|
Post by Maquilishuat on Sept 9, 2004 17:28:19 GMT -3
Hola Hutch:
Sorry for the delay on answering you.
Apart from the countries of Mercosul, ALL others in South America support the Argentinean right for the archipelago. You pose the question if other countries would support a possible embargo, and the same question comes to my mind regarding the European Union; would they support a stubborn position of no negotiations from UK?
Mercosul has a lot to lose, so has EU. Please acknowledge the argument I did about “going elsewhere”, which is quite important.
Brazil has a lot to loose, you say, by supporting with an embargo the start of negotiations. Sounds weird, but nonetheless a possibility. As you know the Brazilian economy, combined with the other Mercosul partners, produce almost everything. What kind of basic needs would be impaired in case the embargo happens? Oil? We produce 95% of what we need. Just gasoline? Sorry, the Brazilian alcohol program is in place since 1974. Wheat? Argentina has surplus. Medicines? Dozens of labs working, some of the state owned. Cars? Sorry, Brazil exports them.
Who is going to be affected if a single railroad (Monlevade-Vitoria) stops? No iron, sorry, Japan, sorry UK, sorry steel producers. Manganese? Some mines in North Brazil (with strong British investment, btw) could stop, and redirect the production to other EU members.
Think about meat. Where are you going to find so much cattle. Argentina, Uruguay and Brasil, not counting Paraguai, have more cattle than people. Try to find another surplus like that in our solar system.
The only weak point we could have is the Brazilian foreign debt which, in my opinion, could be cancelled any time just by auditing the way it was got.
I will use a comparison that could not be exact. The might of the first world today is based on nuclear weapons. They do not have to use them to assess this might. The same goes for an hypothetical embargo. We show our will and the implications, the negotiations will start.
The Argentine claim is sound to me, that is why I support negotiations.
BTW, I am a Brazilian citizen.
I traveled inside El Salvador to a very high mountain, where I am installing a GSM network. The view is wonderful, a huge volcano covered with clouds. I took some photos of this incredible and beautiful country, and I will put them on my site next month.
Saludos amigos, Otto
|
|
|
Post by dantec on Sept 9, 2004 21:22:12 GMT -3
Hi Noelia and Sea Eagle,
The best comment ive heard is by Noelia ""LETS CONVINCE ARGENTINES THEY SHOULD DROP THE CLAIM". Some of the garb that comes from the neo conservative British side amazes me. I thank goe that you people arent representative of the general British population. Otherwise the world would be in serious trouble. For those who are about to cane me for making this comment. "How popular is Blair in Britain". The man you people idolise and support without question? Anyway to SEA EAgle, I was simply clarifying a point made by John, in that the essensce of what I was saying is that Argentina had every intention of setting up a democratic process. Before you started with with you british is great statement. There has always been different versions of democracies. I dont disagree that it wasnt as democratic as Britain was at the time. Bu there are still quite undemocratic places in the world. Australian States had also an undemocratic States democracies. In the US unless you rich you cant aspire to any high parliamentary office so how democratic is that. So in conlusion some of you people should put your neo conservative egos and put them small and dark place, get out of your little towers and go pout there and see the world. See the Iraki people without running water and and proper sanitation, yes they got democracy but they with their lives and their families devatated. See the poverty of South America, or the subsedies that the wealthy nation pay their farmers and industries to stop some third world country trying to get a foothold in the first world market. There is no military option to anything, nor to the falklands or the mid east conflict. Argentina has always known that, governments have and people have, except some desperate "junta" that acted illegally. Let's see some new ideas and a different spin on this discussion. We just go around and around, blaming argentina from terorism to the crucifiction of Christ.
Regards Daniel
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 10, 2004 10:33:42 GMT -3
Maquilishuat.
I do not have time to reply fully now so just briefly-
"and the same question comes to my mind regarding the European Union; would they support a stubborn position of no negotiations from UK? "
Yes they would.They wouldnt have a choice, with all the treaty obligations and so on. When you trade with the UK you trade with the EU really.
