|
Post by Johnmcd on Sept 7, 2004 11:43:12 GMT -3
Gabriel, We must be real and understand the climate that already exists between the UK and Argentina and simply not confuse matters with our own point of views.
I understand that the UK would most certainly entertain a shift in the position of the Argentine government, from one of ‘no’ bargaining position to one that would accommodate cordial relations with the islands.
Freezing the dispute to allow this is a way forward, not the only solution, but one that has been seriously considered before.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Sept 7, 2004 14:26:21 GMT -3
John,
You wrote:"I understand that the UK would most certainly entertain a shift in the position of the Argentine government, from one of ‘no’ bargaining position to one that would accommodate cordial relations with the islands."
What time frame are you referring to? We can imagine all day long what the UK would have done being in the position of Argentina, but the fact remains, Argentina never had an empire! Where are the Argentinean Overseas territories? Cordial relations my foot! Were Ghandi and Begin trigger happy idiots? Were they Argentine propaganda? Who is confusing matters with our own point of view?
Regards,
Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Sept 7, 2004 16:34:45 GMT -3
Gabriel, “Argentina never had a empire” as you say. Yes, Argentina never had an empire but then again Argentina never had democracy until 21 years ago. You will have noticed that both India and Israel have had democracies much longer than most in S America including Argentina. Funnily enough, Iraq is now a democracy despite all the vexatious attempts for it not to be one.
I don’t confuse nothing when I speak about freedom, real freedom.
Please don’t make excuses for the Argentine fascists that ingrained the mythical notion that the islands were ever a part of the republic.
The future is not the past however and the future is one where democratic nations seek each other out in full co-operation. Argentina is now such a country and will know that a fenced in demand cannot ever be the basis for any negotiation over the islands. One Argentine foreign minister recently stated that the demand must be cooled and be cordial to allow discussions to take place. That’s why I have said, quite confidently, that the day is coming where something like a sovereignty freeze might well be a reality.
That would be welcomed tomorrow.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Sept 7, 2004 23:08:39 GMT -3
John,
Please do not be fooled by your propaganda. You are much smarter than that. Sarmiento was a President when England had a monarchy. The Argentine facists you mention were trained at the School of the Americas and armed by the same country. Or did you shoot at Mig's in 82? Real freedom does not exist. Never did. And as far as that goes, tomorrow will not be a better day. And about Iraq's "democracy", surely you are joking.
Regards,
Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by dantec on Sept 8, 2004 0:08:03 GMT -3
Hi John,
Im sorry but your going to have to do your homework on this one. Argentina set up a democratic constitution in 1850. Most of the Govenments have been democratic since that time, with the obvious intereference of the Army from time to time. As for Iraqi democracy? Well. once the it goes to the vote most experts who are not aligned to the American line say that on it's own Iraq will return to a Muslim fundmentalist State, because most of it's population is of that lining. The US would have to keep interefering and meddling in order to keep the fundamentilists away. You see Sadam was a far better allly to theUS then they actually realized, now the problems and complexities that Sadam managed to put a lid on is being handled by a regime that is incapable of even having and understanding of middle east politics.
Good Luck.
Regards Daniel (Dantec)
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Sept 8, 2004 7:37:48 GMT -3
Daniel/Gabriel,
Far be it for me to give you a lesson in your own history, but I have to say that a democratic constitution does not equate with the practice of democracy in Argentina’s case.
With regard to democracy in Argentina, lets not stretch things too far. The UK can say that it has had Parliamentary Government secured generally since Cromwell’s day but that has not always equated to Democracy but in the period since Argentina came into existence as a modern state the UK has been democratic. The same cannot be said of Argentina which, lets face the truth, did not actually come into its almost present boundaries and form till 1861. And until President Roque Sáenz Peña in 1912 the Governments of Argentina came about generally by a process of permanent fraud (The cause of a number of rebellions) rather than by following a democratic constitution. This new constitutionally democratic period beginning 1912 ended 1930 with a military coup (18 years total). After this there were a succession of ‘sort of’ democratic elections interspersed by a succession of Military coups right up to 1982. The rest of Argentina’s recent democratic history is more familiar to most of us.
However it would probably be true to say that the Falklands was not a democracy until after 1982. Thanks for that small mercy.
