The Falklands

[OneWingedBird]

It's really handy of the Argentinians to up the threat right when we have an election coming up.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Argentina is in a right mess with its basket case of an economy and a corrupt mad woman at the helm.

You would have thought the impoverished people may get a bit angry that Kirchner announced a £3 billion boost to their military spending in 2014 and is now planning to blow muchos pesos on Russian war planes.

 

[ramonmercado]

Argentina is in a right mess with its basket case of an economy and a corrupt mad woman at the helm.

You would have thought the impoverished people may get a bit angry that Kirchner announced a £3 billion boost to their military spending in 2014 and is now planning to blow muchos pesos on Russian war planes.

More public spending on hiring troops and domestic arms spending would boost the economy (I can think of better boosts) but the Russian planes thing is a waste of hard currency.

 

[ramonmercado]

Milliband announces Rynner to be made Governor of Falklands if he wins the election.

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

Lord Rynner of Malivinas

 

[David Plankton]

What are the buses like down there?

 

[Swifty]

About to get a lot more efficient by the sounds of it

 

[rynner2]

Russia questions Britain's claim to the Falklands as garrison reinforced
Extra Chinook helicopters and new missile system to be sent to be deployed, as Russia likens Islands to Crimea
By Matthew Holehouse, Political Correspondent
7:18PM GMT 24 Mar 2015

Britain will send two troop-carrying Chinook helicopters and new surface-to-air missile system to the Falkland Islands, amid fears Russia could be arming the Argentine government.

Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, said the Islands will be ready to repel “any potential threat” following reports that the Kremlin is preparing to lease 12 Su-24 long range bombers to Buenos Aires in exchange for beef and wheat.

It came as Russia questioned the legitimacy of Britain’s claim on the Islands.
Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian Ambassador in London compared the referendum held in 2013 that found 99.8 per cent of the Falkland Islanders wanted to remain a British territory to that held in Crimea last year.
The snap Crimean referendum, held at gunpoint and used to justify Putin’s annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula, was denounced as a sham by Britain.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-to-the-Falklands-as-garrison-reinforced.html

 

[rynner2]

Charity aims to buy warship for new Falmouth based Falklands museum
The National Maritime Trust (NMT), a new charity, is spearheading a campaign to buy the redundant destroyer HMS Edinburgh, sister ship of HMS Coventry and HMS Sheffield, both lost in the Falklands campaign, with a view to having the ship moored at Falmouth docks as part of a Falklands Memorial Fleet museum.
A spokesperson for the charity said: “A more ambitious, long-term proposal as part of the NMT is to create a small fleet of warships and other vessels to commemorate the Falklands War, and the sacrifice of all those who served on those ships. Suitable bases and funding is being sought at a number of sites including Falmouth Docks in Cornwall, which has a strong Royal Naval history, suitable related events such as the Tall Ships, and appropriate dry dock facilities.”

However this is news to A&P Falmouth port operations director Drystan Jones who said: “I can confirm that I have not had any enquiries regarding the HMS Edinburgh or Conqueror. “
The scheme is the brainchild of David Campbell Bannerman, MEP, patron of the NMT.
The MEP said he was motivated to start the charity after the Ministry of Defence sold HMS Plymouth, a frigate that took part in the Falklands campaign, to Turkey for scrap.
“No British warships have been preserved since the Second World War, nothing to commemorate the Cold War, the Falklands War or the Gulf War.”

The NMT is understood to be bidding to acquire HMS Edinburgh which is on the disposal list. The charity has ambitious plans to acquire HMS Conqueror (the nuclear submarine that sank the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano in the Falklands conflict), the former aircraft carrier HMS Hermes (now serving with the Indian Navy), HMS Bristol and possibly other vessels as they come up for disposal.

http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/new...r_new_Falmouth_based_Falklands_museum/?ref=mr

A whole fleet of ships to commemorate a war that lasted only months? Admittedly it was the last great episode of British maritime endeavour, but in a country now apparently so strapped for cash that we cannot afford planes for the aircraft carrier we have got, where will the money come from? Ships are very expensive to maintain and moor, and I cannot see this endeavour ever paying its way. Bonkers! Visitors to Falmouth tend to head for the coast in fine weather, or perhaps the Maritime Museum when wet. Some rusting old ships might not seem so attractive.

 

[rynner2]

Argentine Falklands War troops 'tortured by their own side'
14 September 2015

Argentine soldiers were subjected to abuse and torture by their own superiors during the 1982 Falklands War against Britain, files released by Argentina's armed forces reveal.
They are the first official documents from the conflict to be made public and contain testimonies from soldiers who say they were poorly equipped and cold.
They say they were severely beaten for leaving the trenches to look for food.

