War without weapons

[Maquilishuat]

Dear All:

There is a scenario that almost nobody thought about, for recovering the archipelago. Suppose a combined effort from the Mercosul, threatening to freeze all UK assets, in case it does not sit to negotiate. Too far from reality? Please remember the economic embargoes already put in place for many nations by the first world countries.

I am still dreaming for a negotiated solution.

Saludos, Maquilishuat.

[Johnmcd]

Dear M,
It seems your wish for an ‘asset freeze’ is a singular desire.

At the moment the Argentine economy, previously based on selling foodstuffs to the world, is in transformation. Indeed the Argentine market has recently favoured de-regularisation (source UK embassy in BA) This of course is aimed at encouraging foreign investment.

Argentina is the UK's third largest market in Latin America with sales amounting to £470 million in 1998 a figure that is improving annually. In recent years, British shoppers are able to buy Argentine wine, Mate as well as the usual tinned meats. It is interesting to note that the UK and Argentina have engaged in no less than 7 high level trade meetings since March this year with another 3 planned before March 2005.

The type of ‘freeze’ mostly likely to occur is a sovereignty freeze.

Best wishes,
John.

TEXT

[Johnmcd]

Dear M,
It seems your wish for an ‘asset freeze’ is a singular desire.

At the moment the Argentine economy, previously based on selling foodstuffs to the world, is in transformation. Indeed the Argentine market has recently favoured de-regularisation (source UK embassy in BA) This of course is aimed at encouraging foreign investment.

Argentina is the UK's third largest market in Latin America with sales amounting to £470 million in 1998 a figure that is improving annually. In recent years, British shoppers are able to buy Argentine wine, Mate as well as the usual tinned meats. It is interesting to note that the UK and Argentina have engaged in no less than 7 high level trade meetings since March this year with another 3 planned before March 2005.

The type of ‘freeze’ mostly likely to occur is a sovereignty freeze.

Best wishes,
John.

British Embassy
www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1058537795987

[Gabriel]

Hi John,

Both you and Otto are right. But Otto's point of view is a logistic one, and you are quoting statistics from the bussiness world.
I don't believe that the freezeng of assets can accomplish anything other than to make us (Mercosur) seem like a bunch of thugs. We can't just go around signing agreements we have no intention of honoring.
I favor a more practical approach, such as the way the US treats Cuba. I believe the integration of South America will result in London turning over the keys, without any need of Regan style showdowns. Money talks.
By the way, from the source you quoted i got this info: Life expectancy: 71.8 years (male); 78.8 years (female)
Do you know why we die before our wives?

Regards,

Gabriel

[Johnmcd]

Hi Gabriel,
Niether I or Otto are right. I just give a answer to how things are.

What might be right is always that subject that is always ignored.

Argentina has the cards to play that could call for a freeze on the dispute. Any reason why not?

Best wishes,
John.

[Sakura26]

Hi Gabriel

you posted

Do you know why we die before our wives?

I wanna know why... ;D

Regards, Noelia

[Hutch]

Maquilishuat,

"Suppose a combined effort from the Mercosul, threatening to freeze all UK assets, in case it does not sit to negotiate."

I suppose it depends on whether Mercosul wants to lose many billions of dollars of trade, look like bullys and seriously endanger their long term economic prospects just to help Argentinas hurt pride. After all, such a freeze would certainly bring the EU and possibly the USA (or they would at most remain neutral) and the WTO in on the UKs side. Just the EU would be enough though.

The EU-of which the UK is a strong member-provides the following to help this organisation which it supports:

*Institutional Support to various Mercosur bodies: Administrative Secretariat- SAM (latest project - 900,000 euro)
*Joint Parliamentary Committee- CPC (917,175 euro) Economic and Social Consultative Forum- FCES (950,000 euro)
*Support to the Permanent Dispute Settlement Court (310,000 euros)
*Customs Harmonization-Phase I already completed, a Phase II project is currently being prepared (5,300,000 euro);
*Veterinary and Phythosanitary Rules (6,000,000 euro);
*Technical Norms and Standards (3,950,000 euro);
*Statistical Harmonization (4,135,000 euro);
*Macroeconomic Harmonisation (7,100,000 euro)

Would the member nations, and Argentina herself, really be willing to loose all this and much more?

