|
Post by Sea Eagle on Mar 12, 2005 6:34:37 GMT -3
John,
I posted the following on the old FM Forum in May 1999 listing some of the things I would like to see come out of the 1999 talks in which some easing of the situation Falklands/Argentina were agreed. That was my position then and it remains the same now.
I don't think you were participating in the FM then.
Not much new twixt Heaven and Hell is there?
Regards,
Ernie
I wrote:-
Top of my list would be :-
1. Lifting of restrictions on travel for Argentine citizens and the abandonment of the cattle market approach for visiting relatives and friends of the war dead.
2. Open skies policy, with Argentina inaugurating a regular flight to and from the Falklands without restriction as to flights to other South American Nations.
3. Establishment of an Argentine Government representatives (High Commissioner?) office in Stanley and a similar FI Government office in Buenos Aires.
4. Freedom for the Argentine Banner to fly over the Darwin War cemetery.
It would be my sincere wish that genuine civilised and forward looking decisions can be made in everyone's interests.
None of the above items are going to break the bank in terms of overall cost or loss of face as opposed to the gains to be made and would represent a giant step forward for lasting peace and prosperity.
Is anyone with me on this or are there some other ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Mar 12, 2005 7:19:25 GMT -3
Hello Ernie:
The Falkland Islands are not an entity that would deserve to have a representation in Argentina, unless as a province. So your idea just pushes on an old agenda, which is to have a tri-partite talks and ending up as a new country.
The rest of your ideas are just a way to push this same agenda.
Sorry, until the dispute is settled between Argentina and UK there is no solution in sight.
Saludos, Maquilishuat.
|
|
|
Post by Sea Eagle on Mar 12, 2005 8:02:41 GMT -3
Otto,
I seem to recall that you took more or less the same stance in 1999, though a little milder then I think.
Of course my objective is that Falkland Islanders should ultimately decide on their own future status.
How they got to the Islands is immaterial and not relevant to their right to choose just as it has been for all other emancipated countries. They were and are no less colonial people than say Australians or New Zealanders or Norfolk Islanders once were, a status I remember well and opposed. Even may I say Brazilians after the British abolished the slave trade in 1807 (owning in 1833) some 1.9 Million slaves still crossed the Atlantic against their will, most to Latin America. (see Empire by Niall Ferguson) Afro-Brazillians forbears were brought to Brazil illegally (If that is how you see Falkland Islanders position), are they to be denied their right to self-determination?
My suggestions merely looked mainly to re-estabish contact on an official basis under the sovereignty umbrella, largely as prior to 1982, no political advantage was envisaged for anyone, merely normality of contact and a mechanism to regulate that contact.
Perhaps one day if Argentina can convince Falkland Islanders of their good intentions towards them they may well decide to vote for some sort of partnership say through Mercosur or whatever. But rest assured there will not be any anschluss or eoka on the table in the forseeable future, to much damage has been done by Argentina's immature actions. Whatever Falkland Islanders eventually choose is OK by me, even union with Argentina, and should be for you if you are a true democrat.
Besrt wishes,
Ernie
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Mar 12, 2005 8:56:18 GMT -3
Hello Ernie:
Well, you propose self-determination with someone else’ land, which is the view in Argentina until a settlement is achieved.
Your example could not have been worse, which is to compare the slave trade with a subsequent human rights acknowledgement by Brasil, or the extant dispute for the archipelago.
Let me summarize:
1. There was a slave trade done by several countries, including Brazil, which received slaves from different ships owned by different countries, including UK. 2. When the industrial revolution came UK was at the prominent point, manufacturing machines that substituted slave labor (hurra to UK!). 3. In order to export these machines UK had to create a market. 4. The slave labor was a huge competition for UK. 5. Therefore UK banned it
Where was the law to make any subsequent slave trade “illegal” is beyond my imagination, or do you think UK has made laws for other countries?
Now fast forward some years. Now 1.9 million slaves crossed to Brasil illegally (sorry, again I find this funny to enforce laws in other countries). Then there were no more slaves crossing the Atlantic from Africa, thanks to HM, which has done this embargo. Then Brasil (very late, I would say) forbid slave labor and moved forward to turn all former slaves into citizens with equal rights.
