Argentina renews claim to our beloved Falkland Islands
Widger.
So, we have sufficient CVS's and AEW to cover 365 days? Doubt it. Your method is OK for clearly defined, and relatively short (weeks?), periods of time.
Anyway, the thread is referring to the FI. You telling me that the RN is going to provide those kinds of assets to protect the Islands. If so, you really are short of proper jobs.
Have been on a CVS for 2 weeks. Admittedly, most of it was parked alongside in Copenhagen, but that is another story...
So, we have sufficient CVS's and AEW to cover 365 days? Doubt it. Your method is OK for clearly defined, and relatively short (weeks?), periods of time.
Anyway, the thread is referring to the FI. You telling me that the RN is going to provide those kinds of assets to protect the Islands. If so, you really are short of proper jobs.
Have been on a CVS for 2 weeks. Admittedly, most of it was parked alongside in Copenhagen, but that is another story...
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thread Starter
We don't have AEW assets in the FI because they are not needed. The ground based cover provided satisfies the requirement apparently provides a perfectly good view of Arg air movements even over the mainland.
Buenos aires- Bring it on!
My how attitudes change over time!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More history
I came across this the other day - some more history.
Carlos Ortiz de Rozas is asked:
What was the Islanders legal status before the war? [the Falklands War 1982]
Answer: They had no British citizenship. If the 2,000 Islanders had said, OK, we’ll go to live in Britain they would have had no access. In 1982 they were given citizenship.............
Bit of a different story this end!
The British Government however has no doubts as to their British sovereignty, as Britain has continuously administered the islands since 1833 and the population consider themselves to be entirely British.
http://www.mercopress.com/Detalle.asp?NUM=8233
Mercosur
Saturday, 01 July
Falklands’ 25 years fishing permits “a provocation”
The granting of fishing permits of up to 25 years is a provocation inviting Buenos Aires to also adopt drastic measures, said Carlos Ortiz de Rozas, who was ambassador to the United Kingdom as the two countries went to war in 1982 over the Falkland Islands, writes Guillermo Haskel in The Buenos Aires Herald.
Amb. Carlos Oritz
In a telephone interview with the BAH, Ortiz de Rozas also said that the Falklanders were largely to blame in a dispute over charter flights to the Islands, contrasting this obstinacy with the indisputable goodwill of past British governments something that, he says, has now changed.
How do you see Britain’s stance on the Malvinas issue?
I think that Britain has assumed a stance that in no way considers negotiating with Argentina and this is made evident by these 25-year fishing permits. Those who have read, as I did, the British official story of the Malvinas by Sir Lawrence Friedman, know perfectly that the British have made a decision on this issue, and that decision entails precisely not negotiating. It says, for instance, that on the Malvinas issue the law matters much less than force. That record was written at the behest of the British, and for the first time Sir Lawrence Friedman has had access to the most confidential British archives. And he arrives at very interesting conclusions. That is why I am not surprised at these attitudes that the British government is adopting. Deep inside this issue of the 25-year fishing permits is a provocation inviting Argentina to also adopt drastic measures. I don’t know what Argentine authorities will do. This doesn’t herald anything good for bilateral relations regarding the Malvinas.
Is it President Néstor Kirchner who toughened Argentina’s stance or is his government reacting to British action?
I think that in the case of the 25-year fishing permits it is Argentina who is reacting to a British action. Because shortly before, the British had their icebreaker Endurance undergo repairs at Puerto Belgrano... Yes, at that time it seemed that things were going to be somewhat better.
Is there any visible element that may have prompted what you describe as a provocation?
If there is any, I don’t know what. I think that this is a political decision not to negotiate absolutely anything that may imply a possible sovereignty transfer. We are now in the antipodes of what could have been, until April 2, 1982, a midterm solution. There was the will from the British government to reach a solution. And, in my view, the war destroyed that possibility.
British governments, not just one British government, initially offered to share the sovereignty with a condominium, which entailed a partial transfer of sovereignty. That was already something. It was a conquest. It was not all that Argentina was hoping for but it was a step forward. Then, there was the so-called lease-back which was the acknowledgment of Argentina’s sovereignty but signing an accord whereby, for a number of years to be determined, the same conditions that existed until that moment in the Malvinas would be maintained.
How has the Argentine government acted on the Islands issue?
Frankly, regarding the Malvinas policy, I don’t see the final objective. I would say that if there is something, it is just a beginning. A state policy should be structured. Not a government policy, because governments come and go. They should gather the leaders of different sectors in Argentina to structure a state policy that assures the continuity of its implementation through the years. A policy that is not particular to an incumbent government.
Is there, in your view, such a state policy?
In Argentina there has never existed a state policy regarding the Malvinas. There have been government policies. If a state policy existed, I never knew of it, and I should have known because I have been involved in the issue for many years.
Are there any prospects that Foreign Minister Tatiana’s denunciation of the fishing permits before the UN will succeed?
