Argentinian president attacks UK refusal to negotiate on Falklands

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Argentina's president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, has lambasted Britain for refusing to discuss her country's long-standing claim to the Falkland Islands, calling British control of the territory "a leftover story from the 19th century."

Some 5,000 Argentinians braved freezing temperatures for an all-night vigil awaiting Fernández's speech in Ushuaia, the world's southernmost city, to mark Monday's 30th anniversary of the country's failed invasion of the islands.

According to the Argentinian constitution, Ushuaia is the capital of a vast South Atlantic territory that includes Las Malvinas – the Falklands.

"I am a Malvinist president," Fernández said. "It is an injustice that a colonialist enclave still exists a few hundred kilometres from our shores in the 21st century. It is absurd to pretend dominion 8,000 miles overseas." Fernández delivered her address before a large metal sculpture hollowed out in the shape of the islands, representing Argentina's claim on what it considers its absent territory.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/02/falklands-argentina-attacks-britain-refusal-negotiate

[FLAprogressive]

1. There's absolutely nothing to "negotiate" on. The vast majority of the island's population wishes to

remain British. In that sense, it's ironic that they want to talk about colonialism, especially when their population is mostly white. They're not the "poor subjugated brown people" like a lot of nationalist Latin American leaders like to proclaim. Argentina has an ugly, unhealthy obsession with the Falklands.

[Confusious]

3. She must be in trouble

Nothing like a little Falklands talk to get the electorate riled up.

"The battle against 19th century colonialism has to be resolved with 21st-century tools," foreign minister Héctor Timerman said on the "
6-7-8 television programme on Monday. "For the first time since the war we have managed to put the Malvinas issue on the international agenda"

Who's trying to do the 19th century colonialism thing? Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.

[Fool Count]

5. She is not in trouble. She's been just reflected to a new term in a landslide.

Just saying.

[naaman fletcher]

8. inference

When can infer from her actions that not all is well in Argentina. For example:

A. This story
B. She has made it a crime to disagree with the government's inflation statistics
C. She has introduced new capital controls to keep people from fleeing with their money.

[Confusious]

28. It was just a thought

I guess she's just a right wing asshole then.

Kind of an Argentinian Sarah Palin.

[Posteritatis]

4. It's depressing how many people here fall for it, too. (nt)

[FLAprogressive]

17. They get wrapped up in the pseudo-left wing "anti-colonialist" jargon, unfortunately.

It's just nationalist saber-rattling.

[naaman fletcher]

7. She is the one trying to be the colonialist

There is a population there that wants nothing to do with Argentina, yet she wants to rule them and take their resources.

[Bacchus4.0]

13. but the Falklands are a part of Argentina, see the difference between that and a colony???

lets see her propose a referendum on the island. that'll be the day.

[harmonicon]

15. Yeah, I thought the claim of colonialism was funny.

She seems to want to equate levels of colonialism with distance. Since the Falklands are hundreds of miles from Argentina and thousands of miles from Britain, of course Argentina ruling them would somehow be less colonial, seems to be the (insanely faulty) logic.

[Bacchus4.0]

16. her claim also is Falklands are actually a part of Argentina like Hawaii is part of the US n/t

s

[FLAprogressive]

19. it would be like the Dominican Republic claiming Puerto Rico.

[harmonicon]

22. uhh... but Hawaii is part of the US.

Her claim is more like claiming that Hawaii is part of Argentina.

[Bacchus4.0]

29. yes, that is Argentina's position. she is saying the Falklands would not be a colony because

the Falklands are part of the Argentina just like Hawaii or Key West are part of the US, or Buenos Aires is part of Argentina. I don't agree with her, but thats the argument.

I believe the Falklands are to Britain what Puerto RIco is to the US, they are territories of those nations but not part of them. whereas she is saying that the Falklands are incorporated into Argentina like Manhattan to the US.

[msongs]

2. I want to take over Buenos Aires, will Argentina negotiate that with me please? or else...... nt

[dipsydoodle]

6. Falklands protesters attack British embassy in Buenos Aires

The government has condemned violent protesters who attacked the British embassy in Buenos Aires on the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war.

Several hundred demonstrators pelted police officers with homemade firebombs and threw rocks and flaming bottles at the embassy as a series of events were held in Argentina and the UK on Monday to commemorate the 1982 conflict.