Now you compare this extra slaves descendents (originated by 1.9 million), with the Islanders that knew this was a disputed land. The slaves coming from Africa mixed with people from other nationalities and were exposed to different cultures with a result that we may see today, a very tolerant society. Sorry, there are no more pure slave descendents in Brasil.
The jump in your reasoning is to compare people that came by force with people that knew they were invading. Also, they came as employees of a company and, worse, no other type of migration was allowed!
I repeat, no other type of migration was allowed!
Saludos, Maquilishuat
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Mar 12, 2005 15:04:33 GMT -3
Ernie, I note your views from 1999. They are all still eminently achievable, particularly an FIG Government Office in BA, the same as they have in London. Nothing to stop this happening at all - it wouldn’t of course be an embassy or even a consulate but more like an information and business centre.
Otto, You mention to Ernie…<br>“Well, you propose self-determination with someone else’ land, which is the view in Argentina until a settlement is achieved”<br> I don’t think this is the case with the Argentine government. They recognise, at least, the interests of the islanders and in any event, as you know, self-determination is driven by the islanders, not by us here in the UK. The UK stance is to support those wishes of self-determination while they remain, by choice, an British Overseas Territory. But we all know this already.
What is not readily known or even appreciated is that the UK will only continue to support the islanders provided British interests, where they can be influenced by the islanders, are not compromised to the detriment of the British nation. I have proved repeatedly in this forum and in the FM forum that the islanders walk a thin line, believing, perhaps, that their actions 8000 miles distant, are not noticed back here.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Mar 12, 2005 16:50:47 GMT -3
Hello Ernie
Your post from 1999 was indeed very honorable, but it doesnt fit at all the Argentine situation. By ALLOWING Argentine flag to fly in the cementery and ALLOWING travellers to go there, you are wisely reminding us that is not OUR territory and we have to ask permission to everything.
That's not what we're looking for. I dont need any kind of permission to go to Tucuman and I dont see why would I need any to go to the Falklands...
We still see it as our territory, and the fact that it is inhabited by foreigners set by the thieves, doesnt change our points of view. As the good people we are, I dont see the problem for them to stay there, but we are talking about sovereignty here, not permissions.
Regards, Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Mar 12, 2005 20:59:22 GMT -3
Noelia, Sorry for jumping in here!
I think, no I believe, that we all seeking ways to close the gap of contradictions and to find that middle-ground where we can pass on fresh hope to our next generations. What hope do you have when, as always, you seem to be stuck in a particular unchanging mind-set that the British - the “foreigners” and the “thieves” somehow mutilated part of your homeland, the Malvinas, some 160 years ago?
Noelia, it is a myth that you have been sold.
But I understand, as many do, that Argentine national identity ‘patria’ is profoundly linked to the land - hence this historical outrage that the British stole part of that away from you all. Are the British ‘thieves’ any more worse than your own police who work scams and take brides because they are not paid enough or the ordinary citizens of your country who must develop skills to survive in a corrupt country? I say this not as insult but in admiration of a nation of people willing to struggle each day - hoping that tomorrow will be better with thieves, like ex-President Menem, put behind bars.
That tomorrow might come quicker, in my opinion, if you all put the absurdities of your past into truer historical light.
George Orwell, in his Notes on Nationalism, wrote this about the obsession of nationalism:
OBSESSION. As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organization, fills him with uneasiness which he can relieve only by making some sharp retort. If the chosen unit is an actual country, such as Ireland or India, he will generally claim superiority for it not only in military power and political virtue, but in art, literature, sport, structure of the language, the physical beauty of the inhabitants, and perhaps even in climate, scenery and cooking. He will show great sensitiveness about such things as the correct display of flags, relative size of headlines and the order in which different countries are named. Nomenclature plays a very important part in nationalist thought. Countries which have won their independence or gone through a nationalist revolution usually change their names, and any country or other unit round which strong feelings revolve is likely to have several names, each of them carrying a different implication. The two sides of the Spanish Civil War had between them nine or ten names expressing different degrees of love and hatred. Some of these names (e.g. "Patriots" for Franco-supporters, or "Loyalists" for Government-supporters) were frankly question-begging, and there was no single one of the which the two rival factions could have agreed to use.
Bailas como sos!
John.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Mar 13, 2005 2:49:34 GMT -3
Dear John
I think the inner problems of Argentina are not bussiness of Britain and your attempt to use them as a justification of the robbed land is not gonna work.
