Call to Bielsa to Get Real and Cooperate

[Sea Eagle]

From Mercopress 28.06.04

“Air links: get real Bielsa”.



“Let’s forget fantasy and live in the real world”, suggests a prominent member of the Falkland Islands community in an “open letter” to Argentine Foreign Minister Rafael Bielsa following a further authorization by the Argentine government for an Argentine airline to fly to the Islands.

Mr. Tim Miller emphasizes in the letter published in the Penguin News that there’s only one authority that can license an airline to fly to the Islands and that is “the Falkland Islands Government Department of Civil Aviation”.

Recalling recent statements by Mr. Bielsa, Mr. Miller argues that “I know you will not drop your claim to my home, you must also know we will never accept it - you said you would wait 400 years; never in 400,000 years Mr Bielsa would we accept”.

So given the stalemate, “Let’s agree to disagree on the impossible and look at agreeing more realistic things in the future”.

The open letter follows:

“Air links: get real Bielsa”<br>
“WHICH will be the next Argentine airline to get your authorisation to fly to the Falkland Islands?

You miss the point, there is only one authority that can license an airline to fly here - it is the Falkland Islands Government’s Department of Civil Aviation. If you wish you can apply to London a thousand times. They will tell you to contact Stanley.

Be real; will you or any Argentine airline apply to the legally authorized authority, the Falkland Islands Government? Of course not as this would be recognizing our existence as a self governing territory.

This, you and I know, you will never do, as you want to colonize us, you want us as your colony with your government in charge. Mr Bielsa, I think you will find that this would be against the principles of the United Nations Decolonisation Committee.

Most Argentine airlines do not meet the standards of safety required by our authorities. Also what Argentine airline would be prepared to ask the British Forces for airport landing permits and agree to their insurance and safety standards?

What Argentine would agree to recognize Falkland Islands Government Air Traffic Control or Immigration and Customs and contract with local companies for ground handling, security, agency, etc?

Let’s forget fantasy and live in the real world - it will never happen.

I know you will not drop your claim to my home, you must also know we will never accept it - you said you would wait 400 years; never in 400,000 years Mr Bielsa would we accept.

So we are stalemate. Let’s agree to disagree on the impossible and look at agreeing more realistic things in the future.

So far your actions over air communications have made us Islanders view Argentina just as we did in 1982; a nation of arrogant bullies who have no idea of the principles of democracy, freedom and people’s rights and wishes.

Didn’t 1982 show you that we never give in to bullies and their dictators?

If you really want to move relations forward as you say, then how about it; the ball is in your court”.

Tim Miller - Stanley

[Johnmcd]

I can only but admire Mr Millars plucky letter!

However, it is Mr Millar that needs to get real. The islands cannot go on forever depending upon the indulgence of the RAF and British tax payers subsidised flights forever.

Mr Millar will know that no other long haul international air carrier sees the islands as a viable destination. It is only their nearest neighbour that wants to make the air connection. Yes it would be a political coup for Argentina to establish (re-establish!) the air link. So what?

Are the islanders really so intimidated by Argentine nationals coming to their home land? I shouldn’t think so when most, no doubt, would be travelling to the Darwin War Cemetery. What’s so wrong with the islanders taking the return flights out to what ever destination they so wish.

If Mr Millar and others on the islands believe that decisions made in London matters nothing to them as they have the final say, then great! Let’s give the islanders notice that the UK is divorcing the islands. Mr Millar can then be the islands first Foreign Minister and instead of sending a open letter can go directly into Bielsa’s office in BA and tell him directly what he thinks.

Could the Argentine Air Link to be the key to establishing greater economic self-reliance on the islands.

Best wishes,
John.

[Evil Kondor]

Ernie:

The open letter from Miller to Bielsa does not make any sense whatsoever. In fact, in diplomatic terms, it can be considered an insult. I am very surprised by it. However, let’s stick to the issues that prompted the letter.

