Argentina withdraws from Falklands agreement.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/jamescleverly/status/1631330227698925569?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Argentine Foreign Minister:

Malvinas issue: Argentina announced the decision to put an end to the “Foradori-Duncan Pact” of 2016. I did so in a meeting with the UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, James Cleverly, at the G20 Foreign Ministers' Summit in New Delhi, India.

The Argentine government has proposed to resume negotiations on the question of sovereignty and for this it is promoting a meeting at the headquarters of the UN in New York.

I proposed an agenda of issues that, at a minimum, should be part of the negotiation process that we promote in accordance with the provisions of UNGA resolution 2065. In this way, Argentina complies with the mandate of the General Assembly and the United Nations Committee on Decolonization.

We honor the commitment of the president Alferdez and our government to support the Malvinas Question as a State policy…..

[Asturias56]

Argentinean politics again - roll out the Malvinas whenever the economy is going down the tubes

[albatross]

Argentinean politics again - roll out the Malvinas whenever the economy is going down the tubes

My exact thoughts too.

The war started because the ruling military junta had tanked the economy and all those mothers wanted to know what had happened to their missing children.
https://www.history.com/news/mothers-plaza-de-mayo-disappeared-children-dirty-war-argentina

[Less Hair]

The Argies think they are theirs because they think they inherited the Spanish colonial empire? If the Spanish or the Dutch would claim it it might be more fun to debate about it but Argentina? How about China?

[ChrisVJ]

Probably encouraged by recent reports that the UK forces are deficient in material and manpower and couldn't defend a toy fort in Little Edgington.

[uxb99]

Hypothetical question. If Argentina invaded now and caught the troops in situ off guard could we send a fleet like we did last time?
My understanding is we have two carriers which are broke, understaffed and underplaned with little to no support ships.

[melmothtw]

The Argies think they are theirs because they think they inherited the Spanish colonial empire? If the Spanish or the Dutch would claim it it might be more fun to debate about it but Argentina? How about China?

It's the complete lack of self-awareness that makes me laugh - Spanish speaking ancestors of Spanish conquistadors complaining of colonialism and imperialism because they don't have a group of South American islands that they say the Spanish Empire bequeathed to them.

[Less Hair]

And no more Vulcans. But Lady Thatcher had earmarked everything for retirement back then already.
P.S. Where is Jeremy Clarkson when you need him?

[Tartiflette Fan]

Hypothetical question. If Argentina invaded now and caught the troops in situ off guard could we send a fleet like we did last time?
My understanding is we have two carriers which are broke, understaffed and underplaned with little to no support ships.

Invaded with what ? Your question soars beyond the bounds of hypothetical.

[GlobalNav]

Hypothetical question. If Argentina invaded now and caught the troops in situ off guard could we send a fleet like we did last time?
My understanding is we have two carriers which are broke, understaffed and underplaned with little to no support ships.

And Margaret Thatcher is not PM.

[GlobalNav]

It's the complete lack of self-awareness that makes me laugh - Spanish speaking ancestors of Spanish conquistadors complaining of colonialism and imperialism because they don't have a group of South American islands that they say the Spanish Empire bequeathed to them.

Just curious, who "bequeathed them" to the United Kingdom?

[Spunky Monkey]

Hypothetical question. If Argentina invaded now and caught the troops in situ off guard could we send a fleet like we did last time?
My understanding is we have two carriers which are broke, understaffed and underplaned with little to no support ships.

Probably cobble something together, just like the Argies would, only this time we would see the build up and be able to base a couple of subs inside another exclusion zone and that would effectively stop anything serious but airborne forces getting in.
They have about 6 C130s a couple of Fokker 28s and less than a dozen Skyhawk variants.
Can't see that being much of a problem.

[unmanned_droid]

In my opinion this is cropping up now as a combination of distraction at home in Argentina, and, the recent negative reports of UK defence status in light of aid to Ukraine and the economic situation. I would also expect this situation to be deliberately exacerbated by russia.

[ShyTorque]

And Margaret Thatcher is not PM.

True. What’s needed is a lawyer who knows how to draft a threatening letter, telling them how their policies are wrong, but without coming up with a policy of his own.

Keir who? :rolleyes:

[albatross]

Hypothetical question. If Argentina invaded now and caught the troops in situ off guard could we send a fleet like we did last time?
My understanding is we have two carriers which are broke, understaffed and underplaned with little to no support ships.

Would not NATO rush to help? Just asking.

[meleagertoo]

Extraordinary to hear that anyone thinks the Spanish "bequeathed" the Falklands - as they never owned them in the first place!
Neither did Argentina, at any time in the distant past, make a territorial claim to the Islands.
Britain undoubtably made the first documented landing and (much later) filed the first territorial claim as is universally agreed by historians some hundred years before anywhere called Argentina even existed. In any case France had established an outpost there at much the same time as we did and before the Spanish so if mere 'first footing' were to be the deciding factor France has a better claim to them than Spain. The fact that Argentina may or may not have subsequently used the place as a dumping ground for convicts (while failing to file or publish a claim of ownership) gives them no right to any sort of title, as is universally rcognised by international law.

[Baldeep Inminj]

I suspect that this is entirely for the domestic consumption of the Argentine population, and will become tomorrows fish wrapper. In any event, here a few thoughts...
Reasons that Nations want stability in the FI:
- Several nations (certainly S Korea when I was at MPA in the 90's) pay the Falklands Island Governement (Called FICO when I was there, not sure if it still is?), millions per year for the right to fish the Falklands waters, particularly for Squid. They will not want this trade disrupted.
- The Falklands is potentially an oil rich area. When I was there we met many 'oil people' who basically told us that all of the science indicated that there was a ton of oil there, but they were having trouble finding it. Did they?
- There is now a lucrative tourism/cruise liner industry there and the Falklanders don't want this jeopardized.

Other points:
- It is a British Overseas Territory, so people born there are automatically UK citizens. Question: Does this mean NATO Article 5 would apply if Argentina attacked?
- Whilst I weep at the pathetic shell of it's former self that the UK Military has become, I am pretty confident it is more than a match for whatever inept and ill equipped task force the Argentinians could muster. This then begs the obvious question - would they have allies prepared to provide forces? I don't know the answer to that...but who, and for what purpose?

I was based in Cyprus many years ago, and had the absolute pleasure of working and flying with the UN peacekeeping detachment out of UNPA Nicosia. The nation providing the service was Argentina. I (and my crew!) spent considerable time with the Argentinian pilots (MD500 - think 'Magnum PI' for those of a certain age). We flew, planned, operated and also socialized with them many times and I bet you can guess what I will say next...they were simply superb guys., every one of them. They were aircrew mates in the truest sense - friendly, helpful and genuine. Trust me, they had nothing against us whatsoever, it is their corrupt and failing Government that is the issue.

I have not met many Argentinians, but those that I did were as nice as any people I have ever encountered. As an aside, as I have mentioned before, my wife is Russian and I can say exactly the same about them. Beautiful people - demonically evil leaders.

[mikeoneflying]

I wonder what China are offering Argentina to take this stance.

I am sure China would be quite happy to kick start their economy and get on track all the stagnating investments they have made in Argentina.

Maybe even extended credit for or even give some nice new Chinese military equipment in exchange for a slice of the Falkland and its natural resources.

We live in interesting times.

[Buster Hyman]

What’s needed is a lawyer person with an understanding of legal statutes who knows or is capable of how to drafting a non threatening but inclusive letter, telling asking them how their policies different ideologies are wrong may not be correct, but without coming up with a policy different ideology of his their (non binary) own.

Fixed it. That'll show they! :}

[fdr]

Other points:
- It is a British Overseas Territory, so people born there are automatically UK citizens. Question: Does this mean NATO Article 5 would apply if Argentina attacked?

No.


Article 6 provides clarity to the conditions that Article 5 refers to, and that rules out the Falklands by lattitude.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .


Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:


on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.




[petit plateau]

In my opinion this is cropping up now as a combination of distraction at home in Argentina, and, the recent negative reports of UK defence status in light of aid to Ukraine and the economic situation. I would also expect this situation to be deliberately exacerbated by russia.

Argentina is never short of home-brewed problems (and I say that as someone who has lived there). They had 10GW drop off the bars last week. But it is also worth taking a read of this relationship

https://www.energymonitor.ai/power/EU-reliance-on-Russian-nuclear-undermines-energy-security-goals

[NutLoose]

We need to send a Carrier… do we have any Ocean going tugs?

[MENELAUS]

No. Plenty of crabs in hotels though.

[artee]

I wonder what China are offering Argentina to take this stance.

I am sure China would be quite happy to kick start their economy and get on track all the stagnating investments they have made in Argentina.

Maybe even extended credit for or even give some nice new Chinese military equipment in exchange for a slice of the Falkland and its natural resources.

We live in interesting times.

But isn't the Falkland Islands within China's "Nine dash line"? :E

[langleybaston]

Bring it on. It would serve as a wakeup call.
Like last time.

Doctor, I think I've got Hermes.
You mean Herpes?
No, I think I'm a carrier

[melmothtw]

Just curious, who "bequeathed them" to the United Kingdom?

The United Kingdom didn't need them bequething, they discovered and populated them. The Spanish claim came from a 15th century Papal decree that divided the New World between Spain and Portugal, so not something the UK (or England as it was at the time) had much truck with.

[jolihokistix]

Talk of China in Argentina reminded me of this little facility.
China's military-run space station in Argentina is a 'black box' | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-argentina-china-insight-idUSKCN1PP0I2)

[GrahamO]

Hypothetical question. If Argentina invaded now and caught the troops in situ off guard could we send a fleet like we did last time?
My understanding is we have two carriers which are broke, understaffed and underplaned with little to no support ships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fg5amio4jU

A little old but unless they Argies have miraculously come up with a way of getting a lot of troops to the islands, its unlikely.

[Asturias56]

"The Falklands is potentially an oil rich area. When I was there we met many 'oil people' who basically told us that all of the science indicated that there was a ton of oil there, but they were having trouble finding it. Did they?"

Yes- oil has been found in quantities in both the N Falklands and S Falklands Basin - maybe 400-600 mm bbl recoverable at Sea Lion in the N

The issue has been getting someone to develop it. The field was found by a tiny UK company - Rockhopper Resources. Unfortunately Argie rhetoric made it a hot potato for the big international companies and the only partner avail was the mid sized UK Company, Premier Oil. They over extended themselves elsewhere in around 2012-13 and when the oil price fell had no money to spend. Eventually the main interest was sold to Navitas, an Israeli company (Rockhopper still have a percentage) about 18 months ago. They are pushing the project forward at last and, according to shareholder rumours, are actually in the FI this week talking to the Govt.

Expect a Field Development plan in '24 and first oil '26-'27

It will make the islanders SUPER rich - maybe, like Brunei, they'll rent their own set of Gurkhas etc etc

[Asturias56]

The British didn't "discover" them - a number of countries (Spain, France, UK, USA etc) had people landed and living there but there was no claim nor any law . It got so bad the USN actually landed to knock heads together but refused to "administer" it. It fell into UK hands more or less by accident.

The Argentinean claim is just that - a baseless claim. Mexico has a better claim to Texas.

As for an Argentine invasion ... if you think the RN has declined since the 1980's the Argentinean Navy has gone off a cliff - no subs, no aircraft carrier, no modern aircraft, no money.

