Argentina reiterates sovereignty over Malvinas islands

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Xinhua

Argentina reiterates sovereignty over Malvinas islands
www.chinaview.cn 2008-04-03 10:22:24

BUENOS AIRES, April 2 (Xinhua) -- Argentine President Cristina Fernandez said on Wednesday her country "cannot abandon" its sovereignty claim on the Malvinas Islands (called the Falkland Islands in Britain).

Argentina must "advance with the islands' heroic deed that cannot be renounced nor denied," Fernandez said at a Veterans Day and Victims of the South Atlantic war ceremony held at El Palomar city in Buenos Aires province.

On April 2 1982, Argentina launched a military campaign to recover the Malvinas Islands. Argentina's forces were defeated on June 14 1982 by the British forces.
(snip)

Fernandez also criticized the past policies of Carlos Saul Menem's government in the 1990s with respect to the United Kingdom.
(snip)

"We will continue working so our voice is heard denouncing the shame that a colonial enclave continues to exist in the 21st century," Fernandez said.



Read more: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/03/content_7910542.htm

[ovidsen]

1. Propaganda for domestic (Argentina) consumption

Fernandez can't be dumb enough to order another hopeless invasion of the Malvinas/Falkland islands. The place is in the middle of nowhere, is only good for sheepherding, it's population (99% of it) considers itself English, and the British Navy would make mincemeat out of whatever passes for a military in Buenos Aires, just like it did in 1982. He's just saying this (if he DID say this; China's Xinhua news agency isn't the most reliable in the world. See Tibet) to fan patriotism among his supporters back home.

Question: Why is the new Argentinean Navy equipped with glass bottomed boats?
Answer: To see the old Argentinean Navy.

[Ravachol]

3. Just pointing out: Cristina is a woman.

So "she" would be appropriated. For the rest, I seriously doubt she's going to lead Argentina to invade the Falklands again...

[ovidsen]

37. I stand corrected. Thank you. n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

4. UPDATE!..... oil in Malvinas, domestic ( British) propaganda to keep a colony in latin america

Drilling for oil to start in Falkland Islands
The inhabitants of the Falkland Islands are preparing for a South Atlantic oil rush which they hope will make them among the richest people in the world.

After 10 years of frustrating delays since oil fields containing up to 60 billion barrels of "black gold" were discovered off the islands, oil companies are planning to start drilling within the next 12 months.

The move follows the conclusion of lengthy, but successful, tests by geologists and significant cash injections by two major oil companies which plan to bring rigs to the islands by as early as autumn.

The companies with licences to drill in the area met in Edinburgh on Friday to brief officials from the Falklands' government on their progress, and preparations are under way in the South Atlantic to ensure that the islands can cope with sudden wealth.

The successful extraction of oil could bring billions of pounds to the 3,000 islanders, in a cash bonanza similar to that enjoyed by Gulf states after the development of oil fields there.
However, the effect would be magnified because of the tiny population of the archipelago - which was the subject of the 1982 war between Britain and Argentina - and its already high standard of living. The islands' GDP is £75 million, giving them one of the highest per capita rates in the world.

The capital, Stanley, is gearing up to become the Falklands' answer to the Klondike, with a redevelopment of its dockyard area and construction of 350 houses in the pipeline.

Meanwhile, the Falklands' authorities are overhauling their immigration policy to make it easier for the expected new arrivals to enter the islands.

Officials are already drawing up a "wish list" of projects on which to spend their windfall, with Stanley's two schools and hospital expected to be among the first to benefit. There are also plans for a road-building project, and improved air links to the rest of the world and between remote settlements.

But while the politicians are considering a "patrimony" fund, to set money aside for future generations, many islanders are clamouring for new facilities to be built straight away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/09/wfalk109.xml

*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`*`

Now they need an army to protect them selfs, a new weapons customer pretty soon...

[IronLionZion]

14. That a country's leader must be male is a very American assumption

nothing against you personally, ovidsen. It's just an interesting observation. It speaks volumes about the progressive and modern American mentality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristina_Fernandez

The president of Argentina with our first lady Laura Bush

[ovidsen]

38. Like I said, I stand corrected. I' not a sexist; just ignorant. n/t

[CubicleGuy]

2. Way to go, Argentina

With its involvement in the war on terror, Britain probably can't afford to fight a second front down in South America. This may be Argentina's big chance. I just wonder what these islands have that Argentina wants so much.