The Foreign Minister’s attending the meeting of the C24 was positive. The UN has given Argentines great satisfaction. Through the years it has approved resolutions accepting our points of view on negotiations to pacifically solve the sovereignty dispute.
Even in November 1982, months after the war was over, the UN General Assembly once again insisted in the reassumption of the negotiations. Regarding the Malvinas, after the war, one has to be very patient.
Separately, all interests must be respected. The Islanders, Britain and Argentina all have interests that must be respected. And efforts must be made to seek to conciliate those interests.
How do you see the Islanders’ stance regarding flights to the Malvinas?
The issue of the flights has to do with the obstinacy of the Malvinenses because they are largely to blame in this. I have personally seen an indisputably very good will from British governments that stumbled with the obstinacy of the Islanders, who didn’t want to have anything to do with anything. As (then Foreign Officer Minister) Nicholas Ridley said as a example, there are people who live 20 miles from London and have never gone to London. The Islanders live 10,000 kilometres from Britain and are much more islanders than the British. If the Islanders showed a little goodwill there would be possibilities to have charter flights which would benefit them. What do they care if the flights depart from Argentina? They are obstinate in that the flights must depart from Chile. I think that Argentina with all reason says, so you are obstinate? OK, we too.
Is there a self-determination regime in the making for the Islanders?
They already have self-determination, because the British have acknowledged that. Not we, but the British, who have the de facto possession of the islands, acknowledged it.
What was the Islanders legal status before the war?
They had no British citizenship. If the 2,000 Islanders had said, OK, we’ll go to live in Britain they would have had no access. In 1982 they were given citizenship.
Is oil playing a part in the dispute?
I think that so far, oil is just an expectation. Its existence has not been confirmed. If it had, issues would be much harder.
How helpful is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s support for Argentina’s claims to the Malvinas?
I have a very personal opinion on Chavez’s support. As was evident in Peru, his support for (then presidential candidate Ollanta) Humala was the end for Humala. So I think that is a very dangerous hug. It is better for him not to meddle. We don’t need his support.
--------------------
http://www.army.mod.uk/aroundtheworld/flk/index.htm
The Falkland Islands have been in continuous British occupation since 1833. Captain John Strong, who gave the islands their English name, made the first known landing in 1690. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were once Dependencies of the Falkland Islands. They were formed into a separate dependent territory in October 1985.
Argentina disputes the British claim to sovereignty over the islands. The country bases its claim to the Falklands (or the 'Malvinas' as they are known in Argentina) on the grounds that it succeeded to rights claimed by Spain in the eighteenth century. The British Government however has no doubts as to their British sovereignty, as Britain has continuously administered the islands since 1833 and the population consider themselves to be entirely British.
------------------
They won't let it go will they!
TG
Carlos Ortiz de Rozas is asked:
What was the Islanders legal status before the war? [the Falklands War 1982]
Answer: They had no British citizenship. If the 2,000 Islanders had said, OK, we’ll go to live in Britain they would have had no access. In 1982 they were given citizenship.............
Bit of a different story this end!
The British Government however has no doubts as to their British sovereignty, as Britain has continuously administered the islands since 1833 and the population consider themselves to be entirely British.
http://www.mercopress.com/Detalle.asp?NUM=8233
Mercosur
Saturday, 01 July
Falklands’ 25 years fishing permits “a provocation”
The granting of fishing permits of up to 25 years is a provocation inviting Buenos Aires to also adopt drastic measures, said Carlos Ortiz de Rozas, who was ambassador to the United Kingdom as the two countries went to war in 1982 over the Falkland Islands, writes Guillermo Haskel in The Buenos Aires Herald.
Amb. Carlos Oritz
In a telephone interview with the BAH, Ortiz de Rozas also said that the Falklanders were largely to blame in a dispute over charter flights to the Islands, contrasting this obstinacy with the indisputable goodwill of past British governments something that, he says, has now changed.
How do you see Britain’s stance on the Malvinas issue?
I think that Britain has assumed a stance that in no way considers negotiating with Argentina and this is made evident by these 25-year fishing permits. Those who have read, as I did, the British official story of the Malvinas by Sir Lawrence Friedman, know perfectly that the British have made a decision on this issue, and that decision entails precisely not negotiating. It says, for instance, that on the Malvinas issue the law matters much less than force. That record was written at the behest of the British, and for the first time Sir Lawrence Friedman has had access to the most confidential British archives. And he arrives at very interesting conclusions. That is why I am not surprised at these attitudes that the British government is adopting. Deep inside this issue of the 25-year fishing permits is a provocation inviting Argentina to also adopt drastic measures. I don’t know what Argentine authorities will do. This doesn’t herald anything good for bilateral relations regarding the Malvinas.
Is it President Néstor Kirchner who toughened Argentina’s stance or is his government reacting to British action?