The only that would worry me about defending the FI is that you have one big base and one long runway - and no medium - long range anti-air missiles.

[HOVIS]

Talk of China in Argentina reminded me of this little facility.
China's military-run space station in Argentina is a 'black box' | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-argentina-china-insight-idUSKCN1PP0I2)
That is a very confusing article. China actually has an orbiting space station, manned. We don't refer to Jodrell Bank as a 'space station'. Something lost in translation perhaps.

[pax britanica]

No loony Argie general this time or Maggies mis judgements encouraging him, they dont have the forces to invade and we dont have the forces to defend them (and the Americans and French dont like us these days)

Just a perfect distraction from trouble in the domestic arena; works equally well for the British and Argentina governments .

[melmothtw]

The British didn't "discover" them - a number of countries (Spain, France, UK, USA etc) had people landed and living there but there was no claim nor any law . It got so bad the USN actually landed to knock heads together but refused to "administer" it. It fell into UK hands more or less by accident.

The Argentinean claim is just that - a baseless claim. Mexico has a better claim to Texas.

As for an Argentine invasion ... if you think the RN has declined since the 1980's the Argentinean Navy has gone off a cliff - no subs, no aircraft carrier, no modern aircraft, no money.

The only that would worry me about defending the FI is that you have one big base and one long runway - and no medium - long range anti-air missiles.

Who first discovered the Falklands depends largely on which version of history you believe, but English captain John Strong is widely credited as doing so in 1690. I'm sure you can find a counter claim, which explains the situation we're in today. Regardless, Argentina is defined by colonialism and imperialism, so it's a bit rich bleating about it to the UN.

[Dannyboy39]

It must be election time again…oh It is!

[Asturias56]

Shareholder Message Boards today have reports of speech by Navitas top brass in Staley this week to a crowded meeting saying they're on for start of work in 2026. They'll use a charter flight from the UK probably to move people in and out - that's how the drilling operation was carried out 10+ years ago

There are already two shore bases in Stanley - will also helicopter support to the drilling rig and the FPSO when it's positioned post drilling the development wells.

[2Planks]

Islas Malvinas is a derivative of the original French name Iles Malouines, named by the French explorer de Bougainville whom hailed from St Malo.

[ORAC]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/581x811/image_bc7615d1e37317823349c9b25257b75d3d54a1d5.jpeg

[mikeoneflying]

DreamWorks, ESPN and Netflix are happy to have scenes in their films depicting the nine-dash line.
So when they write the film and TV versions of China taking over the Falklands on behalf of the freedom loving Argentine Government --- I am sure the nine-dash line will be extended.

[minigundiplomat]

No. Plenty of crabs in hotels though.

No way I’m taking your mum home to my place. I don’t want anyone thinking I’ll accept hand me downs from the army

[Professor Plum]

The detail orac posted speaks for itself.

As for Argentina. What exactly are they ever going to do?

Seriously?

[Cedrik]

Yes who do they think they are those Argies? Falklands being as far as 1500 k's from Argentina and only 12750 from good old blighty. The hide of them to expect ownership of islands just off their coast. Let's put up the flag and beat our chests, a toast to Maggie Thatcher.

[Less Hair]

Why don't they just claim Spain's African territories instead?

[Tiger G]

Yes who do they think they are those Argies? Falklands being as far as 1500 k's from Argentina and only 12750 from good old blighty. The hide of them to expect ownership of islands just off their coast. Let's put up the flag and beat our chests, a toast to Maggie Thatcher.

(hat and coat at the ready)

Phew....I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks like that, but daren't say it on here for fear of "reprisals" :ouch:

It's ridiculous in this day and age that we "own" a p!ss poor island thousands of miles away from the UK but on the doorstep of Argentina and I can fully understand why they want it back. Imagine if Argentina "owned" the Shetland Islands.....what would we be saying and doing ?? The money that has gone in to maintaining a military presence there, and the British lives lost defending it, is beyond my compression. It's exactly the same with Gibraltar and a good few other places I could mention

Stands by for incoming......

[Video Mixdown]

(hat and coat at the ready)

Phew....I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks like that, but daren't say it on here for fear of "reprisals" :ouch:
It's ridiculous in this day and age that we "own" a p!ss poor island thousands of miles away from the UK but on the doorstep of Argentina and I can fully understand why they want it back. Imagine if Argentina "owned" the Shetland Islands.....what would we be saying and doing ?? The money that has gone in to maintaining a military presence there, and the British lives lost defending it, is beyond my compression. It's exactly the same with Gibraltar and a good few other places I could mention
Stands by for incoming......
Geographical location is coincidental and irrelevant.

[PlasticCabDriver]

Argentinean politics again - roll out the Malvinas whenever the economy is going down the tubes

Their economy or ours?

[Less Hair]

ARGXIT

[Asturias56]

Their economy or ours?


well in this case it was Argentina who made the change so their's

But I agree the UK Govt occasionally bangs the drum when it suits them

[Asturias56]

Problem isn't "owning the islands" - it's the people that live there - FI, Gib etc (tho not the Chagos Islanders of course.

left over bits of Empire but the inhabitants want to stay part of the UK. We're gradually getting rid of the King being Head of State of some very large countries across the world but it takes an interminable time. The French have similar issues, especially in the Pacific. If people want to stay British (or French) do we have the right to dump them??

[ASRAAMTOO]

Nope, but we do anyway if it suits us. How are things in Hong Kong these days?

[melmothtw]

Yes who do they think they are those Argies? Falklands being as far as 1500 k's from Argentina and only 12750 from good old blighty. The hide of them to expect ownership of islands just off their coast. Let's put up the flag and beat our chests, a toast to Maggie Thatcher.

If it's coloniism that rubs you up the wrong way, the question you should be asking is, how far are "those Argies" from Spain?

[MENELAUS]

No way I’m taking your mum home to my place. I don’t want anyone thinking I’ll accept hand me downs from the army


You’d have a job. Unless you’re a dedicated necrophiliac.

[Herod]

Yes who do they think they are those Argies? Falklands being as far as 1500 k's from Argentina and only 12750 from good old blighty. The hide of them to expect ownership of islands just off their coast. Let's put up the flag and beat our chests, a toast to Maggie Thatcher.

NZ is about 1500 km from Tasmania. When is the Australian fleet sailing?

[pr00ne]

It must be election time again…oh It is!

(hat and coat at the ready)

Phew....I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks like that, but daren't say it on here for fear of "reprisals" :ouch:

It's ridiculous in this day and age that we "own" a p!ss poor island thousands of miles away from the UK but on the doorstep of Argentina and I can fully understand why they want it back. Imagine if Argentina "owned" the Shetland Islands.....what would we be saying and doing ?? The money that has gone in to maintaining a military presence there, and the British lives lost defending it, is beyond my compression. It's exactly the same with Gibraltar and a good few other places I could mention

Stands by for incoming......

You miss the point entirely! It has nothing to do with the territory, but everything to do with the population. There has never been an indigenous population, and the current population can trace their ancestry back to the first resident population.
The UN and the UK Government recognise the right to self determination of the population, NOT any territorial claim to the actual land.

On that basis the islands will never be Argentinian.

[dctyke]

You miss the point entirely! It has nothing to do with the territory, but everything to do with the population. There has never been an indigenous population, and the current population can trace their ancestry back to the first resident population.
The UN and the UK Government recognise the right to self determination of the population, NOT any territorial claim to the actual land.

On that basis the islands will never be Argentinian.

……. last time I was there it looked as if it was everything to do about oil.

[Asturias56]

Argentina is, at last, thinking of exploring their own offshore zone for oil

[melmothtw]

You miss the point entirely! It has nothing to do with the territory, but everything to do with the population. There has never been an indigenous population, and the current population can trace their ancestry back to the first resident population.
The UN and the UK Government recognise the right to self determination of the population, NOT any territorial claim to the actual land.

On that basis the islands will never be Argentinian.

Indeed. If you believe that the Spanish who settled in South America now have the right to live there as Argentineans, then you can't deny the same right to the British who settled on the Falklands. In fact, the British claim is more ethical as it does not involve supplanting any indigenous peoples, as the Argentine claim does.

[petit plateau]

Argentina is, at last, thinking of exploring their own offshore zone for oil

There have been previous rounds of oil exploration offshore Argentina, It remains to be seen whether this next round will find anything significant. It is also not obvious how any development offshore Falklands would deal with the associated gas, and flaring to produce is becoming increasingly awkward to justify. Personally I suspect that the window of opportunity to commit to any significant field developments in the more challenging frontier areas is rapidly closing and may only be open for another few years.

I think this will be Shell's third go at exploration offshore Argentina (it is a Shell-Equinor-YPF venture). An ex boss of mine did the RFT in the bottom link.

https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/10.1144/petgeo2020-132

https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/165/3/850/555871

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321524379_The_Argentina_Continental_Margin

https://www.bnamericas.com/en/news/former-ypf-official-upbeat-on-argentine-offshore-potential (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321524379_The_Argentina_Continental_Margin)

[212man]

There have been previous rounds of oil exploration offshore Argentina, It remains to be seen whether this next round will find anything significant. It is also not obvious how any development offshore Falklands would deal with the associated gas, and flaring to produce is becoming increasingly awkward to justify. Personally I suspect that the window of opportunity to commit to any significant field developments in the more challenging frontier areas is rapidly closing and may only be open for another few years.

I think this will be Shell's third go at exploration offshore Argentina (it is a Shell-Equinor-YPF venture). An ex boss of mine did the RFT in the bottom link.

https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/10.1144/petgeo2020-132

https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/165/3/850/555871

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321524379_The_Argentina_Continental_Margin

https://www.bnamericas.com/en/news/former-ypf-official-upbeat-on-argentine-offshore-potential (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321524379_The_Argentina_Continental_Margin)

Shell also in JV with Qatar. I’m not sure if they’ve actually done any explanation yet though.

[downsizer]

Bring it on. It would serve as a wakeup call.
Like last time.

Doctor, I think I've got Hermes.
You mean Herpes?
No, I think I'm a carrier

Crass statement from crass idiot who wouldn't be involved. :hmm:

How would you feel about your grand daughter be killed in the conflict you want to "bring on"?

[WB627]

(hat and coat at the ready)

Phew....I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks like that, but daren't say it on here for fear of "reprisals" :ouch:

It's ridiculous in this day and age that we "own" a p!ss poor island thousands of miles away from the UK but on the doorstep of Argentina and I can fully understand why they want it back. Imagine if Argentina "owned" the Shetland Islands.....what would we be saying and doing ?? The money that has gone in to maintaining a military presence there, and the British lives lost defending it, is beyond my compression. It's exactly the same with Gibraltar and a good few other places I could mention

Stands by for incoming......

WANT IT BACK??? They never *****ng owed it in the first place

[Ant T]

This topic has been discussed at length here before - some of the following is cut and pasted from my previous reply to a similar comment -

Tiger G
“It's ridiculous in this day and age that we "own" a p!ss poor island thousands of miles away from the UK but on the doorstep of Argentina…”

Asturias56
“left over bits of Empire but the inhabitants want to stay part of the UK”

The UK does not “own” the Falkland Islands, and is not “holding on” to them. They are owned by the people who live here.

The Falkland Islands are not “part of the UK”

Historically, they were certainly referred to as a “Colony” (until 1983), but were never a colony in the sense of a minority ruling class governing an unwilling indigenous population. They had no human population at all when discovered by Europeans.