[izquierdista]

17. Seal crap

It's a well known cure for small balls, especially among world leaders with egos 17 times the size of their gonads (in this case atrophied ovaries seem to qualify as well). When they whip their nations up with war fever, they can get gullible young farm boys to lay down their lives to capture the precious hills of dung left by the elephant seals.

I say just short cut the process and shove shit directly in the face of these warmongers.

[Judi Lynn]

5. AFP: Argentina lays new claim to Falklands

Argentina lays new claim to Falklands

AFP

3 April 2008

ARGENTINA'S claim to the Falkland Islands, which remain in British hands after a 1982 war, is "inalienable", President Cristina Kirchner says.

"The sovereign claim to the Malvinas Islands (Argentina's name for them) is inalienable," she said in a speech marking the 26th anniversary of Argentina's ill-fated invasion of the two islands 480km offshore.

The April 2, 1982 invasion prompted the British prime minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, to deploy naval forces to retake the Falklands.

They did so, resulting in Argentina's surrender on June 14 after the death of 649 Argentines and 255 Britons.

Historians saw the invasion as an attempt by Argentina's ruling military junta then in power to divert attention from domestic problems.

More:
http://tools.ntnews.com.au/rss_article.php?news_id=2302025

[Judi Lynn]

6. UPI: Argentina renews Falklands claim

Argentina renews Falklands claim
Published: April 3, 2008 at 12:28 AM

Print story Email to a friend Font size:BUENOS AIRES, April 3 (UPI) -- Argentina again staked its claim to the Falkland Islands Wednesday, saying it would not abandon hope of regaining them from Britain, federal officials said.

President Cristina Kirchner said during a Veterans Day and Victims of the South Atlantic War remembrance that the efforts of those Argentine troops who lost their lives in the short-lived war with Britain over the islands must not be forgotten, La Nacion reported online.

Argentina's former dictatorship launched an unsuccessful attack on the islands in 1982, a 73-day war that left 650 Argentines and 250 British dead.

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=223699

[Judi Lynn]

7. From a clearly objective source: ARGENTINA BID TO SNATCH FALKLANDS

ARGENTINA BID TO SNATCH FALKLANDS
By Vincent Moss Political Editor 23/03/2008

Argentina will launch a fresh diplomatic battle next week to grab the Falklands from Britain.

The country's new president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner will assert her country's claim on the islands at a conference of world leaders, including Gordon Brown, in the UK. The visit will come just days after the anniversary of Argentina's Falklands invasion on April 2, 1982. Mrs de Kirchner will hammer home her nation's claim on the "Malvinas", as the islands are known in Argentina.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2008/03/23/argentina-bid-to-snatch-falklands-98487-20359666/

[struggle4progress]

8. Britain's title to these islands is as indisputable as Mongolia's right to rule Normandy: during

during Noah's flood, they floated down the gulfstream from their original position near Orkney, as is immediately obvious to anyone who knows a bit of history and can find world map

[Xithras]

13. Funny, but in this case Britain has as much right to them as Argentina.

The Falklands were uninhabited and were unknown to the natives in present-day Argentina when they were discovered by Europeans. Nobody was displaced so they could be settled, no native land was "grabbed", and no ancient claims were overturned. The population of people living on the islands today are the islands "native" inhabitants, and they overwhelmingly want to remain with Britain.

Argentina's claim to the islands basically boils down to: "We don't like the British, and the islands are closer to us". Neither are valid grounds for a territorial claim.

Argentina wants the islands because if they get them, they also get full and exclusive mineral rights to the entire seafloor under the 300 miles of ocean between the Falklands and the mainland. As it stands now, they only have claim to 150 miles of it.

