Argentina asks UN to bring UK into talks

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8533860.stm



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47368000/jpg/_47368954_008830758-1.jpg




Argentina has formally asked United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to bring the UK into talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana said he had asked Mr Ban to help stop "further unilateral acts" by the UK. Mr Taiana was referring to the UK's decision to begin oil drilling under a seabed off the islands. The UK government says the islands have a "legitimate right" to develop an oil industry within their waters. In a statement, the UK Permanent Representative to the UN, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, said that the UK had "no doubt" over its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. He said this position was "underpinned by the principle of self-determination as set out in the UN charter".

After the meeting with Mr Ban, Mr Taiana reiterated his government's belief that the islands, which it calls Las Malvinas, are part of Argentina's territory. He said he had asked the UN chief to press Britain to at least talk to his country about the dispute. The BBC's Matthew Price at the UN says that the dispute has as much to do with oil as it does with Argentine politics. With elections due next year, the government cannot be seen to be dropping the country's claim, especially if oil is found in large quantities, our correspondent says.

At the summit, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva urged the UN to debate Argentina's claim to sovereignty. "What is the geographic, the political or economic explanation for England [sic] to be in Las Malvinas?" he asked. "Could it be because England is a permanent member of the UN's Security Council [where] they can do everything and the others nothing?"
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00661/news-graphics-2008-_661518a.jpg



UK forces wrested back control of the Falkland Islands in the 1980s, held by Britain since 1833, after a seven-week war that killed 649 Argentine and 255 British service personnel.Wheres Maggie when you need her? :P

Quite simple really, Brazil may be shouting around now but its desire to become a UN Security Council Member (Permanent) can easily be blocked by the United Kingdom so just threaten to do this. I'm sure if Brazil or Venuzeula had an island in the North Atlantic with their people on that they won control of hundreds of years ago they wouldn't be so eager to part with them. Talk if they want, but make it 100% clear that no deal or pact will be made under any grounds at all.

Thoughts?

[xxMATTGxx]

The Falklands should still be British until the world ends. The people are British and want to be British and the islands are ours! We should take military action if Argentina try and take them back off us for sure.


---------------------------

Navy intercepts Argentinian warship near British waters


The Royal Navy has intercepted an Argentinian warship near British waters in an apparent escalation of the row over the Falkland Islands.

Destroyer HMS York spotted the vessel around ten miles inside the disputed “oil zone” around the South Atlantic islands. The British crew had to radio the Argentinian ship, a smaller corvette named ARA Drummond, to demand that it change its course. Sources told The Sun that the ship made an “innocent navigational blunder” and were embarrassed about the mistake.

It is believed that the Drummond was spotted sailing alongside a French fleet before it broke away and headed for the disputed zone.

Under international law, the 15 miles of sea surrounding the Falklands are officially British waters.

The ship was spotted around 65 miles from the islands, in an area of sea called the “conservation zone”.

It is in this zone that the oil exploration is taking place. It is not illegal for Argentinian ships to enter it but the incident has heightened tensions.

A spokesman for the MoD played down the incident, insisting that the radio communication had been “friendly”.

He said: “We can confirm that on 28 January this year during rough weather and at night, HMS YORK and an Argentine ship were operating in the same locality in international waters around 50 miles from Falkland Island Territorial Waters. After a friendly dialogue by radio they each continued with their own exercises.”

On Wednesday the MoD said that HMS York would remain the area around the islands. A British submarine has also been dispatched to the Falklands to patrol the area.

Argentina has since protested to the UN about the British oil exploration. Its foreign minister is due to meet Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7313829/Navy-intercepts-Argentinian-warship-near-British-waters.html

Just noticed the date being 28th Jan but only hitting the media now? Why does it take so long. Anyway surely the last bit regarding a submarine is wrong. Not saying there isn't a submarine there but I thought they did not tell people where they were?

[Titch]

The Falklands should still be British until the world ends. The people are British and want to be British and the islands are ours! We should take military action if Argentina try and take them back off us for sure.