From 1983 to 2002 they were classed as a “British Dependent Territory”, and since then they have officially been a “British Overseas Territory”.

And the Islands are not “p!ss poor” by any definition. The GDP per capita (figures directly off google, and not checked by me, but seem reasonable) for UK is about £40,000, the Falklands about £58,000.
I do not know the detail of whether the Falklands were economically “dependent” on the UK in any way prior to the mid-1980s. Certainly, a lot of money flowed out of the Islands, to owners of Falklands farms and businesses who were in the UK and elsewhere - I do not know how much flowed into the Islands from the UK.
But since the mid 1980s (with the establishment of the fisheries licensing, and subsequently, the wildlife tourism industry), the islands have been economically self-sufficient in everything except (the very big exception of) defence.

Tiger G
“and I can fully understand why they want it back.”

As for “giving it back” to Argentina, what is your basis for the word “back”? Britain had a claim to the Falklands (disputed by France and then Spain) dating back to at least 1765; Argentina did not exist until after 1816, and did not extend more than 100 miles South of Buenos Aires (almost 1000 miles from the Falklands) until the 1870s, by which time Britain had had an effective administration for over 40 years. (And it is worth noting that Argentina only extended its territory southwards by 1000 miles in the 1870s by military conquest, deliberately hunting and killing many of the indigenous population in the “conquest of the desert”, commemorated until recently on their 20 peso banknote)

My wife’s family go back to at least the 1880s here. Many families can trace their ancestors right back to the mid-1840s. Why should their home be given “back” to Argentina?

Tiger G
“Imagine if Argentina "owned" the Shetland Islands.....what would we be saying and doing ??”

Imagine if the UK “owned” a small group of islands just off the coast of France…..what would the French be saying and doing?? - Not very much as far as I can see - the Channel Islands seem not to be causing too much diplomatic problems between France and UK (certainly not to the extent of going to war over them). And as for the “proximity” argument for ownership, France is exactly 0.00000 miles from Germany, so who should take over who?

[Stu666]

The proximity argument has always been a bit daft. It's like saying Cuba should be part of the United States.

As for Argentina trying another invasion, don't we have a bunch of Typhoons permanently based down there? Good luck getting past them.

[Asturias56]

about 4 IIRC at the moment plus a Voyager and an Atlas

[Asturias56]

The UK does not “own” the Falkland Islands, and is not “holding on” to them. They are owned by the people who live here. The Falkland Islands are not “part of the UK”

This is correct up to a point - actually they are legally still part of the British Empire - so not independent either. How you seperate the "British Empire " from the "UK" I'm not certain.

But since the FI is totally dependent on the UK for defence and all sorts of other support in practical terms we own it, lock , stock & Barrel. And since a lot of Brits died to keep it I think we've earn't it.

[Ninthace]

The UK does not “own” the Falkland Islands, and is not “holding on” to them. They are owned by the people who live here. The Falkland Islands are not “part of the UK”

This is correct up to a point - actually they are legally still part of the British Empire - so not independent either. How you seperate the "British Empire " from the "UK" I'm not certain.

But since the FI is totally dependent on the UK for defence and all sorts of other support in practical terms we own it, lock , stock & Barrel. And since a lot of Brits died to keep it I think we've earn't it.
The FI belong to the current inhabitants and they are happy to have the protection of the UK government. Beware of using the body count argument, that would make the FI the Malvinas.

[Asturias56]

I'm talking practical politics - whatever the notional idea is they're effectively as much part of the UK as the Isle of Wight

In fact it would be better if we had the French system whereby they were a District Council of the UK - and maybe elected an MP (with the other Territories) to Westminister

That would make an Argentinean claim even more ridiculous

[ORAC]

This is correct up to a point - actually they are legally still part of the British Empire
Care to substantiate that claim?

Not sure how yo7 can legally be part of something which doesn’t have a legal identity.

[Ant T]

…. they are legally still part of the British Empire - so not independent either. How you seperate the "British Empire " from the "UK" I'm not certain.
But since the FI is totally dependent on the UK for defence and all sorts of other support in practical terms we own it, lock , stock & Barrel. And since a lot of Brits died to keep it I think we've earn't it.

How you separate the “British Empire” from the “UK” is explained (in quite amusing fashion) by this short video (which I have posted here before), which also contradicts your statement “whatever the notional idea is they're effectively as much part of the UK as the Isle of Wight-“. That is simply not true.

https://youtu.be/rNu8XDBSn10

[Asturias56]

The exact status of the Fi within the messy pantheon of British government isn't very important - no UK Govt will sell them down the river - at least not for the next 50 years I'd guess. The problem is how to get the Argentineans to see sense. If they actually tried to change tack they might, in the very long term, have some success. But its a dog-whistle issue on the mainland and there's always some politician or newspaper willing to fan the flames for short term gain.

We just have to keep enough forces there to deter

[cosmiccomet]

As for the citizens of the United Kingdom, the Crown power comes from God...and as an Argentinean, I can not discuss their beliefs, my country, and my National Constitution state that those islands are part of Argentina, and we will claim our "beliefs" until the end of the history.
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.

For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...

[Ninthace]

Typical RM, firing first on a fully armed invading force. Someone must have left out pre-emptive surrender from the manual.

[Ant T]

As for the citizens of the United Kingdom, the Crown power comes from God...and as an Argentinean, I can not discuss their beliefs, my country, and my National Constitution state that those islands are part of Argentina, and we will claim our "beliefs" until the end of the history.
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.

For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...

Accounts differ - the initial attack, on Moody Brook Barracks only failed to kill anyone because the troops had already moved out. Despite claims to the contrary, it was clear that the invading force intended to kill the occupants.

Lieutenant-Commander Sanchez-Sabarots continues his account:

It was still completely dark. We were going to use tear-gas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas) to force the British out of the buildings and capture them. Our orders were not to cause casualties if possible. That was the most difficult mission of my career. All our training as commandos was to fight aggressively and inflict maximum casualties on the enemy. We surrounded the barracks with machine-gun teams, leaving only one escape route along the peninsula north of Stanley Harbour. Anyone who did get away would not able to reach the town and reinforce the British there. Then we threw the gas grenades into each building. There was no reaction; the barracks were empty.

The noise of the grenades alerted Major Norman to the presence of Argentines on the island, and he thus drove back to Government House. Realising that the attack was coming from Moody Brook, he ordered all troop sections to converge on the house to enable the defence to be centralised.

Although there were no Royal Marine witnesses to the assault, descriptions of the state of Moody Brook barracks afterward contradict the Argentine version of events. After the action, some of the Royal Marines were allowed to return to barracks to collect personal items. Major Norman describes walls of the barracks as riddled with machine gun fire and bearing the marks of white phosphorus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus) grenades - "a classic housekeeping operation".
And as for “the Crown power comes from God”, wasn’t it the Treaty of Tordesillas, signed by the Pope on behalf of god that originally gave the Spanish (Argentineans) the “right” to steal Patagonia from the original owners…

[eko4me]

Typical RM, firing first on a fully armed invading force. Someone must have left out pre-emptive surrender from the manual.
I believe the 22 year old Lt Mills on South Georgia said "Sod that, I'm going to make their eyes water"

[Video Mixdown]

As for the citizens of the United Kingdom, the Crown power comes from God...and as an Argentinean, I can not discuss their beliefs, my country, and my National Constitution state that those islands are part of Argentina, and we will claim our "beliefs" until the end of the history.
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.

For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...
There is clearly no point in arguing with you about the Argentine interpretation of events that happened hundreds of years ago. That interpretation is part of your national identity and you are unlikely to listen to alternative views. The most important factor today is the right of the population of the islands to self determination, and if successive Argentine governments continue their hostile and obstructive attitude to them they are unlikely alter their view of your country. It all seems so pointless - why not make friends with them and create mutually beneficial opportunities for trade and tourism?

[cosmiccomet]

There is clearly no point in arguing with you about the Argentine interpretation of events that happened hundreds of years ago. That interpretation is part of your national identity and you are unlikely to listen to alternative views. The most important factor today is the right of the population of the islands to self determination, and if successive Argentine governments continue their hostile and obstructive attitude to them they are unlikely alter their view of your country. It all seems so pointless - why not make friends with them and create mutually beneficial opportunities for trade and tourism?
I am reading your points of view, and I respect your interpretetion of the history.
I am just expressing our side of the claim.

You do not have to be offensive to others point of view.

[MENELAUS]

That wouldn’t have been phosphorus grenades that the invading non aggressive force used on Moody Brook barracks then. ? Thankfully most of the NP were elsewhere. And don’t tell me it wasn’t. I saw the aftermath shortly thereafter.
Passive invasion….? Non sequitur. All the more so with Buzo Tactico and amphibious personnel carriers. So frankly Argie bollocks.
Or maybe we should talk about some of the **** that went down at Top Malo Ridge. ?

[mopardave]

Care to substantiate that claim?

Not sure how yo7 can legally be part of something which doesn’t have a legal identity.

Steady on ORAC old thing......nearly spat my coffee out. Thought the Argies might be making a move on my neck of the woods for a moment!!

[pr00ne]

As for the citizens of the United Kingdom, the Crown power comes from God...and as an Argentinean, I can not discuss their beliefs, my country, and my National Constitution state that those islands are part of Argentina, and we will claim our "beliefs" until the end of the history.
The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.

For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...


Can't let you get away with that! The Argentinian forces who invaded in April 1982 most certainly DID shoot first! They carried out a surprise no notice no warning Mortar and GPMG attack on the Royal Marines Barracks at Moody Brook hoping to catch the RM all asleep in bed, and kill them. They failed totally as the RM had deployed into their defensive positions and Moody Brook Barracks were empty. The Argentinian forces did not know that and their intent was to kill. While the British forces did NOT shoot first, they did kill first when they engaged the Argentinian forces at various points on the islands.

No argument with the first part of your post though. Other than to say that the indigenous population of the islands think in a very similar way, but with a very different outcome!

[fdr]

and as an Argentinean, I can not discuss their beliefs, my country, and my National Constitution state that those islands are part of Argentina, and we will claim our "beliefs" until the end of the history.

mmmm 'kay,
here's the thing... the constitution you speak of was written in.... 1853 AD. The UK had reasserted it's rights from the Spanish, and more correctly from the Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, in 1832 AD. Previously, the Inca's had a bit of a say in the matter, until the Spaniards turned up and made a feast of it all, gained a taste for chocolate, and more or less got rid of the Inca's, circa, 1616, give or take a few chocolate bars. In 1810-1818, Argentina had another bout of years of living dangerously, the civil war... at the end of that show, in curtain call, Argentina called themselves the continuing state from los Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata. Under convention, that would have annoyed the stuffing out of Brazil, Bolivia & Uruguay. A lot. Ordinarily, the continuing state has to meet certain criteria, and that would have made the others the continuation, not Argentina. At that point, Argentina did not claim the Malvina's, that came about in 1853, and by then, sorry, the poms had been there, done that and had done so for 21 years.

I like the try, love the constitution, but the basis of the 1st constitution was the USA, and they have as much right to it though plagiarism of their constitution as the great southern land that isn't African or Austrayl'yan. The islands aren't terra nada, as the brits called the other southern land, and did a fair effort at trying to make North America to be, (forget about greeks 'n grits, what about pommes a là mantas con viruela!).

