The Falklands / The Malvinas - (again?)

[soddim]

Grabbers - you are now being offensive.

If you don't understand this - accusing anyone of being racist is offensive.

Are you also concerned that I use the word Brit?

Grow up.

[Grabbers]

Soddim, it was just a question. I'm not concerned about the use of either Argie or Brit.

Back to The Daily Express eh?

And don't worry dear readers, I will offer no further comment on this pointless thread drift.

[Shack37]

If Victoria was still on the throne we wouldn't even be having this debate.

PS, I think Malvinas is an old name, not a new one.

[BEagle]

Surely it won't have escaped the notice of Argentina that if oil is found in quantities worth extracting, her best option is to seek lucrative support contracts and licenses for oil refining on the mainland. Perhaps a fixed percentage of every barrel sold?

Las Malvinas / the F**kland Islands are such a barren wasteland that most things of any worth have to be flown in or sent by sea. So there is zero chance of the place being able to support major oil industry requirements - and don't forget that both the islanders and woolly-hatted busy-body envirofundamentalists would be up in arms if the seals / penguins or other wildlife were to be forced to move out so that oil installations could be built on the islands.

A solution which benny-fits everyone is what's actually needed - jumping up and down about sovereignty claims or the possibility of Argentine military action is not going to help anyone.

[Spam_UK]

This may be my simple mind missing something.

But HMG keep saying how they respect the Falkland Islanders right to self determination, if so would it not be more benificial to grant the Islands Independance, then let the Falklands join the Commonwealth or rejoin the UK.

That way the Falkland Islanders get to do what they want and remain British, and the Argentinian Goverment would have no grounds to claim sovereignty, and the UN would be happy as well?

[Aeronut]

Grabbers may just be Argentinian.

[knowitall]

"But HMG keep saying how they respect the Falkland Islanders right to self determination, if so would it not be more benificial to grant the Islands Independance, then let the Falklands join the Commonwealth or rejoin the UK."

Not really no they are currently self governing in all matters apart from Foreign realtions and defence, thats about as independant as a "country" with a population of 3,500 can actually be, if they asked for full independance it's be granted but they have no desire for it at the moment

[Double Zero]

Falklands

A few points from someone who's never been to the Falklands, but was periphally involved in 1982, read a LOT of accounts from various points of view of it since;

A, Has any intel' picked up one way or another the Argentinians ' suping up ' their sonar capabilities, as our sub's remain their major problem ? We ( bystanders unfortunately - better to send in a git like me than a young lad with his whole life ahead of him, and I'm sure a lot of Ppruners would agree ) willl not know untill 20 years or so...

B, I presume ( a very dangerous word ) that we have land based anti-air kit of some sort there, I've been involved with some and it was not called Rapier...Though have flown in an aircraft during a demo' being tracked by Rapier - I had a casual stroll beforehand to ensure all the missiles were marked inert - afterwards everyone reckoned we having been locked on were the safest aircraft for miles !

C, It may sound a bit liberal and wimpy, but why not give the Argentinians a cut of the deal re. the oil, ( how much is not my dept. ) and it may bring stability & friendship from that nation, with a huge ' rippling ' continental effect before the U.S. size 20 boots get there ?

D, Why not give a contract - relative MOD peanuts now, and outstanding if the oil thing picks up - for a builder to make decent housing & amenities for the Islanders - though hardly a builder, the project would appeal to me and no doubt countless others - before anyone says it, I'm not including sheep, even though I'm, half Scot, half Welsh, born & lived in England.

Of course all this and more has been thought over long ago, by politicians of every flavour and even worse, accountants.

[Hoots]

Save the Nimrod, send it to the Falklands. Maybe not such a mad idea, I would want something looking after large parts of the islands economic zone. May not end up in a full blown military campaign, but remember the cod war and the harrassment etc.

[knowitall]

Double Zero

We did give them a "cut" we signed revenue sharing agreements in 1994 and 2000 Nestor Kichener ripped them up in 2007



Beagle

Placing the infastructure in argentina makes sense for a multitude of reasons not least the much larger availible workforce

if only their Government can be trusted not to chuck their toys out the pram and shut the refinery down 1 year in four whenever their due a presidential election and the inumbents in a spot of bother

[Double Zero]

Hoots,

I knew someone who was in charge of damage control during the Cod Wars ( Malcolm ended up demonsrating sailing yachts, no idea where he is now ) it must have been the most teeth-grindgly frustratingy ROE - not a thing for U.K. Skippers; nowadays, with the terrosist threat and close in weapons, I remain in hope...