It is fairly evident here who is being fooled by their own propaganda and in this case it is not John.
I have to agree with John in his current postings. (From time to time we disagree) Truly it is Argentina that refuses to negotiate anything but a handover of the islands.
The Argentine Empire? Well it is true that ‘Argentina’ (United Provinces) did aspire to succeed to Empire and ‘Vice-King’ Kirchner presented his case for the Falklands to the UN as a successor of Empire e.g. ‘the Falklands was an integral part of the old empire and Argentina is its successor.’ Of course it did not actually inherit the lands of the old Empire (Vice Royalty) at all and the existence of Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and the Falklands etc. bears witness to that.
Hey Gabriel why did I think you were an Orientale?
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 8, 2004 7:39:56 GMT -3
Maquilishuat
In order to get the embargo you speak of there would need to be total agreement with all Mercosur nations, yes? How likely is this? I have already shown how all Mercosur nations would lose if this policy was followed but i'll give another example.
Brazil is the fifth largest country in the world, both in terms of territory and population (175m in 2002) and ranked as the 12th largest world economy in 2002 (GDP €478 billion, GDP per capita €2,793). It represents 75% of Mercosur’s GDP. Essentially Brazil is Mercosur in terms of economic muscle.
The EU is Brazil’s biggest trade, investment and cooperation partner, with total bilateral trade of around €33 billion in 2002, absorbing around a quarter of Brazil’s exports, and investing a total FDI stock of €78 billion up to 2002.
Is Brazil really likely to essentially destroy its economy to support Argentinas dreams of glory? Look a how much they have to lose:
Exports to EU : €17.3 billion (2002) = 23.3% total exports, no. 2 destination.
Imports from EU : €15.5 billion (2002) = 27% total imports, no. 1 source.
Will they throw that away?Because if Argentina pushed for the 'solution' you propose then all of this and more would be lost.The belief that all of S America supports Argentinas claim is a reassuring one but what is that support really worth?How far would they support Argentina?In words and on paper yes, but in deeds? To the massive detriment of their own nations and peoples? I think it was said best when someone said something like "Argentinas claim is respected but Britains ownership is accepted"
And dont forget that Argentina would be the aggressor here so would have to justify its policy. Will that be easy?
I agree that the effects in UK/EU may bite somewhat-and harshly too in some areas- but the whole of the Mercosur regions economy might have collapsed before these 30 days are up. There is a global surplus in many consumer goods which could be bought elsewhere while others might run short and cause problems.But whilst we would have money to spare and be looking to spend in mercosur would have noone buying its products and be receiving no money. Whos in the stronger position? Out of interest, what are these 'important commodities ', the lack of which would cause the UK/EU to cave into these bullying tactics?
As to negotiations, again see what i have already said. It is Argentina who refuses to agree reasonable terms for negotiation and refuses to talk to the only people who can decide the soverignty of the Falklands-the Islanders. How many times does HM Government have to tell Argentina how to get what it wants before they listen?
Gabriel-
Taking possession of a territory which lies hundreds of miles from your shores which has a completely seperate language, history, culture, which has had brief, unsuccessful and sporadic rule from the mainland, which was claimed by other nations before Argentina existed and which clearly does not wish to be run by an aggressive and unfriendly neighbour would lead to Argentina getting its first Overseas Territory. The start of an Argentine Empire? And England still has a Monarchy. A constitutional one.I'm guessing that when Sarmiento was present we also had democracy, albeit a heavyly restricted one which opened up slowly. Which has given it remarkable stability.
All the best,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Sept 8, 2004 9:02:16 GMT -3
Hello All
I'll quote some sentences from each one and I'll answer them here.
Hutch, you quoted
I dont know why this sounds to me as if we were claiming Australia, but yet, it's not a dream of glory but a right to recover a territory stolen by a more powerful country. It's not like Argentina going around the world interfering in wars in which we have nothing to do, and taking over territories that dont belong to us. Perhaps Brazil, (just like the rest of latin america, except Chile, maybe) has noticed this already, and understands that this economic ally he has (UK and EU) is not very trustable. Because, even being Brazil as big adn powerful, it has not chance against the UK, if someone suddenly decides to set some british population in the amazonas and claim it as a british territory. Latinamerica has millions of problems, but, we're pretty sure no one is going to attack each other, among us. Maybe in this world of wars, this is a very valuable tip. However, latinamerica as a economic block, is a nightmare first world countries dont want to live, fortunately for them, we're still a little far from it.
