ale,


Honestly? No idea. I'm not enough of an economist to understand who has the most to lose in a trade war. (Everyone has something to lose, it's just a question of how much how soon).

But my gut instinct would be a short sharp counter sanction. Big in scope but very short duration. (24 maybe 48 hours). I.E. not long enough to cause serious problems but big enough to send a message.... we don't want trouble but if you insist on causing it we *will* respond in kind. (Bullies only understand actions, not words).

Some sort of shot across the bows of the rest of the mercosurs wouldn't be a bad idea either, make it clear that supporting that woman is a bad idea.

(What I hate about this is the whipping up of ill feeling for one woman's political benefit. The huge irony is that all this does is entrench positions. If the argentinians just took the long term view they could gain the majority share of the support work for petroleum extraction and de facto integrate the FI economically, the rest would follow in course. All this has achieved is to reset the clock to 1982.)

p.s. somebody tell sean penn to get a haircut.

pb

Fascinating bit of ignorance among some posters here about what year it is: 2012.

Also fascinating ignorance by some posters about Puerto Rican Statehood, and sovereignty/independence, which have been internal issues in PR for about 40 years, perhaps longer, to include some of the first terrorist attacks on the CONUS. Oddly enough, the majority of folk inside Puerto Rico keep NOT voting to be 51st state, nor an independent nation.

There is a core, and at times vocal, faction within Puerto Rico who (~ 10% or so), who continue to agitate for independence. I heartily support their efforts. I believe they have the right. Why do you think they keep failing? Note: Roosevelt Roads has been closed for some years.

I also note that Hawaii is a state. The year is 2012. I note that Tasmania is a state of Austrailia, and Norther Ireland is part of the UK.

What a load of hypocrites, you lot. Particularly as Guam is a US possession, as confirmed by a recent war (1945) just as Falklands are a British possession, as reconfirmed by a recent war (1982).

You will also note that Guam has not been agitating to be other than a US territory. The year is 2012.

Any of you got an idea why they might take such positions?
Any of you actually know any Guamanians?
I went to school with a few.

EDIT: Sorry for the derail, but I get annoyed with people digging up ancient history when I am talking about current events. We don't time travel, folks. We can only move forward.

Giving proper deference to history of course...

Lonewolf
You're missing the point, What was simply being got at is that for a USA citizen to claim UK possession of the Falklands is "colonial" is ignoring the fact that the USA's control of the various Oceanic and Caribbean territories is equally colonial.
People like Penn (who incidentally isn't of Irish ancestry) who claim we have no right to be in the FI are ignoring their own countries equally questionable rights to control its territories. Either both the USA and UK are in legal possession, or both are not. Which is it?
Many of those USA held lands are held under a unilateral declaration that the USA could seize any island holding guano deposits that it fancied: basically the USA decreed that wherever there was unclaimed bird ****, it was theirs.
No-ones suggesting that the USA should have to give those islands up - after all if you like guano that much, you're welcome to it.

Just on the other hand.

Whilst remaining 'neutral' last time the US supplied us with Int and 9Ls which made a difference.

Not so sure with this 'south america-phile' incumbent in the very light coloured house.

I daresay we'll see. Hmmm, not a good time to say I really don't care very much. When operating Timmy northbound for the last time, I thought good riddance.

The Bennies didn't seem overly interested in being nice to those ensuring their first language remained English.

I said in 1982, we should have given each Bennie a £1,000,000 and a Spanish dictionary and listened to the deafening silence about 'remaining' British.

Completely the wrong thing to do. All they want to so is steal the oil that belongs to the Islanders and the Crown. We don't need them. They lost the 1982 war which settled the matter once and for all.

Milo, you might have noticed that I disagree with Penn.

As to Guam, there's a bit more to that than guano. ;)
Likewise Puerto Rico. :cool:

Navaleye, I agree with your position.

FWIW, Clausewitz has a pithy little quote along the lines of
"In war, the outcome is never final" or "never finished" or something like that.

What's behind that bon mot seems, to me, to be a restatement of the premise that war is a subset of politics. Following that thought, even if you think the battle, or war, is won, each morning thereafter some wag gets up and tries to get what he wants, via whatever scheming and skullduggery can be arranged in politics (also called the "art of the possible") via another means.

That looks like what Kirchner is doing, but I'll offer that she's trying a page from Sun Tzu's book.

"The acme of skill is to win the war without fighting."

She's trying to conquer the islands without having to put it to the test, as I suspect she understands that her team are probably not up to it.

I hope your PM understands what she's up to.

Good post - and if the UK imposed sanctions we'd play into their game, their 'narrative' and in doing so Argentina would be able to count on the support of most of South America. However, any supposed sanctions that Argentina imposes would be illegal and likely to do more damage to their beleaguered economy. The UK simply has to sit back, refute rhetoric with fact, sound in the knowledge that UNSCR 512 supports the UK's stance and we still have the fire power to maintain sovereignty and paradoxically, the 'self-determination' of the FI population.