The Falklands are a dependency/colony of Great Britain. At the present time, they are part of the United Kingdom. You mean to tell to me that if Argentine Airlines, for example, wants to fly to Cardiff or Swansea, it has to apply to the Cardiff or Swansea City Council? That it is not the way it is done, even going by international rules regarding air traffic. Aerolineas applies to the British Foreign Office or the British body governing air traffic and services, whoever it may be. How it is handled by Great Britain is an internal matter, not of our concern.

You also mean to tell me that the Cardiff or Swansea City Councils would deny the application because Aerolineas did not apply directly to them That is just a feeble excuse. In fact, applying directly to the Cardiff or Swansea City Councils might be a violation of Air Traffic rules and could be interpreted as interference into the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, Great Britain, by bypassing its main authority in regulating air services and traffic.

Nestor Kirchner is in China for 5 days in a state visit. So far the visit has bee a tremendous success surpassing any kind of wild expectations. We are talking of increasing our sales to China from the present $2.5 billion dollars per year to $6 billions in three to four years. China would become Argentina’s biggest trading partner, then, surpassing Brazil.

One of the areas that has Argentina very interested is tourism. The Middle-Class of China, the population that has the disposal income, is estimated at 300 millions. If we can only tap 1% of that market, it would mean anywhere from 500.000 to 3.000.0000 new visitors to Argentina per year.

The international tourism’s “Meccas” in Argentina are the traditional Buenos Aires, Iguazu, and Bariloche. We have been trying to open other destinations like the Northwest and the South. We view the Falklands as a hook to many people that might be interested in traveling to Patagonia. In other words, they would be more apt to visit the South if the Falklands would be included in the itinerary. It would be nice but not a must.

What the Islanders are doing is trying to put pressure on Argentina to drop its claim. However, it is like you telling me: “Either you buy my car or I cut off my foot.” My answer to you would be: “I have no interest in buying your car.”

Best regards,

Evil Kondor

[Sakura26]

Dear All

I really dont see what's the big problem about the airline thing. I mean, a COMERCIAL flight from Argentina to the islands doesnt mean an invasion. The pilot and stewardesses are not militaries in disguise, I swear!

I think the FIG is behaving like a spoiled kid here. NO NO NO we dont want ANYTHING from Argentina. Are these the bases of negotiations? It's not Great Britan, and it's not certainly Argentina who dont want to establish comunication.

What's so bad about going there as tourists? Do they hate us so much that they dont want us there?

During the 2 world wars the whole planet was divided, but after they finished, everything went back to normal. I dont see Germany rejecting flights from the United States...do you?

We are talking here about understanding and negotiation, but, in order to do that, we have to be open minded and ready to accept some stuff although we dont like it too much.

From my point of view, it's a waste of time talking to them. No offense, but they dont want to talk. The best way is that the government of Great Britain decides what to do with them, and then they talk to us.

They insist in being considered as a third party in this conflict, but then, they dont want any contact with Argentina...

Sakura

[Sea Eagle]

To All:

EK: See my new post, the FI is not, repeat not an integral part of the UK. It is a separate state or statelet if you like. They control totally their own internal affairs, they have much greater powers than any UK Local Authority, and whilst represented by the UK in Foreign affairs the UK only acts on their express wishes. They are and have been for some time fully self governing internally and externally control, through the UK, their own interests. (John will confirm I know because he 'hates' this situation something along the lines of 'Power without representation or responsibility')

With regard to China, everyone is doubling or increasing their trade these days. We have a large Chinatown in Manchester and much trade already and a Consul General as confirmation and many links with China. But beware, the Chinese economy is beginning to overheat just a bit, there are inherent dangers. China wants to sell you products but to profit and establish growth they have to sell more than they buy, yes??

