Argentinian leader denounces 'militarization' of the South Atlantic

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By the CNN Wire Staff


http://i.imgur.com/A0CqB.jpg

(CNN) -- Amid escalating tensions over the Falkland Islands, Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner accused Great Britain of militarizing the South Atlantic and said Tuesday her country would file a protest at the United Nations.

"I have instructed our chancellor to formally present before the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly this militarization of the South Atlantic, which implies a great risk for international safety," she said during a speech in Buenos Aires.

"We're going to file a protest," Fernandez added.

Speculation in recent days had been that she would cut the Falklands air link to the South American mainland by banning the airline LAN Chile from using Argentinian airspace to fly to the islands from Chile. The Saturday flights are the only scheduled air service to the Falklands and carry fresh food as well as passengers.

The president made no such announcement in her speech Tuesday.

Argentina already bans Falklands ships from its ports, an action joined by other South American and Caribbean nations.

Britain and Argentina fought a war over the Falkland Islands, which Argentina calls Las Malvinas, in 1982. Though Britain won the war, expelling an Argentinian military force, Argentina still claims the territory, which has been under British rule since 1833, as its own. Britain maintains that the 2,500 residents of the Falklands have the right to determine their allegiance, and so far that has been staunchly British.

Tensions between London and Buenos Aires were raised even higher this month when Britain sent Prince William to the Falklands as a military helicopter pilot.

The prince's deployment comes as Britain is making other moves to support its 1,700 personnel at the Mount Pleasant military complex in the Falklands.

The Royal Navy is sending its top-of-the-line warship, the destroyer HMS Dauntless, to the South Atlantic in the spring on what the British Defence Ministry calls a routine deployment, according to British media reports. Additionally, a British nuclear submarine is headed to the Falklands, according to those reports.

"We support the Falklands' right to self-determination, and what the Argentinians have been saying recently I would argue is actually far more like colonialism, because these people want to remain British, and the Argentinians want them to do something else," British Prime Minister David Cameron told U.K. lawmakers last month.

Addressing Cameron directly in her speech, Fernandez said: "I simply want to ask the prime minister of England to give peace a chance."

[JoeyB]

The UK is making some bad moves here...

[Arkady Renko]

The UK is making some bad moves here...

why? They're doing business as usual, the argentinian protest is nothing but hot air. Consider the facts: Argentina's claim on the territory is weak at best, it has been under british rule for about 180 years and the entire local population wants to stay with the UK. And let's not forget that there is a good chance that the islands might be sitting on a lot of natural resources. So why should britain give in to Argentina's unreasonable demands?

Besides, it's a standard technique populist south american governments use: Whenever they're in a bad spot domestic policy wise, they'll bring up some old unsettled territorial dispute. Look at bolivia where they keep bitching at chile about the ocean acces, Paraguay about the Chaco area or Argentina about some stretch of the Pampa whenever the government is under fire. Or Ecuador and Peru, or Venezuela vs. Colombia.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By the CNN Wire Staff


Port Stanley, Falkland Islands (CNN) -- Britain on Wednesday dismissed a complaint from Argentina about the "militarization of the South Atlantic" as tensions rise over the Falkland Islands, over which the two countries fought a war 30 years ago.

"The people of the Falkland Islands are British out of choice," the British Foreign Office said in a statement. "They are free to determine their own future, and there will be no negotiations with Argentina on sovereignty unless the Islanders wish it."

It was responding to a warning from Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner that her country would file a protest at the United Nations.

"I have instructed our chancellor to formally present before the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly this militarization of the South Atlantic, which implies a great risk for international safety," she said during a speech in Buenos Aires.

"We're going to file a protest," Fernandez added.

Speculation in recent days had been that she would cut the Falklands air link to the South American mainland by banning the airline LAN Chile from using Argentinian airspace to fly to the islands from Chile. The Saturday flights are the only scheduled air service to the Falklands and carry fresh food as well as passengers.

