Argentina 'plotting Falklands economic blockade'

[dipsydoodle]

British diplomats have accused Argentina of plotting an economic blockade of the Falkland Islands amid fears Buenos Aires is attempting to block all flights from Chile to the islands.

The government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has publicly threatened to cut the weekly route between Punta Arenas and Port Stanley, the islands' only air link with South America and its main link with the outside world.

British officials believe the service will disappear in an attempt by Argentina to make the Falklands too expensive for Britain to maintain.

"If the LAN Chile flight is cancelled it would be pretty difficult to resist the already credible thesis that there is an economic blockade of the civilian population of the Falklands," a senior British diplomat in the region said on Wednesday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/01/argentina-falklands-economic-blockade

[DonCoquixote]

1. Great Argentina

The best way to make sure latin America is ready for the next century is to force people who do not want to be a part of you to become that. It will reinforce every stereotype about Latinos.

[Stella_Artois]

3. Exactly.

If Argentina really wanted to deal with this matter in a progressive way it could attempt to engage with the Islanders themselves, instead it tries very hard to pretend they don't exist.

Also, the decision to tear up a resources sharing agreement in 2007 looks increasingly foolish. Instead of share, they chose all or nothing. Nothing is what they may well get.

[Lawlbringer]

2. This again?

Come on, guys.

[racaulk]

6. Seriously.

Didn't they learn anything in 1982?

[mitchtv]

4. tough

[waddirum]

16. Joe Jackson gives an intro to this song about that place where 'they can't even agree on the name'

[mitchtv]

20. cool ,as is Tango Atlantico

even if the chorus is La Cumparsita

[Gringostan]

54. Excellent

Excellent; you can always depend on the Irish - thank you!

[Beacool]

64. Great song, thanks!!!!

If there is something that unites the Irish and Argentines is their dislike of the British.

I'm half Irish and spent time in high school in a boarding school in Buenos Aires (Irish nuns, the sisters of Mercy).

Admiral Brown is considered as the founder of the Argentine navy.

The British invade Buenos Aires twice in the first decade of the 19th century, when they were still a Spanish colony (part of the Virreinato del Rio de La Plata). The incapability of the Spanish government to protect the city (the citiziens repelled the British mostly on their own), eventually led to their independence from Spain in 1816.

At which point, Las Islas Malvinas became part of Argentina. The Argentine government sent a small garrison. The British invaded the islands in the mid 19th century and there's an account of the governor of the islands in the National Archives in Buenos Aires. He wrote that he was the last person to leave, but not before he lowered the flag for the final time.

I find it ironic that the former pirates of the sea, who never cared about the indigenous people of the nations they conquered (asked the people of India or of several countries in Africa) are all up in arms about the rights of the population of the islands.

Why don't they admit that what they really want is to exploit the natural resources that are found in the waters near the islands. Just as the reason that they took them in the first place was to have a stronghold where they could refuel and restock their ships before crossing the Strait of Magellan.

[COLGATE4]

5. Every time the Argentine government

brings up the Falklands, you can bet that they're in some kind of serious economic trouble and need to distract the masses - 'Look - Shiny!'

[carla]

7. So if the Cubans

bring up the blockade against them and the US gov. says it isn't against the Cuban people but against the regime, the Argentinians can just point to the USA and say, "we learned it from them, and our blockade isn't against the people, but against the British regime"...
Touche?

[brooklynite]

33. Unless you can point to...

a regime oppressing the freedom-loving people of the Falklands, the analogy doesn't really work.

[carla]

37. Cubans, FYI

don't feel oppressed. Ask my husbands cousins, aunts and in-laws and they will tell you that some changes are needed but that the Cuban Revolution will not be tossed out by the Cuban people. "Freedom-loving people", nice red herring. The issue is the Blockade.
Cubans are freer than economically oppressed/politically oppressed Americans at this time in history...now put down those blinders and do some int'l. research instead of spouting "talking points/ Miami".