Remember when Morocco landed some troops on those Spanish owned spits of land just off Moroccos coast some months back? The EU said that "The European Union expresses its full solidarity with Spain and urges Morocco to immediately withdraw its forces,". The EU President met the Moroccans to "to express the grave concern of Europe" .And that was for two bits of land that no one in the EU cares about. Attempting to start a trade war with a major member would be a grave matter indeed, even one as sometimes unpopular as the UK.
As for the going elsewhere argument it has merit. But the damage to Mercosur would be huge, bigger than to UK. It would have products and no one from Europe buying them (at the very least no one from the EU, let alone USA, etc). It wouldnt be getting any money but goods would be stacking up, debt repayments, lack of loans, etc. Where would you find another market? The goods would have to be dumped on the market, probably for a loss, probably in breach of other trade agreements. There would be a huge hole in all Mercosur finances. The UK/EU on the other hand would have spare cash to buy from anywhere else. Even buy your products through a middleman like the USA who would 'buy' them from you. There is a surplus in most global goods bar oil.
"No iron, sorry, Japan, sorry UK, sorry steel producers."
Bringing in Japan? So I assume that all Mercosur trade would stop until its demands were met?So essentially Mercosur would attempt to blackmail the World into giving it what it wanted? Mercosur would turn into a cartoon James Bond bad guy who gets himself an atomic bomb and says he'll use it unless given £100 billion.
Such a policy as this would make sure that Mercosur would break every trade agreement it had, make it certainly the 'bad guy' in the Worlds eyes and possibly ruin the global economy. All to help Argentina get some land it wants. If this policy were given into it would mark a dangerous precident, nearly as dangerous as Bush's use of pre-emptive war: economic blackmail in exchange for land. If Mercosur was prepared to act like this just to get negotiations over the FI, what would they do if they ended not in Argentinas favour?If you're blackmailing the World why not just ask for possession not just talks? Then why not demand more?
Once again we have seen the claim that all would be solved if the UK would agree to sit down to negotiations, they are being unreasonable and so on. (Ignore the fact that the UK has told Argentina many times that they need to talk to the Falklanders to get soverignty but they still appear to be deaf and insist on talking with the wrong people) For that to happen both sides have to come to the table honestly with their deals, their possible compromises, political support, tradeoff areas, secret deal possibilitys, etc.
Would Argentina approach such negotiations honestly? Would they come to the table ready to actually negotiate? Would they be prepared to negotiate for shared soverignty, favoured partner status, gradual leaseback, Argentina in the UKs current role or any other compromise deal. In short, would they come to negotiations to negotiate? No. No they wouldnt. Why? Because of the recently inserted clause in the constitution-
"First. The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and everlasting sovereignty over the Malvinas, South Georgia and Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular areas, because they are an integral part of the National territory.
The regaining of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, while respecting the lifestyle of their inhabitants, and in conformity with principles of international law, constitute a permanent and unwaivable objective of the Argentine people."
Argentina has therefore completely prejudiced negotiations to the point that they would be pointless. The only Argentina negotiation policy is 'hand over the Islands now' or 'lets talk about how you will hand over the Islands tomorrow.' And thats it.
You can moan about the stubborn no negotiations policy of the UK all you like but the actual reality is very simple
*Only the Falklanders can decide their future so why does Argentina insist on ignoring this and insist on ignoring their only negotiation partner?
*The constitutionally defined position of Argentina-as well as their various government statements- is to demand the Islands back with full soverignty. Thus Argentina has no negotiation policy only a demand.
Think about this. Argentina talks about negotiations but this is totally ridiculous as they have no intention of attending honest negotiations.Not with this active clause in their constitution. Therefore whats the point of setting up a negotiation which would only lead to failure and all the feelings of hurt pride, humiliation, betrayal that comes with it.
El Salvador sounds great.I have some friends from their and they loved it although they left in the 1980s.
All the best,
Hutch
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 10, 2004 11:08:39 GMT -3
Noelia.
"Wrong. I do recognize them"
No, you dont. All this talk of 'we only want the land not the people' is sheer nonsense, which is used to try to distract from the fact that the land is in fact inhabited by people who are no threat to and could be great friends of Argentina. Talk of wanting land (which usually translates into resources) and not people has been used for centurys by various groups-most of the imperialistic. The USA wanted land not Native Americans. The Nazis wanted land not Slavs. The English wanted land not Scottish crofters. And so on.When the land is inhabited there is no way to get the land without getting the people. I cant think of anywhere in the World where one government owns the land but does not rule the people.
