LindermyerBut is that resolve to fight the death really warranted here. After all Argentina isn’t looking to expel the islanders or take away their individual rights or right to self governance.
When I use the world morality – I’m referring to whether it is applicable rather than absent. Take Iran for example. Why do British sanctions apply to it today? Even if they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program, there still aiming for a right that Britain today enjoys.
The nuclear Genie is sadly out of the bottle, however it is better for the world to limit the number of countries with them, to which i add i believe the UK should use this oppurtunity and not replace trident.
As to sanctions some countries owing to their political attitudes or internal instabillity or corruption cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons they could all to easily end up in the wrong hands Iran is such a country.I’ll be blunt. Why does Britain have nuclear capability today when others don’t. see above
Why does it have a veto power in the UN today?
historical anachronism russia and the US demanded it so all the big 5 got it.
Why can it afford to flout or exceed a UN mandate, be it with regard to Iraq or Libya?With regard to the UN flouting or exceeding their mandate (and here i make no comment viz a viz Iraq, the UN is all to often ineffective as to many countries pursue their own narrow interests. So all to often the UN is far to slow to react or can achieve nothing (eg sudan we do nothing about .accustaions of Genicide not as many would believe because there is no oil but because china controls the oil and holds a veto).
That said at other times the Veto could stop silly political resolutions being madeIt does so, because it CAN. Because even though its a shadow of former self, its still a fairly powerful country. Because (like most countries) national interests come first. Right upto the point where the South Americans unite, at which point a rapid retreat to moral high ground is sounded.
Sure lets forget about 1960s then –
2000 – A British High Court ruled that the eviction was illegal and the natives had a right to return. The British govt responded by overruling it with the use of the ‘royal prerogative’. After being overturned twice again in high courts, it was finally upheld by the House of Lords.
2010 – The Chagos Islanders decide to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, the British government declares the islands a marine reserve and closed to human habitation. Except of course for the 5000 people on the base at Diego Garcia. A base responsible for four major jet fuel spills, introducing extremely invasive alien species to the local environment, low grade nuclear radiation leaks and disruption to marine life by sonar operations.
I did state that I suspected that whilst the airbase is their it is probably not practical to relocate them so obviously the law must be flouted or twisted to suit, I claim no morality to this. i also stated that I felt they should be relocated and compensated.
We have granted Diego garcia to the US for 100 yrs (ish) in part payment of war debt. the Uk Govt potentially faces the choice between renaging on that agreement or ignoring the rights of the Chagos islanders. Rock hard Place
If Buitreaux’s post on page 2 is accurate, there is simply no comparing the Falklanders’ lives in a hypothetical dual citizenship with the blow Britain dealt to the native of the Chagos Islands.
I made it perfectly clear that I made no accusation that argentina would do this today, I do not think it unlikely to have happenned under the Junta. My point was that for many that piece of history is to recent a memory and so will cloud judgement.
Germany is still treated with suspicion by many for the events of 1939 – 1945 it will take 2 Generations for people to accept Argentina does not equal Junta.
As far as the Islands are concerned a more consilidatory approach is more likely to bear fruit. Argentina after all must convince the Islanders not HM govt.That assumes that the countries in the region are misinformed or ignorant. They are neither.
Countries can be both and laws / positions are open to interpritation so clarifying the Uks position is useful. thats not to say i disagree with youre premise
They’ve merely to decided to follow the beaten path of pragmatism (a path beaten out by the UK and others) and back their neighbor in a dispute with an outsider, a former colonial power.
If anything, Britain should have made as much of an effort towards bringing the residents of the Falklands to the negotiating table.
Im not sure what efforts if any UK Govt has made in this regard, but if the answer is a clear no what can you do, and whilst the current Arg administration keeps adopting policies that restrict trade and travel to the islands they are shooting themselves in the foot.
You raise valid points regarding the contradiction between the chagos Islands and falklands and as to why 1 groups rights are more important than the others. I suspect it comes to rights ignored in the past vs rights not yet ignored. The continued ignoring of the chagos Islands is perhaps a consequence of the airbase human rights allways coming second to miltary necessaty.
Do not missunderstand me I make no excuses I seek only to provide possible answers.
As for Argentina I make no comparison of argentina in the 70s to argentina in the 90s. But what concerns me is that MS Kirchiner (and cabinet) is not helping the countries image.
Regards
LindermyerThe argument I’ve been trying to make so far, which has either been misinterpreted or misunderstood is this –
The UK has been satisfied with opting for convenient choices over idealistic ones for decades if not centuries, including but far from limited to the depopulation of the Chagos Islands. It is a part of a club of countries that enjoy sole rights a few things today, like nuclear weapons and a veto in the UNSC. And its indicated a willingness to use force to ensure that those rights remain an exclusive preserve of this select group of countries. Rights that were granted for no other reason than the fact that it was a powerful country.
This isn’t a criticism of Britain, its just an illustration of the fact that it is no stranger to realpolitik.