[EX500rider]

42. Right...

.....the one party Cuban police state has more political freedom the the US. lol

[bemildred]

8. Sounds like an embargo, not a blockade.

Like the Iran sanctions.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Economic

not physical.

[bemildred]

10. You can blockade with your economy?

How does that work?

"A blockade is an effort to cut off food, supplies, war material or communications from a particular area by force, either in part or totally."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade

I don't see the "by force" part.

[dipsydoodle]

11. Cutting off their main line of supply

is an economic block. Isn't it ? I appreciate there is no force as such which is what I meant by physical.

[bemildred]

13. I'm pretty sure you can sail there from anywhere.

Argentina is not obligated to make it convenient. You are just playing into their hands by making a fuss about it.

[carla]

38. Threat of military

intervention is the essence of a blockade. Cutting off the main trade route is like removing MFN trading status. The Malvinas are Argentinian.

[EX500rider]

41. "The Malvinas are Argentinian."

They are no such thing.

English speaking British subjects only live there.

The United Kingdom bases its claim on continuous administration of the islands since 1833 and the Islanders’ right to self determination.

[mitchtv]

46. since 1833?

the Monroe Doctrine is 1823. the Falklands violated this doctrine,from what I can see.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. What's the Monroe Doctrine got to do with it?

That's US policy, not some international agreement.

[mitchtv]

55. reagan should never have aided UK

we should ally with our American Neighbors if this is our policy. We have used it to halt new european incursions. Just because we couldn't stop the UK in 1833, doesnt mean we have to support them now. At very least we could have remained neutral.but we did not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Even when that was a dictatorship invading a community that was happy?

Why don't the Falkland Islanders count as your neighbours, in your view?

By the way, the British moved in in 1833, after the USS Lexington expelled a bunch of Argentinians in 1831, whom the captain said had illegally taken 3 American ships. Those Argentinians are the basis of Argentina's claim to the islands.

[EX500rider]

60. Not really..

....as the islands are not part of the continental Americas but a group of islands in the South Atlantic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Denying the flight from Chile access to Argentinian airspace

Whether it's 'by force' is arguable - if a plane attempted to enter Argentinian airspace despite having no permission, they might use force to make it land. But, in practice, with an airplane, they just have to say "no permission granted", and the flight won't take off. But it's more than just an economic embargo - it's forcing another country to stop interaction with the Falklands.

[bemildred]

14. "Arguable" indeed. nt

[bemildred]

15. Look, I think they might as well pound sand, as far as the Falklands go, but

you can't make them let you use their facilities either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. It's not 'facilities' - it's airspace

The flight from Chile has to cross Argentinian airspace to use a reasonable route to the Falklands. That's why this is like a blockade - they want to block the passage of transport from another country to their target.

[bemildred]

25. Right, you don't have a right to use their airspace. nt

[mitchtv]

47. Chile behaved treacherously to Argentina

during that affair. I don't see what gives Chile the right to profit from using Arg Airspace to support the crown

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Chile and Argentina were both military dictatorships then

Are you saying that dictatorships should always support each other? Anyway, Chile is now a democracy, and the flight from Chile supports the right of self-determination of the Falkland Islanders. It also gives a way for Argentinian families to visit the graves of the conscripts killed on the islands.

As far as 'profit' goes, the Falklands would be fine with flights into Argentina, if the Argentinians were. Argentina has been fine with the flights to Chile, up until now.

[Demonaut]

17. remember the Sheffield

[mitchtv]

21. and also the General Belgrano

[Demonaut]

22. wow , wiki'd it, never knew...major loss of life, RIP General Belgrano and her crew

[mitchtv]

48. american blackout on Latin American news

very effective

[Zorro]

49. The sinking of the General Belgrano was blacked out by US news media?

[mitchtv]

56. I'm sure it was mentioned

but only in passing, it was a major event, but generally speaking little Latinoamerican news make it to front pages,literally and figuratively. I actually for get the particular coverage on the incident.I did visit their "Wall" of heroes when I was last in BsAs

[Zorro]

59. Actually it was all over the news

I remember it well.