"As I told ERnie before, everybody speaks about their rights, what about ours?"
Well what are your rights? Please explain them and explain why Argentina has these rights, which would seem to be more important than others' rights.I would like them clearly and concisely spelled out so i can see them once and for all.
"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."
I'm sorry if you took it that way but do you really believe that the Royal Marines and 10,000 settlers are going to suddenly pop up in the Amazon waving a bit of paper around and claiming ownership? The idea is logically, politically, diplomatically, economically absurd. And i think you know this. The global outcry at such a move would even drown out the Iraq protests. It would be naked imperialism at its height.
Its along the lines of the UK putting its fleet in the English Channel to defend against the Spanish Armarda- the time when that could have happened is far over. If it was determined neccessary for the UK to seize part of Brazils interior it would be done in far more subtle ways-through multinational corporations for example.
"...why arent England And France afraid of each other after all the wars that have been fought between them?"
Because we reconciled our differences and came together as partners. Many of our problems were related to overseas issues which have resolved. But we still have healthy rivalry, jokes at each others expense, etc.
"Why is Germany so relaxed, after being beaten in the world war by the United States"
Relaxed?Its not relaxed about its defeat by the UK, USA, USSR, Canada, France, etc. But the horrors of the Holocaust, the sheer level of the defeat the splitting of the country, the USA as W Germanys defence shield, the threat of Soviet invasion and years of cohabitation have dulled the feelings on the war.
"Why is Japan not worried about another atom bomb?"
It is from N Korea. But do you mean an American one?Probably because that war has been over for decades.
All the examples you gave were instances of when there has been conflict but it has been resolved. Through force or diplomacy, usually a mix of the two with a strong effort of reconciliation on both sides.The Falklands dispute hasnt been fully resolved and Argentina continues to insist on making it an issue instead of letting the issue cool.As Argentina appears aggressive, a bully, unhelpfull, unfriendly and wrote a clause of 'peacefull annexation' into their constitution how are the Islanders supposed not to be afraid of Argentina? Domestic problems, especially economic ones, can cause governments to take sudden extreme actions.
"This is not going to work if we're not sincere to each other."
Agreed, and as long as Argentine governments continue to not have a negotiation policy but issue a demand which it knows will not be fulfilled and is for domestic consumption anyway, then this is not going to work and the problem will rumble on, baring a major change on the UK/FI side.
All the best,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Sept 11, 2004 10:58:19 GMT -3
Hola Hutch:
I am still considering your arguments, but in your last posting to Noelia you wrote:
"I'm sorry if you took it that way but do you really believe that the Royal Marines and 10,000 settlers are going to suddenly pop up in the Amazon waving a bit of paper around and claiming ownership? The idea is logically, politically, diplomatically, economically absurd. And i think you know this. The global outcry at such a move would even drown out the Iraq protests. It would be naked imperialism at its height."
They are clever than that!
Actually there was an effort to do just this, but using extant population! Some years ago a group of people from several NGO were forcing a creation of a Yanomami country, covering part s of Brasil and Venezuela. Then this land, which was the size of Spain, would have international recognition and a country would be formed by "stealing" our land.
When Brasil accepted a Yanomami Region, but 100 km from any border the NGO lost interest.
Another idea was to create a huge lake in the region to preserve it for future generations, an idea so difficult to sell but, nevertheless, occupied the media for several months.
Saludos from El Salvador, Maquilishuat.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Sept 11, 2004 13:24:14 GMT -3
Hello Hutch
Well, here's your first example then. Argentina wants the land not the people, which doesnt mean we're going to kick them out of their houses... (at least, that's not my wish) however, hiding negotiations behind the shield of living in a land is not going to work, at least with me. If you find a car parked in the street and you get in it, 120 years later it means the car is yours? Because the owner, who has been claiming it, doesnt have the means to recover it from you?
I would need a whole new thread to explain all over again the rights and proofs Argentina is always talking about, but I think you know them pretty well. The fact is, that you're going to obviously reject them, and so, again, nobody here wants to negotiate but to convince us to drop the claim.