Tourism to the Falklands; they have 30,000 plus cruise ship visitors a year already and no doubt this will increase due to the cooperation of a friendly neighbour Chile. Unfortunately Argentina says to the Falklands on these matters "Either you buy my car or I'll cut off your foot"

Sakura: I agree that there is nothing wrong with direct flights to and from Argentina. What the FIG objects to is 'exclusivity' of these flights for Argentina which would give them total access control over the Falklands, I think they are right to take this stance. The UK have reportedly offered an 'open skies' policy which Argentina has not accepted, and if they have offered that then I guess the FIG have also agreed with it. I think this would be a good first step. I cannot see that there would be any objection from the FIG to Argentine charter or regular flights bringing Vets families and tourists to the Falklands but the quid pro quo would be that other charter flights should also be permitted. Contrary to what you may think I only hear good reports of friendships developing with Argentines who visit the Falklands and good relationships and sympathy and understanding for Vets and families, thats how it should be. The Falklands has developed good relationships with Chile in the absence of Argentine willingness to co-operate, indeed this goes back many year with Punta Arenas. (my Grandparents were married there in 1905 and my father lived there till the 1930's) so it is nothing new to have this friendship.
Until Peron stopped it with his daft ideas of a 'Greater Argentina' a similar relationship existed with Argentine Patagonia and the Falklands.

Best wishes,

Sea Eagle (Ernie)

[Evil Kondor]

Hi Ernie:

We are going around in circles. No matter how you want to call it the Falklands are part of the United Kingdom: a colony (the UN definition of the Falklands,) a dependency, a state, a province, a “statelet,” etc.

Ernie, I consider the site’s library (database) very important. We have several main sections: Argentina Web Sites, Great Britain Web Sites, Falklands Web Sites, Other, Reference Material and Administration Area. I do not want to update all the areas because I’m biased. You have to take care of the Falklands area at least. Therefore, you have to become a member of the Library or board. The Admin and Mods can modify all the areas with the exception of the suggestion folder, open to everyone. I’ll make you a Mod as soon as you get in.

Thanks,

Evil Kondor

[Evil Kondor]

Sea Eagle:

I am stunned, to say the least, about the success of Kirchner’s visit to China. I never expect this.

To put things in perspective, I fully realize that Argentina with 37 million inhabitants is a flea compared to China’s ~ 1.3 billions. De La Rua visited China and was received very politely without much fanfare. In addition, every country is courting China and they are a very hard market to penetrate. Therefore, I expected limited success like in the De La Rua visit.

Krichner’s “traveling party” includes ½ the Government together with 200 of Argentina’s leading businessmen or entrepreneurs.

He was received with full state honors and fanfare. The Chinese literally rolled out the red carpet. Even the President of China was waiting for Kirchner at the airport when he arrived in Beijing. He has met with all the Chinese main leaders and today in Shanghai, where he received an Honorary Doctors degree, he was received with full honors.

There have been serious and significant working meetings with the 200 Argentine entrepreneurs and their Chinese counter parts. The Chinese have stated that they consider Argentina a key economic partner in their effort to land in South America and establish better relations and economic ties with MercoSur.

Both sides are emphasizing that the Chinese and Argentine economies are complimentary. There are a lot of products that both countries can export to each other. They have already given Argentina a 150 mil quota for our citrus products. To them, it might be a good gesture, but to us is significant especially for the Northwest. In addition, China has agreed to back Argentina in our efforts to re-finance our external debt.

The President of China, Hu Jimbao, is coming in a state visit to Argentina this November. Many observers in Argentina have compared the success of the visit and the opening of the Chinese market as significant as it was the European markets in the early 20th Century. Being stunned, as I sated before, is an understatement.

Argentina is getting a lot of pressure from the IMF to refinance the external debt and do it soon! China is outside the IMF sphere of influence. Private people traveling with Kirchner stated than in 3 to 4 years our sales to China will be ~ 6 billions/year range, easy! Their meetings have been that successful. This, in turn, would diminish the leverage that the IMF has on us.

