Showing posts with label Argentina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Argentina. Show all posts

Monday, August 12, 2013

Spain, Argentina to discuss move against UK


 
 
Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/12/318326/spain-argentina-to-talk-antiuk-move/

Spain may join Argentina in a diplomatic offensive against Britain over disputed territories, a report says.

Spanish Foreign minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo is to discuss the issue with Argentinean authorities during a trip to Buenos Aires next month, according to a report published by Spanish newspaper El Pais on Sunday.

The report also said that the Spanish foreign ministry is considering taking its complaints over British-held territory Gibraltar to the United Nations Security Council or to its General Assembly.

Furthermore, Spain is looking into the option of denouncing Gibraltar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague for its “illegal occupation” of an area, called Isthmus, which connects the territory to the mainland. The land strip was not included in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht.

Margallo is scheduled to meet Argentina’s Foreign Minister Hector Timerman, whose administration is also in a long-standing dispute with Britain over the sovereignty of Malvinas Islands.

Spain vowed on August 9 to take all necessary measures to defend its interest in Gibraltar, after reports revealed that Britain is set to send naval ships to the territory.

Tension between the two countries arose after authorities in Gibraltar dumped 70 blocks of concrete in waters close the territory’s coast in mid-July, aimed at creating an artificial reef.

However, Spain denounced the action, saying the blocks had been dumped “without any type of authorization and breaking several environmental norms.”

In addition, Madrid said the concrete blocks seriously damaged the fishery, making it impossible for Spanish fishing boats to work in the area.

Gibraltar is one of the British Overseas Territories, which is on the United Nations list of areas waiting decolonisation.

The British territory was seized from Spain in 1713 and remains a bone of contention between the two European countries.


 

Friday, November 9, 2012

Thousands take to streets in Argentina to protest economic woes (PHOTOS)


 
Aerial view of people gathering during a "cacerolazo" (a form of civilian protest where pots are used to make noise) against Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's government in Cordoba, Argentina on November 8, 2012 (AFP Photo)

Source: Russia Today
http://rt.com/news/argentina-protest-march-government-304/

Thousands of Argentineans gathered in the streets of capital Buenos Aires to voice anger against the government of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The rally, reportedly the biggest in a decade, was organized on social networks.

­The protesters banged pots and pans as they rallied against soaring inflation and sky-high levels of crime and corruption. Many demonstrators also said that they were driven to protest by the prospect of President Fernandez seeking a third term in office.

The president’s supporters in Congress have lobbied for a constitutional amendment allowing Fernandez to run for a third consecutive term in 2015. President Fernandez was reelected to a second term in 2011, but her popularity has plummeted since she assumed office.

Protesters also spoke out against restrictions on the purchase of dollars that were introduced last year and ramped up this year. The new law has made it harder for Argentineans worried about inflation to trade in their currency.

Official data on inflation in the country puts the current rate at 12%, though some economists predict the actual figure is much higher.

The International Monetary Fund warned Argentina in September that the country could face sanctions if it fails to produce reliable growth and bring down inflation by December.

The Argentinean leadership has claimed that the economic crisis gripping the country is the result of a global recession, not government policy.
 

 
Image from instagram.com @sofidangavs
 

 
Image from twitter.com @AntonellaMarty

 

Monday, June 4, 2012

UK firms’ oil search off Argentina declared as ‘illegal’


Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/06/04/244619/oil-search/

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has declared ‘illegal’ the oil exploration by five British companies near the Falkland Islands, which Buenos Aires long has claimed as part of its territory.

The companies' activities "proved to be illegal and clandestine, as they're taking place in a sovereign area of the Argentine nation and as such fall within its specified laws and rules," President Kirchner said on her official website.

The Argentine government said earlier in mid-March that it would seek civil and criminal legal action against the UK companies exploring for oil in the region.

Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Daniel Cameron published five resolutions in Argentina's Official Bulletin declaring activities by the companies "illegal" and "clandestine."

The companies including Desire Petroleum, Falkland Oil and Gas, Rockhopper Exploration, Borders and Southern Petroleum and Argos Resources - "are not authorized by the Argentine government under law 17.319 on hydrocarbons," the resolutions read.