Yes Hutch, I really believe that could happen...and worse too. I dont trust the big powers of the world anymore. Naked imperialism is now being showed off and no one in the entire planet, has the power to stop this madness. Maybe not yet in latinamerica, but sooner or later we're gonna be the target. After Irak, I dont trust anybody. I have been shown that, powerful countries are out of control, and innocent people and cities are being destroyed in the name of freedom.
We have healty rivalries with Brazil about football but neither country has ever thought about invading each other. Brazil is bigger, but think about Paraguay or Bolivia... They are not afraid of us...why are the Falklands, having the protection of the UK army? Excuses...
I meant, why isnt Germany worried about a new attack from the allies, since, according to your way of thinking, countries that have been attacked - the Falklands in this case - should be worried about a new attack for all eternity.
Our war has been over a couple of decades ago, but they are still "worrying" about a new attack....
So it seems, that the whole planet forgot about their wars, but the Falklands just cant.....weird huh?
What do you call a negotiation? In a negotiation, all the parts leave with something... Are we going to get something from this negotiation or is it just a "drop-the-claim" attempt?
best wishes Noelia
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 14, 2004 6:48:44 GMT -3
Noelia.
(rushed for time again so apologise for brevity,spelling errors,etc)
Land not people issue-Argentina is trying to establish a precident which has no foundation in law anywhere and which is logically absurd. You can not divide the people from the land like this. The only similar arrangement i can think of is landlord tennant style agreements in rented accomodation.This is clearly not the case in the FI and wouldnt work.
If a car is in the street and 120 years later you still have possession and the other person can't prove their case and you owned the car before them then i would say yes, it is yours-or is the government of France worried about the Celts claiming back their land there from 500BC? Anyway comparing possessions (usually cars, wallets, houses) to the FI issue doesent quite match as the Islands are not just possessions but the homes of people and familys, in some cases form scores of years.
As for 'Argentine rights' please create a new thread when you have the time and list them. I think i know what most of them would be but that could be flawed as it would be based on what i think you think.A clear, concise list of rights-not arguments or historical events, but actual rights-would really help me to codify just what these rights are.It would lay a good basis for future discussion and agreement perhaps.
You dont trust the big powers-fair enough, i dont really either. But their methods have move on from sending settlers and troops.
"...why are the Falklands, having the protection of the UK army? Excuses..."
Not excuses, but genuine fear and worry. Last time the UK army wasnt enough to protect them was it?And no one thought the Junta would be stupid enough to invade.They are worried because Argentinas behaviour has been erratic in the past and if Argentina was to try violence again then more Islanders could get hurt or killed. Just a small barrage of Stanley could kill dozens of Islanders.
"I meant, why isnt Germany worried about a new attack from the allies, since, according to your way of thinking, countries that have been attacked - the Falklands in this case - should be worried about a new attack for all eternity."
No, if you read what i wrote it was that "All the examples you gave were instances of when there has been conflict but it has been resolved Through force or diplomacy, usually a mix of the two with a strong effort of reconciliation on both sides."
Reconciliation. That is why Germany isnt afraid of a new Alllied (WW2 era Allies) attack. When the main issues have been resolved then the worry of a new attack fades (although the war itself is remembered) which is what has happened in the examples you gave. The FI issue has not been solved and Argentina continually tries to escalate it, for domestic political reasons.
"Our war has been over a couple of decades ago, but they are still "worrying" about a new attack...."
Yes, because it still rumbles on with no clear end in sight. See it from their side-years ago a 'patriotic' Argentine government which was unpopular at home and in economic trouble tried to better itself by the invasion of their home. The invaders were defeated at a cost of nearly 1000 lives (including some islanders). The invaders never apologised, a formal state of war had never existed so there was no post war treaty, a later legitimate government has never apologised for the invasion whilst pointing out that it was an aberation Argentina regrets but which the demoratic Argentine people and government are not responsible for, they continue their harrasement , try to get other nations to join in their bullying and very recently added a clause of peacefull annexation into their constitution. They are worried about a possible new attack because Argentinas policy is one of almost unmitigated hostility and aggression.
"So it seems, that the whole planet forgot about their wars, but the Falklands just cant.....weird huh?"