[struggle4progress]

15. The islands had already been colonized when England first claimed them,

and colonial there were administered for some time from Argentina, which still says it inherited title from Spanish. British control dates from subsequent imperial sea-power period, during which Argentina never relinquished claim, so whether one or not sees a land grab here may depend on the language spoken by the person looking

<edit to insert historical link:> http://www.history.horizon.co.fk/chronology.html

[Xithras]

19. By France. Who vacated. So did the Spanish. And the English.

France settled one island. England settled the other. France gave its colony to Spain. England abandoned its colony, and left a plaque claiming the island. Spain abandoned its colony, also leaving a plaque to claim it. Spain lost its South American holdings. The new country (not yet Argentina) paid an American to claim it for them. He left a plaque and went back home. The Argentinians convinced a bunch of Germans to move to the island. An American freighter came along to figure out who was stealing American fishing ships, and found that a handful of Argentinians had been appropriating them. The American ship arrested the Argentinians for piracy. The German settlers, tired of the cold dreary climate, asked the Americans to take them back to the mainland. The Lexington agreed, and shelled the now-empty settlement as it left (allegedly to keep it from being used as a base for further piracy). The island had been abandoned by settlers yet again. The Argentinians came back a few years later and built a prison on the island.

The British returned, pointed out that the islands were empty (except for one prison and the small security forces), and that their plaque was older than the Argentinian plaque. They demanded the Argentinians leave, and the Argentinians did so without a shot being fired. The British moved their own people in. The Argentinians protested, the British ignored them. The Argentinians claimed rights to all former South American Spanish colonies, and the British continued to ignore them (so did everyone else, as that would also give them ownership of Uruguay, Paraguay, a hunk of Chile, and a portion of Brazil). The British moved their people in, and the rest is history.

There are really only three points that matter here. First and foremost, the driving decision behind the establishment of sovereignty of ANY landmass has to be the will and desire of its inhabitants. If the inhabitants want to be affiliated with Country X, then Country Y should have little say in the matter. This point does sometimes have to be balanced against the desires of any NATIVE landholders that had pre-existing rights to the land and were displaced by the present population. If no native landholders remain, it can also be balanced against a particular piece of lands history with the associated countries. And that's it.

Let's compare that against the Falklands.

1) The existing population wants to remain affiliated with Britain, not Argentina.

2) There are no displaced native inhabitants. The only people displaced by the British were prisoners and a few guards on temporary assignment. There was no resident population.

3) If anything, both Britain and Argentina have equal historical claims to the island. Britain controlled it before Spain, but Spain controlled it last. Britain abandoned it of their own free will, but declined to give up rights to the islands. Spain abandoned them of its own free will, but declined to give up rights. No treaty was ever signed formalizing ownership. Neither nation really worked hard to establish any real colony there it was just a dot on a map and a flapping flag. Argentina did not inherit an island that was clearly owned by Spain, but a distant and contested territory with disputed ownership. They inherited an unsettled claim. Britain later settled the claim.

My point isn't that Argentina has no claim to the islands, but that they're claim isn't any more or less valid than the claim held by the British at the time. Since Britain's original claim was just as valid as that held by Argentina, the weight of the decision has to lean toward the will of the population, and they don't want to join Argentina.

[struggle4progress]

20. Well, the story certainly depends on who tells it:

HISTORY OF FALKLANDS DISPUTE

...
7. 1767 - French settlement handed over to Spanish control
8. 1770 - Spain expelled British colonists
9. 1771 - Britain allowed to return, but Spain reserved right to sovereignty
10. 1774 - British colony abandoned
11. 1820 - Recently-independent Argentina took possession
12. 1831 - US declared the island "free of government" ...

Spanish Colony - De Bougainville formally handed over the French colony in 1767 and Port Louis was renamed Puerto Soledad. A Spanish governor was appointed under the Captain-General of mainland Buenos Aires, but both the British on West Falkland and Spanish on East Falkland carried on until 1769 when each tried to get the other to leave. In 1770, on orders from Buenos Aires, five Spanish ships with 1,400 troops arrived and the small marine garrison at Port Egmont was forced to leave in a move which nearly led to war between the two countries. After intensive negotiations Spain agreed in 1771 to Britain returning to Port Egmont, but reserved the right to sovereignty. She also claimed Britain had secretly agreed to pull out and indeed the settlement was abandoned three years later in 1774. Until the early 19th century, the Falklands remained the Spanish colony of Islas Malvinas.

Argentine Claim and Possession - Following independence from Spain in 1816, the future state of Argentina laid claim to the previous colonial territories, and in 1820 sent a frigate to take possession of the Falklands. In 1826, Louis Vernet of French origin established himself and a number of colonists at Puerto Soledad to develop fishing, farming and trade, and as governor from 1828 attempted to control the widespread sealing. Waking up to developments, Britain's consul general in Buenos Aires protested in 1829 against the appointment of a governor and re-asserted old claims to sovereignty.