The Constitution of Argentina also states that the claim should always be pacific. So, the United Kingdom should not be worried about using force from our side.

:ok: Can you make sure you bring blanks only next time?

For the ones who are unaware, when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982, the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...the ones who shot first were the British...

Lets unpack this one...

For the ones who are unaware: BBC and CNN gave 'xullunt cover of the war, it was CNN's first, Christianné was a lot younger then.
when Argentina took over the islands in April of 1982: "...." and were beaten militarily by a grumpy lady in #10 Downing, who was annoyed about her favourite telly show (Coronation St) being interrupted incessantly by CNN and the aforementioned lovely Christianné. Maggs was also miffed by having her favourite musical group Split Enz having a top song banned by her loyal followers, "6 months in a leaky boat...." .
the force didn´t cause any casualties to the British Forces...: would have been rather rude to have done so, after all, they were uninvited guests that "gate crashed" made a noise and commotion, and set off some lambing early from the ruckus around the inhabitants who had 4 legs, wool, and no voting rights. I am sure that the continuation state of Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, which arguably is Bolivia-Brazil and Uruguay would be a bit miffed if your mob had trampled across their lawn as uninvited guests and yelling "Monty Video Easy R Us". It is impolite to gate crash, please get in the queue, take a ticket and go through immigration like everyone else does. Keep your sporting firearms at home.
the ones who shot first were the British... not quite so sport. "Although there were no Royal Marine witnesses to the assault, British descriptions of the state of Moody Brook barracks afterwards contradict the Argentine version of events. After the Royal Marines were allowed to return to barracks to collect personal items. Norman describes walls of the barracks as riddled with machine gun fire and bearing the marks of white phosphorus grenades – "a classic houseclearing operation". The visiting team state otherwise, but walls probably don't fib. The story later was that it was the perfidious poms in them harriers, 11 days later, what done the rearranging of the decor with machine guns. I'm pretty sure that Mogs will attest to the fact that his ride at that time was fitted with a couple of 30mm Adens, and the lumpy bits that an Aden take out is quite different to a 7.62 x 51 Nato from a GPMG or FN SLR. Rather think that the decorating was done by the visitors. That is a bit off, if you visit, you should arrive and depart politely and then you would be welcome on your next visit. Unless you are a footy fan, then bad behavior is more common. In all cases, breakages are normally to be paid for.

The islands have an indigenous population, (now, they have a flag...) and a historical tie that predates the Argentine 1st draft of a constitution. Had the natives been wanting to invite the blue team along, they would have done so. You need to stand in the queue on a log of claims for those windswept rocks, Brazil, Bolivia and Uruguay have a better claim to them than Argentina, and in fact, they arguably have as viable a claim against Argentina. Certainly, the Inca's have as much of the claim, and deffo, the Spanish have a claim to the lot, except of course, they are the remnants of Iberian and Celtic groups, and that means, Argentina should be claimed by Ankara, or Rome, or Paris. the good news is, the food would tie in and you could increase tourism what with baclava, pita bread, pizza and escargot, and perhaps a lot of pomme frites, and a cheeky red.

Seems a bit silly really. Is there not anything better on telly in Buenos Aires? :}

Now, just to play devils advocate, in 1975, A. P. McCartney proposed that Aleutian and Fuegian populations shared a number of common subsistence and technology features, resulting from convergence in adaptation to maritime resources in cold archipelagos [1]. Wouldn't it be a riot if the Aleutians are in fact the rightful owner of Patagonia, and they own the Deep South n' falklands... ?

[1] Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Subarctic and Subantarctic Zones: The AleutianFuegian Connetion Reconsidered David R. Yesner Arctic Anthropology Vol. 421. No 2 (2004), pp. 76-97

do you have a flag?

[Asturias56]

The thing is its hard to find an Argentinean that wants to go to the FI. If they want cold, windy and desolate there's already plenty of that in the deep South on the Mainland.

Its purely a political drum to bang

[Shytehawk]

Don't forget the subs. They did a brilliant job last time.

[rudestuff]

I doubt the Brits will be caught with their pants down next time. One Astute-class sub could put half a dozen tomahawks into every airbase on mainland Argentina.

[Asturias56]

Don't forget the subs. They did a brilliant job last time.

Indeed - tho more as a threat than a direct part on the action

Obviously the frequency of any SSN deployment to the FI is secret but every so often one is photographed at or near the islands. Quite how we can continue to square that with the current numbers of boats and their roles (say adding E of Suez) is an interesting point

[minigundiplomat]

Indeed - tho more as a threat than a direct part on the action

Credit where credit is due to the Andrew, HMS Conqueror sinking the Belgrano is pretty direct in terms of action, and singlehandedly confined the rest of the fleet to the safety of Argentine ports for the remainder of the war.

[Mogwi]

Credit where credit is due to the Andrew, HMS Conqueror sinking the Belgrano is pretty direct in terms of action, and singlehandedly confined the rest of the fleet to the safety of Argentine ports for the remainder of the war.

Helped by the fact that the first SHAR to be shot down was fitted with the Sea Eagle control panel.

Mog

[ex-fast-jets]

That was very careless Moggie - why was His Sharkeyness not up there protecting it??????

[langleybaston]

The thing is its hard to find an Argentinean that wants to go to the FI. If they want cold, windy and desolate there's already plenty of that in the deep South on the Mainland.

Its purely a political drum to bang

Not that easy to find a Brit who wants to go either. But I did have a senior forecaster on my books whose presence was notional: married to an Islander, he did 6 months there, six weeks leave in UK, and pottered around until the next flights south. "Never saw an English summer in years" he said.

[BEagle]

When the TicToc at MPA learned of aircrews' requests for the latest TAF for EGYP, some dim pongo wondered why we were interested in the Egyptian weather.....

[Ant T]

Not that easy to find a Brit who wants to go either. But I did have a senior forecaster on my books whose presence was notional: married to an Islander, he did 6 months there, six weeks leave in UK, and pottered around until the next flights south. "Never saw an English summer in years" he said.

Jim was a really nice guy, and when you heard his name on the forecast (on the local radio… “and thanks to Jim Elliott for that forecast”, you could have a high level of confidence in it - he really knew the islands weather systems better than almost anyone else.
The local radio presenters still always thank the forecaster by name for each forecast.

[BEagle]

Current TAF: EGYP 091920Z 0921/1015 33015KT 9999 FEW025 BECMG 0921/0924 34016G26KT 520003 PROB30 TEMPO 0922/1015 VRB07KT 560003 PROB40 TEMPO 1000/1015 34026G36KT 530003 PROB30 TEMPO 1004/1009 SCT006

Dreadful place - wind from that direction is very tricky!

[Ant T]

When the TicToc at MPA learned of aircrews' requests for the latest TAF for EGYP, some dim pongo wondered why we were interested in the Egyptian weather.....

EGYP is anomalous - according to the standard system laid down by ICAO for identifiers, Mount Pleasant’s ICAO code should start with SF (South America, Falkland Islands), in the same way that Stanley airport is SFAL.
The ICAO guidance (Doc 7910) makes it clear that the codes have nothing to do with national borders or territorial issues, but should be based purely on geographic location.
There is a proviso that “in exceptional cases, geographical locations other than those served by the AFS may be given a location indicator at the discretion of the State having jurisdiction over the location concerned”, so presumably the EGYP allocation was to make a political point.
However, a code starting SF would have made the point just as well, as presumably the neighbours would consider that airports here should have codes starting SA**

[Aurora Australis]

Current TAF: EGYP 091920Z 0921/1015 (tel:0921/1015) 33015KT 9999 FEW025 BECMG 0921/0924 (tel:0921/0924) 34016G26KT 520003 PROB30 TEMPO 0922/1015 (tel:0922/1015) VRB07KT 560003 PROB40 TEMPO 1000/1015 34026G36KT 530003 PROB30 TEMPO 1004/1009 SCT006

Dreadful place - wind from that direction is very tricky!

The significant bit of that forecast is the VRB07KT 560003 element.
Check this thread for a detailed discussion on that!

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/576815-ownership-risk.html

[minigundiplomat]

Current TAF: EGYP 091920Z 0921/1015 33015KT 9999 FEW025 BECMG 0921/0924 34016G26KT 520003 PROB30 TEMPO 0922/1015 VRB07KT 560003 PROB40 TEMPO 1000/1015 34026G36KT 530003 PROB30 TEMPO 1004/1009 SCT006

Dreadful place - wind from that direction is very tricky!

Yes - Thank you Beagle.

Let me tuck that blanket in and get you some soup.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1681710344228438025?s=12&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


"The UK was struggling to reverse a diplomatic defeat over the Falkland Islands on Wednesday after the EU endorsed an Argentina-backed declaration referring to Islas Malvinas, the Argentine name for the disputed territory."

https://www.ft.com/content/68c0efff-31bc-4dd3-81ae-226f9e970733

UK battles to reverse EU endorsement of ‘Islas Malvinas’ name

Buenos Aires celebrates ‘diplomatic triumph’ after summit with European leaders uses Argentine term for Falkland Islands

The UK was struggling to reverse a diplomatic defeat over the Falkland Islands on Wednesday after the EU endorsed an Argentina-backed declaration referring to Islas Malvinas, the Argentine name for the disputed territory.

British diplomats requested that European Council president Charles Michel “clarify” the bloc’s position after Buenos Aires trumpeted a “diplomatic triumph” following a summit of EU leaders with Latin America and the Caribbean (Celac) leaders on Tuesday, according to EU and UK officials.

But the request fell on deaf ears. “This was agreed by 27 member states and the Celac countries,” said an EU official. “We cannot issue a statement on their behalf.

“The UK is not part of the EU. They are upset by the use of the word Malvinas. If they were in the EU perhaps they would have pushed back against it.”

The EU official added that “the Argentines have spun it in a certain way”.

The declaration said: “Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of Celac’s historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.”

It was endorsed by 32 of the 33 Celac countries, with Nicaragua refusing because of language on the war in Ukraine.

Buenos Aires said it was the first time the EU had officially recognised in a joint declaration the Latin American position on the islands, which calls for dialogue over their future and respect for international law.

Argentine foreign minister Santiago Cafiero said that “off the back of this declaration the Argentine government hopes to further expand dialogue with the EU regarding the question of the Malvinas Islands.

“This joint declaration constitutes a further call from the international community for the UK to agree to meet its obligation to resume sovereignty negotiations with Argentina,” he added.

UK foreign secretary James Cleverly had asked Brussels to keep the Falklands out of the declaration in the run-up to the summit, according to officials from London and Brussels.

A figure close to Cleverly said: “The Argentine government can lobby whoever they wish but it doesn’t change the fact that the Falkland Islands are British. That is the clear will of the Falkland Islanders. Ten years ago, 99.8 per cent of Falkland Islanders who voted said they wanted to stay a part of the UK family.

“Our commitment to that decision is unwavering and will continue to be so.

” Peter Stano, spokesman for the European External Action Service, said: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter.”

He added: “The EU does not take any position on such issues without a council mandate.”

[Asturias56]

“The UK is not part of the EU. They are upset by the use of the word Malvinas. If they were in the EU perhaps they would have pushed back against it.”

says it all - not that it has any real significance on the ground

[Captivep]

The declaration reads:

“Regarding the question of sovereignty over the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands, the European Union took note of Celac’s historical position based on the importance of dialogue and respect for international law in the peaceful solution of disputes.”