Britain has ruled the Falkland islands, off the coast of Argentina - called the Malvinas here - since 1833.

Thirty years after the Falklands War, tensions between Argentina and Britain are still high.

Argentina's 1982 attempt to recapture the remote islands triggered a 74-day war, which ended in a defeat for Argentina after British prime minister Margaret Thatcher sent in a naval task force to reclaim the archipelago. The conflict cost the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British troops.


Monday, May 7, 2012

Malvinas could cost UK Latin America trade: Argentina


Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/239960.html

Argentine ambassador to London Alicia Castro says Britain can damage its relations with Latin America if it refuses to hand over the “colonial enclave” of Malvinas (Falklands) to Argentina.

“It’s not an Argentinean cause, it’s a regional cause. The United Kingdom, by not wanting to have a proper dialogue with Argentina, it’s turning its back on Latin America as a whole,” Castro said.

“If Britain wants to improve is relations with Latin America, they have to settle this dispute,” she added.

The ambassador also said her country is “very happy” to have “this colonial enclave” to the south adding the islanders would be better off if Argentina ran the territory.

Her comments came as British veterans attended a memorial service in Portsmouth to mark the 30th anniversary of the 1982 war with Britain over the islands.

Currently almost all Latin American and Caribbean countries support Argentina’s sovereignty over the Malvinas.

The leading regional organizations, including Mercosur, The ALBA group and Unasur have already banned ships flying the British flag of the islands from docking at their ports.



Saturday, May 5, 2012

Argentine president signs YPF nationalization into law


Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner signed YPF takeover law.

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/239673.html

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has signed into law the takeover of the country's largest energy firm, YPF, from its Spanish controlling shareholder.

During a televised speech from Government House, Kirchner signed the nationalization law, on Friday, that expropriates a 51-percent stake from Spain’s Repsol.

“This is a special day: one I never thought would live as President. A few moments ago I signed the enacting of the law, which was approved by a very ample margin at Congress. I want to thank opposition lawmakers who supported this project which aims to recover our oil,” Kirchner said.

On Thursday, Argentinean lawmakers voted 207-32 in favor of the nationalization bill, which had been cleared a week earlier in the country’s Senate.

Meanwhile, Kirchner introduced Miguel Galuccio, former head of global oilfield services Schlumberger Ltd, to lead the expropriated energy firm.

"The idea is to have a YPF that is absolutely modern, competitive, with professional people but with a political orientation aimed at achieving energy self-sufficiency once again to sustain growth, employment and economic activity," she added.

YPF was privatized in the early 1990s and the Spanish energy giant, Repsol, acquired a majority of the company’s stake in 1999.

Argentine government accused Repsol of failing to invest enough in the country’s energy and taking profits out of the Latin American state in the form of dividends.

Repsol denied the accusations, pledging to fight the takeover, claiming it has invested billions over the years.

Buenos Aires’ move has infuriated the European Union and the Spanish government, prompting Madrid to warn that the takeover would affect the future of diplomatic and economic ties between the two countries.


Friday, May 4, 2012

Argentine Congress approves bill to nationalize YPF


Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/239471.html

Argentina’s Congress has overwhelmingly approved a takeover of the country's largest energy company, YPF, from its Spanish controlling shareholder.

The Argentine lawmakers gave their final approval to the nationalization bill on Thursday, giving President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner the green light to expropriate a 51 per cent stake from Spain’s Repsol, Reuters reported.

The Chamber of Deputies voted 207-32 in favor of the bill, which enjoys nationwide popularity. The nationalizing bill, which was also cleared in the Argentina's senate last week, heads to the President’s office to be signed into law.

The vote reflects a political victory for Kirchner, who could reach the two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress in order to pass the bill. Meanwhile, people in Buenos Aires staged a massive protest on weekend to support the President’s move.

YPF was privatized in the early 1990s and the Spanish energy giant, Repsol, acquired a majority of the company’s stake in 1999.

Buenos Aires accused Repsol of failing to invest enough in Argentina's energy future as well as taking profits out of the country in the form of dividends.

Repsol denied the accusations, pledging to fight the takeover as it has invested billions over the years.

“Beginning now, our oil will stop being a commodity for Repsol but a basic good to be used for the development of the country,” ruling party lawmaker Agustin Rossi said.