Why tensions are flaring over Falklands

The president made no such announcement in her speech Tuesday.

Argentina already bans Falklands ships from its ports, an action joined by other South American and Caribbean nations.

"I guess we were all kind of relieved that there wasn't anything particularly concrete. It seems to be another burst of hot air really -- and to that degree -- we're relieved," said John Fowler, a journalist and Falkland Islands resident.

Britain and Argentina fought a war over the Falkland Islands, which Argentina calls Las Malvinas, in 1982. Though Britain won the war, expelling an Argentinian military force, Argentina claims the territory, which has been under British rule since 1833, as its own. Britain maintains that the 2,500 residents of the Falklands have the right to determine their allegiance, and so far that has been staunchly British.

"The UK has no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falklands. The principle of self-determination, as set out in the UN Charter, underlies our position," the Foreign Office said.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said residents have a right to decide.

"We support the Falklands' right to self-determination, and what the Argentinians have been saying recently I would argue is actually far more like colonialism, because these people want to remain British, and the Argentinians want them to do something else."

Addressing Cameron directly in her speech, Fernandez said: "I simply want to ask the prime minister of England to give peace a chance."

Tensions between London and Buenos Aires were raised even higher this month when Britain sent Prince William to the Falklands as a military helicopter pilot.

The prince's deployment comes as Britain is making other moves to support its 1,700 personnel at the Mount Pleasant military complex in the Falklands.

"We are having what in game theory is called tit-for-tat ... I don't see an end in sight right now, but I'm sure that war is not the end," Federico Merke, a professor of international relations at San Andres University, said after the president's speech.

So why, besides supporting the Falklands' inhabitants, does Britain want to hang on to the islands? The answer may lie in the lucrative fishing grounds around the islands as well as a growing oil drilling industry.

Argentina, of course, has economic interests as well, but analysts say the current standoff has much to do with internal politics.

"The government is being squeezed from lots of different areas, so one way to distract from the economic problems facing the country is to raise the Malvinas issue," said Mark Jones, an expert in Latin American politics at Rice University in Texas. "It's one of the few issues outside football that you can get universal consensus on."

[JoeyB]

why? They're doing business as usual, the argentinian protest is nothing but hot air. Consider the facts: Argentina's claim on the territory is weak at best, it has been under british rule for about 180 years and the entire local population wants to stay with the UK. And let's not forget that there is a good chance that the islands might be sitting on a lot of natural resources. So why should britain give in to Argentina's unreasonable demands?

Besides, it's a standard technique populist south american governments use: Whenever they're in a bad spot domestic policy wise, they'll bring up some old unsettled territorial dispute. Look at bolivia where they keep bitching at chile about the ocean acces, Paraguay about the Chaco area or Argentina about some stretch of the Pampa whenever the government is under fire. Or Ecuador and Peru, or Venezuela vs. Colombia.

I'm well aware of the history of the region. However, since you asked what the bad moves were, and you don't make endless demands of me, I'll tell you. Basically, sending a celebrity soldier and your biggest warship into the area are agitating moves. Why (pun intended) make waves like that?

Just let the situation simmer down low, don't turn up the heat. Those are the bad moves. It's a hot button issue with Argentina, so why push it? Foolish, and a bizarre lack of diplomatic grace. Also, the residents there now are mostly people descended from the British, which is why they are loyal to the UK. It does not substantiate their claim to ownership though. I mean...if I settle down with my family on an island off the coast of Britain, can I then claim it should be under American rule? It's a dodgy argument, that.

[Arkady Renko]

I'm well aware of the history of the region. However, since you asked what the bad moves were, and you don't make endless demands of me, I'll tell you. Basically, sending a celebrity soldier and your biggest warship into the area are agitating moves. Why (pun intended) make waves like that?

