| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caribbean-Latin America |
| Argentina renews claim on Malvinas |
| 2012-01-09 |
| [Iran Press TV] On the 179 anniversary of the British occupation of the Malvinas islands, Argentina's Foreign Ministry has once again underscored the Latin American country's illusory sovereignty over the archipelago. "On January 1833, the Malvinas Islands were occupied by British forces that evicted the Argentine authorities and inhabitants that were legitimately living there," Argentina's Foreign Ministry stated in a communiqué. Following the eviction of Argentine people, British citizens were migrated to the islands. Britannia and Argentina fought a devastating 74-day war in 1982 on the islands that ended with Argentine forces withdrawing from the archipelago. During the clash, 649 Argentine forces, 255 British troops, and 3 civilians, caught in the crossfire, bit the dust. Britannia illegally occupied the islands, located 250 nautical miles off Argentinean coasts, in 1833. "This illegitimate action is being increased by the presence of a military base established in the South Atlantic," the statement said. The communiqué added that the "region has unanimously rejected the military presence of the British in the South Atlantic and has showed its concern over the unilateral activities." Argentina's Foreign Ministry called for the resumption of negotiations with the UK to find a solution to the dispute and end "an anachronistic situation, incompatible with the evolution of the current post colonial world." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #22 FYI CHINA DAILY FORUM > JAMAICA TO BREAK [monarchial = inter-Govt] LINKS WID UK. Iff approved, UK's Queen Liz to no longer be the Head of State as Jamaican Politicos desire to impose a more demeocratic = legislative system of Govt. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-01-09 23:35 |
| #21 or was it "curb any active reprisals" I don't know but you get the idea. Gunga Din by Rudyard Kipling. |
| Posted by: Dale 2012-01-09 23:07 |
| #20 Argentinians are prideful people. Especially the wealthy. The economic situation is bad at this time. Even for Brazil things are slowing down. I believe it is more a war of words. Cattle, horses, cowboys, polo, and pampas grass. OOPS! and the rebirth of the Tango among the youth. I would suggest a joint venture. So both may share in the wealth. Like Cyprus and Israel. To "Calm their natural resentment and curb any natural reprisals that they might so easily contemplate". |
| Posted by: Dale 2012-01-09 23:02 |
| #19 Rise of the BRICS [Mercusor Bloc], + "weak/ declining US" = "weak/declining Britain", means or infers econ troubled UK = econ troubled USA = the UK in the end will withdraw from the Malvinas + South Atlantic just like the US will ultimat strategically retreat across Asia-Pacific vee China. ANALYSTS = opine that the letter "I" in BRIC may better stand for MUSLIM INDONESIA, NOT INDIA. ALL THINGS EQUAL, WHAT PART OF ARGENTINA WILL BE THEIR = SOUTH AMERICA'S EQUIVALENT OF CHINA'S XINJIANG, + AFPAK on the border??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-01-09 21:28 |
| #18 A number of Latin American countries have some kind of limited trade embargo on the Falklands. I wonder if that's a highly permeable (i.e. dependent on the greasing of palms) embargo and if it's having any real effect on the locals. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2012-01-09 19:36 |
| #17 Biggest benificiary of a UK war with Argentina = Manchester United. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2012-01-09 19:05 |
| #16 Yes BP, after that Custer affair - No Blood for Oil. ;) |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-01-09 18:42 |
| #15 Well, the Keystone Pipeline would be worth keeping, if only we could build it. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-01-09 14:54 |
| #14 Sounds similar to North Dakota. I'm sure if Canada invaded you guys would be going, "nothing there worth keeping". |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-01-09 14:25 |
| #13 You were expecting sheep to thrive in the topics? There's a reason medieval England grew wealthy on the wool trade ..... |
| Posted by: lotp 2012-01-09 14:11 |
| #12 I am resisting the urge to point out just how much of the rest of the UK is cold and dreary. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-01-09 12:59 |
| #11 yep to several of the above: 1) posturing to cover up their hyperinflation 24% (unofficial) vs the 9% the Fernandez government quotes as the official rate. 2) oil in the seabed around the Falklands |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-01-09 12:12 |
| #10 Cold & dreary, with maybe a lot of oil offshore.... |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-01-09 11:05 |
| #9 Look, I'm sure the sheep ranchers are very attached to the place, but let's face it - there's nothing there worth fighting over. It's a cold, dreary pit. |
| Posted by: mojo 2012-01-09 10:44 |
| #8 We were in Stanley last February. The Brits have a garrison of 1,500 troops a number of combat aircraft, choppers, light armor. I can't see Argentina risking any kind of military confrontation. They could, of course, but hard to see it from my perspective and I used to live in Argentina back in the early 90's. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2012-01-09 10:21 |