Kirchner was supposed to meet Vladimir Putin, on his way to China, at the Moscow airport for about two hours. He is going on a state visit to the Russian Federation this October. His plane made a refueling stop in Prague, before proceeding to Moscow. Unfortunately, he could not make it becase of very bad weather conditions in Russia and flew directly to China. However, Putin waited for Kirchner 1 hour at the Moscow Airport!

This also looks very promising and another probable breakthrough. Putin is coming in a state visit to Argentina soon (I forget the date.)

Best regards,

Evil Kondor

[Hutch]

Evil Kondor.

The UK is the United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is to say it is a union composed of England, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall and N Ireland and a smattering of coastal Islands/Islets. These are the areas that Whitehall has power over despite the existence of some devolution in 3 areas. The Falklands are not part of the UK. Not in the way that you mean. They are a British administered territory overseas and not a part of the UK. It can be confusing to understand this but it is a fact which is a quirk of post colonial times i suppose. That is why the FI have rights that other areas of the UK do not have. To land at Cardiff you talk to London. To land at Stanley you talk to Stanley.

You even said this yourself in your post but then went on to contradict yourself-
"The Falklands are a dependency/colony of Great Britain. At the present time, they are part of the United Kingdom."

And they are just that-a dependency and not a part of the UK. Talk to them. Listen to the UK when it says 'talk to the FI'. When the UK ruled Hong Kong they were not a part of the UK but a UK administered territory.

Regards,


Hutch

[Evil Kondor]

Hutch:

Thanks for your response.

I understand very well what you are saying. However, the Falklands do not have a foreign office. Their Foreign Office is the British one. The Islanders are British citizens that travel with British passports and the British Crown appoints their Governor. Therefore, they are part of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Our dealing is Foreign Office-to-Foreign Office. How a request is handled within Great Britain is no concern of ours - it is an internal matter.

The UN General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Decolonization Committee have called on the Governments of Great Britain and Argentina to resolve the dispute. It never called for FIG to be part of the negotiations. If we start dealing directly with the Falklands we are bypassing the UN mandate, which is synonymous to dropping the claim. The Islanders are very aware of this symbolism or precedent in International Law.

When Menem visited Great Britain in 1989, the Governor of Tierra del Fuego was originally a member of his committee. Officially the name of the Argentine province is: “The Province of Tierra del Fuego, the South Atlantic Islands (which includes the Falklands) and Antarctica (the section we claim of the white continent.) The British Foreign Office stated that if the Governor of Tierra del Fuego were included in the official Argentine committee, the visit would be cancelled. This was done at the request of FIG.

We are not talking here about the Governor visiting the Falklands, but the British Isles, Great Britain, or the UK! It is obvious that they considered themselves to be part of Great Britain. Otherwise, why the uproar? They cannot have it both ways!

I have often proposed to have a four-way talk to resolve the issue: Great Britain, Argentina, FIG, and the Government of Tierra del Fuego. However, FIG will never go for it!

Best regards,

Evil Kondor

[Sea Eagle]

Evil Kondor,

The Falklands is recognised as a separate Country by the UK and treated as such.

This is what the Foreign and Commonwealth includes in its Country Profile of the Falklands on the following site:-

www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1018965238550



BASIC INFORMATION

Full Country Name: Falkland Islands



BASIC INFORMATION

Full Name: Falkland Islands



Status: UK Overseas Territory
Area: 12,173 sq km (4,700 sq miles)
Population: 2,379 (2001 Census)
Capital City: Stanley
Languages: English
Religion(s): Christian, with Catholic, Anglican and United Reformed Churches in Stanley. Other Christian churches are also represented.
Currency: Falkland Island Pound (at par with sterling)
Governor: His Excellency Howard Pearce, CVO