Britain as many if not all countries has skeletons in its closets. Morality cannot be applied retrospectivly but if the government has decided now is the time to act thus and defend individual rights to the death (no pun) then so be it, and surely this must be a good thing.Past decisions such as the Chagos may also have im sad to say an element of Racism, the population was not white and therefore in some quarters its rights and opinions did not count, an attitude that (unfortunatly) pervaded in goverment probably into the 60s.
An attitude largely confined now fortunatly to a small portion of idiots of all race creed and colour.
A fear that the the Falklands could be the next Chagos probably only toughens the islanders stance.
Please note (to our Argentine Posters) I am in now way implying that argentina would do such a thing now. I refer to the crimes of the Junta and point out that for both Argentina and neighbouring countries the memory is still fresh, it will take a generation or 2 to remove this scar ( as germany is well aware)
And it would not be uncharacteristic of the country to opt for a pragmatic solution to the dispute rather than chase after moral high ground.
A more pragmatic solution was pursued (ie ceeding to Arg etc) but the islanders objected a lobby group in parliment objected so plans came to nought.
Any hopes of a pragmatic solution were dashed (at least in the short medium term) by the events of 1982 any negotiation of sovereignty at this time would be seen as selling out the Islanders and a gross betrayal of those that lost there lives. On both sides I hasten to add, if we werent serious why go to war.This is also why Mr Cameron’s dispatch of diplomatic delegations to South American capitals to ‘explain its position’ is probably a wasted effort, because there is no misunderstanding involved, on their part.
I disagree I think many people see the Falklands as a colony occupied by the UK, whereas its a self governing entity which looks to britain for protection an “independant” falklands would not make one iota of difference. Explaining that we can only act on behalf and not for the islands may well dispell other countries concern.
See bulk text
LindermyerWith the introduction of meteor what happens with mica,
eg will it be kept on as the main BVR weapon with Meteor being issued as a silver bullet or will it be carried as (nominally) the WVR missile, or will it be replaced entirely by meteor and ASRAAM type missile
LindermyerAs already explained the ECM jammer uses a linear array of T/R elements, it can’t dicriminate in the horizontal plane and is thus useless for finding a bearing (but if cued on the right track, it can keep up with it and offer the best jamming pattern when it’s finally turned on).
Why would the Jammer be trying to find a bearing??.
The jammer is there to degrade the performance of a threat radar. It is not seeking to locate and alert to threats.
(forgive me if I have missunderstood your point
It’s also limited to X-band.
As are Fire Control radars and missile guidance radars so I dont see this as a limitiation, activly jaming a search radar will only seek to alert everyone that somethings out there somewhere.
LindermyerWhilst I agree regarding all the facts etc.
It has to be said that relations were continually improving and were cordial if not friendly up until recently.
Perhaps i should have made it clearer that in my opinion the current agro and tearing up of the agreement lies squarly with the kirchiners politics.
LindermyerI was wrong
It looks like some new licences were granted in 2001.
Although waiting until 2007 to cancel makes me think that it was the kirchiners politics rather than any real disagreement over the deal that saw it scrapped.
LindermyerA bit rich of Mr Timmermen to claim that a licence granted in 2010 was in violation of the 1995 agreement that argentina left in 2007.
I dont think the UK issued any of the licences prior to the agreement being torn up but i could be wrong.
however even if the Uk granted a licence to eg BP to look as long as any expolitation was conducted in accordance with the agreement then it should be acceptable (I cant see the wording being so poor as to make this ambiguous.
LindermyerWould you believe I ook thefalklands oil agreement argentina cancelled 2007 bbc link off the open web page
Google
falklands oil agreement argentina cancelled 2007 bbc
should be first hit
LindermyerVNomad
I have no link
I think it was agread around 98/99 and torn up in 09 there were a few news articles about it.
I normally accuse ms kirchner of tearing it up but im sure it was her husband.
Ah quick google and lo it was 2007 it was scrapped
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501693.
Not an overly reliable source i know.
LindermyerIn other words, the only reason why Britain retains Falklands is their feeling of inadequate support of native Americans from the side of Argentinian government.
BTW, which one is the tribe which is claiming Patagonia back?
Britain doesnt retain the falklands, the islanders wish to remain british there is a distinct difference and not just semantics.
Britain wanted rid of the Falklands but met resistance from the Islanders and there lobby group, without the events of 1982 the islands probably would have been ceeded or shared by now.
Sadly a Government with huge problems at home decided to create a distraction by invading another country ( as many have before them). MS kirchiner is following a similar tack (note i am not implying any threat of war).
LindermyerI was not aware of that. But if a mineral sharing arrangement was viable, that bodes well for a pragmatic solution to the dispute.
It was torn up by the Kirchiners as a preliminary to the current bout of protests, but yes this was probably the best solution available (at this time).
But its not over as yet. How can you consign it to history records?