Television footage showed riot police using a water cannon to disperse the group of extremists, who had earlier set fire to a union flag and an effigy of the Duke of Cambridge in protest against British rule of the islands.

The violence came after the Argentinian president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, stoked the diplomatic battle between Buenos Aires and London by describing the UK's control over the Falklands as unjust.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/03/falklands-protesters-attack-british-embassy

If she's into a bit of lambasting shouldn't this be in the BDSM Forum ?

[raccoon]

9. Is there oil in them thar islands, or the sea around them? nt

[Bacchus4.0]

10. yes, there is. and apparently quite a bit n/t

s

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. And Argentina says any company associated with oil exploration will face criminal charges

in Argentina: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002500324

[Mendocino]

24. The Falklands also have

fish and other marine life, particularly squid worth millions to the economy. A fishery, properly managed will sustain indefinitely.

[truebrit71]

12. *yawn*

Another Argie Prez in trouble at home then eh? Sorry Luv, we kicked your arses once, we'll kick 'em again if we have to, but the Falklands are British, end of.

[Blue_Tires]

14. They should settle this in a civilized way:

a football match -- Winner take all

[FLAprogressive]

18. Or just let the islanders decide in a UN-monitored who they want to go with.

Argentina won't go for that because they know they'd lose big time. They won't go to court over it because they know they'd lose big time. So they just saber-rattle.

[Fool Count]

26. UK won't go to court over it either. Because if they do, they would have to accord the same

right to inhabitants of Diego Garcia who were forcibly removed from their homeland so that UK could
lease the island to the US as a military base. Over a thousand of them were relocated against their will -
over three thousand now with their descendants - the number similar to that of Falkland islanders.
That's how we know that UK government is lying when they say that their refusal to negotiate is
motivated by concern over some self-determination rights. The truth is they are only concerned with
their, and their allies, strategic interests and nothing else. They would sell those islanders down the river,
as they did with Diego Garcia's population, in a London minute if there were any strategic advantage to
be gained from it.

[sofa king]

31. Right you are.

There are a handful of geographical features which can potentially control the vast majority of international sea travel: Gibraltar, Suez, Panama, Mauritius and/or Diego Garcia, and the Falklands. Those five would certainly find themselves in any reputable top-ten list of most strategically important places.

At least 200 years ago, the British observed an interesting thing: if those places, and similar ones which control smaller shipping routes, are not occupied by a strong naval power, people in the vicinity immediately turn to one of the most lucrative professions there is: piracy.

If one needs a modern illustration of what happens when a place of high naval significance goes to hell, just look at Somalia. The horn of Somalia potentially controls all of the international commerce that goes through the Suez Canal. It's gone to hell and now it costs everyone an arm and a leg to police the waters there.

The only thing that prevents it from being far worse is the fact that Somalia falls within the naval influence of two of those most important places, each stocked with a powerful fleet and air forces that can project enough power to make piracy a nuisance, rather than a shipping lane killer.

So fuck a bunch of that, says the British. Especially with a FUBAR place like Argentina, which fleeces its populace every twenty years with another economic meltdown and regularly experiences political intervention from its armed forces.

If Argentina controlled the Falklands, three things would inevitably happen, probably in a hurry: 1) Argentina would start shaking down international shipping for "protection" fees, to fund their expanded naval operations; 2) Argentina's pitiful navy would be entirely focused on the shakedown, so there would be little actual protection; and 3) pirates from around the world would descend on the Argentinian coast and begin operations there, folding in perfectly with the extant corruption and illicit markets that Argentina's prior woes have already created.

That's simply not going to be allowed to happen.

[dmallind]

20. So leftover stories from the 16th Century are fine?

I don't think her name indicates pure Argentinian descent does it? For everybody who decries any form of colonization by conquest we must surely ask how far back is OK? Should we all go back to Olduvai?

[Fumesucker]

21. Nah, just back to Newduvai..

[harmonicon]

23. Olduvai isn't far back enough.

I think we need to locate the location of the tide pool where life first started, and then move the continents back to that location, where we'll all live in one giant tower that reaches far into space.

[Odin2005]

25. She's looking for a distraction.

[kentauros]

27. UK needs the Falkland Islands

for "strategic sheep purposes."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6omQ5JjjLsE#t=436s

[MichaelMcGuire]

30. I think the Falkland Islands should just UDI and keep their oil.

[treestar]

32. Is there oil in the Falklands?