Just let the situation simmer down low, don't turn up the heat. Those are the bad moves. It's a hot button issue with Argentina, so why push it? Foolish, and a bizarre lack of diplomatic grace. Also, the residents there now are mostly people descended from the British, which is why they are loyal to the UK. It does not substantiate their claim to ownership though. I mean...if I settle down with my family on an island off the coast of Britain, can I then claim it should be under American rule? It's a dodgy argument, that.

I doubt sending Prince william was intended as a provocation towards the argies. Harry has been to Afghanistan before, it seems to me the crown wants to emphasize their commitment to the british military by sending the princes to deployments that are dangerous, boring, remote or all three of them so as to show that their offspring doesn't shun the unpopular jobs. And as far as the warship is concerned, apparently they only sent the most modern one to relieve a similar sized older vessel. Seems to me Mrs. Kirchner is trying desperately to find some excuse for raising a stink.

As far as the claim on the islands is concerned, it's kinda random on both sides, they can't really offer a lot more than "do want" legally, seeing how the islands were uninhabited until the 18th century. But history tells us that you shouldn't fuck around with borders more than is strictly necessary because it tends to open up huge cans of worms.

[JoeyB]

I doubt sending Prince william was intended as a provocation towards the argies. Harry has been to Afghanistan before, it seems to me the crown wants to emphasize their commitment to the british military by sending the princes to deployments that are dangerous, boring, remote or all three of them so as to show that their offspring doesn't shun the unpopular jobs. And as far as the warship is concerned, apparently they only sent the most modern one to relieve a similar sized older vessel. Seems to me Mrs. Kirchner is trying desperately to find some excuse for raising a stink.

As far as the claim on the islands is concerned, it's kinda random on both sides, they can't really offer a lot more than "do want" legally, seeing how the islands were uninhabited until the 18th century. But history tells us that you shouldn't fuck around with borders more than is strictly necessary because it tends to open up huge cans of worms.

I agree, and I also agree that neither side really has a rock solid claim. Nonetheless, the British government has to be clearly aware of how sensitive this place is, and what raising the profile on it would do. Again, bad moves making waves like that. Everything they do should be lowkey and as diplomatic as possible.

[Hugh_Janus]

are you ready for round 2, bitches? :dance:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

are you ready for round 2, bitches? :dance:

My money is on the UK :tup:

:britain:

[Hugh_Janus]

only if we can afford to get our shit over there :lol:

[JoeyB]

are you ready for round 2, bitches? :dance:

Don't even joke...do we need another Falklands war? Have you seen Ireland? It's larger, nicer, and loaded with beer. Why not fight for that?

[Hugh_Janus]

we did.... and we lost, cos those cheating irish bastards did it when we were fighting in WW1

[JoeyB]

we did.... and we lost, cos those cheating irish bastards did it when we were fighting in WW1

Oh it's good the Irish aren't represented on this forum or you'd have a shit storm now. What the fuck is up with the UK always wanting to conquer everything? Is it some queer form of penis envy over losing the states?

And by 'losing' I mean 'getting their asses kicked out of'.

[Hugh_Janus]

listen, buddy.... the only reason we got "kicked out" of the states is because the french hated us more than you lot did :hand: and we conquered everything just because we could [-(

[JoeyB]

listen, buddy.... the only reason we got "kicked out" of the states is because the french hated us more than you lot did :hand: and we conquered everything just because we could [-(

So the US, France, Ireland, Argentina, India, basically everyone hates you? And the most loyal country still connected to you is the one where you deposited your prisoners? :wavey:

I guess it wasn't Charlie Sheen who invented 'winning' after all.

[KevinD]

Question. If you are born On the Falkland Island, what nationality passport would you have? What citizenship?

[JoeyB]

Question. If you are born On the Falkland Island, what nationality passport would you have? What citizenship?

British.

EDIT: I assume you meant born of a resident there, and not some situation where you are a foreign national just visiting the islands and your wife gives birth while you are there. I do not know what laws would cover that. Obviously, your kid would be a citizen of whatever country you hail from, but I doubt he would have British citizenship as well...but it's hard to say. The situation is different here in America where you can claim citizenship of the US for any kid born on our soil. But again...not sure how Britain treats that rare circumstance.

