Argentine protesters rally outside British Embassy in Buenos Aires

RobitTV

Riot police and protesters are squaring off outside the British Embassy in Argentina amid an escalating diplomatic dispute over the Falkland Islands.

A small crowd of demonstrators turned out today following yesterday's trouble when Argentine politicians accused David Cameron of being ‘ignorant’ as the diplomatic row over the Falkland Islands worsened

The spat revived the rhetoric of the 1980s amid growing rifts ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War.

News article

Argentina has no legal claim on the islands, that's that.

sarkozy

"Riot police" ... "small crowd" ... sounds like gingoistic rubbish to me.

The Acting President's words don't strike me as inflammatory:

‘We believe it’s a clumsy, historically misinformed and inappropriate thing to say. We’re astonished by such ignorance. Maybe he should re-read his history books to understand what colonialism is.’

I think that's a fairly honest, uninflammatory, pass-remarkable thing to say.

In 1982, the Argentine military dictatorship used the war to distract Argentinians from how they were ruining the country. Thatcher was happy for the distraction from her war on trade unions. This time, it appears to me it's Cameron who's looking for the distraction from his government's comical handling of the UK economy, and of diplomacy.

Honestly, a 'riot' involving a 'small crowd'? While in Buenos Aires, I had the pleasure of attending a march against Argentinian government cuts to education. A very lively affair, and fairly routine.

And your opinion on this issue is?

Jorah

sarkozy wrote: »

This time, it appears to me it's Cameron who's looking for the distraction from his government's comical handling of the UK economy, and of diplomacy.

Actually, Cameron is just responding to a string of comments made over the past year by the Argentinians. Recently, Latin American nations started to ban boats from their ports that carried the Falklands flag.

Cameron was asked during Prime ministers questions about the situation and he made a show of strength for the UK's position on the Falklands.

woodoo

The Falklands sounds like a kip. It has about 3000 people and the average summer temperature is 13 degrees , ave winter 4 degrees. Hardly worth squabbling over.

tim_holsters

Is it true that Cameron accused the Argies of behaving in a colonial fashion the other day?

Bit rich if true.

Jorah

sarkozy wrote: »

Honestly, a 'riot' involving a 'small crowd'? While in Buenos Aires, I had the pleasure of attending a march against Argentinian government cuts to education. A very lively affair, and fairly routine.

My favourite:

Jorah

tim_holsters wrote: »

Is it true that Cameron accused the Argies of behaving in a colonial fashion the other day?

Bit rich if true.

How is it "rich"?

The UK supports the right to self determination within all its territories. The people get to decide their constitutional status by majority vote.

Argentina are trying to threaten and bully the citizens of the Falkland islands into joining Argentina so they can gain access to their resources. That is textbook colonial action.


Oh wait let me guess, because Britain had an empire we're not allowed to mention this? Pathetic.

junder

Funny how self determination is ok when people want to leave the uk but wrong if people wish to stay within the uk.

sarkozy

Jorah wrote:

That is textbook colonial action.

And what the UK is doing isn't?

It's not colonisation by definition. But nothing has happened, this is rhetoric and Argentina has a legitimate case in determining where it can, within international law, exploit its sovereign natural wealth even within the status quo.

Those photos you've posted - there's a constant sit-in protest in Plaza de Mayo raising awareness of a view held by certain members of Argentinian civil society. So they have a bit of a protest, who doesn't in Argentina?

Batsy

sarkozy wrote: »

This time, it appears to me it's Cameron who's looking for the distraction from his government's comical handling of the UK economy, and of diplomacy.

The British Government is handling the economy very well and is handling it in line with every other European govermnment, who are making necessary cuts.

It's very noticeable that no European government is doing what Britain's Labour Party wants to do, which is to spend more money. But, as Conservative chairman Baroness Warsi said on last night's Question Time, if a person runs up credit card debts then spending more money is not the way to reduce those debts.

And the British people agree with her. Polls show that the British people think the Government are handling the economy better than the Labour Party - the ones who ruined the economy in the first place - would.