They didnt forget their wars but they ended and were usually followed by efforts and reconciliation. Even Vietnam and USA trade today. The root cause of the FI issue has not been solved so its hard to forget the war as there is no clear sign that it wont happen again. Its hard to make friends with someone who ignores you and tries to take your house off you.
"What do you call a negotiation? In a negotiation, all the parts leave with something... Are we going to get something from this negotiation or is it just a "drop-the-claim" attempt?"
I call a negotiation 'The transaction of business between nations; the mutual intercourse of governments by diplomatic agents, in making treaties, composing difference, etc.; ' Unhelpfully Argentina has inserted a domestic consumption clause into her constitution wihich has effectively totally prejudiced any chance of negotiations. There can be no negotiation because of this cluase as it has codified the fact that Argentina has no negotiation policy-just a demand. How can the UK/FI negotiate with that even if they wanted to?
Argentina has effectively killed off any hope of compromise, any hope of 'all sides leaveing with something' or the possibility of honest talks.
All the best,
Hutch
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Sept 14, 2004 7:16:09 GMT -3
Noelia,
I think you are mistaken, the Falklands no longer fears an attack from Argentina at all. Yes of course the UK deals with the Falklands defence and Foreign affairs and acts in accord with the wishes of the FIG in this respect. However their defence capabilities are minimal and in accord with those of any country that simply takes sensible precautions to police its boundaries and maintain its territorial integrity in the same manner as for instance Argentina and Chile do. One could ask similarly why these two countries maintain defensive capabilities as they are under no threat of attack from each other! However I do believe the Falklands do fear domination and manipulation by Argentina which does not recognise any of their human rights and simply talks about their interests in a mealy mouthed way. Somebodies interests can only be what they see them to be (right or wrong) not how they are seen by a foreigner. I am sure you will agree with this if you apply the same argument to yourself.
With regard to negotiation there has to be a basis for this which does recognise the rights of both parties and there are de facto only two parties, not three, Argentina and the Falklands, because like it or not the UK only represents the interests of the Islanders (as the Islanders see them) in this matter and will not negotiate outside those parameters. This is the difference between you and the British, they recognise the rights and aspirations of the Islanders and you do not. The British have paid heavily to defend those rights from the 1970's onwards. Yes they tried to get Islanders to reach a political accommodation with Argentina in the 1970's and failed to do so, they accepted this failure and bowed to the rights of Islanders to make their own choice ultimately about their own future. This lead to the Junta's invasion of the Falklands when they realised that the UK meant what it said, that Falkland Islanders had the final choice. The British defended the Islanders freedom of choice by kicking out Galtieri's forces in 1982 as well as saving their own face and restoring their own dignity and standing in the process.
I was actually in Argentina in 1981 and when people asked me what would happen if Argentina took the Islands by force I truthfully answered that I thought the British would do nothing except make a lot of noise about it. I think that was the thoughts of most Falkland Islanders as well given the pressure they had been put under to agree to co-operate with Argentina previously.
I am happy I was proven wrong about this because it restored my faith in the democratic process the defence of freedom (as flawed as it is) and my respect for the British way of doing things.
So to come to the point if you truly believe that the two sides must each come away from negotiations with something tell me what it is that you would concede to Falkland Islanders (because that is who you are negotiating with in reality) that moves away from the present Argentine negotiating position of total sovereignty or nothing?
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Sept 14, 2004 8:48:44 GMT -3
Hi Ernie,
You wrote: "...for instance Argentina and Chile do. One could ask similarly why these two countries maintain defensive capabilities as they are under no threat of attack from each other!"
This is from Mercopress.
Argentine Defence Minister Jose Pampuro and Chilean Army Commander in Chief General Juan Emilio Cheyre coincided in Bariloche, Argentina that even “when it’s an issue for the foreign policies of each country, we believe that with time we can have a coordinating office or permanent secretariat on military affairs. It’s an integration from down upwards”. Mr. Pampuro went further adding that “Argentina adheres to this political decision” of a regional defence and is an initiative “with a very strong political message which exceeds Ministers and Chiefs of the Armed Forces”.
Argentina hosted last week the three days Mercosur and associate members meeting of Army commanders with the participation of Generals Roberto Bendini from Argentina; Francisco de Albuquerque, Brazil; Juan Cheyre Espinosa, Chile; Santiago Pomoli, Uruguay; Luis Barreiro Spaini, Paraguay and Cesar Lopez Saavedra, Bolivia.