Don't forget as well that Argentina has no negotiation policy. Just a demand-"hand over the Islands today or sit down and lets discuss how you'll hand them over tomorrow." How can one negotiate with that? The UK is willing to discuss all issues but soverignty but Argentina does not seem that interested and has only one topic of conversation-gimmie, gimmie,gimmie!

Need for compromise and talks on both sides though, of course.


All the best,

Hutch

europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/argentina/intro/index.htm

europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/mercosur/intro/index.htm

[Maquilishuat]

Hola Hutch:

Embargoes do exist, take a look on what some countries do when they just do not like someone’s else government. Consider North Korea for instance. Consider Cuba and many Arab countries. Are they effective? I consider yes, they are. Sooner or later this makes a difference, as it did to Lybia.

Now for you “help” list. The amount of money you are talking is out of proportion, for they are tiny amounts considering what UK would face with this type of embargo. We are talking about economies with GDP of more than 1 trillion. As you know, UK has interests everywhere and this threat could have some bad consequences to the British economy.

Now for some considerations you did not take into account. Mercosul has everything from food to oil, from electric energy (fossil, hydro and nuclear) to several commodities, including iron, coffee, wheat, soya, corn, you name it, besides a strong industrial presence. On every one of these issues there is a strong British interest. Would you risk it? Do the math.

And remember, it all would be OK if UK just sit and negotiate.

The prospect of an embargo is not a prerogative of first world countries, you know.

Saludos, Maquilishuat.

[Gabriel]

Hi John,

You wrote: "Argentina has the cards to play that could call for a freeze on the dispute. Any reason why not?"

Yes, it's very simple. Because Argentina has nothing to gain by doing so. You have said it many times, bilateral relations are very good.
Now let's look at this from the opossite side. Suppose it was Argentina who had nothing to gain by making any move and Britain wanted the territory. Do you suppose the De-colonization commetee would be bothered with the issue?
Let me give you a hint: Iraq.
Ironically, it is your side who constantly uses the expression "bully". And before you mention 1982, just think how many years passed between 1833 and 1982.

Regards,

Gabriel

[Gabriel]

Hola Noelia,

The answer is: Because we want to. ;D

Saludos,

Gabriel

[Hutch]

Maquilishuat.

Yes i know that embargos exist and that they are not a prerogative of the First World. However they are not done just because you "...do not like someone’s else government..." They are a very serious step to take and are usually applied to governments which have violated international norms and against whom there is at least some consensus of action.

But lets look more closely at your idea:

The figures i posted were not the total help given. They are recent figures that show that the EU is paying Mercosul to set itself up.Along wit these figures are advice, technical help,etc.Without EU money (some of it the UKs) Mercosul would not be developing as quickly.

As for the exanples you gave-
N Korea is not under embargo and has said that any attempt to put it under will be seen as an act of war. No one wants to trade with them and this is discouraged but there is no official sanctions in place.

In Cuba it has not worked. It has impoverished a people and made the USA look ridiculous nothing more. Not very effective.

Arab nations would have to be taken on a case by case basis.Against Libya it was a different situation.

You seem to be proposing that Mercosul should freeze all UK assets in its borders and block UK-Mercosul trade. This would be done to force the UK to negotiate-i can only assume this course would be taken because Argentine diplomatic, military and economic resources are inadequate for the task. Lets look at some figures.

*The total GDP of the Mercosul region is $1 trillion. The UKs GDP is $1.664 trillion on its own. With the EU-because you would not face the UK on its own-Mercosul total GDP would be dwarfed.

*Freezeing UK assests would bring retaliation from the rest of the EU. Mercosul nations would lose the a lot by helping Argentina in this vain adventure to make them feel better about themselves.

Uruguay
The EU accounted for 25.7% of Uruguay’s exports and 12.1% of its imports in 2003. Total bilateral trade in 2000 exceed €1 billion.

Paraguay
Bilateral EU-Paraguay trade in goods amounts to €338 million in 2002.Trade with EU represented around 8.4% of total Paraguay’s total trade.