Argentina’s move has infuriated the European Union and the Spanish government, prompting Madrid to warn of retaliatory measures against Buenos Aires.

OIL IS A STRATEGIC PRODUCT, NOT A COMMODITY: Argentina and the International Oil Picture


By Dr. Umberto Mazzei
http://www.ventanaglobal.info/

Source: Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30674

Oil is not a commodity, oil is not a raw product either. Just look at the complexity of the techniques for its efficient extraction. Oil is a strategic product that models international policies and since the late nineteenth century, oil guides the foreign policy of great powers – regardless of rhetoric - because oil is also essential for financial speculation. The mixture of oil and finance has already exploded in two world wars. In 1914 and 1939, 85% of the world oil production was controlled by British and American companies and banks.



This reminder is pertinent because of the build up of an international uproar over the returning of Argentina to the helm of Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales (YPF), the former state oil company. It was previously controlled by Repsol, a company registered in Spain, but whose majority of shareholders are not Spanish. Repsol bought the controlling interest in YPF during Menem’s privatization scramble. YPF operates 32% of Argentina’s oil production and 23% of Argentina’s gas. There are other companies operating in Argentina, like Chevron, Petrobras and Occidental. The following table illustrates how YPF production fell under Repsol.

Repsol made billions with YPF existing facilities, with little further investment. Also, under Repsol’s YPF management, Argentina went from energy self-sufficiency and energy exporter to being dependent on imported fuel and gas at a rate of U.S. $ 9.300 millions in 2011. Beyond the rhetoric of Mr. Rajoy over property and investments, the facts are clear.

Since Repsol purchased control of YPF, for $ 15 billion, in 1999, Argentina’s oil production fell 38.3% and gas production fell 25.4%, between 1999 and 2011. During that time, Repsol made $ 15,728 million in profits, more than what it paid for YPF. It is well known that future of oil production depends on exploratory activity, which is a costly and risky investment and which Repsol neglected. During its tenure there were only 8 exploratory wells drilled, which cost just 0.2% of its income. Repsol’s policy was to exploit existing wells to their maximum capacity, a practice that disturbs the balance on fluids and gases, makes natural pressure drop, and makes extraction of remaining oil an expensive and complicated procedure.

Argentina expropriated 51% of YPF shares with overwhelming support of public opinion and the political environment. The decision is coherent with an old legal principle that considers any goods underground to be a public property. A public law applied by Rome, Byzantium, the Spanish Empire, the Chinese Empire or the Popular Republic of China, Russia, Tsarist or Soviet, the Ottoman Empire. It is a legal approach accepted in Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America today. The exception is the United States, where you are supposed to own your piece of land down to the core of Earth...

The international oil picture

There are threats concerning international oil supply that make the Argentinean government measure a timely and justified one. This perception is shared by the Argentinean political class, its business community and the public in general. There was approval also in most of Latin America, with the notable exception of Mexico’s President Calderón, who later was scolded by the Mexican Congress for interfering in a bilateral issue.

Calderon’s argument was that Argentina’s example that could scare away foreign investment in the region. He is, at least, uninformed. It is high economic growth and vast local resources which attract investment and South America meets both requirements. It is today the region receiving most capital investment, so much that Brazil has had to set limits.

In Buenos Aires, the discordant note is given by a part of the press that prefers to play the role of political opposition, instead of news reporting. Those journals highlight the threats made by the PP government or the PSOE leaders, which are the same thing. It is a paradox, but if any one wants to read the furious threats to Argentina by Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission or by Karel de Gucht, European Commissioner for Trade, it is in those Argentinean newspapers that those may be found. The European press is more concerned with the success of Marine Le Pen in France, Sarkozy’s busy suspense or Spain's fiscal troubles, because the European public does not care much about Repsol’s profits.

Oil war dangers

It is well known that oil is a very dangerous international issue. The governments that obey multinational corporations seek to corner the oil supply to curb the development in emerging countries. Thus they have attacked and invaded, with ridiculous pretenses, two countries, Iraq and Libya, that were major and independent producers and were... selling oil to China.

The invasion of Afghanistan is not alien to the oil issue. It was intended to allow Turkmen, Uzbek and Tajik oil, which is located north of Afghanistan and close to China, to be pumped to Pakistani ports. It also helped to encircle Iran, another country that sells oil to China.