Mr. Pampuro revealed that talks on the issue had already begun with Brazilian Defence minister Jose Viegas Filho and Michelle Bachelet from Chile and will further advance during the coming Mercosur Defence ministers meeting scheduled for this week.
“When you open your Mountain Academy to another Army, that is important; but when you do the same with the War School and Intelligence that is even more important, and that is real advance in integration”, said Chilean General Cheyre during the visit to the Argentine Army Mountain Academy. “This is an example for the world”, emphasized Brazilian General de Albuquerque.
“And this is born not out of fear, but of commitment and convincement”, added Argentine General Bendini.
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Sept 14, 2004 10:45:20 GMT -3
Gabriel,
This is excellent news of course and a great project. However a combined defence initiative like this is of course designed as a defence against someone or something even if non specific. Armed Forces do not exist in a vacuum.
I do not think the Falklands should fear a combined attack from these nations in the near future however. Perhaps they could, as a peace loving force, guarantee the integrity of the Falklands from interference from outside.
It probably has a long way to go towards integration if one takes the track record of NATO and the Western European Union as an example.
Best wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Sept 14, 2004 14:47:24 GMT -3
Hello all!
I have little time too, but I still want to respond both of you, Ernie and Hutch, so I'll do my best:
Hutch:
You posted..
I am not dividing anything. I am respecting their rights to stay in the territory they were born in, and keep their customs and language if they want. However, the land does not belong to them, according to Argentina and so, we only ask for the sovereignty over the land. British inhabitants can remain as british citizens, Argentina is a cosmopolitan country that welcomes foreign cultures.
What if the other person has the proofs, but, the thief keeps obviously rejecting them, and since this thief is more powerful than the victim, he keeps the car ?
I respect the people as I said before, but respecting them does not mean Argentina is going to drop the claim over its territories.
Ok, I will. But please, this is a very long and delicate issue. If you're going to reject Argentina's proofs with a simple "the islanders dont want to be part of Argentina" save my time and dont make me post it all. Thanks
It's nothing but a excuse... I am getting sick of the hipocrisy in this issue. Big killers of the world attack cities under a democracy and that is not meant to be punished, but a mistake Argentina did, under a military junta, is... You must really think we're stupid to swallow all this crap... I am also getting sick of the continuous humiliation when asking for forgiveness..maybe we should just play the evil part everybody wants us to play and just applause the war... Our attemps of friendship are constantly rejected and laughed at....
I've seen enough in these forums already, to know that the only way for reconciliation between Argentina and the FI is the drop of the claim. That is NOT going to happen.
Maybe we havent heard any good alternative option yet... it's the drop of our claim or the FI being british for all eternity... We have shown already a couple of choices such as share the sovereignty among others, that were, not surprisingly rejected.. I would like to hear, then what the UK has to offer in this negotiation.
Ernie
This has to be a joke...I cant believe you think Argentina does not recognize human rights when you can watch CNN and find british soldiers humiliating middle eastern people. I feel so offended by this statement, that keeps appearing in british postings that I cannot answer it right now. I m sorry.
Obviously the word freedom has a different meaning for everybody... It's kind of complicated to negotiate like this. Many lives have been lost in the name of Freedom. I wonder if more than those lost under dictatorships...
I really dont care who we should talk to.. The UK or the FI would be the same for me, as long as ANYBODY wants to talk and negotiate, without making us drop the claim. It's a neverending story that is taking more than usual to solve.. Apart of the government's ideas, wich I can't manipulate, I've read many postings with different solutions - as I told Hutch - such as sared sovereignty and so.... all of the rejected by the british side, but I have NEVER seen any option posted from the FI or the UK with a possible solution that is not Argentina giving up...
Regards, Noelia
|
|
|
Post by dantec on Sept 15, 2004 0:41:45 GMT -3
Hi Everyone,
Reading everyones contribution in this forum the overwhelming theme here is compromise, compromise and comprpomise.
Some people in this forum claim to have civilasation on their side, then the civilised thing to do is compromise.
