Argentina requires permits for ships heading to Fa

[Sakura26]

(From cnn.com)

(CNN) -- Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner signed a decree Tuesday requiring all ships navigating from Argentina to the disputed Falkland Islands to carry a government permit.

The move comes as tensions over the territory simmer because of British oil companies' efforts to drill off the northern coast of the islands.

The Falklands, known as Las Malvinas in Argentina, lie in the South Atlantic Ocean off the Argentinean coast and have been under British rule since 1833. But Argentina has always claimed sovereignty over them.


Tuesday's decree followed an accusation made last week by the Argentine government that a ship docked on the mainland was preparing to transport tubes to the Falklands for oil and gas exploration.

The decree also creates a special commission that will oversee the application of the new measure.

"It's public knowledge that the United Kingdom has started the search for hydrocarbon resources in the Falkland Islands area," Argentine Cabinet Chief Anibal Fernandez said at a news conference, according to the official Telam news agency.

The Argentine position is that natural resources around the islands should be protected, and Britain must accept international resolutions labeling the Falklands a disputed area.

"This has to do with the defense of the interests of Argentineans, not just about sovereignty," Fernandez said, adding that Argentina lays claim not just to the islands, but to any resources that could be found there.

The Argentines blame "unilateral moves" by the British companies toward exploration as the reason for the recent spat.

"The companies that are planning to explore and exploit gas and oil are going to be met with legal challenges because they are doing it on a continental shelf that Argentina maintains is our own," Argentine congressman Ruperto Godoy told CNN.

[Sakura26]

So, here are some good things and bad things I see about this:

Good things:

1) Nothing like 1982 is likely to happen again. Mostly because the media in the world has evolved so much, that we now have internet, satellite TV, etc... to make negotiations on our own and know the truth and points of view of the other sides without relying on the "official" information.

2) Except for some in this forum who still want to see the enemy dead, most of us have friends among the opposite party. We don't want any of them involved in a conflict, especially against us. (right?)

3) We have reached this status quo that took a lot of pain to get, and we won't lose it easily. Hopefully, what we're reading in the news is just a lot of noise before a peaceful civil agreement is reached.

Bad Things:

1) Again the UK is not respecting orders from the UN. The same UN that punished Argentina for attacking the islands. The fairness of the organism is fading quickly and that's dangerous, not only for this conflict but for all the conflicts going on in the world.

2) We hope, pray that this won't become a military thing. In that case, Argentina doesn't have an army, but our president has crazy friends that have powerful enemies. For the sake of the planet, I really hope we don't go that way. I'm talking about Chavez in Venezuela, who obviously is ready to take it on he US and his friends in the middle east.

3) We're back to the "we do it because we can" issue that awakes the anger of smaller countries. Despite their power, I don't see the US seizing Cuba, which they can easily invade and force to surrender, but here we're again with the UK provoking Argentina. Countries that don't know how to handle power, shouldn't have it.

[Sea Eagle]

Hi Sakura,

Good to see you are still around, and that I have remembered my password!!

You are in error here. This exploration is commercial and Argentina has known about its likelihood for a number of years. In fact the rig has taken a month to get to the Falklands and the KK's have taken action at this time particularly to maximise their impact at home. If they were serious about stopping oil exploration they would have made this decree long ago rather than in an opportunistic way as now.

Argentina and the UK made an agreement on fishing and oil exploration and extraction in the 1990's which the KK's tore up in 2007. Exploration areas were defined and charted. The UK has not reneged on this agreement and is entitled to proceed as agreed. In fact it has an obligation under the UN Charter and Resolutions to develop the Islands resources for the benefit of the inhabitants.

The UN have never ordered the UK to do anything, they simply invited that discussions take place to find a peaceful solution to the dispute, they have never said that Argentina has any right to the islands. Officially the UN is neutral. Argentina gets its trolls at the C24 to make noise in its favour but this is really just a propaganda exercise.

What has happened to Argentina's obligation to the UN to protect the interests of the inhabitants of the Falklands?

I agree no war is likely we just have the Pink House idiots exploiting what they know to be legitimate exploration.

They will lose this one big style and be left looking stupid in the eyes of the world.

[Sakura26]

Good to hear from someone!
By the way, if anyone is reading all this and wishes to participate but has problems with the password, you can either register again or email me so I can reset your password.

I am absolutely certain, as I think most of my people are, that this is -again- a political move to divert the attention from the many internal problems Argentina is going thru. There is no doubt in my mind that this is whats going on, but his time, as I said before, the technology is in our side and I'm sure that any crazy attempt to turn 2010 into 1982 will be stopped and discouraged at once. It amazes me how politicians seem not to learn from past mistakes, ever.

