Post by Johnmcd on Nov 12, 2004 18:23:08 GMT -3
For some reason or another my posts on the FM forum are being barred. So here is my reply to your bi forum posting...
Ernie,
Your posting is pointing in the right direction and has the added veracity of an islander behind it. You’ve made many past attempts in this area before - so I do hope that now you get due response.
As I have mentioned before many people on the islands and in Argentina do read this forum much in the same way that they would read Mercopress. Good solid ideas will be taken onboard, and may perhaps, influence future process.
Now that said we should look at the barriers to any fluid resolution that would lead to normal relationships developing between the islands and the Mainland.
First of all the islanders should finally recognise that the ‘coup mongers’ of Argentina have long gone from the scene and now rid themselves of their anti-Argentine manifesto pledge from any FIC agenda on the subject. They need to be seen to be open to ‘glasnost’ and be concession ready. The islanders may be already looking in this direction as their Ilex income, their main source of income, continues to fall short of past bonanzas. The next source of island wealth is already on the way: Oil. The explored fields lie heavily within the extended exclusive economic zones of the islands - so much contested by Argentina. Redesigned zones need to be established to ensure that this new wealth is brought to the surface commensurate with the size and shape of the South West Atlantic economy. That is to say that all countries in the area can benefit through co-operation. This needs air and sea services harmonised for this inevitable and most profitable venture. (Strangely, I feel, that the islanders may feel legitimised enough to go this alone and exclusively) That would be a disaster for them if they did so. The UK brokered the islands EEZ, not the FIG. The UK, through the foreign policy of the present government, and through standing policy regarding British Overseas Territories, could just as easily turn this round to serve our national interests.
To put it bluntly:
UK Plc has its own vested global business plan. If Argentina provides the best access for strategic regional development, then Falkland Islands self interest would be left in the wake. We should be clear: The UK is operating with Argentina in many a global venture already. We are not comfortable with the islands as they only take up resources from the British tax payer. Who do we deal with? Profiteers from the islands who have set up expectant companies? Or do we deal with a fellow 33 million strong democracy that is robustly gaining global credibility? This is something that UK economic strategists will have already briefed Tony on. Bill Rammell, of the Foreign Office, might well be the architect and looking for promotion on top of it.
Argentina must also cool its heels. The UK, US and the EU do not deal with radicals. Argentina’s preoccupation with the impasse over the ‘Malvinas’ means not a thing. Why should it? Indeed who talks about it as a major international issue? The fact is that internationally it doesn’t matter at all. We need look no further than Spain’s recent statement to shelve their claim over Gibraltar in favour of regional economic development - consonant with their own wishes and those of the people of Gibraltar.
The Falkland Islands must have seen the writing on the wall and must be feeling remote by this unexpected development in Europe. Regardless of feeling on the islands - this end of the hemisphere has indeed moved on.
No matter. The UK is not about to give up on the islanders absolute right to self-determination and will not see it threatened by a constitutional demand that has no definition within international law, underpinned by the UN Charter. Neither will the UK be conditionally held by an FIG whose definition of government is based purely on reliance in order to prospect from that protection, which cannot be ever lasting.
Our debate, as Ernie has indicated, must accept all possibilities and deny the ‘long, repetitive ramblings - reiterations of the Argentine claim’ and move forward to what ‘can’ be achieved.
What ‘can’ be achieved, and is clear: This is for the Argentine government to freeze their sovereignty claim - at least for a while - long enough for direct and open discussions to take place to sort out the mess that history has left us all with. History has never kind to those who inherit it.
I commend Ernie’s passionate bridging efforts, hoping that sensible dialogue will ensue, on this forum, without anyone taking a ‘free lunch’ to distort this very noble attempt for lasting peace.
Best wishes,
John.
Ernie,
Your posting is pointing in the right direction and has the added veracity of an islander behind it. You’ve made many past attempts in this area before - so I do hope that now you get due response.
As I have mentioned before many people on the islands and in Argentina do read this forum much in the same way that they would read Mercopress. Good solid ideas will be taken onboard, and may perhaps, influence future process.
Now that said we should look at the barriers to any fluid resolution that would lead to normal relationships developing between the islands and the Mainland.
First of all the islanders should finally recognise that the ‘coup mongers’ of Argentina have long gone from the scene and now rid themselves of their anti-Argentine manifesto pledge from any FIC agenda on the subject. They need to be seen to be open to ‘glasnost’ and be concession ready. The islanders may be already looking in this direction as their Ilex income, their main source of income, continues to fall short of past bonanzas. The next source of island wealth is already on the way: Oil. The explored fields lie heavily within the extended exclusive economic zones of the islands - so much contested by Argentina. Redesigned zones need to be established to ensure that this new wealth is brought to the surface commensurate with the size and shape of the South West Atlantic economy. That is to say that all countries in the area can benefit through co-operation. This needs air and sea services harmonised for this inevitable and most profitable venture. (Strangely, I feel, that the islanders may feel legitimised enough to go this alone and exclusively) That would be a disaster for them if they did so. The UK brokered the islands EEZ, not the FIG. The UK, through the foreign policy of the present government, and through standing policy regarding British Overseas Territories, could just as easily turn this round to serve our national interests.
To put it bluntly:
UK Plc has its own vested global business plan. If Argentina provides the best access for strategic regional development, then Falkland Islands self interest would be left in the wake. We should be clear: The UK is operating with Argentina in many a global venture already. We are not comfortable with the islands as they only take up resources from the British tax payer. Who do we deal with? Profiteers from the islands who have set up expectant companies? Or do we deal with a fellow 33 million strong democracy that is robustly gaining global credibility? This is something that UK economic strategists will have already briefed Tony on. Bill Rammell, of the Foreign Office, might well be the architect and looking for promotion on top of it.
Argentina must also cool its heels. The UK, US and the EU do not deal with radicals. Argentina’s preoccupation with the impasse over the ‘Malvinas’ means not a thing. Why should it? Indeed who talks about it as a major international issue? The fact is that internationally it doesn’t matter at all. We need look no further than Spain’s recent statement to shelve their claim over Gibraltar in favour of regional economic development - consonant with their own wishes and those of the people of Gibraltar.
The Falkland Islands must have seen the writing on the wall and must be feeling remote by this unexpected development in Europe. Regardless of feeling on the islands - this end of the hemisphere has indeed moved on.
No matter. The UK is not about to give up on the islanders absolute right to self-determination and will not see it threatened by a constitutional demand that has no definition within international law, underpinned by the UN Charter. Neither will the UK be conditionally held by an FIG whose definition of government is based purely on reliance in order to prospect from that protection, which cannot be ever lasting.
Our debate, as Ernie has indicated, must accept all possibilities and deny the ‘long, repetitive ramblings - reiterations of the Argentine claim’ and move forward to what ‘can’ be achieved.
What ‘can’ be achieved, and is clear: This is for the Argentine government to freeze their sovereignty claim - at least for a while - long enough for direct and open discussions to take place to sort out the mess that history has left us all with. History has never kind to those who inherit it.
I commend Ernie’s passionate bridging efforts, hoping that sensible dialogue will ensue, on this forum, without anyone taking a ‘free lunch’ to distort this very noble attempt for lasting peace.
Best wishes,
John.
Great! Let's see then your cooperation in motion.
Should we call them NEW Republicans?