SOVEREIGNTY OF THE ISLANDS

The British Government has no doubt about Britain's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. With the exception of the two months of illegal occupation in 1982, the Falklands have been continuously, peacefully and effectively inhabited and administered by Britain since 1833. Argentina's claim to the Falklands is based on the grounds that, at the time of British repossession of the Islands in 1833, Argentina had sovereignty over them through her inheritance, upon independence, of Spain's possessory title (uti possedetis), through her attempts to settle the Islands between 1826 and 1833, and through the concept of territorial contiguity. However, uti possedetis is not accepted as a general principle of international law. Moreover Spain's title to the Islands was disputed and in 1811 the Spanish settlement was evacuated. Argentina's subsequent attempts at settlement were sporadic and ineffectual. As for territorial contiguity, this has never been a determinant for title to islands (otherwise the Canary Islands, for example, might be Moroccan) and should not be used to overrule the right of self-determination. The Argentine Government has argued that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right of self-determination, on the (false) basis that they replaced an indigenous Argentine population expelled by force. However there was no indigenous or settled population on the Islands until British settlement.

The people who live in the Falklands now are not a transitory population. Many can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early nineteenth century. Britain is committed to defend their right to choose their own future. The Islanders are fully entitled to enjoy the right of self-determination. It is a right which cannot be applied selectively or be open to negotiation, and one which is recognised in the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Self-determination does not necessarily mean independence. Britain has willingly granted independence where it has been requested, and will continue to do so where it is an option, while remaining committed to those of its Overseas Territories which choose to retain the British connection. In exercise of their right of self-determination, the Falkland Islanders have repeatedly made known their wish to remain British. An Argentine-inspired poll, conducted in 1994, revealed that 87 per cent of them would be against any form of discussion with Argentina over sovereignty, under any circumstances. In 1960 the United Nations General Assembly adopted its Declaration of the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (GAR 1514). A committee was set up to oversee implementation of this resolution. This Committee, which became known as the Committee of Twenty-four, considered the question of the Falklands for the first time in 1964. Following its recommendations, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 2065 in 1965. The Resolution invited the British and Argentine Governments to begin negotiations 'with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the UN Charter and of GAR 1514 and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).' During 1967 and 1968 Britain entered into negotiations with Argentina based on a willingness to transfer sovereignty. Although the British Government had no doubt about British sovereignty of the Falklands, they were concerned by the difficulty of defending the Islands, and by the threat to the Islands' economy from declining world demand for wool and from their isolation without links to the mainland. However Britain maintained throughout that any transfer of sovereignty must be subject to the wishes of the Islanders. It was on this issue that negotiations foundered.

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS' RELATIONS WITH THE UK

Diplomatic Representation

The principal points of contact are the Overseas Territories Department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Telephone [phone] or by email to [e-mail] or Government House in Stanley, Telephone + 500 27433 or by email to [e-mail].

UK Development Assistance

The Falkland Islands are self-supporting except for defence; the current annual cost of maintaining the garrison is approximately £70million.

Trade and Investment with the UK

UK exports: £2.317 million (1999)
EC exports: £35 million (1999)
UK imports: £16.35 million (1999)

[Sea Eagle]

EK:

I am pleased that the Argentine visit to China has been a success I only wish Argentina success not failure.

Success will lead to an easing of concentration on periperhral mythmaking as a balance for your countries woes.

The UK exported a total of £2118 million worth of goods to China including Hong Kong in 2003 which was a little down on 2002 due to global trends.

The total British capital investment in China at the end of 2001 was USD 19.2 Billion. GB is the 6th largest investor and the largest EU investor with over 3000 British-invested joint ventures.

So hopefully any Argentine success will also benefit the UK! Any trade with China is good for us too.

I will have look at what links I can put on the Library site. Many Falklands web sites have a links page which even if the basic site is not too interesting the links may help to foster understanding.

By the way an open letter here to a minister would not be considered insulting at all merely the practice of democracy. If, theoretically of course, the Falklands were part of Argentina it looks like your ministers would get a tough time!! Also Tim Miller would not qualify as one of your mythical 'implants' (as my family do not) I understand his forbears were North Americans who settled in the Falklands in the 19th Century.