The conflict over the islands cost the lives of more than 900 soldiers.
For years, war veterans have complained about the terrible conditions during the conflict, including lack of proper boots and coats, says the BBC's Ignacio de los Reyes in Buenos Aires.

The previously secret files describe mock executions and soldiers being tied up inside empty graves.
A lieutenant describes how another officer tied his hands and legs to this back and left him face down on the wet sand of a cold Falklands beach for eight hours.
A sergeant says he had to be operated on after being kicked in the testicles.

"These documents lift the veil on facts that were hidden for so many years by the armed forces," said Ernesto Alonso, from a veterans group in La Plata.

etc...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-34252025

If they treated their own people like that, how would the Falklanders have fared if Argentina had won the war?

 

[amyasleigh]

If they treated their own people like that, how would the Falklanders have fared if Argentina had won the war?

I am no kind of proponent of Argentinian ownership of the Falklands; but tend to the opinion that in "occupation of disputed territory" situations, there is not necessarily an automatic correlation here. Sadly, in the armed forces of many countries, horrible treatment of lowlier members of same "from the top down", and / or from peers, is so common as to be pretty well standard practice. I have heard and read blood-chilling stuff about the Red Army, and what kind of things were routinely visited there on lower-ranks soldiers, and especially on recruits; and wouldn't expect matters to have greatly improved in this respect, in the Russian army of today.

One of the many kinds of nastiness to which humans are prone; and has no doubt happened a great deal throughout history. One can envisage on an "occupation" scene, orders being issued, for whatever reason of expediency: "treat the civilian population well, or else you'll be for the high jump -- we don't give a damn what you do to each other".

 

[rynner2]

Falkland Islanders celebrate demise of the 'Botox Queen' Cristina Kirchner and welcome new president Mauricio Macri
The election of Mauricio Macri to succeed Cristina Kirchner is likely to see Argentina present a friendlier face
By Nick Allen, Washington
8:42PM GMT 23 Nov 2015

On West Falkland they weren't paying too much attention to the Argentine presidential election. "I've been that busy I haven't really been listening to the radio," said Sue Lowe, who runs the Port Howard Lodge, where the wing from a downed Argentine plane sits in the garden.

Two Argentine tourists stayed at the guest house last week but the 1982 war wasn't mentioned. "They were fine" said Mrs Lowe of her guests. She doesn't say anything about the war unless visitors get "funny".

For the last eight years Argentina's combative and charismatic President Cristina Kirchner has been more than a little "funny". Her pronouncements have drifted foghorn-like across from the mainland, whether it's calling the islanders "squatters" or threatening to prosecute British oil companies.

So it was with some glee that the political end of the "Botox Queen" was celebrated on social media after her favoured successor, Daniel Scioli, was defeated.
"Turn off the lights on your way out," wrote one Falkland Islander.
"Hopefully their new president will focus on their prosperity vs trying to ruin ours," said another.

By contrast, the voice of Mauricio Macri, the conservative and business-friendly new president, promises to be a friendlier one. The general feeling on the Falklands seems to be one of cautious optimism.
"We hope this change in leadership will see a more constructive approach from the government of Argentina towards the Falkland Islands and its people," said Jan Cheek, Chair of the Falkland Island Legislative Assembly.
She hoped it would lead to "greater dialogue" with Argentina on issues like fisheries and sharing of environmental data.

Mr Macri himself said little to nothing about the Falkland Islands during the election campaign. It is a point of universal agreement among Argentine politicians that "Las Malvinas" should not be British.
However, his opponents seized on comments he made two decades ago when he seemed less than sure about asserting Argentine sovereignty over the islands.

In 1997 he declared: “I never quite understood the sovereignty claims of such a big country as ours. We don't have a space problem. Malvinas will become an additional deficit for the country's accounts."
These days Mr Macri is committed to the principle of Argentine sovereignty, but the difference is one of tone. While Mrs Kirchner accused Britain of "militarising" the South Atlantic, and called David Cameron "ill-mannered", Mr Macri's team has spoken of "broadening" the "important" relationship with Britain.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...and-welcome-new-president-Mauricio-Macri.html

 

[Matt Seiber]

I guess were were kind of waiting for this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518982.stm
In the late 1980's I happened to be in the offices of a large oil company, and I saw loads of maps of the Falklands. In my naivety (sp?) then, I wondered why they were so interested in Pengiuns & Sheep. The answer was "why do you really think our forces travelled thousands of miles to "liberate" them".

I never forgot that.

You should have gone there at the time, perhaps you would have understood better.