Some people claim that their country and it's institiutions are the best and no other country comes near it. Well the best countries compromise.
Some people claim that Argentina is a lawless warlike bloodthirsty country. But historically they have been able to compromise on many issues and predominatly with the neighbours, and sometimes being stood over by the foreign powers, othertimes not.
It's amazing what could be gained by actually talking. I believe the argentines and correct me if I am wrong are human and are prepared to give gorund in order to gain some. You will be surprised about what can be echieved without compromise.
The real reason why Britain wont talk about the Soverignty issue? Any attempt to talk is an admission of aknowledgement of an Argentine case on the soverignty issue. Would talks stall, then a legal case can be taken up by the Argentines. The fact the the British discussed soverignty would seen in a court that the british accept in principal the argentine soverignty claim. This might prove embarrassing to the British.
How could Argentina get some sort of Soverignty satisfaction over the islands.
Their only hope is to firstly improve Argentina and bring it to a level similar to the Westen World. As their relevance in the world grows so will it's political influence and status. This would promote more respect and prestige in the world. A future labour Govenment which is a little more traditional labour or a liberal government might be the people who would compromise and at least hear what another human being wants to say.
Regards Daniel (dantec)
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Sept 15, 2004 6:49:53 GMT -3
Daniel, “The real reason why Britain wont talk about the Soverignty issue? Any attempt to talk is an admission of aknowledgement of an Argentine case on the soverignty issue. Would talks stall, then a legal case can be taken up by the Argentines. The fact the the British discussed soverignty would seen in a court that the british accept in principal the argentine soverignty claim. This might prove embarrassing to the British.”<br> You are wrong. The UK has always acknowledged the Argentine claim to the islands through exhaustive UN negotiations and has always refuted it the claim, but shown a willingness to compromise. Read the modern history of the dispute right up until 1982!
Since the invasion the UK has defended the self-determining rights of the islanders and has justifiably moved away from any talks that include the sovereignty issue. However, that has not stopped the UK and Argentina progressing with their own very good relationships and very telling instigation and maintenance of the July 14 1999 Joint Agreement. This forum has barely acknowledged this - in their own wishful thinking and pursuit of self agendas that have practically nothing to do with current political reality concerning the dispute.
As mentioned before, Argentina needs to address the islanders directly – and so must the islanders do like wise. There is common ground – it exists and should be explored without the dread and threat of a sovereignty change over.
Freeze the d**ned thing!
Remember also, de-colonisation means exactly that. This is a choice that belongs to the islanders and one, I should mention, currently being pursued by Gibraltar. The route of de-colonisation is normally complete independence as ably demonstrated last month when Tukelau (South Pacific) was mandated for independence from the administrative power of New Zealand.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Sept 15, 2004 8:42:00 GMT -3
Hi John
You posted:
To me, it sounds very convenient . I mean, UK keeps the islands and wont give the sovereignty to Argentina, because they are protecting freedom (blah blah blah) etc... and because of de-colonisation issues.... so it's ok for the FI to be a colony of the UK but it's a matter of human rights when it comes to Argentina.... Let's call things by their real name....the neverending preach of protection of freedom is getting all of us tired already... Nobody believes it except maybe the population of the countries that are "defending" it....if the UK wants the Falklands, it's not because they are angels, it's maybe because there's something there (not the islanders, I m pretty sure) that is very convenient for the UK.... Could be oil, could be strategic position of the islands, could be anything, I m not an expert on this issue... So let's stop with all the "protector of freedom" thing, that leads us nowhere and nobody believes it, and let's discuss the way it's really meant to be.
Regards Noelia
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Sept 15, 2004 10:24:31 GMT -3
Noelia.
(Rather long post im afraid.)
Land and people issue-you are trying to divide the two, but I guess we might have to write this one up to a difference in opinion. I am of the opinion that it is impossible to separate a people from the land they live on in the way that you are. I see it as a logical absurdity, which has no precedent anywhere in the World and is of a highly dubious legal viewpoint. You simply just can not have sovereignty over the land without that of the people in this manner, but as I say this appears to be a sticking point between us.