If I have been sold the idea that the Falklands belong to Argentina, you have been sold the idea that they are british. And the islanders have been sold the idea that they have rights over a stolen territory.
The "british thieves" are indeed worse than our corrupted police, you wanna know why? It's simple.... our corruption affects only our people.....the british thieves stole lands from other people in the world.....and I'm trying really hard not to mention Irak here, but I just cant.....
So, leave our economical and social problems to us, and lets focus on the stolen land we want to get back. This is not a matter of choosing which country is better to belong to, it's a matter of which country actually owns the land.... the people in that land, are free to choose their nationalities, but we can't give up our claim just because many years have passed and now they have rights.... what about OUR rights??? why are they less important??
Regards Noelia
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Mar 13, 2005 9:11:01 GMT -3
Noelia, Of course the inner workings of Argentina are your own business, but I don’t mention them as justification. I’m principally looking at the nation that wishes to take away the human rights of a small community.
Your own business, as you say, does not stop your academics, film makers from telling the world what its like to live in Argentina today. I recently watched a very close to the knuckle movie called ‘El Boraerence’ The message from the movie was quite clear. Somehow, I don’t think this type of movie would have been possible to make 20 years ago. Somehow, the same national euphoria that followed the Argentine invasion of the islands back in 1982 would not translate so easily today. Your people, like ours, are not satisfied with existing on a diet of myth. We demand the truth because we can, because we live in democracies that empowers that right.
Your own government sits uneasily when they annually word the demand for the return of the islands. They know only too well that human rights is trans-global and the basis of human existence. That’s why I will continually remind you of yourselves as much as I remind the islanders of their own democratic make-up. For Argentina this demand will never be met in the its present form- how can it be? For the islanders the ‘status quo’ cannot go on forever.
What we need to remind ourselves that we do have to live together, co-operating where can and kick aside any nationalist stupidity that stands in its way.
Freeze the sovereignty claim - support it!
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Sakura26 on Mar 13, 2005 14:08:47 GMT -3
Dear John
Did China and Britain think about the human rights of the people in Honk Kong when it was given back to chinese sovereignty? Please, dont tell me it was different because there was an agreement. The agreement was political and Britain is afraid of China, you know you can't fight against them. It's far different with Argentina, you took the islands simply because you could.
So dont tell me about human rights and our people being angry with our governments. We are not monkeys, we know what we want. We want the corruptiion to be over, and it's difficult to achieve, but we also want our territories back, and we will kill kirchner for his mistakes, but also will applause him for what he does correctly. And wording annually the demand is something everybody here wants him to continue.
Michael Moore had to produce his movie somewhere else because nobody in the States wanted to produce a movie against Bush. "El Bonaerense" was made here. So our democracy, even corrupted is more perfect than the american one, set as example for the world.
I will only respect the rights of the islanders when I see someone respecting ours. But so far, I have only see demands to give up the claim.
Regards Noelia
|
|
Hutch
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by Hutch on Mar 15, 2005 9:00:20 GMT -3
"The Administrators and Moderators of this forum will no longer tolerate disparaging remarks of any country or country’s history. For example, “the Fascist Dictators in Argentina” of almost 30 years ago, the “Murdering Brits” for establishing “Concentration Camps” in South Africa,” or the “Thieving Kelpers” who stole the Malvinas. Every country has its checkered past. "
Any brainless monkey with a big army can destroy Irak or steal a couple of Islands in the South Atlantic
We still see it as our territory, and the fact that it is inhabited by foreigners set by the thieves, doesnt change our points of view
The "british thieves" are indeed worse than our corrupted police, you wanna know why? It's simple.... our corruption affects only our people.....the british thieves stole lands from other people in the world
So when they finally destroy this empire of fear and abuse the anglo-saxons have created,
Hutch.
Just passing through the 'Malvinas-Falklands-Iraq Discussion Board'.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Mar 15, 2005 10:25:45 GMT -3
Hi everyone,
To put some perspective into this argument, let's compare the emancipation of Argentina with the Spanish-American war. Argentina's army fought the Spanish in Argentina, Chile and Peru. Both Chile and Peru became independent countries following the proclamation of independance, without any further intervention from Argentina. No bill was ever presented to them for this. The USA got Florida, Cuba and Puerto Rico, in addition to a number of smaller islands that are the property of the US today. Puerto Rico is still a dependency, and Cuba had to fight a bloody war and sign a pact with the devil in order to break the chains of her new invader. The USA is still punishing Cuba for this today, with measures that would make Argentina's position with respect to Malvinas seem insignificant. Yet, those who call Argentina's actions immature, defend the US actions internationally. Any comments?
Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Mar 15, 2005 13:12:04 GMT -3
Gabriel, I like your perspective – but it does not go far or wide enough.
Cuba. I’m not an expert here, but is Cuba still a Marxist/Stalinist state where no one is allowed to vote for any other party other than the one that Fidel leads? Same place where many thousands each year try to get out and sail to Miami. Same place that once held up to 60,000 political prisoners? Same place that once brought soviet missiles in range of the US and the world to the brink of a global nuclear exchange? How many exiled Cubans are waiting for Fidel to go – so they can simply go home? What’s changed on Cuba that would encourage the US to drop sanctions? Is Fidel any more different from to the Great Leader in N. Korea. Lot’s of questions, but then I need to ask because I’m not an expert and I may be missing some fundamental element.
What about China? China has just announced that it has changed its law so that they can take military action against Taiwan if the Taiwanese vote for independence. Would Argentina consider the same if the islanders choose likewise? If so, can we then assume that Argentina will give tacit support to the People’s Republic – I mean the Taiwanese could depend on Argentina if they wanted full independence?
In any event I really don’t think that Argentina is immature – I believe the country and its leaders to be very astute, but wonder what they are up to when they appear to be kicking out the oil companies? Is the present government of Argentina losing it; are their measures a precursor to democracy and free enterprise going down the drain?
Some comments for you to chew over!
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Mar 15, 2005 13:59:06 GMT -3
John,
Thanks for your reply. I do not think you are very wrong about Cuba. However, you do not address the main issue: Without US intervention, Cuba would not be what it is today. You can't just remove half of the story and show only the other half to make a point. Menachem Begin was also called a terrorist by the British. The issue of exiled Cubans is big enough to fill the pages of this forum several times over. They do have some valid points, but they do not count with my support for the simple reason that their hate of Fidel is bigger than their love for their country, and they demonstrate this by pushing the US government to impose sanctions "against Fidel", that actually hurt Cubans at large. Believe me, there are some things in Argentina that in my opinion have to go, but there is nothing there that would justify me to campaign for anything that could result in hunger and misery for my own people. Could you find justification to do this to the people of Scotland? I have no idea about what Latin America would do with respect to China and Taiwan. By the way, the liders of Argentina are not kicking out the oil companies; they are only trying to prevent inflation by asking people to boicott some of them. The president was also very critical of other industries who were attempting to rise prices.
Best,
Gabriel
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Mar 15, 2005 14:42:24 GMT -3
Gabriel, Thanks! Do we blame the US for Cuba being a communist state? Perhaps US pressure in the early part of the last century has got something to do with this – I really don’t know. (But from my meagre knowledge I thought that the US actually supported Cuban revolutionaries – precipitating the Spanish/US war?)
Begin was termed a terrorist by the British – before the birth of Israel. (he was killing British civilians) At that time Britain was advocating separate Palestinian and Jewish states within defined areas. Again, we are looking at extremely fast moving events that WWII left us with. We remember, of course, the Exodus of European Jews to the ‘promised land’ Britain, no doubt, weighed by immense public and international pressure had to give in to the demand of this new state and by doing so compromised the integrity of the Palestinians. Not a nice time in our recent history.
Going back to Cuba. I do agree with you that any sanctions (I hate the word sanctions!!) must purely be political and certainly not economic, where the result is poverty and hunger. However, there are no EU sanctions, that I know of, against Cuba and as I believe the Cubans are using the Euro as currency in their tourist areas.
Argentine Boycott of oil companies. I read today that Shell is pulling out of Argentina – so effectively Kirchner is making Argentina a no go area. Strangely enough though, Argentine inflation is actually coming down – I think it now stands at 8%. Perhaps Kirchner is doing what the UK did back in the 60’s and early 70’s and that’s to encourage people to buy national goods wherever they can. Nothing at all wrong with that provided the goods are available and everyone, including the wealthy, toe the line.
Taiwan! Watch this space!! The question really is this…. If the islands went independent, which they could, would Argentine contemplate doing the same as the PRC?
Best wishes, John.
|
|