| #7 SteveW, I agree Great Britain CAN prevent Argentina from taking & holding the Falklands, but I question whether they have the WILL to do so, especially without much support from the US. And while I also agree that - at the moment - the Argentines are posturing for internal political purposes, that kind of posturing too often gets out of hand and shooting starts. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-01-09 10:10 |
| #6 Yup, I think that's the plan here. The Argentine military doesn't have the leadership and wherewithal to launch an operation on the Falklands. The last decade they've been hip-deep in UN peacekeeping duties. While that keeps them from plotting coups, it doesn't lend itself to offensive military operations. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2012-01-09 09:23 |
| #5 The more the Argentine Govt talks about the Falklands, the more I suspect that the govt needs to distract the Argentine people from serious problems at home. The junta tried that in the 80s. |
| Posted by: mom 2012-01-09 09:08 |
| #4 European Conservative, you can quote all the rational and legal reasons you want but we are talking about a Latin American nation. They tend to be emotionally based (thus the inevitable third world status). |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2012-01-09 08:50 |
| #3 We discussed this recently, Glenmore. The Brits have a small military contingent on the islands that include a few Typhoon attack aircraft, and they maintain a frigate in the region. They may also keep a submarine nearby. The more I read, the more it appears that the Argentine military could not stage a taking of the islands today. Their ability to project military force is severely limited. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2012-01-09 07:43 |
| #2 If Argentina decides to take the Falklands, who will stop them? No one, as far as I can see. Doesn't matter if their claims mean anything. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-01-09 06:07 |
| #1 The best refutation of these claims can be found in this PDF I sum up the conclusions: (1) The 17th and 18th-century treaties between Britain and Spain did not prohibit British possession of the Falklands. (2) The Argentinians have quoted the 1771 Anglo-Spanish agreement incorrectly. The agreement as finally signed preserves the claims of both Spain and Britain, not Spain alone. There was no secret promise by Britain to evacuate the Falklands after the restitution of Port Egmont. (3) The Argentinians and Professor Dolzer have incorrectly described the history of the 1820s in the Falklands. David Jewett did claim the Falklands then for Argentina, but he had not been sent there. He did not attempt to apply fishing regulations, or Argentine laws, or tell any foreign ships to leave. His claim was not announced formally in Argentina or even mentioned in his report. Professor Dolzer has also incorrectly described the activities of Pablo Areguati in the Falklands in 1824. Areguati was never given any official rank, nor did he attempt to enforce Argentine law or fishing regulations. It was all he could do to survive himself, and his expedition collapsed after a few weeks. Britain did object promptly when Louis Vernet was given an official title in 1829. Professor Dolzer’s assumption that Argentina did establish itself adequately in the islands in the early 1820s is based, as we have shown, on a profound distortion of history. (4) Argentina’s claim that the 1825 Treaty of Friendship and Navigation with Britain supports its claim to the Falklands is incorrect. There was no one from Argentina in the Falklands at that time, and the Treaty does not describe Argentine territory at all. (5) The Argentine claim that Britain expelled an Argentine population from the Falklands in 1833 is false; the settlement continued, and most of its inhabitants were from Buenos Aires. (6) Argentina did not inherit a unitary claim to the Falklands from Spain, and its claim is further weakened by the lack of foreign recognition in the 19th century and by Louis Vernet’s preference for British sovereignty. (7) Argentina dropped its claim to the Falklands by ratifying the Convention of Settlement in 1850. The failure to mention that this ended Argentina’s claim to the Falklands is a gross distortion of history, as are the statements by Argentine historians that the British Foreign Secretary accepted in 1849 that the matter was “pending” or “postponed” – the reverse is true. After 1850 Argentina dropped all protests to Britain over the Falklands, and did not mention the Falklands to Britain for 34 years. The dropping of the Argentine claim was confirmed by Argentine leaders in their Messages to Congress in the 1860s, and the Falklands were not mentioned in any Message to Congress for 91 years until 1941. (8) The Argentine claim was artificially revived in 1884, by non-diplomatic means – the “Affair of the Map” – but after failing to change Britain’s position Argentina dropped the matter again for several decades. (9) The Argentinians have never had a valid claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. These islands were only claimed by Argentina after the Second World War, after decades of acquiescence and after acknowledgement of Britain’s sovereignty there. (10) The Argentine argument that Islanders have no right to self-determination is absurd. They have the same rights as any other immigrant population of the New World. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2012-01-09 00:49 |