Ernie you said
I dont want to be rude, but this really sounds like you have nothing else to invent against Argentina to prove we dont "deserve" the Falklands. You know, the fact that democracies work fine for you and the US doesn't mean you have to go around the world imposing this government system. Countries seem to defend freedom, but what freedom?? The freedom of imposing a culture, a government? Democracies just dont work well in some societies and both the US and the UK will have to learn this from once and forever. If our democratic governments were good or bad for you, it's still not related to the Falklands issue. You are negotiating with Argentina 2004, not with Argentina 1850. If you want to go back in the past, let's take a look at what has Britain done.
Regards, Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Sept 8, 2004 10:03:45 GMT -3
Noelia,
I was answering the general point that Daniel made on your country's record of democracy I do not believe anywhere in the context I related that to your spurious claim to the Falklands. The only reference I made to the Falklands, in relation to historical democracy, was to say that it was not democratic before 1982. (In my opinion). Nor do I think that your non democratic record would count against you if in fact your claim had any substance, which it has not. (Again in my opinion.) And to correct you again we are not negotiating at all with Argentina in 2004 on the issue of Sovereignty although all other options are open to Argentina to negotiate but it chooses not to do so.
Argentina seems to live in a grand isolation without any realisation of give and take, negotiation and compromise. This is in contrast to European countries who have had to learn the hard way after many wars and conflicts and more changes of boundaries and territory than even you could possibly imagine, probably as a result of living so close together in a limited geograhical area.
This is not to say that your country has not been involved in horrific wars and exterminations as has my own country, in your case the Triple Alliance and the Desert Campaign spring to mind.
I still have no concept of why on earth you make a principle out of wanting to take over the Falklands. Are you so insecure as a nation that you fear a couple of thousand peaceful residents there and the awful concept of allowing them to run their own affairs? Have you nothing else productive to do with your time and efforts?
Is your lack of interest in democracy simply a prop to support your lack of interest in the rights of Falkland Islanders?
You should really think seriously about where your thoughts are leading you to, I mean that very sincerely.
The Falklands could really be the best of neighbours and friends with Argentina with an equitable sharing of resources. It is really so sad that your collective possessive natures prevent you from allowing this to happen.
By the way I invent nothing I say about Argentina, as far as possible I ensure that what I say is backed up by verfiable facts, mostly confirmed by your own and other historical records.
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Sept 8, 2004 10:15:27 GMT -3
Hi Ernie, The question of democracy is absolute. It requires a yes or no answer. If we have to judge democracy based on the level of corruption, I suppose under Nixon and Reagan the US was not a democracy, and it is certainly not being run like one now. Jay Leno said a few days ago that all we need to do is give Iraq our constitution; it's 200 years old and we are not using it. Need I say more? Corruption is more difficult to define in absolute terms, since we have different biases. For example, in my opinion, the system known in the US as "Electoral College", is as corrupt as you can get. What's the point of voting if your vote doesn't count? The multiple line item is another example. What kind of crooked game is that? Do you know that the UN is going to send observers to the US in November? Defining right and wrong based on stability with "democratic" systems highly submerged in intitutionalized corruption is not the way I measure things. My idea of what Argentina should be is very different than yours. I do not doubt I will be lectured about democracy by somebody in this forum, but if you guys are going to say that Argentina has not been democratic based on the flavor of the sauce, we will play the game together. Surely Argentina lacks the economic muscle, but again, we did not have the advantage kick start of slavery. Hutch, The day after we get the Malvinas, we will change the name of our Navy to God's Imperial Navy. Africa will be next (we could use the music). Regards, Gabriel PS: I love Uruguay. I lived there for six years, but I was born in the far-west.
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Sept 8, 2004 10:19:38 GMT -3
Hola Hutch:
You wrote:
Taking possession of a territory which lies hundreds of miles from your shores which has a completely seperate language, history, culture, which has had brief, unsuccessful and sporadic rule from the mainland, which was claimed by other nations before Argentina existed and which clearly does not wish to be run by an aggressive and unfriendly neighbour would lead to Argentina getting its first Overseas Territory. The start of an Argentine Empire?