Brazil
Brazilian exports to the EU in 2002 amounted to €17.3 billion, while Brazilian imports from the EU in 2002 reached € 15.4 billion. In 2003, the EU became Brazil’s biggest export market and its leading source of imports.

Argentina
The EU is the first investor in Argentina (€ 52.3 billion) The EU is already Argentina’s second trade partner after Mercosur, representing 19 % of its exports in 2002.

Would these nations, and even just Argentina, be willing to sacrifice their economic stability for a nationalistic dreams of one member state? How will they explain to farmers, factory workers and others that they are out of a job because Argentina wants some Islands it ran for less than a decade nearly 200 years ago?

Yes, there would be serious effects on the UK (and EU) but the message to the World would be loud and clear-'don't trade with Mercosul they are not to be trusted'.The effects would hit Mercosul before they hit the UK and would be terrible. Far worse than the economic trouble that Argentina suffered in the past few years.

Mercosul may have much that the UK wants but if you want to annex territory in return for goods then we would go elsewhere.N Ameria, Asia, Far East,Russia, China, India-all of these places would be glad of our money.And if you have these things but dont have access to the markets to sell them....

In total this policy would be damaging to UK interests. But far more damaging to Mercosul and the global economy. I doubt the WTO, UN or USA would remain silent while Mercosul plotted this suicidal plan and would bring their pressure to bear on this bullying behemoth.

Would we risk it? I dont think Mercosul would. Too much to lose. Do the math.

The UK will negotiate all issues but soverignty. This has been delegated to the Islanders. Perhaps if Argentina acted like a decent neighbour and a grown up and not a threat then negotiations would be more successfull. Even regognizing that the Islands had human beings living on them would be a start. I say again-Argentina does not have a negotiation policy, have a look and see . Just a demand. Thats no basis for negotiation.

All the best,

Hutch

[Sea Eagle]

Otto,

You are supporting a lost cause, Argentina has a mythical history regarding the Falklands claim most of it invented in the 20th century. Argentina after its initial protest at Britain's re-occupation of the Falklands only bothered to make two further half hearted protests until 1919 and did not make an annual statement until the 1960's.

The prospect of uniting Mercosur in punitive action against the Brits also seems remote given their history to date. Perhaps in the next century?

There is no intention on the part of Argentina to negotiate anything apart from a handover of the Islands over which they have factually never established effective control in their history. The British can and do talk to Argentina about all other ways to improve relationships and co-operation over the Falklands whenever Argentina agrees to do so, which is rarely.

The ultimate basis (foundation) of the Argentine claim is the division of the new world between Spain and Portugal by a Spanish Pope in 1493 (Papal Bull). Which actually as a temporal matter was subject to all human failing and error even if you are a good catholic. It was not a God given right written in stone. Their claim is to have inherited this Bull from Spain, pretty thin claim in my estimation. In which case you may have to hand most of Brazil to Spain as the Pope's dividing line was not observed by Portugal.

If it is the sole purpose of this Forum to support the Argentine sovereignty claim to the Falklands then I have to wonder what I am doing here.

However if there is a genuine and sincere intention that we can engage in constructive debate that can lead to an equitable and realistic solution to the disputed claim (that by the way is constantly racked a notch at a time by Argentina these days) then I am happy to engage in that debate.

Bear in mind that an equitable solution for me would be something like a middle way in which the genuine residents of the Falklands continued to run their own affairs independently but the surrounding resources were possibly shared in a fair manner.

Britain no longer has any long term sovereignty intentions over the Falkands but has potentially conceded its sovereignty rights to Falkland Islanders subject to their acceptance. Just as it has done with probably another 50 or so British possessions over the last 100 years.

Best wishes,

Ernie

[Sakura26]

To All

I read once, somewhere (and this info could be wrong) that the UK government was ready to sign a document giving the sovereignty of the Falklands to Argentina. I dont remember what happened exactly but I think it was something about the islanders, being obviously unhappy with this idea, and so, the plan froze.
This is very important. Because, it shows that the british government seems not to want more problems with Argentina and their only obstacle are the islanders. Of course, it's their duty to protect them (from Evil Argentines) but yet, I can see there's not such a fascination for the Falklands population as everybody wants to make us believe.
This is not a lost cause, Ernie. In fact, who knows, maybe Argentina, and the mercosur get to be more important for the UK than the Falkland Islands, and if that day comes, I'm pretty sure our claim is going to be listened. Your best chance, is to keep latinamerica poor and undevelopped. Remember it's all about money, always.
Now, more than ever, Argentina shouldn'd drop the claim.