United States and British Involvement - In 1831, after arresting American sealers accused of poaching, Louis Vernet sailed in one of them for Buenos Aires where the captain was to stand trial. In reprisal, the US warship "Lexington" arrived off Puerto Soledad, destroyed the fortifications, arrested some of the people and declared the islands free of government before sailing away. Argentina and the United States argued furiously over each other's high-handed behaviour, and next year a new governor was appointed but then murdered by rebellious colonists. As Argentine forces attempted to restore order, Royal Navy warships "Clio" and "Tyne" under the command of Captain Onslow arrived in early 1833, forced them to leave and claimed the Falklands for Britain. Argentina protested strongly, but the British Government maintained that all rights to sovereignty were retained during the 1770 negotiations with Spain ...

http://www.naval-history.net/F13history.htm

[Xithras]

22. Which simply illustrates why their ownership is so contentious.

Every side in the debate holds to a version of history beneficial to their own position. The truth, as always, is probably in the middle somewhere.

But again, that doesn't override the primary consideration here. What do the residents want? Irregardless of how they got there, the current inhabitants have existed on the island for their entire lifetimes, and their ancestors have lived on the island for about 160 years. Under international law, Argentina would be committing genocide if they drove them off the islands, and would be committing war crimes if they appropriated their land or treated them as anything other than full citizens. It would be like Mexico regaining authority over Texas, and then having them try to drive out all of the whites, blacks, and asians. Even conceding possible territorial claims (and IMO Mexico has a more solid claim on California than Argentina does to the Falklands), Argentina can legally do nothing about the standing population. They are, under international law, the indigenous inhabitants of those islands.

That being the case, we again come back to the fact that these people do not want to join Argentina. Debates over historical perspectives aside, the fact that the legal residents of the island overwhelmingly oppose ending British control really should end any debate on the subject. Ceding the islands to Argentina would subjugate the population to the control of a distant country with which they share no historical, social, or linguistic similarities, and which they oppose.

If they're population was a bit higher, I'd suggest outright independence, but that would be hard to manage with only 3,000 people. I doubt Argentina would go for it anyway, and there's no way they could repel the Argentinians if they forced the issue.

[struggle4progress]

27. UK held secret talks to cede sovereignty (Guardian 2005)

Richard Norton-Taylor and Rob Evans
The Guardian,
Tuesday June 28 2005

... The secret meeting is disclosed in the official history of the Falklands by Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College, University of London ...

He reveals that in June 1980, the Foreign Office drew up a proposal, approved by the cabinet's defence committee, whereby Britain would hand Argentina titular sovereignty over the islands, which would then be leased back by Britain for 99 years.

The British and Argentinian flags would be flown side by side on public buildings on the islands. British administration would continue with a view to guaranteeing the islanders and their descendants "uninterrupted enjoyment of their way of life" ...

.... Sir Lawrence points out that Britain relied, not on prior discovery, but on a small settlement established in 1766 but abandoned in 1774. When Britain recognised Argentinian independence in 1825, it did so without any claim to the Falklands, which were then under an Argentinian governor living there. Britain seized the islands by force in 1833 ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past

Historical truth in this case is unlikely to be obtained by trying to average varying popular myths about the islands' past: there's no question the British took them by violence, with American encouragement

Of course, your unevidenced remark about the desires of the people now living there may be cogent, if it is accurate -- though it is difficult to ignore the fact the "local will" is typically considered very important in some contexts, being conveniently ignored in other contexts: the UK, for example, had no concern whatsoever for "local will" in the case of Diego Garcia. So both loud demands to respect "local will" and official silence regarding it, always deserve a critical eye

My link indicates that experts have sometimes in the past thought there might enough ground for an mutually acceptable solution. Unfortunately, this seems not to have been pursued diligently two decades ago. Ultimately, the lunatic Thatcher, given an opportunity, rejected first trying bloodless negotiation and opted instead for immediate war for exactly the same reason the lunatic junta sent its troops into the Malvinas -- both hoped to boost their sagging popularity. But perhaps the times have changed sufficiently: the current Argentinian government is entirely distinct from the junta that ruled during the war and has made clear for several years that it intended to pursue this issue by more diplomatic means

[Judi Lynn]

39. And don't we know it!

That damned gulfstream.