And the government in Buenos Aires calls this a "diplomatic triumph"? Really quite pathetic.

[Opsbeatch]

Maybe we should call the EU the Austro-Hungarian Empire when we refer to them from now on...:E

OB

[minigundiplomat]

Maybe we should call the EU the Austro-Hungarian Empire when we refer to them from now on...:E

OB
Or 'das Reich'?

But seriously, the EU is trying to get the Mercosur trade deal back on track, and given the feral nature of many Europeans, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

[Less Hair]

"The EU took note" this means "we don't care" in diplo-talk. They even called the island by their British name as well answering Argentina. I agree that this is not indicating any change in EU politics towards the Falkland Islands at all.

[Marcantilan]

And the English Channel is the "Canal de la Mancha" for the Spanish, even when England (and yes, the weather) defeated the Invincible Armada in 1588. And so on and so forth.

According to the UN guidelines, the name Falklands / Malvinas or Malvinas / Falklands (depending if the main text is in English or Spanish) is correct.

[Video Mixdown]

And the English Channel is the "Canal de la Mancha" for the Spanish, even when England (and yes, the weather) defeated the Invincible Armada in 1588. And so on and so forth.
According to the UN guidelines, the name Falklands / Malvinas or Malvinas / Falklands (depending if the main text is in English or Spanish) is correct.
Nobody cares what others call the English Channel, but the islands are not a stretch of water, they are somebody's home and they have the right to self-determination.

[Ninthace]

Nobody cares what others call the English Channel, but the islands are not a stretch of water, they are somebody's home and they have the right to self-determination.
And what other people refer to them as. makes not a ha'porth difference to that.

[Video Mixdown]

And what other people refer to them as. makes not a ha'porth difference to that.
Factually you are quite right, but you know perfectly well that for the government of Argentina it is not just a name. It is intensely political and is core to their claims of sovereignty which would inevitably override that self-determination.

[Ninthace]

Factually you are quite right, but you know perfectly well that for the government of Argentina it is not just a name. It is intensely political and is core to their claims of sovereignty which would inevitably override that self-determination.
But it stops with the Argentine govt. The fact that the EU uses the term Malvinas/Falklands might give them a warm glow of self satisfaction but it advances their cause not a jot.

[Video Mixdown]

But it stops with the Argentine govt. The fact that the EU uses the term Malvinas/Falklands might give them a warm glow of self satisfaction but it advances their cause not a jot.
A slippery slope. I’m happy to see that the UK and FI Governments have taken a more assertive attitude.

[Ninthace]

More a slow news day, mountain out of mole hill.

[Dan Gerous]

Let's just refer to them as the Malvinas to annoy and get it right up the Argies.:E

[Asturias56]

Let's just refer to them as the Malvinas to annoy and get it right up the Argies.:E


Perhaps "The British Malvinas"? or "The Free Malvinas"?

[Imagegear]

Or the "not so broke" Malvenas

[Asturias56]

careful!!

there may be Boat People..............

[ORAC]

Nobody cares what others call the English Channel, but the islands are not a stretch of water, they are somebody's home and they have the right to self-determination.
And the French call the UK “Royaume-Uni ” and man6 other countries have their names when we use another - Germany for example.

​​​​​​​So what’s your point?

https://www.101languages.net/countries/united-kingdom-in-other-languages/

[Spunky Monkey]

Perhaps "The British Malvinas"? or "The Free Malvinas"?


Malvinas-on-Sea

[t43562]

And the French call the UK “Royaume-Uni ” and man6 other countries have their names when we use another - Germany for example.


The Turks want us to say "Toor-kee-yay" but for Britain they say "Ing-il-terre" and the USA is ABD to them. The Erdogan supporters get quite bothered about ¨Türkiye¨ as if the outside world was trying to insult them. I hope that people in the UK aren´t going waste time being like that.

[Lonewolf_50]

Or 'das Reich'? If you could phrase that as The Fourth Reich auf Deutsch, it would probably fit well enough.
"The EU took note" this means "we don't care" in diplo-talk. Filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing ...
The Turks want us to say "Toor-kee-yay" . If we did that it would ruin a lot of jokes. It's Turkey, in English. :cool:

[Buster Hyman]

What about West Buenos Aires & Wester Buenos Aires? :E:ouch::suspect:

[Marcantilan]

You could call "Buenos Aires", "Good winds". We won't take it as an offence.

[minigundiplomat]

Or 'formerly rich and successful South American state run into the ground and now a backwards, inflation wracked basket case that needs a straw man in the South Atlantic to distract from decades of political incompetence'..
But that's a bit of a mouthful, so I tend to go for the place next to Chile, full of d1ckheads.

[Asturias56]

Then of course there is Jebel Tariq,,, which no-one calls by the correct name :cool:

[Asturias56]

Or 'formerly rich and successful South American state run into the ground and now a backwards, inflation wracked basket case that needs a straw man in the South Atlantic to distract from decades of political incompetence'..
But that's a bit of a mouthful, so I tend to go for the place next to Chile, full of d1ckheads.

I think, to avoid a possible fatal misunderstanding when you visit Santiago, you'd rephrase that to

"I tend to go for the place full of d1ckheads, next to Chile"

[Captivep]

You could call "Buenos Aires", "Good winds". We won't take it as an offence.
Complete thread drift, but it's a great city to visit!

[AndySmith]

And the English Channel is the "Canal de la Mancha" for the Spanish, even when England (and yes, the weather) defeated the Invincible Armada in 1588. And so on and so forth.

According to the UN guidelines, the name Falklands / Malvinas or Malvinas / Falklands (depending if the main text is in English or Spanish) is correct.
Well, I don't mind being called English in Argentine forums when I am actually British - but I am not sure a Scot would necessarily be so happy?

[Marcantilan]

Or 'formerly rich and successful South American state run into the ground and now a backwards, inflation wracked basket case that needs a straw man in the South Atlantic to distract from decades of political incompetence'..
But that's a bit of a mouthful, so I tend to go for the place next to Chile, full of d1ckheads.

Really this kind of behaviour here? A bad day at the office?

[cosmiccomet]

Really this kind of behaviour here? A bad day at the office?
He is having a really bad day, summer time in the British Islands and the weather sucks as usual...that´s why they have that temper!!!!
Even worst...Prince Harry is divorcing Megan....so the Brits are gonna have to support his expenses again...If I were them...I would be very sad!!!

[Marcantilan]

What are we going to do with the Harry / mermaid statue we erected then? (and yes, it is real, I see it almost every day)

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/675x900/image_46b2acab397fbec03751f70ede17a47f1a2e5f6b.png

[El Grifo]

Regarding the Ginger Chap, I was 3 months out (early) with my divorce bet.
I stand to win the pot however !

It was writ higher and brighter than the very Hollywood Sign.

Dig deeper in your pockets dear friends.
The Prodigal Son is on his way back to the luxurious comfort of the family fold !

Just switch off your heating 15 mins early !

El G.

[Asturias56]

"Even worst...Prince Harry is divorcing Megan"

Source???

[El Grifo]

"Even worst...Prince Harry is divorcing Megan"

Source???

Google it !
All over the tinterweb !

El G

[Ninthace]

Google it !
All over the tinterweb !

El G
But being kept secret from the MSM :confused:

[Yellow Sun]

Even worst...Prince Harry is divorcing Megan....so the Brits are gonna have to support his expenses again...If I were them...I would be very sad!!!

Falcon 269 (http://www.combat.ws/S4/SAILOR/APNDX3.HTM)

YS

[Asturias56]

But being kept secret from the MSM :confused:


and the Sun and the Mirror AND the Guardian.........................

[West Coast]

One can place money on the likelihood of a divorce, Vegas of course.

[SLXOwft]

Did HMG forcefully express their displeasure to the following Commonwealth CELAC members who approved the declaration, before it was signed? Eye off the ball I expect.

Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Dominica
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago

[minigundiplomat]

Really this kind of behaviour here? A bad day at the office?

Which bit is incorrect, Sir?

[Marcantilan]

If you can't see what's wrong with your previous post, I'd rather not waste time discussing it. Good luck with your life.

[SLXOwft]

I, for one, don't think Marcantilan or most of his fellow Argentinians are d...heads, some of those responsible for running the country incompetently, misdirecting its economy, and inflicting the consequences certainly were/are.

[melmothtw]

...some of those responsible for running the country incompetently, misdirecting its economy, and inflicting the consequences certainly were/are.

​​​​​​​Their country or ours?

[minigundiplomat]

​​​​​​​Their country or ours?

I'm not sure we've hit inflation rates of 114% or implemented export controls.

[Ninthace]

I'm not sure we've hit inflation rates of 114% or implemented export controls.
Give'em time!

[rattman]

US DOD looking for congressional approval for the sale of 38 block 10 and 15 F-16's to argentina for 300million.

[ORAC]

Source if the above stories is the Buenos Aries Times.

Aircraft are reported to be ex-Danish Air Force jets. Other sources have the price at $700M, but without knowing about LEP, spares, manuals, weapons any quoted prices will just be wild speculation…

https://batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/the-us-steps-up-pressure-on-argentina-to-choose-danish-f-16s-over-chinese-or-indian-fighter-jets.phtml

US steps up pressure on Argentina to choose Danish F-16s over Chinese or Indian fighter jets

The Capitol is close to authorising the sale of 24 F-16 fighter jets to Argentina, aiming to become the main arms supplier since the Malvinas War.

[Asturias56]

The Chinese are more interested in Argentina than the Indian's I suspect

[Lonewolf_50]

I hope that the F-16 sale to Argentina goes forward.

[Asturias56]

LW - what benefits do you see? I guess if any S american country actually needs arms (which I'm not totally sold on) then better they buy from the good guys rather than the bad?

A US viewpoint would be most interesting.

[dctyke]

LW - what benefits do you see? I guess if any S american country actually needs arms (which I'm not totally sold on) then better they buy from the good guys rather than the bad?

A US viewpoint would be most interesting.

Are India good or bad guys? I lose track these days.

[Asturias56]

As ever they sit in the middle. Not in their interests to get too involved in other peoples problem's

[Lonewolf_50]

LW - what benefits do you see? I guess if any S american country actually needs arms (which I'm not totally sold on) then better they buy from the good guys rather than the bad?

A US viewpoint would be most interesting. Personal viewpoint, really.
While I was still in the Navy we were still training Brazilian pilots in the T-45 for carrier ops. That made for some good mil to mil contacts with a major nation in our part of the world.

The F-16 is a fine bird, strengths and weaknesses well known. Getting some from a NATO ally means they will likely have been well maintained over their service lives.
I'd expect that various support agreements for that unit would improve US-Argentina Mil to Mil contacts.
They are a major nation in our part of the world, and we've had on and off relations with them over the years.
I see this as an opportunity to improve the overal relationship.
Also, almost 40 years ago the UNITAS exercises were a much sought after deployment, and Argentina was one of the "must see" places for he ships and aircrews who participated.

[Asturias56]

Thank you - sounds logical to me

[Marcantilan]

For the last 41 years (since the 1982 war) and except on rare occasions, Argentina has been prevented (by British diplomacy) from acquiring state-of-the-art weaponry. Or, sometimes, even weapons with minimal offensive power.For example, Argentina was about to buy the KAI FA-50 fighter, but the existence of British components in it made this operation impossible.