 

[rynner2]

Uh oh, here we go again...
Argentina urges UK to return to negotiating table over Falkland Islands
New Argentinian government wants sovereignty dispute over Malvinas, or Falkland, Islands settled ‘fairly and definitively’
Agence France-Presse
Monday 4 January 2016 07.28 GMT

Argentina’s new conservative government affirmed on Sunday that it would continue to press the country’s claims to the Falkland Islands, which Britain insists it owns.
“Argentina renews its firm commitment to peacefully settling its differences, to international law and multilateralism,” the foreign ministry under the country’s new president, Mauricio Macri, said in a statement.

Buenos Aires “invites the United Kingdom to resume as soon as possible negotiations aimed at settling fairly and definitively, the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas (Falklands) islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich islands and surrounding territorial seas,” the statement said.

Britain and Argentina fought a brief war over the archipelago in 1982, in which 649 Argentinian servicemen and 255 British were killed.

Decades after the Falklands War, ownership of the rocky outpost remains at the center of diplomatic tensions between the two nations.
Argentina maintains that it inherited the remote, windswept Falklands from Spain when it gained independence.
Britain says it has historically ruled them and that the islanders should have the right to self-determination.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ntina-urges-uk-to-return-to-negotiating-table

 

[Quake42]

Uh oh, here we go again...

Ridiculous. There is nothing to discuss. Argentina has no legitimate claim to the islands, any more than Britain has over say Burgundy.

I have a lot of time for the Argentinian people but I simply cannot understand why they continue to pursue this daft irredentism. Very odd.

 

[Cochise]

Perhaps because they have been fed a distorted version of the truth? And quite possibly, in a relatively young country, they have no real idea of the sequence of long past historical events? The latter is a common enough issue in the US, where taught history dismisses colonial America much the way British history jumps from the Romans to William the Conk. - or did when I was at school.

 

[Quake42]

Perhaps because they have been fed a distorted version of the truth? And quite possibly, in a relatively young country, they have no real idea of the sequence of long past historical events? The latter is a common enough issue in the US, where taught history dismisses colonial America much the way British history jumps from the Romans to William the Conk. - or did when I was at school.

Possibly, but what that doesn't explain it why the matter seems to be such a hot potato. We are dealing, after all, with a handful of remote islands hundreds of miles away from the Argentinian coastline. The islands have never been part of Argentina. The inhabitants of the islands are quite adamant that they want nothing to do wih Argentina. There is was no indigenous population claiming affinity with Argentina. Regardless of the quality of history teaching in Argentine schools, I simply cannot understand why so many people in what is otherwise a fairly sensible country have such a bee in their bonnet about it.

 

[ramonmercado]

Possibly, but what that doesn't explain it why the matter seems to be such a hot potato. We are dealing, after all, with a handful of remote islands hundreds of miles away from the Argentinian coastline. The islands have never been part of Argentina. The inhabitants of the islands are quite adamant that they want nothing to do wih Argentina. There is was no indigenous population claiming affinity with Argentina. Regardless of the quality of history teaching in Argentine schools, I simply cannot understand why so many people in what is otherwise a fairly sensible country have such a bee in their bonnet about it.

The Islands did change hand several ties. Last time, in 19th Century, the British took advantage of a situation where the Argentinian garrison was at odds with its homeland. The Argentinian troops and settlers were expelled.

The Islands are thousands of miles from the UK, but Guam is thousands of miles from the US and France have similar dependencies. Any International arbitration will be about mineral/oil/gas. Whats of more significance though is that the Falklands would certainly factor in any UK claims to a portion of resources on Antarctica.

 

[Quake42]

The Islands did change hand several ties. Last time, in 19th Century, the British took advantage of a situation where the Argentinian garrison was at odds with its homeland. The Argentinian troops and settlers were expelled.

Okay, but from memory this was a (very) shortlived occupation. A bit of 19th century derring-do doesn't explain the apparent obsession with the territory today.

The Islands are thousands of miles from the UK, but Guam is thousands of miles from the US and France have similar dependencies. Any International arbitration will be about mineral/oil/gas.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the islands well outside of Argentine territorial waters? In which case why should Argentina have any claim whatsoever on potential mineral or oil which may be found there? You may as well say that the French should have first dibs on any goodies found in the Channel Islands.

The Falklands thing strikes me as incredibly straightforward and the only reason Argentina's ludicrous claims are given the time of day is anti-West posturing.

 

[ramonmercado]

Okay, but from memory this was a (very) shortlived occupation. A bit of 19th century derring-do doesn't explain the apparent obsession with the territory today.

Oh yes! It was only for a few years. Colony never properly got going and local army commander declared independence from Argentina. Comic Opera stuff.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the islands well outside of Argentine territorial waters? In which case why should Argentina have any claim whatsoever on potential mineral or oil which may be found there? You may as well say that the French should have first dibs on any goodies found in the Channel Islands.