The Falklands War actually was covered pretty thoroughly by the US news media at the time.

Many were astounded that the Argentine government would instigate a conflict that they were certain to lose.

[Demonaut]

63. I was out on West Pac at the time so we had only heard of the Sheffield, I met some of her crew in

Mombasa...I would say that the news of the Belgrano never made it to our ships or it was mentioned very briefly so
that until this post I never knew

[Adsos Letter]

65. Indeed. CNN was all over it.

[freshwest]

19. The English sent ships, last time they had a problem. No border fence in the Atlantic Ocean...

It's likely this will be an inconvenience, but the islands have their own food and water supplies. They may have their own fuel reserves, too.

Argentina isn't the only South American country facing the Atlantic that they can trade with. They can live without help from Argentina. The reverse is true, too.

Other than some things may cost more, this shouldn't be that big a deal. It's the price of being independent.

Everyone can go their own way in peace until it's hashed out.

[happyslug]

23. The Falklands want NOTHING to do with its NEAREST neighbor? Sooner or later something has to give

Look at where the Falklands are, the nearest Country is Argentina. The next nearest Country is Chile, but you have to go through Argentina from Chile to get to the Falklands. The third nearest Country is Uruguay and the fourth is Brazil, both of which supports Argentina in this matter (and did in 1982). The rest of South America is nearer to the Falklands then the nearest NON-South American Country, South Africa.

Please note I am ignoring the South Georgia and South Sandwich island in this discussion given their population of 30 people. And while the the tip of Northern South America is further from the Falklands then South Africa, the countries on that northern tip, Columbia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname and French Guinea all extend southward so that all of them have areas closer to the Falklands then South Africa. I mention this for it clearly shows who Britain and the Falkland island have to deal with Argentina, just like Castro has to deal with the US (Castro may NOT like dealing with the US, but the US Dollar is used in Cuba and there is a good bit of movement between Cuba and Cubans living in Florida).

The Falklands was nothing but a Coaling Station till the British Navy converted to oil after 1900. The Falklands have a population of just over 3100 people. To get anywhere from anywhere you either have to go by Ship OR by plane. Given the population of the Island the Airport is large for such a population but it is still a SMALL airport. For that reason any flight to the Island has to come from some Country in South America. I.e. Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil or Chile. Uruguay and Brazil support Argentina, thus, except after Pinochet was arrested, all trips had to go via Chile (After Pinochet arrest, Chile stopped all flights and afterward all fights had to be through Argentina until Chile resumed them).

This is why when the Husband of Margret Thatcher actually visited the island, he questioned why Britain actually fought over it.

More on the Falklands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

The modern conflict seems to be a fight over the oil and natural gas deposits around the Falklands. If the Falklands are part of Argentina then those rights belong to Argentina. If the Falklands belong to Britain those rights, that do NOT overlap with Argentina rights, belong to the Falklands. In areas where those rights overlap, the line is the halfway point between any point in Argentina and any point on the Falklands. Here is a map showing what Britain is claiming for the Falklands:



In simple terms, this is a growing fight over who gets the oil and natural gas out of the area. Can the Falklands support the full exploration of these resources without Argentina? With a population of 3100 I do not think so, Great Britain and South African are to far away. Uruguay is small, and tied in with Argentina, thus that leaves Brazil and Argentina. Brazil has supported Argentina is this dispute so Brazil is not an option, so sooner or later Britain and the Islanders themselves will have to deal with Argentina.

Unlike the Falkland island themselves, Argentina not only has the population to support such exploitation, it has the industrial capacity and other support elements to support exploration of the area around the islands, thus the recent flare up seems to be more positioning between Great Britain and Argentina as those two work out how the exploitation of those resources are to be handled. The Falkland islanders comments, while appear to be valid concerns, seems to me to be used by the British as part of that negotiations for a deal with Argentina in regards to exploitation of those resources.