---------------------------

Navy intercepts Argentinian warship near British waters



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7313829/Navy-intercepts-Argentinian-warship-near-British-waters.html

Just noticed the date being 28th Jan but only hitting the media now? Why does it take so long. Anyway surely the last bit regarding a submarine is wrong. Not saying there isn't a submarine there but I thought they did not tell people where they were?

They will say one has been sent to the area, but thats all :)

Will be intresting to see how this plays out.

[alexxxxx]

it was never part of argentina in the first place. how come the south americans, afaik, aren't trying to 'take back' french guyana?

[Catzsy]

The Poll is extremely narrow and doesn't mention negoiation at all either directly or via the UN. It's not a black and white issue as the poll seems to suggest.

[Jordy]

By taking military action I mean we should up our presence on the islands and prevent it from being invaded rather than the alternative option of being invaded and then retaking. However I wouldn't be opposed to sending fighters near their airspace in order to show the UK's seriousness on the issue.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2868056/Destroyer-HMS-York-sends-Argentine-warship-packing-in-the-Falklands.html (I would usually link to a more respectable news source but I'm struggling to find it elsewhere)

Looks like their Navy can't even navigate properly, quite an embarrassing blunder.

This is also quite an interesting read for all Brits who like Obama: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100027381/the-special-relationship-is-under-fire-obama%E2%80%99s-refusal-to-back-britain-over-the-falklands-is-a-disgrace/

[alexxxxx]

By taking military action I mean we should up our presence on the islands and prevent it from being invaded rather than the alternative option of being invaded and then retaking. However I wouldn't be opposed to sending fighters near their airspace in order to show the UK's seriousness on the issue.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2868056/Destroyer-HMS-York-sends-Argentine-warship-packing-in-the-Falklands.html (I would usually link to a more respectable news source but I'm struggling to find it elsewhere)

Looks like their Navy can't even navigate properly, quite an embarrassing blunder.

This is also quite an interesting read for all Brits who like Obama: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100027381/the-special-relationship-is-under-fire-obama%E2%80%99s-refusal-to-back-britain-over-the-falklands-is-a-disgrace/

there's quite a lot of military already present. the americans are a joke.

[Jordy]

there's quite a lot of military already present. the americans are a joke.I agree, we have 9,000 troops in Afghanistan. If we go to war over the Falklands we'll pull most of them out leaving them with lots more to do in Afghanistan. They also seem to appreciate our colonies quite a lot seeing as they have enormous Air Force bases on Ascension Island & Diego Garcia (Both similar to the Falklands in terms of size and belonging to us). They also have numerous USAF bases in the UK.

At the very least they should be putting diplomatic pressure on Argentina, otherwise I'd give the US the finger.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Poll is extremely narrow and doesn't mention negoiation at all either directly or via the UN. It's not a black and white issue as the poll seems to suggest.

The poll is perfectly fine, the UN has not power or force to remove any Argentinian forces from the islands provided if they occupied the Falklands. You can talk and talk for months, but theres no way if they occupied it they would withdraw without some sort of a compromise from the United Kingdom - no compromises.

They know if they attack and occupy them islands, they are treading on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and under international law we are perfectly entitled to capture our own territorial islands back. What is the point in having a military if we just talk, talk, talk to the Argentine tinpots?

[Suspective]

We have a large number of troops still based in the Falklands mainly taking part in training. If it comes to military action, we are prepared.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Obama administration is an absolute disgrace, while I disagreed anyway with Britain fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside the United States; they refuse to even support the UK in its diplomatic defence of the islands of which we had since before Argentina was even a nation state. They say go home (the South Americans) so perhaps they would all like to return to where they all came from which was Spain and Portugal? - ahh, only works one way as usual.


The Poll is extremely narrow and doesn't mention negoiation at all either directly or via the UN. It's not a black and white issue as the poll seems to suggest.