So, leaving the military danger aside, what I want to try here is to make everybody see each other's point of view.

I understand, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that there was some kind of agreement, signed by the UK too, resolution 31/49 from the United Nations that (literal translation by me) "...urges the parts to avoid making unilateral modifications over the territory in dispute which includes the underground layers and its natural resources"

If this document exists, then there is no doubt the UK is breaking the United Nations law by going on with this exploration...

[Sea Eagle]

Sakura,

You have been misled, there is no such wording as you quote, This resolution was referring to a situation of negotiation that existed before the 1982 conflict. There have been no sovereignty negotiations since then nor will there be.

The key phrase is "while the islands are going through the process recommended in the above-mentioned resolutions; " there is no such process in existence. So this caveat is irrellevant in todays situation.

UN Resolutions

Resolution 31/49

Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

1 December 1976

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

Recalling its resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2065 (XX) of 16 December 1965 and 3160 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973,

Bearing in mind the paragraphs related to this question contained in the Political Declaration adopted by the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, and in the Political Declaration adopted by the Fifth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Colombo from 16 to 19 August 1976,

Having regard to the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and, in particular, the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Committee concerning the Territory,

1. Approves the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and, in particular, the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Committee concerning the Territory;

2. Expresses its gratitude for the continuous efforts made by the Government of Argentina, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the General Assembly, to facilitate the process of decolonisation and to promote the well-being of the populations of the islands;

3. Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to expedite the negotiations concerning the dispute over sovereignty, as requested in General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII);

4. Calls upon the two parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended in the above-mentioned resolutions;

56. Requests both Governments to report to the Secretary-General and to the General Assembly as soon as possible on the results of the negotiations.

Source: www.un.org/documents

[Sakura26]

Hello

No, no no... Let's stop right here.

You can't just state that there is no process of negotiation simply because the UK decided that there is no process of negotiation. The document exists, states clearly what has to be done, and if the UK decides that it's not important or misinterprets its contents, then we're all doomed in this planet. Let's all use these resolutions as toilet paper and close the UN. But that means FOR ALL OF US.


The document says that no modifications can be done until the issue of sovereingnty was solved. Argentina - and I haven't been misled - has demanded since 1982 till a month ago to have talks with the UK about this issue and it was the UK government that rejected the demands.

Now that you want the oil, suddenly the UN is worthless and you can just take what you want.

If this is not piracy please tell me what it is.... At least have the decency to admit that this is a wrong movement from your government instead of saying that I have been "misled". I can read UN resolutions as well as you can...

[Hutch]

Argentina is not interested in negotiation. To say that she is is to tell a lie. All Argentina is interested in, is being given total and complete sovereignty over the Islands ASAP.

That is a major reason why there are no talks - Argentina simply is not interested in negotiation she just wants 100% of her demands to be granted today, now, right now. She has even changed her constitution to make anything other than full sovereignty illegal - meaning that shared sovereignty, 2/3 flags, leaseback, etc, is illegal under Argentine law.

All Argentina whines, moans and complains about is the fact that she isn't given what she wants. She makes the same complaints and no one cares.

The UK could have theoretically extracted the oil at any time since 1833 and nothing could stop it. It is only in the last few years that the oil price and technology have made it more possible. Perhaps Argentina should not have abandoned the agreements she had with the UK over the resources in the area in 2007?

And we all know that all nations ignore the UN when they want to. Argentina being very guilty of this in 1982 of course.


Argentina has had years to try and develop an intelligent policy to the Islands but has refused to. She has ignored the Islands until domestic opinion needed them as a distraction. She has refused to develop a policy of negotiation and had an ad hoc policy of bullying. She has tried to isolate the Islands and has only succeeded in turning the Islanders more against her. She has failed to take the issue to the International Court of Justice.

[Sakura26]

Hutch

First off, we haven't stopped the claim ever. Each year our government keeps reminding our claims and each year the UK refuses to talk. Don't try to make it our fault. It's you, and the people in the islands who are totally closed to any other kind of negotiations.

Secondly, when we violated the UN in 1982 we were under a dictatorship. You are exercizing a democracy that want to force upon the middle eastern countries claiming it's the only and greatest way of governerment. Are you telling me that it is the same to ignore the UN under a democracy than a dictatorship?

From 1972 to1982 we've been prisoners of our own military. Big nations helped everybody but us. We had to get out of it on our own, with the losses of human lives that it implied. So it turns out that it's very convenient for some how history developed huh?

