MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com (http://www.menstennisforums.com/index.php)
-   Non-Tennis (http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=194161)

Chair Umpire 12-29-2011 08:25 PM

South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports

Stanley in the Falkland Islands Argentina has long claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which lie 400 miles from its coast

A South American trading bloc has agreed to close its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag.

Mercosur, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, came to the decision at a summit in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo.

But Uruguayan President Jose Mujica said British-flagged civilian ships that may supply the islands would still be allowed to use its ports.

The Foreign Office said there was "no justification" for the action.

The Falklands flag is flown by 25 boats, mostly fishing vessels operated in joint ventures with Spanish companies.

The Mercosur decision is the latest in a series by Latin American regional bodies designed to show solidarity with Argentina which has long claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which it calls Las Malvinas.

Britain has held them since the 1830s and says their future is not negotiable. The two countries fought a brief but bloody war over the islands in 1982.

Their dispute has flared again recently. Last year, Argentina accused the UK of breaking international rules by allowing oil drilling under a seabed off the islands, located in a vast area of potentially mineral-rich South Atlantic waters.
'Very concerned'

Britain has also refused recent requests to re-open negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falklands.

Uruguay proposed the move to close ports to Falklands-flagged vessels. Mr Mujica said: "We hold nothing against the UK. But we have a lot in favour of Argentina."
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

Malvinas is not an Argentine cause, it is a global cause, because in the Malvinas they are taking our oil and fishing resource”

Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner Argentinian President

He said solidarity among South America's neighbours was key to his country's foreign policy, adding: "For the moment, this means accepting that this territory is a colonial British position in our America."

However, the president of the Falklands Chamber of Commerce, Roger Spink, told the BBC that they were a small community, and felt increasingly under blockade.

"If we were Palestine, the European Union would be up in arms," he said.

The Foreign Office, who called on Uruguay's ambassador in London to explain the move last week, said it was discussing the developments "urgently with countries in the region".

A spokesman said: "We are very concerned by this latest Argentine attempt to isolate the Falkland Islands people and damage their livelihoods, for which there is no justification.

"It is not immediately clear what practical impact, if any, this statement will have, which mirrors the language already used by the Union of South American Nations in 2010.

"But no-one should doubt our determination to protect the Falkland Islanders' right to determine their own political future."
Oil exploration

The Foreign Office called on Uruguay's ambassador in London to explain the move last week.

The chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Richard Ottaway, said the situation was "very unsatisfactory", with the ban seeming to be a breach of international law and tensions in the region escalating.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer called the ban "needlessly provocative".

Shadow foreign minister John Spellar said: "While this looks like a bit of a flag-waving gesture, Argentina should be in no doubt of the united determination of all parties in the United Kingdom to protect the Falkland Islanders' right to determine their own future."

But former Foreign Office minister Denis MacShane said the "hostile action" was aimed at London, not the Falklands, and blamed the coalition for weakening Britain's international standing.

The Labour MP said: "South American leaders know that Britain has fewer friends than ever before because of David Cameron's isolationist approach in Europe and the indifference to the Obama administration as most cabinet members are close to US neo-Cons.

"Brazil and other countries know that thanks to Liam Fox's defence cuts, the UK no longer has aircraft carrier capability so British maritime power projection has been fatally weakened by the government."

Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who took over the presidency of the trade bloc from Mr Mujica, thanked her fellow presidents for the show of support.

Delivering a speech to the summit, she said: "Malvinas is not an Argentine cause, it is a global cause, because in the Malvinas they are taking our oil and fishing resources.

"And when there is need for more resources, those who are strong are going to look for them wherever and however they can."

British companies are exploring for oil in the waters surrounding the islands, which are 400 nautical miles from the Argentine coast.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16280613

scoobs 12-29-2011 10:18 PM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
For my part as a Brit, I think we should give the damn islands back - it costs the British taxpayer a fortune to defend them - and to subsidise the Falkland Islanders themselves - and even if it is discovered that there's oil resources in the area, the British would struggle to exploit them without incurring a lot of trouble from South America - which on this issue is far more united than, say, 1982.

I don't think belligerence on the part of the Argentinian government is helpful, but then again I doubt a hearts and flowers policy would do any good either - the British Government maintains a policy of self-determination being key - the Falklanders' wishes are paramount - though why the Falklanders get this right when citizens on mainland Britain have no right to expect such a thing is anybody's guess. Clearly there will be no negotiations or flexibility shown by this current Government, a Tory Government with strong Thatcherite leanings on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the war, forget it.

rocketassist 12-29-2011 10:53 PM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
Fuck giving them back to Argentina. I personally reckon they should just grant the Falklands full independence as a sovereign nation.

scoobs 12-29-2011 10:59 PM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
Ummm....they don't want that, being as they are heavily subsidised by the British taxpayer.

Sofonda Cox 12-30-2011 02:06 PM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
We should not 'give them back' imo - mainly because they were never Argentina's in the first place. The only claim to them they have is in terms of geography.

orangehat 12-30-2011 02:48 PM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by safin-rules-no.1 (Post 11588928)
We should not 'give them back' imo - mainly because they were never Argentina's in the first place. The only claim to them they have is in terms of geography.

And the british claim to them is what exactly again? (Don't answer with official British rule currently/historically due to expansionism/imperialism)

buddyholly 12-30-2011 04:30 PM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
Possession

abraxas21 12-30-2011 04:37 PM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by safin-rules-no.1 (Post 11588928)
We should not 'give them back' imo - mainly because they were never Argentina's in the first place. The only claim to them they have is in terms of geography.

categorically false

Black Adam 12-31-2011 10:14 PM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
Britain had settlers there before Argentina was even a country.

The locals had a referendum and chose to remain as part of Great Britain. End of story.

The SA contingent would be useless if it came down to a war.

shotgun 01-01-2012 12:05 AM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Adam (Post 11591948)
The SA contingent would be useless if it came down to a war.

Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay don't care enough about this issue to get involved in a war with the Brits anyway, it's more about Mercosur politics than anything else.

This is very different from 1982.

Sofonda Cox 01-01-2012 08:59 PM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by orangehat (Post 11589018)
And the british claim to them is what exactly again? (Don't answer with official British rule currently/historically due to expansionism/imperialism)

Quote:

Originally Posted by abraxas21 (Post 11589261)
categorically false

l
l
l
l
v
Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Adam (Post 11591948)
Britain had settlers there before Argentina was even a country.

The locals had a referendum and chose to remain as part of Great Britain. End of story.

:wavey:

orangehat 01-02-2012 06:28 AM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
It's just classic he claims she claims here.

British claim settlers while Argentina claims expelled settlers due to British presence. Who is to determine which is true? What is history, but a fable agreed upon?

ibreak4coffee 01-02-2012 06:39 AM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
He said, she said - true. But to me why Britain thinks its so important to hold on to these small islands in the 21st century is kind of a mystery. Empire is long dead, and I'm not sure realistically how much prestige they can derive from having them.

shiaben 01-02-2012 06:49 AM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
Never found out what the purpose of these islands were.

buddyholly 01-02-2012 01:57 PM

Re: South American states ban Falklands vessels from ports
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ibreak4coffee (Post 11594486)
He said, she said - true. But to me why Britain thinks its so important to hold on to these small islands in the 21st century is kind of a mystery. Empire is long dead, and I'm not sure realistically how much prestige they can derive from having them.

No mystery. Oil. I mean, why would you think Argentina would want them, if it is a mystery to you why Britain would want them.?


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.