When is Kirchner going to stop being a one man band and have a Cabinet meeting?

Best wishes,

Sea Eagle (Ernie)

[Evil Kondor]

Sea Eagle:

Thanks for the site. I already included in the British Area of the Library.

You said that the Falklands is considered a country. Let me point the following in the site you posted:

www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1013618138295

www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1013618138315

They are all considered countries even the British Antarctic Territory. I do not understand your point. Still the Falklands are a British dependency/Territory/Colony. Their Foreign Office is the British one. The Islanders are British citizens that travel with British passports and the British Crown appoints their Governor. Therefore, they are part of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Again, our dealing is Foreign Office-to-Foreign Office. How a request is handled within Great Britain is no concern of ours - it is an internal matter.

No matter how you call it, British Dependency/Territory/Colony, the Falklands are a Colony of Great Britain. The following is the latest C-24 meeting:

www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/gacol3105.doc.htm

The above is the resolution of the UN Decolonization Committee. The FIG Councilors, Mike Summers and John Edwards were present. If the Falklands is not a Colony, what are they doing there?

You still have not answered the following two points:

• Why did the British Foreign Office agreed to the request by FIG and forced the Governor of Tierra del Fuego not to be included in the official Argentine committee, during Menem’s visit in 1989, or the visit would be cancelled if the Falklands are so independent from Great Britain as you are alleging?
  
  We are not talking here about the Governor visiting the Falklands, but the British Isles, Great Britain, or the UK! It is obvious that they considered themselves to be part of Great Britain. Otherwise, why the uproar? FIG cannot have it both ways!
  
  
• Why not have four-way talks to resolve the issue: Great Britain, Argentina, FIG, and the Government of Tierra del Fuego?

Best regards,

Evil Kondor

[Sea Eagle]

Evil Kondor,

There are some very simple answers to what I consider to be your misunderstanding of the relationship between the Falklands and the United Kingdom. Whatever I say by way of explanation probably will not change your point of view because the point of view that you hold seems to be necessary to support the outcomes you desire. Most of which without having them in front of me in writing I can actually remember I think. Never mind I will explain in any event in the spirit of trying to understand each others point of view on this site at least.

Fist to answer your outstanding queries:

“Why did the British Foreign Office agreed to the request by FIG and forced the Governor of Tierra del Fuego not to be included in the official Argentine committee, during Menem’s visit in 1989, or the visit would be cancelled if the Falklands are so independent from Great Britain as you are alleging?”<br>
Very simple, to have allowed a delegation from Tierra del Fuego official recognition and standing as part of Menem’s party would have been to acknowledge that the status afforded to the Governor of Tierra del Fuego by the Argentine Government as their representative for the Malvinas was accepted by the UK. (and by association the FIG.) this would have set an historical precedent against the interests of the FIG. The FIG were exercising their independent will not to have such an acknowledgement, even by default, made by the UK as the administering power. The UK Government therefore accepted the independent right of the FIG to make such a formal protest to it and acceded to the point.

“Why not have four-way talks to resolve the issue: Great Britain, Argentina, FIG, and the Government of Tierra del Fuego?”<br>
Firstly we believe that 1982 was the end of any serious Argentine pretence to Sovereignty over the Falklands. (I suspect that you do not disagree with this). The UK Government (HMG) in the 1970’s had tried to compromise with Argentina regarding the sovereignty issue but always emphasizing that FIG had the final (and independent) say in the matter and that under the British way it was up to FIG to make any final decision on any proposals put forward between Argentina and the UK. HMG had learnt throughout the 20th Century that it could never make decisions on behalf of its subject peoples or those for whom it was the administering power. The UK Parliament and law no longer gives any UK Government the right to do this without the express agreement of the administered people. (Gibraltar, although a different case to the Falklands because its relationship to the UK and Spain is the subject of the Treaty of Utrecht, is a good example of this, Parliament will not permit the Government to make any arrangement that does not suit the people of Gibraltar, they may of course propose any solution they wish but unless it gets the approval of Gibraltarians it will never be implemented) This actuality is poorly understood by Argentina, Spain and indeed sometimes by the Government of the day itself. To go back to Tierra del Fuego, the FIG will never agree to the inclusion of this part of Argentina in any talks because as I have already said it would be a tacit acknowledgement of an Argentine myth that proposes that this section of Argentina has some sort of responsibility for the Falklands. Which is demonstrably not true.