“What if the other person has the proofs, but, the thief keeps obviously rejecting them, and since this thief is more powerful than the victim, he keeps the car ?”<br> Yes he does, when the person with the ‘proofs’ does not present them to the community, take the ‘thief’ to court to prove his case and has a mutually beneficial relationship with the ‘thief’ for decades while not making a big issue of the car. The car which he only got by taking it away from someone else in the first place. If this is such a big issue for Argentina then why does it not affect Argentina’s foreign policy more than a yearly statement? Why trade with the UK if this is a real issue of pressing national importance?
“I respect the people as I said before, but respecting them does not mean Argentina is going to drop the claim over its territories.”<br> No, but it could mean that you pursue your claim in a way which is not covered in threats.
“Ok, I will. But please, this is a very long and delicate issue. If you're going to reject Argentina's proofs with a simple "the islanders don’t want to be part of Argentina" save my time and don’t make me post it all. Thanks”<br> Yes, I would like to see a concise and accurate list of Argentina’s rights. NOT Argentina’s ‘proofs’ though. I am not interested in a long list of dates, of accounts of who landed where first, what the Spanish did, where the French went, what an Armenian sailor saw, when things appeared on a map and so on. I want the rights that you have been talking about when you complain that everyone goes on about the FI rights but ignores Argentina’s. Rights not arguments based on historical events or interpretations of them. I think it would be a great place to start debate off from. Perhaps a clear list of Argentina’s proofs could be created at a later date.
“It's nothing but a excuse... I am getting sick of the hypocrisy in this issue... a mistake Argentina did, under a military junta, is... You must really think we're stupid to swallow all this crap... I am also getting sick of the continuous humiliation when asking for forgiveness.maybe we should just play the evil part everybody wants us to play and just applause the war... “<br> It’s not an excuse. You seem to be unable to see the damage the war did to Argentina’s reputation and the Island community they invaded. (similar in the way that i have difficulty seeing how ex British Empire nations may not love us Brits all the time)You have to realise the trauma of war on a small community. Trauma which has never been addressed because the dispute goes on and there has never even been an admission of responsibility let alone an apology from Argentina. I say again that an apology would not have to be representative of the Argentinean government or the Argentine people. It would be an admission that an illegitimate government attacked the Islands for the all the wrong reasons. That Argentina disassociates itself from the Junta and the war and deeply regrets the damage this did to Argentine-FI relations. At the same time the Argentine governments reaffirms is claim over FI sovereignty but swears that it never again use the closed fist but only the open palm of friendship in reaching out to the Islanders.
“. Big killers of the world attack cities under a democracy...”<br> What are you referring to here?
“Our attempts of friendship are constantly rejected and laughed at...”<br> What attempts of friendship are these?
“I've seen enough in these forums already, to know that the only way for reconciliation between Argentina and the FI is the drop of the claim. That is NOT going to happen.”<br> Reconciliation can come about in many ways. *An apology which isn’t an apology like what I wrote above. *Freezing but not dropping the negotiation killing claim for a period to build trust. *Opening up all possible travel routes between Argentina and the Falklands, by air or sea. *Creating cross border educational, sporting and business links and exchanges. *Offering educational and medical resources on the mainland for use by Islanders. *Dropping all travel restrictions on Islanders *And others not listed here.
See? Simple aren’t they? One or several of these could be tried. They would cost Argentina next to nothing but could reap huge benefits. Argentina has the power to do all of these but chooses not to and chooses the path of failure. Argentina has the power to change the situation but refuses to rise to the challenge. Why? Pride?
“Maybe we haven’t heard any good alternative option yet.....”<br> You haven’t heard a good basis for negotiation so you insert a constitutional clause, which you know full well will kill off any chance at substantive negotiation which could lead to the resolution of the situation? Very clever.
“... it's the drop of our claim or the FI being British for all eternity...”<br> A situation that Argentina has made by inserting an all or nothing clause eliminating the possibility of the negotiations they are always talking about.
“...We have shown already a couple of choices such as share the sovereignty among others, that were, not surprisingly rejected....”<br> When did the Argentina government suggest these? As far as I recall the UK government offered the prospect of leaseback but this had to be dropped when Argentina failed to show the Islanders that they would be better off with Argentina. Or do you mean private initiatives like those given in forums like these?
“I would like to hear, then what the UK has to offer in this negotiation...”<br>
|
|