Thus sooner or later some sort of deal has to be made between Britain and Argentina over the Falklands. Everyone knows this, but the positioning can be interesting in itself. Argentina has the capacity to prevent any exploitation of the oil and gas resources and Britain knows this. Britain has the capacity to hold on to the Falklands, and Argentina knows this. Argentina wants the Island, Britain wants to get to the Oil and Natural Gas around the Island. A deal is going to be made. If I was the Falkland islanders I would accept that unpleasant fact, Britain will sell them down the river for the CHANCE of getting access to the Oil and Natural Gas in the areas around the Island. Right now, Britain is not yet ready to cut a deal, but when Britain wants to get at that oil and Gas, Argentina will demand the Falklands in exchange for Britain being able to use Argentina as a base to support such exploration and exploitation. Argentina will give the Islanders the right to remain and retain English Common Law (Something Argentina has already said they would do if the Falklands would join Argentina). Thus the elements of a deal is already known, the issue is getting around to making the deal and some how making it look good even if the Islanders object to the deal.

[joshcryer]

24. It'll probably be like the oil sharing deal between Sudan and South Sudan, eventually.

Not to say that they are comparable situations in any way, but there's no reason for a small island of people and its mother country to benefit the most from resources in such close proximity.

[bemildred]

26. +1

[ikri]

27. There was a deal

Argentina pulled out of deal that would have given them half (or nearly half, I forget the exact numbers) of any resources found around the islands. That was 5 years ago, they timed the announcement to tie in with the 25th anniversary of the war.

Why should Argentina have any claim on the islands? They inherited a claim from Spain when they won independence but that claim was never recognised at the time. Sure, they're closer to the islands than Great Britain, but that's not much of a reason to make a claim on the islands - London is closer to Berlin than Stanley (Falkland Islands capital) is to Buenos Aires, should that mean that England should become part of Germany? Germany has stronger claims to England than Argentina has to the Falklands thanks to those pesky Angles and Saxons.

Argentina had their chance to be good neighbours to the Falklands but they've behaved like petulant bullies at every stage. Fuck them.

[happyslug]

28. Mark Twain made fun of your argument in regards to a relative of his

The relative had a land grant, claim it was worth millions, but never had the resources to develop the land and lost it. The land later on became valuable for it was WHEN SOMEONE WHO COULD DEVELOPED DID DEVELOP IT. Twain's relative NEVER had the resources to develop the property so he lost it to someone who could. The same with the Falklands, the residents of the Falklands may want to exploit those resources, but it can not.

My point is the simple fact the Falklands has resources that can be exploited all around the Falklands, does NOT mean anything, unless the Falkland islanders can exploit those resources. The problem is the Falkland islanders can NOT, but Argentina can and thus sooner or later Argentina will get the Falklands UNLESS Britain decide it will NOT develop those resources, something I believe will NOT happen (Britain has NEVER declined the ability to exploit something it can make money on, why would it change now?).

The problems with the Falklands is the islanders are to few and it lacks the industrial base to develop the area around the Falklands. Everyone knows this, thus the British proposal to give Argentina half of the development rights. The problem is Argentina wants SOVEREIGNTY over the islands, Britain wants to retain Sovereignty. The issue is when does the desire to exploit the resources over come this desire to have or retain sovereignty?

While the islanders may want to retain British Sovereignty at the cost of losing access to the resources around the islands, are the British? The British CLAIM they want to retain Sovereignty in that situation, but when push comes to shove will the British keep that promise or go for the wealth from the resources? Argentina is betting that Britain will prefer access to those resources then the islands themselves i.e. Britain will give up the islands to Argentina in exchange for cooperation in exploiting the areas around the Islands.

In my opinion, that is a smart long term bet. That is what the people of Argentina wants, that is what the leadership of Argentina wants and thus will be the cost of Argentina cooperation in developing the resources around the Falklands. The Falkland islanders may NOT agree with having to be part of the price to be paid, but it is a decision that will be made in London NOT Stanley and I fully expect a British Government sometime in the Future (Date uncertain, may be 20-50 years) will agree to transferring Sovereignty of the Islands to Argentina for Argentina's cooperation is developing the resources around the Island. The residents of the Falklands would be better off cutting the deal themselves, but they have refused and sooner or later the British will sell them down the River in exchange for Argentina cooperation in developing the areas around the Island.

