We want dialogue! No, not here, not now!

flowerpower said:
Haha, thats the most funny I ever read. Do you think that is a true??..
Argentina only haves reported a 1/4 part of his military capacity to the world. CFK and early govs. only shows to the world a face, to keep the idea that Arg is a pacifyc country. But the true is that Arg Has been producing military veiclues and weapons in factorys from Cordoba and Rio Negro since begining of the 90's. Arg got the same military capacity as Brasil of even better to day, but just undeclarated.
Ahrm, have you heard about spy satellites?
Those thingies up in space, which can see objects the size of a small frying pan on the surface of the Earth.

If Argentina had e.g. fighterplanes, which have never flown, ships, which have never sailed, tanks and rockets, which have never been tested, do you really think they could be used in a real war?
 
John.St said:
Ahrm, have you heard about spy satellites? Those thingies up in space, which can see objects the size of a small frying pan on the surface of the Earth.

If Argentina had e.g. fighterplanes, which have never flown, ships, which have never sailed, tanks and rockets, which have never been tested, do you really think they could be used in a real war?

Jhon dont take this as a fight btw us. Im just saying what I know..
Arg like any country knows about spy satelites and in fact I think we have some maded here too, but im not sure. But anyway, those spy satelites cant put their eyes wherever they want, if so, then US never had to indague to Iran about if they are making nuclear weapons and began a discution. Or never had to say that Irak were making massive destruction weapons and then find out that it wasent true over the world eyes.
 
Amargo said:
The UN charter or any other UN organism can say whatever they want. The UK has been told by the UN many times to negotiate with Argentina. ...
There are 40 non-binding UN resolutions more or less like this one:

"Resolution 2065 (XX)
Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas); "

http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution2065.html


Before I enter a discussion of the Falkland/Malvinas problem, which I have studied carefully for quite some time, can we agree on what the word "negotiations" means?

From my point of view, negotiations are (handwaving definition):

"I give in a little, you give in a little, I give in a little, you give in a little, and in the end we reach a solution somewhere between our original standpoints."

Please agree with, or object to, the above definition.
 
flowerpower said:
Jhon dont take this as a fight btw us. Im just saying what I know..
Arg like any country knows about spy satelites and in fact I think we have some maded here too, but im not sure. But anyway, those spy satelites cant put their eyes wherever they want, if so, then US never had to indague to Iran about if they are making nuclear weapons and began a discution. Or never had to say that Irak were making massive destruction weapons and then find out that it wasent true over the world eyes.
No reason to fight.

The cold facts are that if the weapons haven't been tested, they are useless in a war. Any heavy weapon tested in Argentina would have been observed.
 
expatinowncountry said:
Well, the other possibilities are that (1) my English is not good enough to communicate what I am trying to say, and/or (2) that you do not understand how international affairs/diplomacy works and that semantics really matter.

Yes, Argentina can apply to ICJ the same way that the British government can accept the resolutions of the UN Decolonization Committee. I never discussed that. Without the agreement and full consent of the two countries, none of the two bodies has any jurisdiction over the issue. My POINT if you come back to my original response (and I hope it helps you understand it this time) is that the ICJ has been far LESS successful than the UN Decolonization committee dealing with issues related to Colonies. Other people responses push me to explain (unsuccessfully) other things (such as jurisdiction and mandate) but my original point still remains in place.

Your first response was to say it was a recipe for disaster (you didn't explain why or for who) along with confusing the ICC and the ICJ and seeming to suggest the ICJ is a separate entity from the UN (or were you again referring to the ICC?). You asked for an example of the ICJ successfully dealing with such a case (you were later given one) you then stated that the ICJ has been less successful than the C24 in resolving these types of disputes - you gave no evidence here, I am not aware of a case where the C24 handed a non self-governing territory over to a third party against the will of the people in that territory and against the will of the administering state. The Decolonisation Committee can not make binding resolutions nor does it deal with issues of sovereignty with third parties outside of the relationship of the non self-governing territory and the administering state.

You then stated over several posts that the ICJ's powers were limited to a non binding advisory role for disputes involving a colony. I don't doubt your sincerity but I have been unable to find any reference to this, could you post links to the relevant ICJ articles? I'd be interested to know how the court defines a colony.

expatinowncountry said:
Going to the ICJ is a change of strategy the Argentine government may not want to take among other reasons because (1) they could lose (2) it will not imply a negotiation (3) they are more likely to get a better deal with the decolonization committee. You cannot blame the Argentine government for that, the same way you cannot blame the British government for ignoring the UN resolutions.

It certainly would be a change of strategy, its called being honest. Perhaps the question should be rephrased to why is Argentina making claims to a body which has no power to deal with sovereignty issues and can not enforce binding resolutions when there is an international court that was conceived especially to deal with such concerns? Is it just Argentina trying to muddy the waters of the debate so it can talk about evil English piratas and colonisers?