To move on.

The term Colony is one of the items that requires a definition that we both can agree to. A Colony in the accepted UN sense is a remote territory that is controlled or under the supervision of the administering power, in the case of the Falklands that is recognized as the United Kingdom. Therefore the C24 have included them, rightly in my opinion, as a territory in need of decolonisation as they understand the term. As an aside the Argentine claim is recognized as a stumbling block to decolonisation and the powers are requested to settle their differences taking the ‘interests’ of the Islanders into account. Nowhere is it said that Argentina and the UK should decide what those ‘interests’ are. I interpret that to mean that they should ask the Islanders what they want the outcome to be otherwise the UN’s democratic principles would be compromised. Argentine ‘spin’ allows that Argentina should decide what the Islanders interests are. A load of rot and wishful thinking if you ask me.

The UK in including the Falklands in their own list of British Overseas Territories concurs and gives them virtually the same options as the UN. But in doing this has to all intents and purposes relinquished its Imperial Colonial Powers and transferred the right to choose their future to the Overseas Territories themselves. In this respect they are no longer Colonies except perhaps in name. They are de facto independent in all but name but under the protection of the UK. The UK however no longer makes any decisions for them without their express approval.

The present status of the Falklands is that it is internally and in most respects externally independent and self governing and associated with the UK for administration of Foreign affairs and defence. This meets one of the possibilities put forward by the UN to satisfy decolonisation excepting that it has not been formally agreed by the UN as yet.

In the sense of the old British Empire, Colony that would mean that the Imperial power could do exactly what it liked with, or to, or on behalf of that particular territory. It is the Imperial concept that you seem to me to favour as the extant situation. This is far from the truth. The Falklands like all other British Overseas Territories have a status in law that cannot be changed without their express consent therefore it is counterproductive to exclude them from any talks regarding their future simply because HMG is not able to agree any change in status without their express permission. Yes HMG act on their behalf and indeed instruction in Foreign affairs but does not have the Executive authority to impose any outcome on them. This applies to all Overseas Territories and is not a plot against Argentina. It is a very British concept I agree and a little difficult for outsiders to comprehend. Argentina if it wants to make any progress would however do well to acknowledge who it is actually dealing with as there is no deal to be had without the inclusion of FIG even if they sit in the wings of any meeting for now.

We have for instance also seen elsewhere that Argentina complains that Argentine people have been prevented from settling in the Falklands, this is an essential part of Kirchner’s case at the UN. What he says is not in fact actually true, but put that to one side for the moment. Would it surprise you to know that this also applies to the residents of the United Kingdom? They in fact also have no right to settle in the Falklands without meeting whatever criteria is laid down by the FIG and then only with express permission. In this respect they are no different to an Argentine citizen. The same rules apply to UK residents who want to settle in the Channel Islands they actually have no right to do so. Falkland Islanders do have the right to settle in the UK, but this is not reciprocated in Falkland Island Law to residents of the UK.

So yes the Falklands is a colony in the administrative UN sense but it is also already self determining in pretty well all aspects of its existence, so at the UN its Councillors were correct to say the Falklands was not a Colony. Argentina would do well to acknowledge that, as I have already said, there will be no progress without that acknowledgment as far as I can see.

Regards,

Sea Eagle