[KevinD]

Then I fail to see how the Brits are the bad guys here. It's their colony, by right of colonization, and conquest. By all accounts the citizens are happy to be British ruled. Argentina needs a face slap and swift STFU

[Hugh_Janus]

So the US, France, Ireland, Argentina, India, basically everyone hates you? And the most loyal country still connected to you is the one where you deposited your prisoners? :wavey:

I guess it wasn't Charlie Sheen who invented 'winning' after all.
well, when you owned a quarter of the world, shit like this will happen....
http://icanhasinternets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/haters21.jpg

Then I fail to see how the Brits are the bad guys here. It's their colony, by right of colonization, and conquest. By all accounts the citizens are happy to be British ruled. Argentina needs a face slap and swift STFU
like they had in '82 you mean? :dance:

[JoeyB]

Then I fail to see how the Brits are the bad guys here. It's their colony, by right of colonization, and conquest. By all accounts the citizens are happy to be British ruled. Argentina needs a face slap and swift STFU

Well, they are only British citizens because shortly after the Falklands Island war Britain declared them as such. I mean, Argentina could have done the same thing. I could have too...HEY you fuckers are now all citizens of Katy Perry's Vaginaland. Dive in! It's all posturing between the countries and seriously, neither side has concrete claims to the place. I'm of a mind that the situation is best left as it is, as another war would be fruitless and stupid.

All I've been saying since my brief first post is that you have an extremely sensitive situation that is an open wound with Argentina. Why do stupid shit that raises the profile of your military presence and rubs salt in that wound? During peace, you always strive for diplomacy, not high profile asshattery. It was a bad move on the part of the UK. That's all I'm saying.


well, when you owned a quarter of the world, shit like this will happen....:

Yeah, owned, past tense.

Hey look, I'm an anglophile. I love the premier league, James Bond, Andy Capp, and Benny Hill. I even put malt vinegar on my fries (but I do call them fries and not chips). I'm not against merry old England, just against pointless military posturing.

[KevinD]

So, then, pre-82, what nationality were the natives?

[JoeyB]

So, then, pre-82, what nationality were the natives?

Still British, but technically 'british subjects'. As such there were some restrictions on what they could or could not do. To be bluntly honest it basically meant "you are British, but stay the fuck where you are or expect to jump through major hoops if you want to relocate to the UK or some other British governed area".**

So, you could expect British protection and could freely visit any regions belonging to the UK (and pay taxes!), but you could not expect to be able to permanently relocate to the UK, anymore than say you or I could as US citizens. Sure, we could move there, but it's a process...not a right. Same concept.

Remember, British colonialism led to a lot of occupied regions, from multiple areas in Africa, to India, Hong Kong, NZ, Australia, Canada, the Falklands Islands, etc etc...along the way they enacted a number of laws and the whole thing grew a bit confuddled and left some regions mildly to highly displeased. Look what how we as a country responded to the whole 'no taxation without representation' thing. Moving away from the UK left a lot of people with duties and obligations but limited rights. We have vaguely similar situations with our relationships with Puerto Rico and several islands, though not as confusing or restrictive in nature. It all may sound harsh but it's really not uncommon for major countries to have various dependencies and degrees of rights and protections granted to such entities.

**=I couldn't tell you specifically what would be required of either british subjects or of complete foreign nationals in this case, as I know very, very little about the rules of immigration in the UK. I'm fairly sure it has quotas like we do (so many per nation, per year, and it varies by nation), restrictions as to criminals or persons deemed unhealthy, and special exemptions for individuals with valid claims of being in danger if returned to their parent country.

And a long, long time ago I remember reading that the quota granted for US citizens seeking to become British was always full, and that your best chance of emigrating from the US to the UK was to either be bringing a large amount of money to invest, or to marry your way in. Just like people coming to the US actually.