In recent years, the need to buy supersonic fighters became more pressing and, without too many options, Argentina began to look sympathetically at offers from China and India, free of any embargo and with the possibility of acquiring modern weaponry with the fighters. It was at this point that the US offer for the old F-16s began to materialise. Not before. I guess the US government considered it more valuable to prevent the Chinese from selling fighters in its backyard than British pressure to do so.

Likewise, opinions around here are divided on whether to go for the Chinese or the US offer. My view? We are in an election year and the issue will be left for the next government to decide. The next government will not make any initial decision, as it will face a major budget problem, will leave it for a few years and, when it is more or less decided, will leave it for the next government. And so on ad infinitum.

[minigundiplomat]

We are in an election year and the issue will be left for the next government to decide. The next government will not make any initial decision, as it will face a major budget problem, will leave it for a few years and, when it is more or less decided, will leave it for the next government. And so on ad infinitum.

Next year brings US elections and hell knows what that's going to bring....... Argentina might be supplying the US with military aid at this rate.

[Lonewolf_50]

In recent years, the need to buy supersonic fighters became more pressing and, without too many options, Argentina began to look sympathetically at offers from China and India, free of any embargo and with the possibility of acquiring modern weaponry with the fighters. It was at this point that the US offer for the old F-16s began to materialise. Not before. I guess the US government considered it more valuable to prevent the Chinese from selling fighters in its backyard than British pressure to do so. Yeah, my cynical nature finds your view on this to make sense. If our government is going to be that fickle, again, then maybe try for the SAAB? :cool: My personal preference is Vipers to Argentina, for the above stated reasons. But I am not in charge.
We are in an election year and the issue will be left for the next government to decide. The next government will not make any initial decision, as it will face a major budget problem, will leave it for a few years and, when it is more or less decided, will leave it for the next government. And so on ad infinitum.
Next year brings US elections and hell knows what that's going to bring....... Argentina might be supplying the US with military aid at this rate.
That makes for a double custerfluck. :(

[Asturias56]

"In recent years, the need to buy supersonic fighters became more pressing "

why? Why does every country in S america need fast jet fighters? Unless someone is planning a war we don't know about. It seems its "necessary" for the generals etc in the armed forces who really need more helicopters and ground kit to fight insurgencies and drug cartels

I guess Chile Argentina is the most incendiary possibility but it's not terribly likely

[Marcantilan]

Well, Argentina is the eighth largest country in the world, with large unpopulated areas and, like everyone else in this part of the world, problems of unclear borders. It is also a member of the G20 and a regular participant in peace missions.

It is logical that it would want to maintain a minimally credible air force.

As for the problems of drug cartels and insurgency, they do not exist here. If they did exist, Argentina's armed forces are prohibited by law from intervening in internal security matters.

[Speedywheels]

If our government is going to be that fickle, again, then maybe try for the SAAB?

JAS-39 would make a lot of sense, especially with a final assembly line in Brazil, but UK content might be a knockout blow.

[minigundiplomat]

Well, Argentina is the eighth largest country in the world, with large unpopulated areas and, like everyone else in this part of the world, problems of unclear borders. It is also a member of the G20 and a regular participant in peace missions.

It is logical that it would want to maintain a minimally credible air force.

As for the problems of drug cartels and insurgency, they do not exist here. If they did exist, Argentina's armed forces are prohibited by law from intervening in internal security matters.

That would suggest an admission by Argentina that the Falklands are foreign soil......

[SLXOwft]

Earlier this year the Danes were reported to be considering Ukraine as the new operator for their Vipers which I believe are Block 15. 38 would seem to be close in numbers to Chile's 36 ex-KLu AM/BM block 15/20 MLUs and 10 block 50 C/Ds.

Over the last few years virtually everyone in the FJ business has been reputed to been trying to sell to Argentina including Russia with MiG-29 s then -35s. MercoPress reported back in '21 that several of these approaches had failed due to MB bang seats being fitted or UK avionics.

Marcantilan I thought President Fernandez effectively ruled out spending money of FJs late last year as there are far more pressing uses for the money? Could this be a pre-election mirage (pun not intended) to attract voters of a militarist bent?

[Marcantilan]

It is hard to say whether this is an election issue. What is certain is that the image of the armed forces improved a great deal during the Covid pandemic and now the general public (even those who do not follow military matters) feels that the military has been abandoned by the political powers when it comes to the budget.

What is certain is that Argentina is trying to finalise military purchases of:

Iveco Guarani 6x6 armoured vehicles (156) from Brazil.
Cougar helicopters (12) from France and light helicopters (20) from India.
P-3 aircraft (4) to Norway
F-16 aircraft (USA), HAL Tejas (India) or JF-17 (Pakistan / China).
Submarines (3) to France or Germany.


And maybe I am forgetting something. Although it seems a huge rearmament, the truth is that if in 20+ years you didn't invest anything in defence, then you have to buy everything together.

Where they will get the money to pay for all this, I don't know.

[Asturias56]

Well, Argentina is the eighth largest country in the world, with large unpopulated areas and, like everyone else in this part of the world, problems of unclear borders. It is also a member of the G20 and a regular participant in peace missions.

It is logical that it would want to maintain a minimally credible air force.

As for the problems of drug cartels and insurgency, they do not exist here. If they did exist, Argentina's armed forces are prohibited by law from intervening in internal security matters.

Thank you - its just that its been many years since there's been an outbreak of serious fighting between nations in S America - spending money on fast jets and expensive naval vessels (Brazil's SSN programme!!) seems pointless.

[langleybaston]

Thank you - its just that its been many years since there's been an outbreak of serious fighting between nations in S America - spending money on fast jets and expensive naval vessels (Brazil's SSN programme!!) seems pointless.


I read somewhere, many years ago [was it Janes, or Flight?] that:

"no country that coud afford an effective Air Force has ever gone without".

[Asturias56]

But many nations have almost negligible air forces and seem to get along fine........

[West Coast]

But many nations have almost negligible air forces and seem to get along fine........

The UK for instance.

[Asturias56]

well I'm glad YOU said it ;)

[minigundiplomat]

The UK for instance.

True. We blew billions on two pointless middle eastern wars, supporting an ally that just turned and ran, hoping to bank a few brownie points at home on an anniversary.

[Video Mixdown]

The UK for instance.
The authentic voice of US contempt for an ally. If Argentina were to try for a return match, the UK would have to assume we’d get no help from the US. We’d be lucky if they didn’t join in on the other side.

[Marcantilan]

99% of the people in Argentina think that the islands are Argentinean and that Britain occupies them unjustly.

99% of the people of Argentina consider that, even if Argentina can ally itself with China, Brazil, ancient aliens, etc., a future war over the islands (even if it can be easily won) is absolute madness.

I have not heard from any person, not even those fanatics, that any future arms purchases are related to any future war over the islands.

(* 99% should be read as "the vast majority")

[West Coast]

True. We blew billions on two pointless middle eastern wars, supporting an ally that just turned and ran, hoping to bank a few brownie points at home on an anniversary.

Wait till Taiwan, we’ll drag you along for moral support.

[West Coast]

The authentic voice of US contempt for an ally. If Argentina were to try for a return match, the UK would have to assume we’d get no help from the US. We’d be lucky if they didn’t join in on the other side.


Contempt for your defense spending.

[Video Mixdown]

Contempt for your defense spending.
The UK's defence spending is generally appropriate for a country of of our size, and much greater than most of our neighbours. Having rightly scrapped a range of obsolete cold war types, the RAF/RN now operate a fleet of modern and effective aircraft that are broadly suitable for today's needs and we continue to develop future capabilities. Those constantly calling for more and more never get round to saying how it would be paid for and what purpose it would serve. We are not at war, and our efforts within NATO are designed to prevent war in Europe, including our early and considerable support for Ukraine who are on the front line of preventing further Russian aggression. We are one of only two European countries who go to the enormous expense of deploying a nuclear deterrent. You can shove your contempt, [/quote]
-----------
V.M.
Rather than delete your post, I removed the bit where you took it over the line.
​​​​​​Let's play the ball and not the man. You can make your point without crossing that line.
(In my view your answered the charge well and clearly)
T28B

[West Coast]

The UK's defence spending is generally appropriate for a country of of our size, and much greater than most of our neighbours. Having rightly scrapped a range of obsolete cold war types, the RAF/RN now operate a fleet of modern and effective aircraft that are broadly suitable for today's needs and we continue to develop future capabilities. Those constantly calling for more and more never get round to saying how it would be paid for and what purpose it would serve. We are not at war, and our efforts within NATO are designed to prevent war in Europe, including our early and considerable support for Ukraine who are on the front line of preventing further Russian aggression. We are one of only two European countries who go to the enormous expense of deploying a nuclear deterrent. You can shove your contempt,


​​​​​​

Not at war? Willing to bet you have boots on the ground in Ukraine among others.

[megan]

Marcantilan, being a native of the country are you able to give a precis on why the majority of the population think the islands belong to Argentina? Many thanks in advance.

[Asturias56]

The history has been done to death - the islands were, many years ago, a wild west spot for whalers. Various countries sent (small) forces to try and sort it out - Spain, France, the UK & USA at least. Eventually the Brits took the place over. Argentina claims that the previous Spanish occupation gives them the better claim. The Brits say the locals are all British and want to stay British

That's it folks

[Asturias56]

"The UK's defence spending is generally appropriate for a country of of our size, and much greater than most of our neighbours"

true but it is NOT proportionate to the tasks which the Govt continually adds to the defence forces

We're a European country which is attempting to have many of the same capabilities (if not the numbers) of the USA - and its a stretch too far

[petit plateau]

Well, Argentina is the eighth largest country in the world, with large unpopulated areas and, like everyone else in this part of the world, problems of unclear borders. It is also a member of the G20 and a regular participant in peace missions.

It is logical that it would want to maintain a minimally credible air force.

As for the problems of drug cartels and insurgency, they do not exist here. If they did exist, Argentina's armed forces are prohibited by law from intervening in internal security matters.

I have worked in a border area of Argentina. There were very definitely drug cartels operating in the zone (and I am told this has not changed, but I'm not on the ground these days). The armed forces of Argentina specifically coordinated various activities in those areas, including with the relevant commercial and police organisations (including us, specifically myself). I checked with (our) Argentina lawyers and they explained to me that in border areas the armed forces are indeed the lead authority per Argentina law and constitution, and this was all legitimate and that we had a legal duty to co-operate (as well as it being common-sense).

Back then the only military aviation in the area was some choppers and some light transport. The fast jets never came up to the active drug-smuggling border areas. Maybe things have changed. The narcos were using aircraft even back then.

Good radar coverage of those areas is probably more important than fast jets imho. Getting fast jets without the radar coverage seems a waste of resources. With good radar coverage less speedy jets might be adequate. Back then the border areas of interest to the narcos did not have good radar coverage at low level. Maybe things have changed.

[Asturias56]

I remeber teh then Govt in BA was more than embarrassed when they couldn't provide fast jet coverage for some international shindig - tho quite who they were protecting against was never certain.

[B Fraser]

99% of the people in Argentina think that the islands are Argentinean and that Britain occupies them unjustly.