So the Government's handling of the economy is very sensible rather than comical and will help us to eventually get back to prosperity again.

Batsy

sarkozy wrote: »

And what the UK is doing isn't?

Nope. What the UK is doing is NOT colonialism. The Falkland Islanders wish to remain British and, as long as they wish to be so, then the islands will be British. And, as long as they are British, Britain is responsible for the islands' defence.

I don't see why we should hand the islands - which were discovered and settled by the English and then the British before Argentina came into existence - against the people's wishes. It would be against international law for a start.

Border-Rat

Why do English trolls sign up to Irish discussion forums?

Manach

Border-Rat wrote: »

Why do English trolls sign up to Irish discussion forums?

Because we are all European citizens now?
As well that the Argentinians are mobilising public/politic opinion in Latin American to press their claims to the Islands, so the English might be looking to see similar support from her European allies in reaction to this.

Lemming

Border-Rat wrote: »

Why do English trolls sign up to Irish discussion forums?

Evidently just to gain pleasure in winding you up. Just you.

I have to agree that this is all on the Argentinians shoulders. In any political interviews I've watched they keep saying the same thing about wanting negotiations and dialogue. But the only answer they seem to want to accept is a total hand-over regardless of the wishes of the island natives; who, as it has been pointed out, are under British jurisdiction and wish to remain part of the UK. Self-determination and all that, but then again that's a subtlety I wouldn't expect extreme sorts (left, or right it doesn't matter, they're so far apart they're identical) to grasp.

In the face of these false platitudes of "lets talk" which really mean "give us what we demand", combined with howls of colonial accusations whilst trying the same on, I would expect any right-minded person to keep the Argentinians at arms length.

losthorizon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXKuZ3UnnxM

Pacifist Pigeon

I don't see why the Argentines care so much about the Falklands. Most of the islands inhabitants are of British descent and want the islands to remain a British overseas territory.

Batsy

Manach wrote: »

Because we are all European citizens now?
As well that the Argentinians are mobilising public/politic opinion in Latin American to press their claims to the Islands, so the English might be looking to see similar support from her European allies in reaction to this.

The British (not the English) don't need support from our European "allies." We've got right on our side. And UN law, too.

Batsy

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

I don't see why the Argentines care so much about the Falklands. Most of the islands inhabitants are of British descent and want the islands to remain a British overseas territory.

On Question Time last night Germaine "Every man is a potential rapist" Greer was questioning why the Falkland Islands don't have representation at Westminster. She said that the Falklands, rather than remaining a mere Overseas Dependent Territory, should be made an actual part of the UK and have one or more representatives at Wesminster.

But I don't think there's any need to go that far. The Falkland Islands have their own parliament so their people are represented in that.

jimmycrackcorm

Jorah wrote: »

How is it "rich"?

The UK supports the right to self determination within all its territories. The people get to decide their constitutional status by majority vote..

unless of course its Hong Kong.

sarkozy

Batsy wrote: »

On Question Time last night Germaine "Every man is a potential rapist" Greer was questioning why the Falkland Islands don't have representation at Westminster. She said that the Falklands, rather than remaining a mere Overseas Dependent Territory, should be made an actual part of the UK and have one or more representatives at Wesminster.

But I don't think there's any need to go that far. The Falkland Islands have their own parliament so their people are represented in that.

The thing is, Batsy, I don't actually care about the Malvinas Islands or who owns it. You can lament for Britain's lost empire all you want. In a classic example of inverted colonialism, you (and Cameron) are turning this unimportant issue into a manufactured conflict to justify the UK's colonial history with reference to 'self-determination' as a cloak for raw interest in oil.

Again, I don't care about the people on the Malvinas Islands.

What I care about is the Daily Mail stoking the fires of gingoism. If that's also happening on the Argentine side, I condemn it, but I'm not convinced it is. I haven't seen any links to 'agressive' Argentinian statements on the issue.

And if this is about oil/gas being discovered, then let's be honest about it.

But I would defer to the Argentines on lessons from colonialism - the effects of Spanish colonisation and continuing effects of US intervention are still felt. And this is something Irish people, too, have an understanding of.