I will answer later your post but this observation is interesting. If you take the word Argentina out, and put UK, does it remind you anything about Iraq? Or, sorry to say, are we dealing with double standards?
I have to travel right now, and I apologize not answering properly your posting, which I intend to do tomorrow.
Saludos, Maquilishuat
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 8, 2004 11:45:45 GMT -3
Maquilishuat,
"If you take the word Argentina out, and put UK, does it remind you anything about Iraq?"
Not really no. In Iraq the Coalition has gone in to *destroy any WMD (did he still have any?) *free a people from a tyrant (secondary after not finding WMD?) *try to bring democracy to the region (a good idea poorly executed?) And yes oil would have played a part in these decisions no doubt.
But in no way has the Coalition-or just UK if you like-*said that Iraq was stolen off us * that it is our land and we have proof *that we inherited the land from someone else * that it is our right and duty to recover it * that it must be absorbed back into the UK * that no one but usurpers live there who don't count *that the opinion of the natives doesent matter *that we wish to rule it forever *inserted a clause into our constitution that we must have it *declared the annexation of Iraq a national goal we will spend 400 years if neccessary striving for
See the difference? We're not there to claim it as our own territory and seize it against the wishes of a free, democratic people. At most we (Coalition) may be guilty of trying to create a client state to ensure the steady flow of oil. If we were doing that though we could have done it a lot easier. After all, the West has been doing it for centurys.But we're not trying to actually absorb the whole country into our own, as Argentina is trying to do with the Falklands.
Thats why British soldiers have been arrested for killing/harming Iraqs, why Coalition forces are struggling to ensure elections can take place, why theres a free press in Iraq now which is often critical of the occupation, why exit plans are in place, etc, etc. They are not trying to take possession of the territory-far more effective, covert ways to do that.
As for double standards of course they are in existence here just as they are everywhere else. Argentina talks democracy and self determination but seeks to deny it to others. UK says to solve things by talk at the UN but uses force. And so on all over the World all the time. The trick is to strike a balance and realise whats rhetoric and realpolitik and whats not.
Travelling anywhere nice?
Noelia,
They are dreams of glory, of pride, of nationalistic fervour. You talk of your 'right'. The right to take over lands and lives very different from your own?The right to tell people whom you dont even recognize exist what to do? The right to ignore nearly 200 years of peacefull settlement s and inhabitation, of global legal changes, of global attitudes?Your 'right' to be given rights which no other nation receives because this case is somehow special?The 'right' to turn the clock back to 1833 in this one case because of this massive injustice? The right to gain land which was never integral to either Spain or Argentina? The right to land which for less than 10 years, decades and decades ago Argentina tried to set up a colony on territory already claimed by others and on which it failed to establish clear, obvious and internationally recognized ownership and has failed ever since?
"Perhaps Brazil, (just like the rest of latin america, except Chile, maybe) has noticed this already, and understands that this economic ally he has (UK and EU) is not very trustable..."
Is that why trade is going along so well and there are moves afoot to create an EU-Mercosur Free Trade Area?
"However, latinamerica as a economic block, is a nightmare first world countries dont want to live..."
Actually as far as i can see the EU (among others) is pushing for just that as its easier to negotiate between 2 big blocks of nations rather than loads of individual nations.Thats why the EU is giving money to set up Mercosur and showing them how to create a trading block across vast distances.Big economic blocs are usefull and attractive to the First World, its not 'yet another plan' to attack Argentina, et al. Don't you think the EU wants the stability a trading block could bring to S America as it did to Europe?
"...british population in the amazonas and claim it as a british territory..."
Paranoid fantasy. The UK is not trying to expand its territory in S America is it? No.Its merely continuing a claim its had since before Argentina existed and which is generally globally accepted.Fear of the UK coming in and annexing S American land is just a way to scare others that the UK is 'up to her old tricks'.There are far more subtle and effective ways to control a nation than implanting settlers.Not that the UK could pull off such a bold move anyway.You underestimate Brazil if you think theres nothing they could do to stop us.