[Hutch]

Argentina has not claimed the Falkland Islands every year since 1833. When this was pointed out it was claimed that ‘silence does not mean consent’ but if you look at the work of Rodolfo Terragno (spelling?) I believe he makes it quite clear that there were many and large gaps in the Argentine claim periods.

And let’s not forget Argentina did not claim South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands until decades into the 20th Century.

Since the establishment on the UN, Argentina has been more diligent in her claims but as her claims have mutated from ‘lets talk’ to ‘we demand 100% of the sovereignty now’ Argentina has made negotiation very difficult if not impossible.

The UK did not refuse to talk from 1945 to 1982 either – there were various periods of discussion and talks, various agreements (like energy supply through YPF (?) and the ‘white card’) and the UK was clearly withdrawing from empire in gestures such as Islander citizenship. However, Argentine domestic politics and events led to the foolish invasion which destroyed all of that slow, patient and diligent work.

I repeat so it is clear – there were talks, the UK was not opposed to the Islands going to Argentina but these were betrayed by Argentina and her actions. Since 1982 Argentina has just had the policy of ‘give us the Islands immediately!!!!’ which makes negotiation, even if the UK and FI wanted it, impossible.

Imagine that the UK said that negotiations on sovereignty will begin tomorrow. Everything will be discussed. BUT – Argentine must accept that the only result on these talks will be that the Falkland Islands remain under British sovereignty. Would Argentina attend such talks? Would you be happy with that precondition?

When you consider what Argentina has done, says she will do, the way she bullies the Islanders, the way she seeks to deny them all democratic rights, the way she behaves in such an imperial manner towards the Islands – are you surprised that the Islanders don’t want to talk? That they don’t want to encourage their regional aggressor?

The fact that Argentina was under a dictatorship in 1982 makes no difference to the fact she violated and defied the UN. Argentina often tried to make out that only the UK ever ignores/violates the UN and that is not true.

Please try and stay on topic and don’t repeat Caton / Javiers tactic of running away from the debate and dragging up past/present UK actions in other areas to try and justify what Argentina does/did. That contributed to the death of this board before. I have my own opinion about British policy in the Middle East and will use it only where it is appropriate.

Democracies and dictatorships ignore the UN when it suits them or satisfies their interests. Unpalatable perhaps but true.

Self pity seems to be a common Argentine trait when the Falklands are discussed and I would encourage you to fight the urge to wallow in ‘oh poor Argentina, everyone hates us, everyone conspires against us, why can’t we have what we want, we’re so oppressed, everyone else gets a better deal than us.’ Other nations have had it hard and don’t want to blame everyone else or want pity and sympathy. Argentina has a large and educated population, lots of land and resources and displays of self pity are dishonourable to her and make her seem pathetic.

Accept the past, deal with and and move on.

Argentina has had years to try and develop an intelligent policy to the Islands but has refused to. She has ignored the Islands until domestic opinion needed them as a distraction. She has refused to develop a policy of negotiation and had an ad hoc policy of bullying. She has tried to isolate the Islands and has only succeeded in turning the Islanders more against her. She has failed to take the issue to the International Court of Justice.

[Sakura26]

I do not run away from respectful debates.

It seems to me though, that the importance of the United Nations and the claims done or not done to it, are brought into picture when it's convenient for teh UK. When I complaint about the UK violating the UN resolution, suddenly the UN becomes worthless.

So let's state right here and now for this forum: Do we agree with the existance of the United Nations and submit to it or not?

Personally, I do want such organism to exist, but I will base my debates upon your answer, or this is going to become a neverending carrousel of United Nations rights and wrongs that will be applied only when it's convenient for the parts.

If we choose to oversee the United Nations, then I will base my argument on the lack of an "impartial" organism.

Noelia

[Hutch]

Who said the UN becomes worthless whenever the UK wants it to be? All I am doing is reflecting reality – all nations obey the UN when they want to and disobey it when they don’t / when it affects their ‘national interests’ / when they feel the intrusion is unnecessary / when they feel that what the UN has said is unfair or wrong / etc. Sometimes the pressure of the UN or pressure from UN members achieves good results, sometimes not but that is because the UN is a slave to the opinions, desires, wants and needs of its members which all have opposing / competing agendas.

The UN is an expression of the international community and international law. And it is rife with corruption, ambiguity, failures, faults, members with terrible human rights records, etc. But for all that I believe it has a good purpose as it is somewhere that nations can come together to avoid war, sort out their problems, talk, get new allies, etc.

Argentina also uses the UN when it is convenient and drops it when it is not. All nations do as it is a political arena and not a court that nations are legally obliged to obey with a known list of penalties for all infractions.