Batsy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

unless of course its Hong Kong.

Britain only got Hong Kong in 1898 on a temporary loan until 1997. We duly handed it back in 1997.

Batsy

sarkozy wrote: »

In a classic example of inverted colonialism, you (and Cameron) are turning this unimportant issue into a manufactured conflict to justify the UK's colonial history with reference to 'self-determination' as a cloak for raw interest in oil.

Unimportant to you maybe. But not unimportant to the people of the Falkland Islands. The people of the Falkland Islands have no wish to be ruled by Argentina. And why should they? The islands have NEVER been Argentinian. Britain sighted, claimed and settled the islands before Argentina ever existed. I don't see why we shoud hand them to Argentina, against the wishes of the islands' people and government, just to make a few Irishmen happy.

And I have no need to "justify" Britain's presence on the islands. It was an Englishman who first sighted the then unnihabited and unclaimed islands and the British and French who first colonised them. It wasn't the Argies or their Spanish ancestors who first settled the islands. And self-determination is not being used as claok for raw interest in oil. Oil was only discovered at the islands in 2010 and Britain was allowiong the islanders to have self-determination long before that.

Again, I don't care about the people on the Malvinas Islands.

We've already established that by you wanting the islands to be given to a foreign power which has never owned them before and which didn't even exist when Britain first claimed and settled them. Thankfully for the Falkland Islander it matters not what a few Irishmen think. They can rest assured that Britain will NOT give the islands to the Argies so long as they want to remain British.

In response to Argentina's latest sabre-rattling, Falkland Islands politician Dick Sawle said: 'If we have the right to self determination, Argentina must respect the wishes of the Falklands people and leave us in peace'. 'It is very clear that the Islanders to not want to be part of Argentina or be ruled by Argentina.

What I care about is the Daily Mail stoking the fires of gingoism.

If a few ignorant Argentinian lefties weren't burning Union Flags outside the British Embassy in Buenos Aires then the Daily Mail and all other UK newspapers won't be returning on it.

sarkozy

Batsy wrote: »

Britain only got Hong Kong in 1898 on a temporary loan until 1997. We duly handed it back in 1997.

Wrong. The Qing Dynasty ceded Hong Kong Island to Britain in perpetuity in 1842 after the first Opium War waged by Britain. It was in 1848, after the Second Opium War, that the 99-year lease was taken out on Lantau Island, Kowloon and Stonecutter's Island.

It was only in 1983 that Hong Kong was demoted from its status as a British Crown Colony to 'Dependent Territory'.

In other words, Hong Kong was obtained through a Government-sanctioned trade war, fomented with the intention of crow-barring open the Chinese economy to British goods (initially opium).

Giving back the former colony was due to a new geopolitical strategy with a clearly emerging global power rather than altruism of any sort. The Sino-British agreement setting out the transfer - the island's autonomous status, governance system and status as a free port - prove that.

Unimportant to you maybe. But not unimportant to the people of the Falkland Islands.

Are you from the Malvinas Islands? Why do you care?

The islands have NEVER been Argentinian. Britain sighted, claimed and settled the islands before Argentina ever existed.

Those claims seem to be disputed. The first reliable sighting is attributed to a Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600; it was in 1690 that Briton Captain John Strong sighted them and landed there.

However, 'East Falkland' was first settled by the French under Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764. It was at least a whole year later that 'West Falkland' was settled by under captain John Byron, who seemed unaware of the French presence. Shortly after, France ceded its claim to Spain who attacked 'Port Egmont' and placed it under the authority of the Buenos Aires colonial administration.

In 1770, Spain temporarily expelled Britain from the islands altogether and this nearly brought the two countries to war but, believing it to not be in Spain's strategic interests, signed Port Egmont (but not the whole archipelago) to Britain. But feeling the effects of the American Revolution, Britain ended its presence there in 1774, leaving behind a plaque asserting her continued claim; the Spanish did the same, by the way, but left its Governor and a small presence there until 1806 and a plaque staking her claim there.