[Data-Lynx]

UN Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization

Ladies and Gentlemen. If you really want a 'threat', it is more likely to arise from the UN Special Committee of 24 on Decolonization, not from land, sea or air. The Times had it right today. We might agree with the Islanders and the UK stated view, but we are being isolated. Uruguay now supports the Argentina claim. One chair of this UN committee noted recently about the Falklands:

The year 2010 would not only mark the conclusion of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, but also 45 years since the General Assembly had expressed, for the first time, the need for bilateral negotiations between the two parties.

There is a Falkland Islands (Malvinas) UN Working Paper, dated 18 Mar 09, which dealt with the "Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples." In it, the UK stated:

The British Government attaches great importance to the principle of self-determination as set out in Article 1.2 of the Charter of the United Nations and article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That principle underlies our position on the Falkland Islands.

The Falkland Islands are not a colonial enclave. Britain’s Overseas Territories are British for as long as they want to remain British. The people of the Falkland Islands have chosen to retain their link with Britain. The democratically elected representatives of the Falkland Islands once again expressed their own views clearly when they visited the United Nations for this year’s debate in the Committee of 24. They asked the Committee to recognize that they, like any other people, were entitled to exercise the right of self-determination. They reiterated that the people of the Falkland Islands did not wish for any change in the status of the Islands.

There can be no negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until such time as the islanders so wish.

The United Kingdom has no doubts about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

This is all good stuff but who was listening? Representatives from Argentina and the FIG Legislative Assembly attended the 9th meeting on 18 Jun 09. The main outcome was a unanimous approval of a text calling for direct negotiations over the Falkland Islands. There was a follow up meeting on 19 Jun 09. It may be boring but I suggest that the 'battleground' is in New York, not on the edge of a disputed boundary around the islands.

[Mike7777777]

There are several scenarios here, four of which are:

i) Nothing meaningful happens

ii) The Argentine generally obstruct ships within the Argentine 12 mile limit that may be sailing towards the Islands of Several Names. As GB resource is generally stretched at the moment, this should be dealt with diplomatically and the ships concerned should avoid the Argentine 12 mile limit until the 4th Afghan conflict is resolved.

iii) Various South American countries generally obstruct ships within the respective country's 12 mile limits that may be sailing towards the Islands of Several Names. As GB resource is generally stretched at the moment, this should be dealt with diplomatically and the ships concerned should avoid the various 12 mile limits until the 4th Afghan conflict is resolved.

iv) The Argentinians launch a military offensive against the Islands of Several Names. This should be dealt with by Tomahawk attack on various Argentine targets of interest, primarily airfields and naval installations; additionally all Argentine military vessels at sea to be sunk by various Fish and supporting airborne weaponry. And then this scenario can be dealt with diplomatically.

Of course, the over-riding principle is that Argentina and Great Britain should be natural allies with a common objective: defeating SANZAR ..

[mister hilter]

Mike777777, you are forgetting that the Pumas are joining SANZAR

[Mike7777777]

... not yet ..

[Grimweasel]

It will be interesting to see just who else jumps on board at the UN. There is a large Latin American backing and the UN has always been championed by Western 'Allied' governments as having the ultimate say so (remember Blair was insistent that we sought UN backing prior to liberating Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam!)

It would be very hypocritical of us now to stand in the way of the UN should they issue a dictate that says we must talk to Argentina on the issue of sovereignty!

I'm playing Devil's advocate here; but if China were to jump on board, what would we do then? The Falklands is also a strategic base for the UK's future exploration of the Antarctic's possible reserves. If China were to do a US/Taiwan pact with Argentina on the basis they could use the Falklands as a stepping stone to the contested riches of the Antarctic then who knows where this could lead?

Argentina/Brazil/Venezuela know that we are fully committed to Afghan and our focus is elsewhere currently. Could this be the UK's economic and military 'Black Swan' that people were not quite expecting as they merrily slashed the Navy and RAF to pieces? Time will tell......(and yes I have been there; 3 times!)

[barnstormer1968]

Can I just ask a question (and I may have my 'ooooh get you' handbag in hand)

Quote
If you don't understand this - accusing anyone of being racist is offensive.

Now, I had to fill in an application form recently, and it asked who I would like to meet from history. One of my choices was Hitler, and I would have liked to ask him about his rascist ideology. Now I see that would have been an offensive question, and that it was purely just his lifestyle choice to commit genocide!

OK, sorry for drift, but I did find the quote funny. Back to normal service.

[Mike7777777]

I wasn't aware of much RN involvement in Afghanistan, at least not until someone builds a big canal and refurbishes HMS Belfast for a bit of gunnery support.

I'm sure that the RN are champing at the bit to make up for various embarrassments suffered in the Middle East (captured by Iranians? How?)

[LateArmLive]

I wasn't aware of much RN involvement in Afghanistan, at least not until someone builds a big canal and refurbishes HMS Belfast for a bit of gunnery support.

Well, you are obviously not really aware of much then, are you?

[Charlie Time]

I would suggest some basic research Mike77......