To add to this anyway, theres one vital point you continue to dodge everytime which is that the people of the Falklands do not want to negociate, they are British and the islands are British - there is nothing to talk about, nothing to discuss and nothing to compromise over. If France wanted to discuss whether or not London was a part of the UK, would you support entering talks with France over that?

The Falklands colony is no different to London, Liverpool, Bristol, Manchester, Devon or anywhere else in the United Kingdom and its colonies.

[Suspective]

What actually is Argentina's motive for this relaunched operation on the islands? Are they trying to wreck relations? Gain even more land and power?

or are they even in it for the oil?

[-:Undertaker:-]

What actually is Argentina's motive for this relaunched operation on the islands? Are they trying to wreck relations? Gain even more land and power?

or are they even in it for the oil?

They want the land, oil and often use the issue as an excuse to drum up support to save their government. Back in the 1980s when they last invaded, the invasion was only launched because the regime that Argentina had in power was on its last legs and needed to try and drum up some support for the government - our invasion helped futher weaken the regime and eventually it collapsed.

At the moment the Argentine government is facing economic problems and an election is around a year off I think so they are very keen to make it seem as though its the 'government vs the imperialists'. Our quick response last time helped take them by suprise as they had expected the British to be too weak to attack back, but we did and we won them.

[Suspective]

Thanks for clearing that up.

If I'm honest I can't see the locals who occupy the islands to keen on Argentina ruling the island. A large majority of the population are either Falkland Islander British or simply British.

Why would they want a foreign country with a foreign language taking over there island? In addition, we aren't really to in control of the island. The British Government has handed many of the responsibilities to the Falkland Government excluding the management of defense and foreign affairs understandably.

In my eyes, they are basically invading the island for their own gains. Which is pretty out of order. I am sure their lives under British control would be much more happier and straight forward compared to being under Argentinian control.

[xxMATTGxx]

Thanks for clearing that up.

If I'm honest I can't see the locals who occupy the islands to keen on Argentina ruling the island. A large majority of the population are either Falkland Islander British or simply British.

Why would they want a foreign country with a foreign language taking over there island? In addition, we aren't really to in control of the island. The British Government has handed many of the responsibilities to the Falkland Government excluding the management of defense and foreign affairs understandably.

In my eyes, they are basically invading the island for their own gains. Which is pretty out of order. I am sure their lives under British control would be much more happier and straight forward compared to being under Argentinian control.

You are right about the people living there, they just want to be British and live their lives. They do not want another country invading them and taking over their land.

[dbgtz]

I'm honestly suprised were not in world war III. I think it's more publicity tbh, when do you see Argentina in the news? They're unimportant and the US are being ridiculous, they won't defend land of their "special relationship" country but they'll invade, I mean "defend" a completely irrelevant country.

[xxMATTGxx]

Argentina is to seek the backing of the United States in its dispute with Britain over Falklands oil exploration as President Kirchner prepares to meet Hillary Clinton next week.

Fresh from an inconclusive meeting at the UN, where Argentina failed to secure anything other than a vague acknowledgement of its concerns, Buenos Aires has turned its gaze to Washington in its attempt to stop what it says are illegal British activities in the disputed islands.

The hastily scheduled meeting, announced by Hector Timerman, the Argentine Ambassador to Washington, will take place in Uruguay on Monday, when Mrs Clinton will attend the presidential inauguration of José Mujica. Argentina will be pressing the White House to drop its declared neutrality and support Buenos Aires in the dispute, which looks set to deteriorate further.

Though President Reagan gave public backing and vital intelligence to Britain in the 1982 conflict over the islands, senior US officials now insist that Washington will stick with a policy of non-intervention. Philip Crowley, the State Department spokesman, said that the US maintained a position of neutrality but encouraged “good faith dialogue”, adding that if both sides requested mediation “we would consider it”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7041745.ece


So they want to get the US on their side now eh? Typical.

[Nixt]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7041745.ece


So they want to get the US on their side now eh? Typical.