In between then and 1828, an Argentine, 12 years after Argentinian independence was declared, settled the islands with permission of Spain and France. Between 1832 and 1840, settlement claims to-and-froed between Argentina and Britain, and it was only after the establishment of a Naval Port there that led to Britain finally establishing it a permanent colony.

I believe this evidence complicates you claim that "[t]he islands have NEVER been Argentinian. Britain sighted, claimed and settled the islands before Argentina ever existed."

Lemming

sarkozy wrote: »

Wrong. The Qing Dynasty ceded Hong Kong Island to Britain in perpetuity in 1842 after the first Opium War waged by Britain. It was in 1848, after the Second Opium War, that the 99-year lease was taken out on Lantau Island, Kowloon and Stonecutter's Island.

It was only in 1983 that Hong Kong was demoted from its status as a British Crown Colony to 'Dependent Territory'.

In other words, Hong Kong was obtained through a Government-sanctioned trade war, fomented with the intention of crow-barring open the Chinese economy to British goods (initially opium).

Giving back the former colony was due to a new geopolitical strategy with a clearly emerging global power rather than altruism of any sort. The Sino-British agreement setting out the transfer - the island's autonomous status, governance system and status as a free port - prove that.

That's fascinating and all, but what does the history of Hong Kong between the UK & China have to do with the Falkland Islands exactly? You are comparing apples to oranges. Whole different set of circumstances in the history of the region.

sarkozy wrote: »

In a classic example of inverted colonialism, you (and Cameron) are turning this unimportant issue into a manufactured conflict to justify the UK's colonial history with reference to 'self-determination' as a cloak for raw interest in oil.

The latest round of sabre-rattling was started by the Argentinians, and their rounds of Mercusor to get neighbouring countries to agree to an economic trade blockade of any ships flying the Falkland Islands flag. That is an extraordinarily aggressive piece of real-politik by any standards.

And that's on top of frequent, albeit localised noises that they keep making that European news sources typically don't pick up on, because it's usually the same old tune.

Again, I don't care about the people on the Malvinas Islands.

You keep saying that, and I note the use of 'Malvinas'. I think you do care albeit only in so much as willfully trolling anyone who doesn't subscribe to "I'll follow any side that isn't the British position". Your stated position is a classic case of "I'm not a racist but ... "

Yahew

junder wrote: »

Funny how self determination is ok when people want to leave the uk but wrong if people wish to stay within the uk.

Given that there is a referendum on Scotland's position this is not true.

LordSutch

Cork boy 55

I saw on euronews that the protest was orgnaised and staffed by a far-left group(i thought the news reader was about to saw far-right) i was surprised that a far-left group
would be stoking up nationalist feelings they are usually internationalist and open borders and all that
It was the Argentine socailst workers party or something like that
All red flags and all fairly small protest, they had a good chant.

irishh_bob

Batsy wrote: »

On Question Time last night Germaine "Every man is a potential rapist" Greer was questioning why the Falkland Islands don't have representation at Westminster. She said that the Falklands, rather than remaining a mere Overseas Dependent Territory, should be made an actual part of the UK and have one or more representatives at Wesminster.

But I don't think there's any need to go that far. The Falkland Islands have their own parliament so their people are represented in that.

knowing greer , she is probabley in favour of returning the falklands to argentina , not because of any love for that country but because she nearly always goes against popular mainstream sentiment , shes an arrogant cow who like most of her kind , despises middle england , ireland , australia , america or any countrys middle class for that matter

Jonny7

Ah I think most Argentinians will be embarrassed (if not mortified) by the protests, very small, only 100 people I believe, all organised by one group.

The whole thing is just silly old fashioned jingo-ism.

Cookie_Monster

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

I don't see why the Argentines care so much about the Falklands. Most of the islands inhabitants are of British descent and want the islands to remain a British overseas territory.

natural resources, there are huge oil fields under the Falklands territorial waters

Jorah

Border-Rat wrote: »

Why do English trolls sign up to Irish discussion forums?

1) I'm not a troll.

2) I signed up here because I love Ireland, I like the look of this forum and I believe the internet to be a place not exclusive to certain nationalities.