Regards, Noelia

ps: Gabriel...I'm glad men die before their wives because they want to... I thought it was because of us ;D ;D ;D

[Sea Eagle]

Noelia,

Yes Britain has always been prepared to transfer sovereignty to Argentina, (or any other country for that matter) but only if it reflects the wishes of Falkland Islanders and they choose it in place of other self determination options. (Even Thatchers Government would have done this under the right set of circumstances)

The Falklands has never been about money for the UK and any income that has accrued to the UK has always been negligable. Much more has been spent on ensuring that the Islanders have the right to choose their own future.

I would never wish to keep Latin Americans poor and disadvantaged to gain some advantage for myself. We have plenty of poor and disadvantaged people in our own country.

My opinion of Argentinas claim is that it has been reduced to a whinge since 1982 with petty actions not worthy of you designed simply to annoy the Islanders. Sort of sour grapes to annoy for losing the conflict. Luckily the actions amount to the effect of a flea bite on an elephant. A tad annoying and silly at times but not terminal.

Argentinas current refusal to talk to the FIG or recognise it reminds me of the old English music hall joke about the man who lost a coin in the dark in the Cemetery but looked for it in the road under the street
light because the light was better.

Surely better to look for a solution where it is likely to be found?

If Argentina had the islands they would surely not know what to do with them just as they have no real use for Patagonia which was taken from the natives (largely by exterminating them) some 50 years after the Falklands was reclaimed by the British.

It would be a case of Hooray we won!! Now what do we do?

Hutch,

Your posts are very clear and explicit I agree entirely.

Regards,

Ernie

P.S. I thought men died first because their wives worked them to death. Or is that just British non PC joke? (Oops! My wife excepted of course as she will probably read this)

[Maquilishuat]

Hello Hutch:

Thank you for your lengthy answer.

Most of what you have written is sound and right.

Though let me do some considerations.

Embargoes have played a significant hole on foreign policy of all first world countries, mostly for political reasons. Any nation that challenges the extant commercial or military status are put under quarantine, as it is today with Pakistan because of its nuclear developments. As you know any country signing off the Tlatelolco Treaty would face immediate sanctions. Another point is that if a country suspects that the other is developing nuclear programs it will also be in the list (Iran), no matter it has signed everything on sight.

This also applies to sanitary barriers when, for instance, Brasil was accused by Canada of having a cow desease long eradicated, which brought huge losses to this country. These accusation have been proved wrong, but nevertheless sanctions were applied.

But there is another important point that you did not take into consideration, mainly because we all think that present resources are granted, no matter how our middle class keep growing. The world, as you know, is not an endless supermarket, that can be filled every day with good from all over the world. There is finite production and an increasing demand, that is supplied according to our technical development to get more from the same sources. This too, has a limit. An interessant example was a economic plan envisaged in Brasil on 1986, the “Cruzado Plan”. With this plan, suddenly the “door” to get in the middle class was wide open and millions of people upgraded their consuming habits. The result was that Brasil was, from day to night, importing several goods that we usually have exported, like cars, wheat, meat, tires, more oil, and, get this, coffee. Of course there was nobody to provide this enormous extra market with what was needed. Needless to say, the plan collapsed. It is not easy to establish a new infrastructure, so you may not go “elsewhere”. Also, the people elsewhere may be engaged on some other activity, besides covering a hole the size of Mercosul.

If Mercosul decides to stop any of the important commodities export that would bring a huge problem to the first world consumer. I imagine that something like 30 days doing so everyone would question the importance of these islands.

Who is going to be hurt more, Mercosul or EU/UK? Your population is far greater than ours, now imagine not supplying them accordingly, just because UK does not want to negotiate? Mercosul already lives with poverty, would your citizens downgrade their standards?

Now to negotiations. Would that hurt so much to sit and decide this once and for all?

Why let future politicians (they are commonly more shortsighted than ever, nowadays), have the upper hand on this?

Saludos, Maquilishuat