[ikri]

29. But it's not what the inhabitants want

Amazingly, invading their islands pissed off the locals somewhat and they don't especially like Argentina too much. Britain can't offer the islands to Argentina unless the inhabitants agree and that's never going to happen, there's more chance of Alaska rejoining Russia.

[happyslug]

32. Did the British care about the Natives of North America, Africa, Asia, Australia etc???

Sorry, money trumps "Desire of the Natives" every time. That was true in the US when we were under British Rule (and afterward) and will be true of the Falklands.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

58. Yes they did care.

Gave them all British passports and welcomed them all with open arms.

Britain didn't sent smallpox ridden blankets to kill them off like Americans did to their natives.

If the US was still lucky to be under British rule you'd be treated a lot nicer and have free healthcare for a start.

This should warm the cockles of your heart.

[EX500rider]

61. "Britain didn't sent smallpox ridden blankets to kill them off like Americans did to their natives."

The only documented case of that happening that I know of was a British military officer in the 1700's. (ie, giving inflected blankets)

[MichaelMcGuire]

62. The British almost wiped out a whole race of people, that of Tasmania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines

[happyslug]

66. The ONLY report of SMALLPOX Blankets being sent to the Native Americas was by BRITISH ORDERS

General Amherst wrote the only time Small Pox blankets was proposed, when he Commanded British Troops in North America at the end of the French and Indian War, during Pontiac's Rebellion of 1763.

General Amherst was promoted afterward to be Commander in Chief of the British Army during the American Revolution. George Washington had worked with Amherst during Pontiac's Rebellion thus knew of Amherst's view and for that reason ORDERED the American Army to be inoculated against Small Pox during the Revolution (Thus making the US Army the first Army to be inoculated against Small Pox in the World).

More on Amherst and Small Pox Blankets:
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

Some massacres in India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

[Agent William]

67. I can speak to the blankets myth...

During Pontiac's Rebellion genocidal tactics were employed by both sides, not just the Britisg as I'm sure many would like to believe. It is believed, and even acknowledged by the Natives themselves, that small pox was introduced to Native American communities through exposure to whites which came in the form of raids against said whites. The chiefs who received the infected blankets from the British garrison at Fort Pitt were Reported to be in good health a year after taking posetion of the blankets. The small pox which was devastating their tribes had already been in the area long before any alleged attempts by British forces to introduce the plague.

As for other massacres. Yes, there was a period of extremely violent actions perpetrated by the British during the colonial era. What sets the British apart is that, unlike the US, we had the common courtesy to eventually leave when populations wished us to do so. The key word is eventually.

Besides, i think the US is a couple places higher than the UK in the massacre league table. Although Germany is still at the top.

[joshcryer]

34. They can't give up sovereignty and expect to get cooperation for developing the resources.

As soon as they give up sovereignty they effectively give up the resources. I really can't see the British stupidly bargaining away the islanders for oil profits. If you expect them to be sold down the river, which is reasonable, it would probably be more of a raw deal on the oil profits. Islanders get 10% or something like that.

[dipsydoodle]

30. And Guam is where

using your argument.

[happyslug]

31. Guam's # 1 source of tourists is Japan, 75% of all tourist are Japanese.

And no one is trying to develop the waters around Guam, thus no need for any nearby large industrial base to reach out to, but if there was a need, Japan would be the second nearest base. No problem for Japan has no claim on Guam but if Japan did and they were oil around Guam, I can see the US giving Guam to Japan (Through giving it to Northern Mariana Islands, which it is geographically part of, but Japan held those islands prior to WWII, even while Guam was US territory. Prior to WWI those islands were German, Japan took them in WWI).

Furthermore, the Philippines is closer, again not problem, if we need an industrial base to develop. Guam and the Philippines were Spanish prior to 1898. But the distance is huge as to Guam to the Philippines or Japan as compare the Falkland islands and Argentina.