Sorry was not trying to be dismissive when i summed it up as a warning of what no to do
As an aside how complicite were the americans in what happenned (it was done to enable America to operate a base but that doesnt mean they were party to the evictions).
Whilst the americans have an airbase there it is probably impractical for them to return, however the community should be resettled / rehoused and suitably compensated.Share sovereignty. As long as the islands have autonomy, its mostly a question of semantics anyway.
After all, when India became a republic in 1950, the basic premise of Commonwealth of Nations was altered to allow its continued membership as well as that of other nations on the same path. I’m sure allowances can be made here as well.
As before
LindermyerWell the status quo evidently does not involve normalized relations with South America.
To be fair relations did improve and a lot of progress was made such as a mineral sharing arrangement, it is only in recent years that relations have deteriorated.
‘Please admit defeat but lets be friendly’ is not a viable negotiating position.
On question of morality, I posted the articles about the Britain’s treatment of the Chagos Islanders primarily in response to assertions about a moral higher ground. There are plenty of things in the world that some can perceive as unfair.
Yes Diego garcia is a blemish on the UKs record, but perhaps stands as an example as to why even a few thousand peoples rights are important.
Its unfair for example that Britain has arguably more influence in the UN Security Council today than all of South America put together. Its unfair that Britain today has the right to possess nuclear weapons while Iran gets sanctioned for pursuing a nuclear program. Its unfair that Russia gets criticized by the UK and the West for its authoritarian traits, while they celebrate having warm ties with authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. Its unfair that realpolitik can often take precedence over a principled stand, but that is the way of the world.
For that matter Argentina or South America have no moral obligation to sustain ordinary trade relations with Falkland Islands. The UK too can probably continue its economic and military support of the islands indefinitely. Everyone ends up a loser.
First and foremost, a resolution to any dispute has to be honorable. Surely some middle ground can be found that is acceptable to all parties – eg. let the Queen continue to be the head of state, let the Falklanders get some representation in the Argentinian Congress and let the Islands themselves be governed autonomously. Negotiate over the EEZ and find a compromise acceptable to the native population. Its certainly better than the standoff that’s building up today.
The Trouble is there is no acceptable comprimise (at this time)
The argentinians (constitutionally) will not accept anything but soverengty of the islands so they are not negotiating in good faith,
Britain cannot enter into negotiations because unless the islanders request it. So Britain cannot negotiate in good faith.
The only compromise is the sharing of mineral rights thus diffusing exploitation arguments.
In the longer term argentina needs to use a lot of carrot to encourage the islanders that the grass is greener.
see text only wrote this to post
LindermyerWhat did he hit though ?
The car is straight, not on the curb, he is not touching the lampost, I can’t make out what he hit or am I just getting old ?:(
rising bollards, quite suprised though.
Back in circa 2005 when the were new a few people tried to whip through them by following a bus. they were then suprised by how quick they rise and that they did not (as rumour had it) stop if a car was over them. I recall 1 car having its engine wrecked.
LindermyerWhat did he hit though ?
The car is straight, not on the curb, he is not touching the lampost, I can’t make out what he hit or am I just getting old ?:(
rising bollards, quite suprised though.
Back in circa 2005 when the were new a few people tried to whip through them by following a bus. they were then suprised by how quick they rise and that they did not (as rumour had it) stop if a car was over them. I recall 1 car having its engine wrecked.
LindermyerYou made your point very clear.
It’s a shame that these threads end up the same over and over.
Yes apologies there, nationalists on both sides as well as the independant crazies can lower a thread.
To respond to a few of youre points.
Goverment, You are probably correct that the Falklands will be better represented in argentina, but its not the UK you need to convince it is the islanders.
Sadly whilst a softly softly approach would im sure eventually produce results the current ravings of MS Kirchner (sorry cant pronounce or spell) only serve to harden the opinion of the locals.
Re the conflict
in response to the Air attack on carriers
The carriers were not hit in fact they never came under attack as they were not where the argentines thought they were. That is in no way to call the brave airmen liars at low altitude and high speed pursued by missiles surrounded by explosions and gunfire and after 2 of 4 skyhawks were shot down (this following horrific casualties in San carlos water Bomb alley (UK) death valley (ARG) are we to be suprised the pilots miss identified a frigate as a carrier lots of (decoy) smoke and a glimpse of flat deck.
not raised here but for interest on how myths begin
submarine attack on carriers
In fact not a claim ever made by the argentinae military (subs patrolled near Islands carriers were kept well away from the islands) has become an internet myth by some posters, in fact the Arg navy has claimed 2 failed attacks on RN frigates it was a German Journalist that gave a frigate the wrong name (invincible) and thus a myth starts
Ship and aircraft losses re the cartoon
RN/RAF Ship and aircraft losses were heavilly exagerated in ARG as a direct result of government propoganda.
ARG aircraft losses were exagerated in the UK (for many years until more impartial analysis) as the weapons crews frequently saw what they wanted to see and multiple crews claimed a single kill. see my previous regarding ARG pilots.
Sign In