All the best,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Sept 8, 2004 16:47:52 GMT -3
Hello All
What a mess of stuff to talk about and to answer to, I'll try to do it the most organised I can:
Ernie, you posted:
Well, maybe we need wars against us to learn to be together, but, I'm kinda proud that latinamerica doesnt like the way of violence, and in fact I dont feel isolated. The problem is latinamerican countries are all poor and trading here, it's not as easy as in Europe, which seems to be a richer continent. (not to mention the fact of distance, that helps a lot to cultural exchange). Besides, after the UK refusing to use Euro as the rest of Europe is doing, what UNION are you talking about? British talk about freedom and destroyed baghdad and talk about union but refuse to share the currency... What authority does Britain have, to point at Argentina's failures!!!
You also posted
No, actually insecure nations such as Spain is what Britain is counting on to keep their stolen territories. Argentina, is not insecure and wont drop any claim over a territory that we absolutely believe is ours. If the British government set people on a stolen land that didnt belong to them, it's a matter for your to discuss with your Queen, you're right, we shouldnt negotiate with the Falklands, but with the British government itself. All our efforts are concentrated now on our economic problems, but not for a moment we're going to forget about the Falklands issue.
Did Falkland islanders ever think about ARgentina's rights, just for a second, without thinking about the fear of losing the terrotory? No, they didnt, they dont want to. So, why should we think about it? If you deny our rights, we'll deny yours, and so this is a neverending story.
Argentina has better neighborgs to negotiate with than the Falklands...However, I'd really love to visit the place someday, and who knows, it could be a really cheaper way to learn/practice English for all latinamerica. But, since it seems the only way the Falklands will accept Argentina friendly, is by giving up our claim, this is nothing but a dream of a perfect friendly world. Another one.
Now, I'm switching to Hutch
Wrong. I do recognize them. But ARgentina is after the territory not the people. If we get the territory back, they can stay, nobody said the contrary (or at least I hope nobody says that...) They can keep they customs, language, whatever... An english speaking province would be nice to have. But our flag has to fly there, that's what we want. As I told ERnie before, everybody speaks about their rights, what about ours? why are british rights more important than ours? No way.....
I dont know where are you from but if you know latinamerica or have been here, you know we're not exactly like Europe, we have MANY economic problems, all of us, and creating a mercosur out of weak countries (economically speaking) is far worse than creating the EU out of european countries. And you're gonna tell me, Europe is not as rich as it used to be, but, still you cant compare these two continents. The poverty in latinamerica is reaching shocking levels.
See? again laughing, mocking and denying anything comiing from Argentina. Why should I respect other's rights if mine are being laughed at.... No more to talk about.
Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Sept 9, 2004 12:05:24 GMT -3
Hi Noelia, Just to interject….
You say: “Did Falkland islanders ever think about ARgentina's rights, just for a second, without thinking about the fear of losing the terrotory? No, they didnt, they dont want to. So, why should we think about it? If you deny our rights, we'll deny yours, and so this is a neverending story.”<br> In the book ‘Land that Lost its Heroes’ there is mention of the deep rooted fear that the pre-1983 argentine administration would imprison and ‘disappear’ leading islanders who openly voiced strong condemnation of the Dirty War. A couple of years later they were invaded – that fear then became tangible. So, Islanders have thought about Argentine rights – human rights.
Today they need hope that they can live in continued peace.
Not what you want to hear, but something you should know.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Sept 9, 2004 14:31:04 GMT -3
Hello John
I know what you mean. But with all the respect to the islanders and to a war, that is always a tragedy for both sides, I think this is nothing but the perfect excuse to keep Argentian away of negotiations, friendship or anything else.
The planet has witnessed worse wars than the Falklands conflict, we just saw the awful killing in Irak, innocent people murdered, capital cities destroyed, civilians hurt. No Falkland civilians were hurt during our invasion, and, unlike Baghdad, Buenos Aires and London were respected and the war was kept in the battle field.
With that same logic, why arent England And France afraid of each other after all the wars that have been fought between them? Why is Germany so relaxed, after being beaten in the world war by the United States? Why is Japan not worried about another atom bomb? But the islanders are frightened of a new invasion from a full-of-problems Argentina?
This is not going to work if we're not sincere to each other. It seems all these forums are about "LETS CONVINCE ARGENTINES THEY SHOULD DROP THE CLAIM" instead of reaching an agreement that please both parts... If that's the way we are thinking, it's a complete loss of time for everybody...
Regards, Noelia
|
|