Another factor is the population of Guam is 178,000 While Falkland is only 3140. Through the Falklands is substantially larger, 4700 square miles for the Falklands, while only 209 square miles for Guam. That provides a decent population base for oil exploitation, through it is still quite small.

More on Guam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam

For more on the Falklands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

Just a comment the situation is different between Guam and the Falklands, a better comparison would be with Cuba, near the US coast and we have long been concerned on who controls that island. Through the population of Cuba exceeds even Guam AND you have other nearby islands (Haiti for example) and Countries (Mexico). Thus Cuba is a bad comparison, but a better one then Guam.

[joshcryer]

35. I did some research on this oil exploitation, and frankly, I think you are wrong. The Falklanders...

...with UK investors can do it without Argentina. I think Britain doesn't really want to negotiate with Argentina, and that ultimately the saber rattling is to the UK's benefit. The UK is using diplomatic overtures, because if the basin does become viable other oil companies will want through-access to Argentina, but for the oil companies in Britian, with FPSO (floating production storage and offloading) platforms, the Falklanders and investors don't really need Argentina for anything. You hire UK citizens to come on down and do the operations, they take a vacation every now again on the islands (which have 55k tourists a year).

Argentina should've agreed with the original sharing agreement, they really messed up here.

They can always build a bigger airport.

[Nye Bevan]

36. YES and sooner or later Cuba will become one of the United States. It only makes sense (nt)

[dipsydoodle]

39. Jamaica too?

[happyslug]

40. Annxation of Cuba has been kicked around since the 1850s

But the US has NEVER claimed Cuba was part of the US for legally the US never had a legal claim. On the other hand who rules Cuba affects New Orleans. The British attack on New Orleans in 1815 had support from Cuba, and the Union Forces that Took New Orleans in 1862 used Cuba as a base (Through US Troops never technically landed in Cuba, other aspect of the attack, such as food did come from Cuba and Haiti).

Thus the US has always had a strong voice and concern in what happens in Cuba. In 1896 Spain was ready to agree to Cuban independence do to US Pressure, when the US instead took Cuba by Force and then as part of the Subsequent peace treaty set up Cuba as technically independent but under US control for all practical purposes. Castro even had US Support at one time during his war to take over Cuba (and then went for Soviet Support for fear of a US invasion).

Thus Cuba is a good comparison, except its population is much larger and its exports much larger then the Falklands, but even Castro has to deal with the US do to how close the Cuba is to the US. The US dollar is used in Cuba and US -Cuba travel does occur despite the sanctions.

Just like Castro, the Falklands has to deal with its nearest neighbor and sooner or later some sort of compromise between Argentina and the Falklands will be made (i.e. An independent state within Argentina using English and English Common law instead of Spanish and the Civil Laws for example).

In fact, Cuba and the US may have to cut a deal on Oil within Cuban Waters. The US can develop those fields better then anyone else, thus a deal will be made (Through probably through BP a British Company that can claim it does NOT need to comply with US sanctions). Since the US never had a legal claim to Cuba, sovereignty is NOT an issue, through whose troops other then the US and Cuban troops can be in Cuba will be an issue.

[dipsydoodle]

45. US dollar is used in Cuba ?

Simple possession of a US$ has been illegal in Cuba, outside of some governmental use, since Shrub accused Fidel of money laundering. There's also a 20% surcharge for changing US$'s into CUCs - Candian $s, Euro and Sterling are fine.

Its Russia's Repsol and Norway' s Statoil doing the drilling : not BP.

[hunter]

43. Nobody lived there 500 years ago...

... and I'll bet nobody lives there 500 years from now.

[Honest Turtle]

44. Good discusion

I have to say I have been lurking on DU for several years. As I have seen the discussions drop in value over time I have not bothered to figure out how to Post.

This discussion has provided me with significantly more information than the article did. As a result I have signed up to be a member. I am hoping to continue to see good discussions like this.

[bemildred]

50. Welcome to DU.