99% of the people of Argentina consider that, even if Argentina can ally itself with China, Brazil, ancient aliens, etc., a future war over the islands (even if it can be easily won) is absolute madness.

I have not heard from any person, not even those fanatics, that any future arms purchases are related to any future war over the islands.

(* 99% should be read as "the vast majority")

Señor Marcantilan sir,

First of all, I am grateful that you share your point of view here. (My wife and I have Argentina on our "to do" list). The referendum held in the Falkland Islands a few years ago is to be respected in that it must be one of the most democratic, untainted and overwhelmingly decisive determinations of the will of a people. I would have hoped that a modern democratic country such as yours, would have the maturity to respect this.

Argentina (a former Spanish colony, let's not forget) has much to do in developing its' economy and infrastructure. If I was paying taxes to BA, I would be questioning the need for an increase in military spending. The UK has Russia next door and is dependent on the open seas for trade. The UK is also meeting the commitment to NATO. Where do you see the threat to Argentina ? Brazil, Chile, Easter Island, Belize or Peru perhaps ?

Perhaps you ought to ask what it will be used for. If you want some ceremonial flypasts then BAE Hawks trailing white and blue smoke would do the job rather well,

[Asturias56]

Actually Chile/Argentina is probably the most volatile border in South America - I know Chileans who were serving in the south in the early '80's and they fully expected to be at war at short notice.

The full border was, originally, often in dispute and believe it or not the "honest broker" was the Queen/King of GB.

Back in the 50's and 60's several UK survey companies mapped bits of the border - their maps were used to agree, delimit & demarcate, Senora A has a copy of one on silk - a genuinely DEFINITIVE MAP of several square kms up in the mountains. The Pope brokered the deal over the Beagle Channel - almost all of the border is agreed but there are still a few areas under discussion I think.

The Argentinean claim the the FI won't go away but if they would adopt the same attitude as they now have ot Chile it would be very advantageous to both parties IMHO. Like it or not Argentina is the FI's neighbour and they could do with decent relations. And Argentina could benefit greatly from things such as oil exploration and fishing and supplying food and veg to the FI

[Marcantilan]

Hello all,

Well, I have two issues that I am wondering about.

The first is what people in Argentina think about the islanders. I am not going to say my opinion, but the general one. The general idea (which was made clear in a couple of presidential speeches), is that what Argentina is trying to achieve is sovereignty over the islands, but without interfering in the way of life of the islanders, nor in their properties, etc.

This, following the Argentine Constitution which states (since 1994): "The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular areas, as they are an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of those territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life of their inhabitants, and in accordance with the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and inalienable objective of the Argentine people". I add that the Argentinean Constitution points to the peaceful claim over the islands.

It is also clear to me that the islanders do not want the Argentinians, nor do they want to be Argentinians. With the problems Argentina has, perhaps it is understandable (but then, they also miss out on being world football champions...). Anyway, I don't want to extend myself or try to convince anyone of anything. I just want to give a general opinion on the subject.

The second issue is related to military equipment and its use. As I said before, the National Defence Law and the Internal Security Law prevent the Armed Forces from being used in police tasks, except in extreme cases and only providing logistical support. The regulations governing both laws also state that the armed forces can only be used for defensive purposes and against aggression by nation states (i.e., what are known as "new threats" are outside the sphere of the armed forces).

However, Argentina has two federal forces, which, although they are security forces, have more firepower than the police (whether federal or provincial). These are the Gendarmería Nacional (which is deployed on the borders) and the Prefectura Naval (Guarda costa), which have, for example, FN MAG machine guns or .50 sniper rifles, etc. In the "hot" areas, for example the triple border (Paraguay-Argentina-Brazil), where it is believed that (mainly within Paraguay) narco groups or dormant terrorist cells operate, there is a large deployment of these forces. I would add that Argentina does not have, within its territory, drug cartels or active insurgency, problems that Mexico or Colombia have.

If an army patrol, for whatever reason, discovers traffickers or smugglers, it cannot arrest them or anything else, but only has to notify the federal forces. The same goes for aircraft: if a military plane intercepts a drug plane, it must limit itself to following it and reporting it.The only exception to the active presence of the armed forces on the northern border is on radar. For some years now, there have been several 3D radars (L-band, manufactured locally by INVAP) deployed in the north of the country. I think this is the only reasonable thing that has been done in the last 20 years in terms of defence, even the radars are excellent and some of them have been exported.

Anyway, I hope I have answered both issues.

Best!

[minigundiplomat]

Hello all,

Well, I have two issues that I am wondering about.

The first is what people in Argentina think about the islanders. I am not going to say my opinion, but the general one. The general idea (which was made clear in a couple of presidential speeches), is that what Argentina is trying to achieve is sovereignty over the islands, but without interfering in the way of life of the islanders, nor in their properties, etc.

This, following the Argentine Constitution which states (since 1994): "The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular areas, as they are an integral part of the national territory. The recovery of those territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life of their inhabitants, and in accordance with the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and inalienable objective of the Argentine people". I add that the Argentinean Constitution points to the peaceful claim over the islands.

It is also clear to me that the islanders do not want the Argentinians, nor do they want to be Argentinians. With the problems Argentina has, perhaps it is understandable (but then, they also miss out on being world football champions...). Anyway, I don't want to extend myself or try to convince anyone of anything. I just want to give a general opinion on the subject.

The second issue is related to military equipment and its use. As I said before, the National Defence Law and the Internal Security Law prevent the Armed Forces from being used in police tasks, except in extreme cases and only providing logistical support. The regulations governing both laws also state that the armed forces can only be used for defensive purposes and against aggression by nation states (i.e., what are known as "new threats" are outside the sphere of the armed forces).

However, Argentina has two federal forces, which, although they are security forces, have more firepower than the police (whether federal or provincial). These are the Gendarmería Nacional (which is deployed on the borders) and the Prefectura Naval (Guarda costa), which have, for example, FN MAG machine guns or .50 sniper rifles, etc. In the "hot" areas, for example the triple border (Paraguay-Argentina-Brazil), where it is believed that (mainly within Paraguay) narco groups or dormant terrorist cells operate, there is a large deployment of these forces. I would add that Argentina does not have, within its territory, drug cartels or active insurgency, problems that Mexico or Colombia have.

If an army patrol, for whatever reason, discovers traffickers or smugglers, it cannot arrest them or anything else, but only has to notify the federal forces. The same goes for aircraft: if a military plane intercepts a drug plane, it must limit itself to following it and reporting it.The only exception to the active presence of the armed forces on the northern border is on radar. For some years now, there have been several 3D radars (L-band, manufactured locally by INVAP) deployed in the north of the country. I think this is the only reasonable thing that has been done in the last 20 years in terms of defence, even the radars are excellent and some of them have been exported.

Anyway, I hope I have answered both issues.

Best!

Wonder no more.....

'formerly rich and successful South American state run into the ground and now a backwards, inflation wracked basket case that needs a straw man in the South Atlantic to distract from decades of political incompetence'..

41 years after the war, the Argentinians continue to harass the islanders, interfering with flights between the islands and Brazil, and generally being a pain in the rump. All of this government energy would be much better served trying to control domestic inflation and an economy in the toilet.

[fitliker]

We should have hunted down the Argentinian Generals 1982 and made them beg for mercy . It was a mistake not to make them pay in blood for their war crimes against our interests and the sufferings they inflicted against the normally nice Argentinian people .

[Marcantilan]

Argentina prosecuted the vast majority of the military (including non-commissioned officers) who committed crimes against humanity during the last dictatorship (1976-83). The trials continue to this day.

Military responsibility for the 1982 defeat was also the subject of administrative and judicial proceedings, including convictions (which were not finalised by a presidential pardon in 1989).

In the 1982 war, in general, there were no war crimes.

[minigundiplomat]

Argentina prosecuted the vast majority of the military (including non-commissioned officers) who committed crimes against humanity during the last dictatorship (1976-83). The trials continue to this day.

Military responsibility for the 1982 defeat was also the subject of administrative and judicial proceedings, including convictions (which were not finalised by a presidential pardon in 1989).

In the 1982 war, in general, there were no war crimes.

As General Menendez claimed after the war (rather proudly) - there were no rapes during the illegal occupation.

However, Argentinian forces:

Illegally occupied the Falkland Islands & South Georgia, against international law, and against the will of the local population.
Restricted the liberty and freedom of movement of the local population, including imprisoning the population of Goose Green in a village hall for several weeks.
Forced, under duress, the local population to refer to their own city and country under Spanish names.
Indiscriminately scattered thousands of landmines across the islands, keeping no record, and restricting land use for 30+ years
Occupied civilian dwellings, which were left damaged, and strewn with grafitti, booby traps and human faeces.
Caused a war which cost the lives of three FI civilians, 255 British and 649 Argentinians, as well as hundred more with life threatening injuries.

Forgive me if I don't gush with gratitude at the lack of war crimes.I am pretty sure if the UK had done the same to mainland Argentina you'd be crying to the UN for the next thousand years.

The Falkland islands have no intrinsic value to Argentina other than as a distraction from the chaos and failure that litter its domestic politics. Once one of the worlds richest nations, it is now an international watchword for economic mismanagement and failure. If the Islanders raised the Argentinian flag tomorrow, BA would have absolutely no idea what to do with the place.

[fitliker]

Enforcement of language laws under force of arms ? Some might call that a War crime although banning languages is always the first step towards genocide. You could ask why they wanted to ban the English Language . Some might argue that placing land mines in civilian populated areas and farms is a war crime . The banning of English might not be considered a war crime by some , but it certainly is grounds for a fight .
Certainly sending poorly trained conscripts on a fools errand might not be considered a war crime , but using a machine gun to kill while flying a white flag is just dastardly sneaky cowardice . RIP Colonel H .

[Marcantilan]

I think I was wise not to get into politics and I'm not going to play a game I don't want to play. For me they are both wrong, but I am not going to say more. I don't want to waste my time with both of you, let alone with the vocabulary you use.

On war crimes, I point out again that in general there were no war crimes in the 1982 conflict. There were minor and isolated cases, ON BOTH SIDES of situations that ran counter to the Geneva Conventions.

Please, I ask you to ignore my posts in the future, I will do the same with yours.

[minigundiplomat]

I think I was wise not to get into politics and I'm not going to play a game I don't want to play. For me they are both wrong, but I am not going to say more. I don't want to waste my time with both of you, let alone with the vocabulary you use.

On war crimes, I point out again that in general there were no war crimes in the 1982 conflict. There were minor and isolated cases, ON BOTH SIDES of situations that ran counter to the Geneva Conventions.

Please, I ask you to ignore my posts in the future, I will do the same with yours.

I have no idea how good a lawyer you are, but I suspect you are probably very good. The islands and islanders do not want or require your attention, and I type this from the windswept centre of Stanley. Argentina is not short of challenges; perhaps you could put your talents and abilities to good use there.

We can blame each other for all kind of acts, but the fact remains, if Argentinian forces had stayed on the mainland, none of them would have occurred. That said, time moves on and usually heals old wounds, but to this day Argentina continues to harass the islanders who continue to live under the shadow of a belligerent neighbour. Blaming the junta for the situation is valid, but we're way along the track from 1982 and the best way to mend fences is to just leave your neighbours in peace.

[Andy_S]

I think I was wise not to get into politics and I'm not going to play a game I don't want to play. For me they are both wrong, but I am not going to say more. I don't want to waste my time with both of you, let alone with the vocabulary you use.