Here's what Ban Ki-moon said prior to the recent meeting of Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (sorry to use the full name but it is quite descriptive):

'Sixteen Non-Self-Governing Territories remain to be decolonized. Dialogue among the Special Committee, the elected representatives of the Territories and the administering Powers is essential for progress.'

Where does Argentine fit into this equation? Try this thought experiment - the Falkland Islanders through some act of delusional faith that Argentina won't annex them before sundown declare independence. Let's even assume Argentina doesn't annex them, what case does Argentina then bring to the next meeting of the Special Committee?

Such is the paucity of debate on the subject in Argentina that these stunts are certainly sufficient for the home crowd to cheer on another moral victory over the piratas. Just as an example since the recent Special Committee hullabaloo I've seen the President, the Minister for Foreign Relations and at least three well known television presenters say that its because the UK has a veto in the security council that no progress on talks has been possible. I have not seen or read one Argentine journalist point out that the only security council resolutions regarding the Falklands were for hostilities to stop and Argentina to withdraw back in 1982.

expatinowncountry said:
Assume for one moment Argentina goes to the ICJ and request a binding ruling regarding sovereignty over the Falklands. In that situation, the case would be Argentina vs UK. If the British government is true to its principle of self-determination, it should not accept to participate in such a dispute as the Kelpers would not be in principle represented by themselves but by the British government. If am not mistaken, when the UK proposed the ICJ many decades ago (1950s?) it was over Georgia and Sandwiches Islands that were inhabited and not over the Falklands. Argentina at that time did not want to talk about the Georgias and Sandwiches without discussing the Falklands what I think it did make sense somehow.

I suspect the UK may refuse compulsory jurisdiction on the issue for various reasons, but it's something we will never know until Argentina makes the first move.

expatinowncountry said:
The strategy of the British government on self-determination of the Kelpers is relatively new... it was not in the table when Chagos people were removed from their Islands. It is only recently that the British government has became "really" concern about the desires of the Kelpers. Again, I am not against that... I think (and this is a personal opinion based on my beliefs and not on international law) the Kelpers have the right to self determination. However, this does not mean that I can see (1) the opportunistic behavior of the British government and (2) that some people in this forum use different standards (to not say that they are hypocrite) when discussing the measures taken by the Argentine and British government on the Falkland/Malvinas issue.

I hope this time you can understand the difference between my main point and my responses to other issues that people raised as the conversation started to go in several directions.

That the British have been inconsistent and hypoctrical over the years is unquestionable, but I believe their current stance is correct (whether it is due to the reasons they have stated or not is another question) and like you this is a personal belief, I don't think there would be more than a few hundred people in the world who could give an informed opinion of the historical question as it relates to international law.
 
flowerpower said:
Haha, thats the most funny I ever read. Do you think that is a true??..
Argentina only haves reported a 1/4 part of his military capacity to the world. CFK and early govs. only shows to the world a face, to keep the idea that Arg is a pacifyc country. But the true is that Arg Has been producing military veiclues and weapons in factorys from Cordoba and Rio Negro since begining of the 90's. Arg got the same military capacity as Brasil of even better to day, but just undeclarated.

Ok Flowerpower, stop hitting on that paco, it's bad for your health, drogadicto.

First of all, who are you trying to fool? Do you think that folk in here do not know what Argentina is, and most importantly: What Argentina has got?

I am Argentine myself, and thanks to your ridiculous comments resembling the imagination of a small child, I feel urged to apologise to everyone here on behalf of the --few, I suppose -- argentines with grey matter within their heads.

For everybody else: Please do not get the wrong impression of my country, and of my people. He's a twat, like CFK.

But we're not all like that ;) Fortunately, they are still a minority. The others, well, we just stay quiet.

regards

PS: Just fyi, assuming that what you said is true (which is not) I would be more careful of posting stuff like that publicly, remember what happened to Saddam Hussein when he was believed to have weapons of mass destruction hidden under his rug? haha. I truly do not wish you the same fate.
 
wolfy said:
But we're not all like that ;) Fortunately, they are still a minority. The others, well, we just stay quiet.

regards

Thank you for your post but honestly I wish you guys, the sane population of Argentina, would speak up more.
 
walkingtwig said:
no doubt I do not only speak for myself here, in wanting to thank flowerpower for at least 5min of solid laughter, a very good companion for my tetleys.

Well I think you were looking at your face on the mirror around 5 minutes.. :p
 
Amargo said:
Aha. Am I still clueless now that the British Prime Minister went out of his way to address the President of Argentina on this issue? Probably that is also a terrible indicator?

Its a terrible indicator of the general population's level of interest. The fact that Cameron acknowledges CFK is basic diplomacy. Its not proof that 60 million people are passionate about a couple of rocks in the Atlantic.

Amargo said:
By the way, what was Cameron doing? It was not the smartest thing to do...did he try to play the tough guy for domestic political reasons? It was really weird.

The man's an arse. On this point we're in agreement.
 
Back
Top