I think that in the case of the 25-year fishing permits it is Argentina who is reacting to a British action. Because shortly before, the British had their icebreaker Endurance undergo repairs at Puerto Belgrano... Yes, at that time it seemed that things were going to be somewhat better.
Is there any visible element that may have prompted what you describe as a provocation?
If there is any, I don’t know what. I think that this is a political decision not to negotiate absolutely anything that may imply a possible sovereignty transfer. We are now in the antipodes of what could have been, until April 2, 1982, a midterm solution. There was the will from the British government to reach a solution. And, in my view, the war destroyed that possibility.
British governments, not just one British government, initially offered to share the sovereignty with a condominium, which entailed a partial transfer of sovereignty. That was already something. It was a conquest. It was not all that Argentina was hoping for but it was a step forward. Then, there was the so-called lease-back which was the acknowledgment of Argentina’s sovereignty but signing an accord whereby, for a number of years to be determined, the same conditions that existed until that moment in the Malvinas would be maintained.
How has the Argentine government acted on the Islands issue?
Frankly, regarding the Malvinas policy, I don’t see the final objective. I would say that if there is something, it is just a beginning. A state policy should be structured. Not a government policy, because governments come and go. They should gather the leaders of different sectors in Argentina to structure a state policy that assures the continuity of its implementation through the years. A policy that is not particular to an incumbent government.
Is there, in your view, such a state policy?
In Argentina there has never existed a state policy regarding the Malvinas. There have been government policies. If a state policy existed, I never knew of it, and I should have known because I have been involved in the issue for many years.
Are there any prospects that Foreign Minister Tatiana’s denunciation of the fishing permits before the UN will succeed?
The Foreign Minister’s attending the meeting of the C24 was positive. The UN has given Argentines great satisfaction. Through the years it has approved resolutions accepting our points of view on negotiations to pacifically solve the sovereignty dispute.
Even in November 1982, months after the war was over, the UN General Assembly once again insisted in the reassumption of the negotiations. Regarding the Malvinas, after the war, one has to be very patient.
Separately, all interests must be respected. The Islanders, Britain and Argentina all have interests that must be respected. And efforts must be made to seek to conciliate those interests.
How do you see the Islanders’ stance regarding flights to the Malvinas?
The issue of the flights has to do with the obstinacy of the Malvinenses because they are largely to blame in this. I have personally seen an indisputably very good will from British governments that stumbled with the obstinacy of the Islanders, who didn’t want to have anything to do with anything. As (then Foreign Officer Minister) Nicholas Ridley said as a example, there are people who live 20 miles from London and have never gone to London. The Islanders live 10,000 kilometres from Britain and are much more islanders than the British. If the Islanders showed a little goodwill there would be possibilities to have charter flights which would benefit them. What do they care if the flights depart from Argentina? They are obstinate in that the flights must depart from Chile. I think that Argentina with all reason says, so you are obstinate? OK, we too.
Is there a self-determination regime in the making for the Islanders?
They already have self-determination, because the British have acknowledged that. Not we, but the British, who have the de facto possession of the islands, acknowledged it.
What was the Islanders legal status before the war?
They had no British citizenship. If the 2,000 Islanders had said, OK, we’ll go to live in Britain they would have had no access. In 1982 they were given citizenship.
Is oil playing a part in the dispute?
I think that so far, oil is just an expectation. Its existence has not been confirmed. If it had, issues would be much harder.
How helpful is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s support for Argentina’s claims to the Malvinas?
I have a very personal opinion on Chavez’s support. As was evident in Peru, his support for (then presidential candidate Ollanta) Humala was the end for Humala. So I think that is a very dangerous hug. It is better for him not to meddle. We don’t need his support.
--------------------
http://www.army.mod.uk/aroundtheworld/flk/index.htm
The Falkland Islands have been in continuous British occupation since 1833. Captain John Strong, who gave the islands their English name, made the first known landing in 1690. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were once Dependencies of the Falkland Islands. They were formed into a separate dependent territory in October 1985.
Argentina disputes the British claim to sovereignty over the islands. The country bases its claim to the Falklands (or the 'Malvinas' as they are known in Argentina) on the grounds that it succeeded to rights claimed by Spain in the eighteenth century. The British Government however has no doubts as to their British sovereignty, as Britain has continuously administered the islands since 1833 and the population consider themselves to be entirely British.
------------------
They won't let it go will they!
TG
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, being as how we own the falkland islands, i do not think we can act as cowboys. Now if the argies had them and were minding their own business,(like a few other countries i could name) and we invaded them, taking the rest of us with you, then call us cowboys!!
cowboy!
cowboy!
If only we still had the Sea Jet............. (leaving the ones at SFDO aside for a moment, hope they are looked after properly, also the ones in storage at Shawbury).
All the more reason to expedite work on the Future Carriers.
All the more reason to expedite work on the Future Carriers.