Lol who the hell are they kidding? They don't stand a chance :P

[FlyingJesus]

Obama: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...is-a-disgrace

Was anyone else expecting something quite different when they clicked the link that displayed itself like this lol


I'm honestly suprised were not in world war III. I think it's more publicity tbh, when do you see Argentina in the news?

WWIII over the Falklands? I hardly think that too likely. As for publicity I don't think countries tend to invade each other just to get in the news, and with the world cup coming up Argentina will be fine for publicity.


That quote from the Brazilian president doesn't seem to add up somehow. "Could it be because England is a permanent member of the UN's Security Council [where] they can do everything and the others nothing?" seems to suggest that we're actually in charge of something, which surely hasn't been the case for almost a century.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wonder what the US would of thought if the UK had remained 'neutral' when the twin towers were destroyed?

I think now the US's true colours are coming out again because they have a history throughout with only looking after their own interests and leaving their 'friends' to it when they need help; in World War II they only joined in anyway because they became under threat as the Japanese Empire attacked them. The Suez Crisis - America threatened to pull the plug on the pound sterling if we did not abandon our own canal to the Epyptian government. Infact the only time America has only really been a true allie was when it was the Thatcher-Reagan partnership and of course they are no longer in office - even back then, the US refused to acknowledge that the UK has sovereignty over the Falklands.

Lets leave Afghanistan and prepare to defend our sovereign territory, leave Obama to carry on with his Vietnam.

[Black_Apalachi]

I wouldn't put it past the UN to tell us to just hand it over! :P If it comes to it, what sort of military are we talking about with Argentina? I'm guessing there's no risk of invasion on the UK? Also, if we want to go to war with them, does the UN have any say in the matter? What would happen if we went against its wishes?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wouldn't put it past the UN to tell us to just hand it over! :P If it comes to it, what sort of military are we talking about with Argentina? I'm guessing there's no risk of invasion on the UK? Also, if we want to go to war with them, does the UN have any say in the matter? What would happen if we went against its wishes?

Theres no risk from what I can see and afterall we have a nuclear system which could leave us untouched and Argentina a hole in the ground in a worst case scenario; even if there was it wouldn't make any difference to me;- its our land and we should defend it at all costs. On the UN, it can pass resolutions but i'm not sure they can actually become an offical resolution because the UK is one of the 5 Permanent Security Council Members (WW2 victors and their successors; UK, US, RF, PROC and France) so we can veto it at any time.

Brazil who want to become Permanent Security Council Members are demanding that we hand the Falklands over to Argentina, so i'd tell Brazil they can stick their bid because there no way i'd give them a seat if they are going to act in that manner. Oh and on a side note we should also ask for the Argentinians, Brazillians and so forth to leave South America because in their logic if we shouldnt be in the Falklands then they shouldnt be in South America as they were a product of Spanish/Portugese colonialism!

[alexxxxx]

I wouldn't put it past the UN to tell us to just hand it over! :P If it comes to it, what sort of military are we talking about with Argentina? I'm guessing there's no risk of invasion on the UK? Also, if we want to go to war with them, does the UN have any say in the matter? What would happen if we went against its wishes?

the uk has the responsibility of looking after the FI. the argentians wouldn't dare..

[ifuseekamy]

I wouldn't put it past the UN to tell us to just hand it over! :P If it comes to it, what sort of military are we talking about with Argentina? I'm guessing there's no risk of invasion on the UK? Also, if we want to go to war with them, does the UN have any say in the matter? What would happen if we went against its wishes?
Argentina would be *****slapped aside like they were before. Obama doesn't 'support' us because we hardly need the support of the USA to deal with Argentina, he's not going to jeopardise relations with the southern half of the continent for the sake of nothing.

[StefanWolves]

blah, drop the nuke. win.

i'm getting bored of this now, argentina are nothing, they no we'd wipe the floor with them, they're just doing it for publicity.