If the UK has violated a UN Resolution then it is up to Argentina to bring that up at the UN.

…

Imagine that the UK said that negotiations on sovereignty will begin tomorrow. Everything will be discussed. BUT – Argentine must accept that the only result on these talks will be that the Falkland Islands remain under British sovereignty. Would Argentina attend such talks? Would you be happy with that precondition?


Argentina has had years to try and develop an intelligent policy to the Islands but has refused to. She has ignored the Islands until domestic opinion needed them as a distraction. She has refused to develop a policy of negotiation and had an ad hoc policy of bullying. She has tried to isolate the Islands and has only succeeded in turning the Islanders more against her. She has failed to take the issue to the International Court of Justice.

[Sakura26]

But Hutch, do you read what you write?
How can you tell me that "if negotiations began tomorrow ARgentina should accept British sovereignty over the islands" ?

Where's the negotiation in that?

NEGOTIATIONS means losing something and gaining something. Otherwise it's just the old "we take it because our army can do it" Which is not different than what happened throughout the whole british history.

[Hutch]

It seems you understand what I was saying even though you have not understood it 100%. It is also clear that you don’t understand what the Argentine position actually is.

The Argentine position says

“Give us the Islands NOW11!!!11!!!!. We will accept no other result and have changed our constitution to make any other result illegal – we will therefore not accept shared sovereignty, three flags, two flags, leaseback, etc. We DEMAND negotiations but the only result that we will accept is full and total and complete and unhindered sovereignty of the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands!!11!!”

What Argentina has done is made the only result that she will accept from negation be that she is granted 100% of what she wants. How can you negotiate with that?

So the example I gave turned it around so you can see how foolish, illogical, deceitful and counter productive the Argentine position is.

I will make it again – imagine that the UK says

“We will discuss sovereignty of the area tomorrow with Argentina at the United Nations. We invite Argentina to come and join us. However before we start the UK will make one thing clear – the ONLY result that will result from this is British sovereignty of the Islands. Nothing else will be accepted. No change will result. The end of the negotiation is already predetermined and will result only in what the UK wants.”

Would you want Argentina to attend those talks? Would you negotiate with a party that had already decided IN ADVANCE what the result of the negotiation must be?

Negotiation does mean losing something and gaining something. Argentina has made it impossible for her to lose and anything and is very clear that she just wants to gain all of her desires.

That is what there is no negotiation– Argentina simply does not have a negotiation policy and makes it impossible and even illegal for there to be one.

Let’s leave the amateur British history lessons out of this and stay focused shall we?

[Sakura26]

Oh, OK... my bad then, because you're saying exactly what I've been saying all this time.

"Negotiation means losing something and gaining something"

About ARgentina though, the British position is exactly the same. GB doesn't want Argentina "gaining something" because:

1) The islanders obviously don't want to and

2) It would translate to the british government as an acknowledgement that Argentina had some rights.

What a great negotiation I would be able to put up if I could speak for Agentina myself, alone. Because despite the fear of the islanders, the truth is that most of us are pacifists and do not want more stress in our lives. Still that doesn't mean that we can close our eyes at what we see as the bully of the neighborhood (worse, the bully of another neighborhood!) trying to keep what be believe it's ours.

Now, as I was saying in other forum. Let's take the amazing example of Canada. Quebec is a French-speaking province and I believe -but could be mistaken- that they have some sort of independent government (In 2001 they were able to independently decide about their immigraton laws, and I know this because I almost moved there) yet they are part of Canada.

Yes, they want to break, but "rioting" is made peacefully and in a civilized way. None of the 3 parts of this conflict are monkeys, we could reach such an agreement ourselves. An agreement that would first and more importantly respect the language, customs, nationalities and whatever other thing the islanders want, in order to let GB and Argentina sit down and think without so much pressure.

Don't you think?

[Sea Eagle]

Sakura,

You do realise don't you that Falkland Islanders do not want be governed by the UK any more than by Argentina they simply want to live their own lives in their own way as they want with minimal interference from outsiders Including from the UK.

They like the freedoms they have and do not want to give up any of it any more than you want to give up your freedoms.

Their choice has been to agree, in their own manner, an alliance with the UK which guarantees their security and freedom rather than Argentina which regrettably treats them a non-people.

They have never found Argentina a country to be trusted to deliver on their assurances, the most recent being the tearing up by Argentina of the Madrid agreements which had enormous possibilities for good relations and commerce between the Islands and the mainland.

How do you propose to overcome this view without using force or coercing the Islanders in some way?