The Falklands thing strikes me as incredibly straightforward and the only reason Argentina's ludicrous claims are given the time of day is anti-West posturing.

You're right but conflicting claims to where continental shelf areas intersect may be relevant to oil etc claims. It would certainly be important regarding Antarctica.

 

[Yithian]

Uh oh, here we go again...
Argentina urges UK to return to negotiating table over Falkland Islands

There is no negotiating table to which anyone could return.

There hasn't been one since around 1979 and the current Prime Minister has pledged that the islanders' sovereignty is non-negotiable. David Cameron may fancy himself as the Great Saviour of the Tory Party, but he knows that he stands no chance against even the ghost of Margaret Thatcher; the moment he instigated talks, there'd be a backbench coup against him faster than you can say 'Heir to Blair'.

 

[Mythopoeika]

You're right but conflicting claims to where continental shelf areas intersect may be relevant to oil etc claims. It would certainly be important regarding Antarctica.

I think that's what it's all about, really.
They want that oil, and they want to have Britain's little foothold in Antarctica.
Sheer greed. Not a return of land to its 'rightful owner'.

 

[Yithian]

They want that oil, and they want to have Britain's little foothold in Antarctica.

That 660,000-square-mile little foothold.

 

[Mythopoeika]

It's an ice-covered desert.

 

[Yithian]

Don't.
I'm on a diet.

 

[ramonmercado]

I think that's what it's all about, really.
They want that oil, and they want to have Britain's little foothold in Antarctica.
Sheer greed. Not a return of land to its 'rightful owner'.

Well, they already have a claim due to their geographical location but getting the Falklands would enhance that.

 

[ramonmercado]

Don't.
I'm on a diet.

Bought a large Raspberry Bakewell Tart. What do they mean six portions?

 

[Coal]

I note that not only has the ghost of Margaret Thatcher been invoked to keep us in the EU (odd, given her distinct reluctance to cede sovereignty to Brussels), the Falkland Islands has reared its head again - and the swift painting of Mr. Corbyn as unpatriotic to suggest we negotiate a handover (much like wot was going on in the late 60's and early 70's until it became obvious a quick war would help a lot more...)

"The Falkland Islands Pressure Group was formed in London in the last months of 1967. It had relatively few members but was nonetheless powerful. It was formed by the owners of the Falkland Islands Company (who are British, live in London and own 47% of the land in the islands); by those interested in the British Antarctic Territories; and by those with family traditions tracing to South Georgia, the South Atlantic and Antarctic exploration. (Gamba 1987, 95)"

‘FIC enjoys a monopoly over trade with the islands, which is mostly in sheep’s wool, the only significant export. Mrs. Thatcher’s husband sits on the FIC board of Directors and has reaped fat profits from its operations.’

What a lucky thing, to have all that nationalism handy just when we need to assert our strength as 'Great' Britain. By staying in Europe.

Just sayin'

 

[Coal]

Whilst there's clearly vested interests in the mineral deposits off the coast of the Falklands, the existence of such interests are entirely irrelevant to the status of the islands.

The last referendum saw 99% of the islanders vote to remain British. Their self-determination should be respected. The only imperialists here are Argentinian.

If you scroll back into history a bit, the islands have swapped about for quite some time, only finally' becoming part of the empire in about 1833. Nevertheless, there's about 3000 folk in those islands and while the UK should on the one hand respect this, a long cool look at the UK's history of colonisation suggest the UK might not be proud of this and historical colonisation doesn't really support a claim in today's climate.

For myself, despite the islands current status, I'd suggest the negotiating table is the only place to start (to return to in fact, it was the UK who finally stalled negotiations in the mid 70's and the bloodless landing by Argentina can be seen as a desperate attempt to start talks up again) because, as for claim, we have no more claim to those islands as we do to India. Or Kenya. Or Zimbabwe if we're frank. Pick a pink part of the 'Empire' at will.

What I absolutely oppose is an attempt to use patriotic nationalistic fervor to whip up support for any kind of 'armed defense' which is truth would be only for the protection the business interests of small UK based elite - in passing of course it would defend the population. Hurrah. *sarcasm emoticon here*

I feel sympathy with the Islanders, but that doesn't mean the UK had the right to take the islands, imperialism some might say and then keep the islands with the use of force, which is also arguably imperialism.

 

[Heckler]

we have no more claim to those islands as we do to India. Or Kenya. Or Zimbabwe if we're frank. Pick a pink part of the 'Empire' at will.

So if 99% of the people who lived in those places had voted to remain British, would we have turned our back on them and said, 'off you go folks, whoever wants to claim your country can crack on'?