Agree with above completely. Make no comment and ignore them. Let's make the 30th celebrations a good one.

This is the problem with sanctions / boycotts

from Argentina
" The UK is the sixth largest investor in Argentina, investing over US $2 billion in the last three years."

Quite a target for potential discriminatory taxation or even nationalisation there. I'm sure Argentina's investments in the UK are much smaller
They can do more damage to us than we can to them

pb

I can't think of any short term measure that would work, but why bother when Kirschner is screwing up Argentina's economy better than any sanctions ever would? Despite a lot of hot air from the Casa Rosada the UK has the upper hand militarily, diplomatically and economically. I'm with Whenurhappy on this, the best thing for the UK to do is nothing.

Milo

On the contrary, Argentina depends very heavily on foreign investment and is unlikely to do anything to jeopardise that. Their industrial base would fold without such investment, and nationalising any foreign assets would shut that door for a very long time. As for punitive taxation, well they already do that to their MERCOSUR partners :rolleyes:

TTFN

alemaobaiano

but wouldn't the Chinese simply jump in and replace the UK as investors?

Presidents come and go but the various countries intelligence services go back a long way and will probably still talk to each other regardless of who is in the White House. Hard aid like Sidewinders may be a bit more difficult to accomplish but there is usually a way round, without bothering the incumbent POTUS with such mundane matters!;)

I think the Chinese would be very pleased to displace the Brits financially and economically, in Argentina.

They are also unlikely to ever be swayed by any altruistic or moral arguments for modifications in relationships. They seem to play hardball as a habit.

Are the Argentines sure they want to break off with the Brits?

There are far worse people to deal with.

Argentina threatens launch of Shanghai Surprise 2 against UK

:)

I can't equate the ordinary Argentinian with what their government is spouting. I went to BA about 5 years ago on business, and found it very agreeable. I thought I'd be ostracized, but far from it. The place itself is like a European capital, the people speak Spanish with an Italian accent, and half of them have British names. I was made very welcome, and had a good trip, made all the better by the locally produced Warsteiner, which is a very passable imitation of the real thing.

I agree the best thing for the UK is to say and do nothing. It should just die a death. In the meantime, regularly ask the Falklanders to confirm in a referendum which government/sovereignty they would prefer. Say every 4 or 5 years. Trot that out as ammo at the UN. Politically, job done. I just don't see a military solution on their part.

Roadster 280

As I suggested in an earlier post, if DC (or whoever is PM at the time) proposes a referendum amongst the FI population, it will be seen by the UK public as bowing to international pressure and an absolute gift for the opposition - and followed by certain political death. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps the UK public are happy for a referendum on the sovereignty of a high-profile OT (even if the outcome is abundently clear).

Let's maintain our defences, with frequent media coverage of our routine deployments, refute the nonsense from Argentina in a measured way, and that's it. Boycotts of British financial interests, although considerably greater than Aregntine interests in Britain, will do considerable damage to their weak economy.

Where's my Fray-Bentos pie?

If there was to be another ‘Plan Red’, General Douglas MacArthur’s plan to invade the UK in 1930, I’m sure Penn would be the first to volunteer his services. What a plonker.

‘Closest allies’, did Tommy Cooper say that?

I don't see why proposing a referendum by the Falklanders would be a bad idea; simply offer to make the result binding in all parties. We promise to hand over the if 50.1% of the population want it, the Argentineans shup up if 50.1% (or more likely, 99.9%) of the Islanders want to stay under British sovereignty. What could be fairer than that?

Argentina is a strange paradox, though. I was in BA last year and found them all very welcoming and, indeed anglophile. The backdrop of the "Malvinas" is everywhere (even their tv weather forecasts include the temperature for Stanley) but it was never brought up in conversation by anybody I met.

last year I was speaking to a couple of long time Falklanders (one of who spent 40+days locked up in a shed near Goose Green in 1982)

They both reckoned that in the 1970's the general view was that (ufortunately) the Uk was going to ditch them and they were looking forward to a Hong Kong type of solution with maybe a 99 year phase in of Argie rule

people were sending their kids to Uni in BA and some were learning Spanish. The Argies had an enlightened view and were subsidising the only air link

The 1982 invasion was purely to protect the military in Argentina from protests aboutthe regime there and it put back co-operation for a lifetime

If Mrs Kircher would just shut up and offer a weekly flight to BA, maybe a deal on higher education, some sort of develoved Govt then in maybe 25 years the locals would accept

the REALLY odd thing is that no-one can pordcue a single Argentinian who wants to go & live in the Falklands - and I can see their point TBH - its purely a politcial issue