[hatrack]

9. I, for one, think this whole 80s nostalgia thing is getting a little out of hand!!

:eyes:

[Mudoria]

10. The Argentines are bringing up this tired old argument again??

This was settled in '82. They should accept reality and worry their own about domestic problems which they can actually do something about. The folks in the Falkland's consider themselves British and want to stay that way.

[amandabeech]

12. Actually, Argentina's domestic sources of oil and gas are starting to run out.

They want whatever is available near the Falklands/Malvinas.

All that $100 oil and $9 gas will help them with their finances at home.

I would expect more petrochemically induced sabre rattling from all points around the globe in the years to come.

[KamaAina]

11. Not to worry. Bush has the perfect solution.

Give the Malvinas to Argentina, and the Falklands to Britain. :dunce:

[TheWraith]

16. Here's a linguistic question for everyone.

If this were a man, I'd say that he was engaging in meaningless penis-waving. So what's a good equivalent phrase for a woman?

[rayofreason]

25. How about....

vulva visualizing

While we are at it, instead of using "seminal", use "ovarial"

[Igel]

26. Uh ...

flapping her lips?

:hide:

[TheWraith]

31. Inventive, I'll give you that.

But it doesn't really roll off the--er, tongue. No pun intended.

Okay, pun intended.

But I think for the time being I'm going to go with "verbal self-gratification," until something better shows up.

[struggle4progress]

28. Kirchner isn't about to replay the "dueling dildos" skit we saw from Thatcher and the junta

[otherlander]

18. Damn

I was actually starting to like her. Now she turns out to be a warmonger.

[NutmegYankee]

21. Argentina: We don't need a Navy anymore, British Submariners Rejoice.

This is gonna go well, just like last time.

[sofa king]

23. It's just chest-thumping.

Like 'em or not, the Brits have a bad habit of snapping up the most strategic places that control international water routes. They make up for it by fielding a Navy far out of proportion to their nation's size, and guarding those trade routes with a degree of fairness. Spanish, Cypriots, French, Americans and Argentinians may occasionally eyeball the U.K.'s various overseas possessions, but only two of them have even a chance of doing the job the U.K. does and neither one of them (especially not us) can be as trusted to do it.

Argentina may claim the Falklands, but as they so definitively proved in their last war their navy is shit and would be completely unable to protect the sea route around South America. They know it, we know it, and the British know it, so the Argentinian claim has no chance of ever being recognized by the international community. So they can shove it.

[depakid]

24. If Argentina acted diplomatically back in the 80's

rather than slapping the British in their faces AND buoying up a failing Thatcher government, the Islands would probably have been under their jurisdiction long ago.

Talk about a lose/lose situation....

[truebrit71]

29. You want we should kick your arse AGAIN?

Hey, the Falklands maybe a collection of sheep-shit ridden rocks in the South Atlantic but they are OUR sheep-shit ridden rocks m,kay sweetie?

[struggle4progress]

30. Then why was the UK negotiating with Argentina to relinquish them?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3253788&mesg_id=3254873

[truebrit71]

32. That was BEFORE they were invaded by the Argies....They broke the rules...the got their arses kicked

...apparently they still haven't learned...

[struggle4progress]

33. I'll accept that as a genuine widely-held opinion from the UK. It closely resembles

the sort of jingoism one hears on this side of the pond: it completely history and confuses the Argentinians with a murderous junta from which they finally rid themselves some years ago, so I can imagine UK yahoos jabbering such nonsense just as readily as I can remember entirely comparable sentiments from the mouths of US idiots

[truebrit71]

34. None of that makes any sense....

...bottom line she is merely playing to her home audience....I highly doubt she's stupid enough to try anything...

[struggle4progress]

35. Neither she nor her husband before her have suggested anything but diplomatic pressure:

<Nestor Kirchner: 2 April 2006:> "The Malvinas must be a national objective of all Argentinians, and with dialogue, diplomacy and peace we must recover them for our homeland. But dialogue, diplomacy and peace do not mean we have to live with our head bowed." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/01/argentina.falklands

<Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner: 2 April 2008:> “Between the decision of going to war and believing that by sending Winnies the Pooh we could recover the Islands, we must have the determination to recover economic strength and respect for human rights.” http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=13053&formato=HTML

[Judi Lynn]

36. Thanks for the links, and comment. n/t