On war crimes, I point out again that in general there were no war crimes in the 1982 conflict. There were minor and isolated cases, ON BOTH SIDES of situations that ran counter to the Geneva Conventions.

Please, I ask you to ignore my posts in the future, I will do the same with yours.

For the record, I find your posts well informed and courteous, and I think you have conducted yourself with great dignity during this debate.

[212man]

For the record, I find your posts well informed and courteous, and I think you have conducted yourself with great dignity during this debate.
I agree, but sense some innate naivety

what Argentina is trying to achieve is sovereignty over the islands, but without interfering in the way of life of the islanders, nor in their properties, etc.

​​​​​​​Pretty much mutually exclusive I’d say.

[langleybaston]

[QUOTE=212man;11480869]I agree, but sense some innate naivety

I struggle to understand:INNATE: (of a quality) which you are born with, or which is present naturally:

NAIVETY: trust based on not having much experience:

[Lonewolf_50]

langleybaston:
You have been with this forum since 2009, about the time I joined, and you still can't figure out how to use quotes properly?
you need to close that quote from 212man with a `[/quote]` so that it displays properly.

As to 212man's assessment of Marcantilan's two points:
I was once told that 'where you sits determines what you see' and I think there's some merit in that old adage.
Marcantilan is from Argentina, so of course his point of view will be informed by that.

[fdr]

What are we going to do with the Harry / mermaid statue we erected then? (and yes, it is real, I see it almost every day)

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/675x900/image_46b2acab397fbec03751f70ede17a47f1a2e5f6b.png

The horror!


Marcantilian: apologies for the injustice to your tranquility consequent to the grotesque characiture that you must endure when purchasing your pescado y papas fritas. Had it been Megan, perhaps the offence to the senses may have been less, but that is uncertain.

You indicate that the great majority of Argentinian citizens consider the Falkland Islands to be rightfully Las Malvinas, a part of the Republic of Argentina. My own delving into history suggests that may have a populist basis only rather than a historical claim to sovereignty.

The missed opportunities for harmony and prosperity are quite remarkable in this area, but, as it stands, it appears that the claim for sovereignty of the Islands by Argentina has more to do with proximity and the potential effect on EEZ resources than legal rights.

Rightly or wrongly, Argentina was born out of the consequences of colonial rapaciousness. 1812-1818, a measure of statehood resulted, from emancipation from the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata (VRP), not unreasonable at all. The VRP had coloured the map of the time with the islands being a part of the VRP, however, there was no legitimate claim at that time changing the 1690 English claim. A French claim for sovereignty stemming from settlement from 1764-1766 was passed to the Spanish, with the UK being expelled in 1770, by the Spanish. The UK returned in 1771, with the Spanish and UK not settling the sovereignty issue at that time. The US raided the place in 1831 and then left... The UK came back and retained a permanent presence from January 1833 onwards.

On 1 occasions, a federation of states including Argentina held claim to the islands,

Aug 1829- Dec 1831 - the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (UPRP);
Dec 1832- Jan 1833 - Argentine Confederation.

Correction, 3 2 times:

April 1982-June 1982 - Argentina

Over the last 333 years of record, Argentina has had possession of the Islands for 3 months, the Argentine Confederation did not include the Malvinas apparently.

The predecessor of Argentina, UPRP, of which arguably Argentina being the surviving state, if this had happened a century and a bit later, under UN Charter rules and not colonial, grab 'em hold 'em rules, may have had a say for a year and a half, but then they were routed by... the US Navy of 1831, the USS Lexington. Thereafter, the UK belatedly realised that as they had the first claim from 1690 to the rock, they reasserted sovereignty which was not opposed by the good ol' U.S. of A.

The population of the rocks are... predominately British, only the British would see merit in living in a cold, damp, miserable isolated rock of hard scrabble, that being very much an English or Scottish or Irish forte. It is akin to living in the Outer Hebrides, without the hope of good scotch nearby or tasty peat to eat. As a tourist destination, it is great for penguins, and survivors of antarctic disasters, but not much else. Pretty sure that the beaches of Port Stanley are not on the top 10 bucket list destinations for summer vacations for the inhabitants of Rio. The draw card for the Malvinas is.... not the history, it is the potential resources that may exist and that are known to exist in the region. Personally, I think it is such a fragile ecosystem that it should be retained as a world heritage, and have the EEZ maintained as a sanctuary area, for flora and fauna. There is precedent for that, the Galapagos, and the central pacific area of Kiribati, Phoenix Islands Protected Area, PIPA.

Anyway... if you have a basis for a claim that Argentina may have that survives the USS Lexington's actions in terminating a prior claim, please provide that.

It seems that the rocks have been forgotten by much of history, and that they come out on occasions where a rallying cause is needed by the incumbents in power to bolster national support. Seems like an unfortunate state of affairs, At present, self determination would be appropriate under the UN Charter, but that would invariably result in the population that is overwhelmingly of UK descent desiring to retain the current position as a part of the UK. After the Brexit shambles, perhaps they would prefer to be part of Spain, or France, there is better weather there to go and enjoy a break from the fearful fifties.


IMHO.

PS: Marcantilian, you have retained dignity and cogent arguments throughout this topic, it's a pity that the govt's involved cannot follow your example.

Gracias por su paciencia

[212man]

[QUOTE=212man;11480869]I agree, but sense some innate naivety

I struggle to understand:INNATE: (of a quality) which you are born with, or which is present naturally:

NAIVETY: trust based on not having much experience:

not sure why you needed to use 19 words to express what I did with 2……..

[langleybaston]

[QUOTE=langleybaston;11480907]

not sure why you needed to use 19 words to express what I did with 2……..

lifted from dictionary to illustrate point.
Sorry source not succinct.
Hope that helps.

[Marcantilan]

Hello,

I'd rather not get into a topic that will make us all end up in a fight. Or at least all of us fighting with me. Besides, I don't want to be the spokesman for the Argentine government (which I don't agree with most of the things it does), just because I'm Argentine. And, mainly, my main interest is in the "military" part of all this, the political is more or less out of my area of interest.

I'm just going to say two things.

The first is that the whole sovereignty issue is not clear. The question is who has MORE RIGHT over the islands, because there are rights and there are plenty of them. For those who read "The sinking of the Belgrano" by Gavshon and Rice, you will remember that many British politicians (even the Duke of Wellington) doubted about the rights over the islands. Others, of course, did not. Of course, I have a position on the subject, and others will have theirs. Again, I refrain from discussing it.

The second is that Argentina, since the end of the 19th century, periodically claimed over the islands and that the United Nations Assembly, in 1965, urged the parties to negotiate. The negotiations had ups and downs (including two UK proposals for leasing like Hong Kong), and ended in 1982. In other words, there is a before and after the war. It was not always the situation as we know it now.

Best!

[minigundiplomat]

Hello,

I'd rather not get into a topic that will make us all end up in a fight. Or at least all of us fighting with me. Besides, I don't want to be the spokesman for the Argentine government (which I don't agree with most of the things it does), just because I'm Argentine. And, mainly, my main interest is in the "military" part of all this, the political is more or less out of my area of interest.

I'm just going to say two things.

The first is that the whole sovereignty issue is not clear. The question is who has MORE RIGHT over the islands, because there are rights and there are plenty of them. For those who read "The sinking of the Belgrano" by Gavshon and Rice, you will remember that many British politicians (even the Duke of Wellington) doubted about the rights over the islands. Others, of course, did not. Of course, I have a position on the subject, and others will have theirs. Again, I refrain from discussing it.

The second is that Argentina, since the end of the 19th century, periodically claimed over the islands and that the United Nations Assembly, in 1965, urged the parties to negotiate. The negotiations had ups and downs (including two UK proposals for leasing like Hong Kong), and ended in 1982. In other words, there is a before and after the war. It was not always the situation as we know it now.

Best!

The sovereignty issue is very clear - its 99.7% clear.

But, I agree, you are not the Argentinian government and I have no wish to argue further. Best wishes and enjoy the Mendoza Malbec

[fitliker]

https://www.timescolonist.com/business/falkland-islanders-and-argentines-agree-unlicensed-fleet-is-scooping-up-too-much-squid-4583201
There is some common concerns and threats that might require some political consensus to protect the economic interests of both parties .
Sorry for the link mods , but it does show collaboration can lead to consensus for mutual benefit towards peace and prosperity .
Also it highlights the inability of Argentina to patrol the waters it has legitimate claims on against fishing pirates .

[pasta]

I think the legal position of sovereignty (which, if you read the history, is quite complex) is something of a red herring. Both governments have made their position clear, are supported by their respective populace, and are extremely unlikely to be influenced by any legal arguments from outside. The way forward is to find ways for the two countries to work together in whatever areas we can, at both individual and governmental levels. Fitliker highlights one area which might benefit from some international cooperation, and at the individual level we're very lucky to have Marcantilan on the forum, aswell as some people who were there in 1982. They're more than able to discuss the situation without pushing each others buttons, and the rest of us should follow their example.

[fdr]

Hello,

I'd rather not get into a topic that will make us all end up in a fight. Or at least all of us fighting with me. Besides, I don't want to be the spokesman for the Argentine government (which I don't agree with most of the things it does), just because I'm Argentine. And, mainly, my main interest is in the "military" part of all this, the political is more or less out of my area of interest.

I'm just going to say two things.

The first is that the whole sovereignty issue is not clear. The question is who has MORE RIGHT over the islands, because there are rights and there are plenty of them. For those who read "The sinking of the Belgrano" by Gavshon and Rice, you will remember that many British politicians (even the Duke of Wellington) doubted about the rights over the islands. Others, of course, did not. Of course, I have a position on the subject, and others will have theirs. Again, I refrain from discussing it.

The second is that Argentina, since the end of the 19th century, periodically claimed over the islands and that the United Nations Assembly, in 1965, urged the parties to negotiate. The negotiations had ups and downs (including two UK proposals for leasing like Hong Kong), and ended in 1982. In other words, there is a before and after the war. It was not always the situation as we know it now.

Best!

Noted. It seems a shame however to have the current status which exists primarily related to resources which would likely continue a history of ecological exploitation. Argentina seems to have a stronger claim to Uruguay and Paraguay than the Falklands, which would hardly improve regional stability. In a world where much of the resources that would be plundered in this location are associated with climate change maintaining the region as a preservation area would seem to be an equitable solution. Proximity is the basis of Russia's aggression in Ukraine, and if that was the basis of rightful national aspirations, the USA might need to worry about Canada and Mexico. Removal of the impediment to normalised relations between two countries that like soccer, beef and booze is only impossible due to the lack of will to resolve the matter from politicians.

[megan]

Marcantilan, I did not mean for my question to cause you grief, thank you for your forbearance, was merely interested in the man in the street thoughts rather than what politicians have to say. As fdr has said,Marcantilian, you have retained dignity and cogent arguments throughout this topic.

Gracias por su paciencia

[Asturias56]

" maintaining the region as a preservation area would seem to be an equitable solution."

but the people in these countries want the same lifestyle as those in Europe & N America - someone has to provide the cash and I doubt that anyone in say the USA or Germany would pay serious money to Argentina, Chile or Paraguay just to raise their living standards

They'll have to use their own resources - Argentina for axample has one ofthe world's biggest shale gas plays, Chile is a metal paradise