[Catzsy]

blah, drop the nuke. win.

i'm getting bored of this now, argentina are nothing, they no we'd wipe the floor with them, they're just doing it for publicity.

Hit the nail of the proverbial head, there, Stefan.:D

[Ajthedragon]

Argentina need to accept the people inhabiting those islands are British, and want to continue being British, and that our nation is no push-over, and should they propose any acts of war we should take action.

[dbgtz]

I hardly doubt the U.S. will support Argentina if they don't support us. Also I wasn't referring to WWIII over the Falklands I mean just the general climate.

I agree with the previous post about the U.S. showing their colours, worse thing is we can't do much or we'll lose one of our powerful allies, infact our most.

[Eoin]

Argentina have wanted their islands back for a very long time. The Brits need the oil and now the Argentinians are angry.
Give the Argentinian isles back to the Argentinians.

[alexxxxx]

Argentina have wanted their islands back for a very long time. The Brits need the oil and now the Argentinians are angry.
Give the Argentinian isles back to the Argentinians.

they were never theirs...

[Eoin]

Brits need to get out of this colonial mentality. its not the 19th century any more.

[GommeInc]

Brits need to get out of this colonial mentality. its not the 19th century any more.
The people there are British... Yes the colonial era has been and passed, but that doesn't mean we should give up land we own because some ratty country is having a hissy fit. The people there are British, and want to remain British.

[Jordy]

Argentina have wanted their islands back for a very long time. The Brits need the oil and now the Argentinians are angry.
Give the Argentinian isles back to the Argentinians.


Brits need to get out of this colonial mentality. its not the 19th century any more.Can you explain how the islands are part of Argentina?

Do you not care that the Falkland islanders want to be British? Do these people not matter to you?

Also does it not occur to you, we're in enormous debt, the islands are rightfully ours, oil is at an all time high price. And the islands may well be full of oil, do you not think think this could help the UK somewhat?

[ifuseekamy]

Brits need to get out of this colonial mentality. its not the 19th century any more.
We've owned the Falklands since before Argentina existed, it has nothing to do with colonialism.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Brits need to get out of this colonial mentality. its not the 19th century any more.

The Falklands never belonged to anyone, well except the Spanish Crown. They are our lands and our people living there. If we are to 'get out of this colonial mentality' then I expect you are also calling for all of the South Americans to leave South America. The same goes for Hong Kong (the islands and not the bay which was leased by the Chinese Imperial Crown to the British Empire on a 99 year lease), if the people wish to part terms with Britain then yes we should withdraw, if not then no.

[Casanova]

I must say, if you read between the lines it's simple.
Argentina is failing as a government. Cristina fernandez de kirchner has abysmally failed as a president. Since taking power, she's single handedly run argentina down the leagues of the gold leaf corridor's of the EU.

Cristina fernandez de kirchner has failed to improve unemployment under her power, the unemployment rates of Argentina have slid a high percentage since she's came into power, her government has lacked the crucial skills needed to stabilisae their economy to pull their country out of our global recession. Most governments struggled but they've put nothing in place to reinforce the job market, the enterprise/business markets or any form of incentives etc for any trade passing their way.

By banning british trade or tarring brits, they're basically turning noses at vital money. By creating an unofficial embargo and by mistreating UK business argentina are playing a sticky game; they're losing investments, losing allies (eastern europe and korean backup wont last and nor has it!), and roughing the wrong feathers when it comes to us in the EU and UN.

Cristina fernandez de kirchner is creating this falklands for one reason - Argentina are disillusioned by her fading glamour and slick tongue. All walk and no talk. She is lying in the dregs of the polls. The only thing that is close to the heart of over 80% or argentians is the fact they claim Falklands as their own and know of or lost someone in the falklands. They have remembrance day over it still. Tears are still shed. Kirchner is doing this because she needs popularity.

The UN know of erverything she's doing. The UN is fully aware of the problems they're creating. Diplomatically the UK will be involved in chats and will be fully participating in any form of agreements but the falklands is ours to keep and always will be.

