused to enter into re-negotiations about the ownership of the Falklands.


War of words: Argentina's president, Cristina Fernandez, has attacked David Cameron's 'colonialism' statement, saying Britain didn't have 'reasons or arguments'

The Prime Minister’s sending of the Royal Navy’s new Type 45 Destroyer is a prudent move. What would also be worth considering is whether it is worth banning Argentina from the Olympics, staged in London. The spirit that the Olympics embodies is that of human comity and equal respect amongst nations displayed through athletic endeavour.

A nation whose politicians behave in such a prickly, dangerously aggressive way needs to be shown that it is not furthering peace amongst nations in the spirit of the Olympics, but only endangering it.

It is a thought that the Prime Minister may wish to consider if the relationship between our nations in the run up to the Falkland Conflict Anniversary worsens and threats of a blockade persist over the coming months.

Read more: Falkland Islands: Time to disinvite the Argentinians from the London 2012 Olympics? | Mail Online
Last edited by Blackleaf; Feb 11th, 2012 at 07:01 AM..
 
MHz
#28
So a few people on a desert island want Britain to do something that could cost british lives and Britain is all gung-ho to do it at any cost (how much have they spent since '82) modernizing the place, everybody got all the latest gagets for themselves and theit homes and ther properties. Like electric quads as wind power is more reliable than gas deliveries. Dio the Islanders know that in a real pinch the British elite might ebven take refuge there should the peasants on the mainland revolt. Sheep and people will be put into the ocean with no boat so that is how much the Queen cares for the place or is it the Kuwait of the Atlantic. Wanting to stay British stops a huge influx of poor Argentinians fleeing the slums so who can blame them from not wanting that to happen, if the land was valuable for something other than a Naval Fort the big agri would already be there.
 
Machjo
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Transcript of a Press Conference held by British Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant in response to the Foreign Minister of Argentina’s Press Conference on the Falkland Islands

“Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen. My Name is Mark Lyall Grant, I’m the permanent Representative of the United Kingdom at the United Nations. I thought I’d just say a few words in response to Mr Timerman’s press conference a little while ago. Some of you will have seen the letter that I wrote to all my Permanent Representative colleagues a couple of weeks ago on this issue in response to certain claims from the Argentinean government. But I want to just highlight a few of the basic facts which you didn’t hear at the earlier press conference.
The first is that the United Kingdom have been in the Falkland’s since 1765 before Argentina existed and has had sovereignty over the Falkland Islanders and Falkland Islands since then. We have never in all the history since then, implanted or expelled any civilian population from the Falkland Islands. The Argentine military expedition was sent for 3 months in 1833. At that time Argentina as a state did not even include Tierra del Fuego on the continent of Latin America. That only became part of Argentina 50 years later. That military garrison was expelled by the British, but no civilians...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Mostly good points.
 
#juan
+4
#30  Top Rated Post
I think the British position is both clear and reasonable, as is the UN position. Argentina is acting
like a group of children.
 

Similar Threads

37
Strange cloud in Argentina
by whispergently | Mar 7th, 2010
86
Militarisation of Canada
by Karlin | Sep 20th, 2008
0
The Militarisation of Disaster Relief
by Karlin | Sep 25th, 2005
no new posts