On another note, Gordon Brown is fully aware our resources are extremely low. We've had our firesale and we're literally on our last legs. We as tax payers are roughly 1,500 sterling out of pocket because of the recession/bank failings. The forces are streched and our allies are fully aware of this. We have no more guns to fire, no more troops life to toss away as if it's expendable. He faces a hard public and he knows he must tip-toe meaningfully through yet another possible PR wreck that Mr Mandelson will need to pick through.

The UK is struggling and is at a point where we have no faith!

[dbgtz]

Tbh they know that if they attempt to attack us they'd just get p0wned.

[StefanWolves]

On another note, Gordon Brown is fully aware our resources are extremely low. We've had our firesale and we're literally on our last legs. We as tax payers are roughly 1,500 sterling out of pocket because of the recession/bank failings. The forces are streched and our allies are fully aware of this. We have no more guns to fire, no more troops life to toss away as if it's expendable. He faces a hard public and he knows he must tip-toe meaningfully through yet another possible PR wreck that Mr Mandelson will need to pick through.

The UK is struggling and is at a point where we have no faith![/B]
Going a bit far, isn't it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Going a bit far, isn't it?

It pretty much sums up the situation, the country at the moment is on its knees and is nearing another 1970s moment.

[StefanWolves]

I don't know how anyone can compare 2010 to 1970... seriously, there is no comparison.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't know how anyone can compare 2010 to 1970... seriously, there is no comparison.

..really?

- Country in immense debt.
- Unions clawing back power.
- Many things being subsidised by the government/EU.
- The state has expanded to a stupid and unfundable size.
- Politicians are totally corrupt and out of touch.
- Law after law, regulation after regulation being made daily.
- UK about to lose its credit rating due to the debt.
- Government refuses to cut the spending.
- Private sector continues to shrink.

There are many and many more comparisons between now and the 1970s.

[Jordy]

..really?

- Country in immense debt.
- Unions clawing back power.
- Many things being subsidised by the government/EU.
- The state has expanded to a stupid and unfundable size.
- Politicians are totally corrupt and out of touch.
- Law after law, regulation after regulation being made daily.
- UK about to lose its credit rating due to the debt.
- Government refuses to cut the spending.
- Private sector continues to shrink.

There are many and many more comparisons between now and the 1970s.While those things are going on, from what I can understand it's not yet reached the heights of the 1970s thankfully, of course if Brown stays in power it inevitably will happen and once again we will become the poor man of Europe (Greece firmly holds this position atm :)). During the '70s, the unions wielded a lot more power than they currently do and it got to the stage where there were three day weeks due to striking.

[Casanova]

Very true, greece currently hold the pauper of the EU as we speak. Reason being is merkel is trying to figure out - fund them or cut them. Either way it's a ****** if we do, ****** if we don't.
The eu fund greece's state and then they're seen as a get out clause for any other power in the european parliament. Then again, don't fund them and they're seen as useless and cold hearted. People would get disillusioned and believe whats the point of the billions they receive if they dont give it back out in times of need.
And we really are at the point of the '70s.
Dan is totally correct, only problem is we're a slightly more informed public when it comes to media. There's still little we know as that's the way it's always been. But use your head... BA union are actually producing a GLOBAL walk out! They're in an agreement of support with an american public travel union.

Britain is currently in a hard place. We owe out trillions, after in the early noughties paying off a large loan from the US in war times, we're now in a state where we owe about five fold of what we did then. We have barely any allies, we're currently in a state of constant vigilism because of our nations actions through last century. We were one of the largest powers. Now we're at a point where if we dont watch what we're doing we will live in a world we've never known. When you see a sign "welcome to zimbabwe" you'll understand what i mean. Awful powers in the corridors, no money to fund anything and a public that is disenheartened and trodden on!

Yes i do exagerate but you must remember i am preaching the truth here.

[Hitman]

Good post Casanova. I read the first but couldn't be arsed with the second, I'm tired. I agree with you.