The civil war in Sudan has the same matrix. China was buying oil from Sudan and Chad. Sudan's oil is located in the south and Chad's oil comes out through Darfur, in South-West Sudan. In 2003, an armed rebellion in Darfur used religious and tribal differences in Sudan to ask for a separate state. Oil rich South Sudan became a sovereign state recognized by "Western Democracies" as used to be said, or the "International Community" as is said today.

In South America, Brazilian state company, Petrobras, discovered, in 2007, huge oil and gas offshore fields in Santos Basin, on the continental shelf, at 200 / 300 miles off the coast. The Tupi field is already in production and it has reserves of about 8 billion barrels of light crude oil and there is natural gas as well. Other fields are in an exploratory phase but are known to have higher amounts of oil and gas. As a comeback, in 2008, the U.S. reactivated the Fourth Fleet, that was created in 1942 to monitor the South Atlantic and disbanded in 1950, for lack of enemies in the zone. The pretext is drug traffic ... perhaps traffickers use the Graf Spee.

Oil supply’s uncertain future

United States has by far the biggest military might. Israel is the best armed country in the Middle East. Hence, only ghost mongering can justify present hysteria about security threats. The real goal is to justify aggression to deliver oil and other resources to big corporations.

With the pretext that Iran could be making a nuclear weapon, because it acquires the nuclear scientific knowledge to which it is entitled by the Non Proliferation Treaty, the United States unilaterally banned Iranian oil from international trade. The aim is to weaken Iran before attacking it to control its oil, as was done with Iraq. The Iranian oil embargo most have been planned long ago, because 4 million barrels a day of oil supplies can not be put away without compensating with more oil from elsewhere; or there would be an economic collapse. The plan was, plausibly, to occupy Libya - who sold oil to China - and supply Europe, which is dependent on Iranian oil. The rest of the missing oil could be procured by pumping up Saudi flows, as usual.

The plan didn’t work because Gaddafi did not flee, as assumed by British Foreign Minister William Hague, but chose to stay and fight. The war on Libya took a 1.3 million bb/d from the market. Saudi Arabia promised to compensate by pumping as much extra oil, but could not. For 10 months, NATO bombed and spent billions to impose chaos; even now, there are disruptions of Libyan supply, which after the war only reached 500,000 bb/d.

Saudi oil production began in the 50s under the Arabian American Oil Company - Aramco, a consortium of Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Texaco. In 1974, the government took 60% of the shares and renamed it Saudi Aramco. In 1980 it was fully nationalized.

Western democracies avoid ideological rhetoric in their deals with Saudi Arabia, an absolute and theocratic monarchy. It happens that, since 1973, Saudi Arabia is the main oil producer with some 8 million bb/d. It is a vulnerable supremacy, because its oil fields are enormous but few, are contiguous and placed around the Persian Gulf shore. The seven largest are: Ghawar, Safaniya, Abqaiq, Berri, Marjan, Zuluf and Abu Sa'fah. There are two, Ghawar and Safaniya, which produce 75% of the total. The Saudi role is to be the swing producer that increases oil supply whenever Wall Street asks for it. But, in the last 20 years, Saudi extra oil production, regardless of promises, never went over 10 million bb/d.

Since 1974, there is not much technical detail about Saudi wells. What is known comes from a US Senate inquiry with Aramco managers, which showed that in 1974, Aramco already faced Production increases "to save the world economy", did not come from new wells, but from simply opening the valves on existing ones. That procedure increased the presence of water and gas in the oil and there was need to build special plants to separate them. There was also need to inject large amounts of water, to compensate falling pressure. Since 1974 no new oil fields were discovered, so it is probable that in recent "salvages" the method remained the same.

At international oil meetings, Saudi engineers present papers that prove that Saudis use very sophisticated methods for oil recovery. It can be assumed that those technical and scientific feats have been reached because they are needed. Saudi failure in replacing Libya’s oil supply and recent U.S. flexibility with Iran, hints that increasing Saudi production would not be able to replace the Iranian oil. That may avoid another war, but it is not a peace guarantee, because there are many psychopaths in powerful governments.

Conclusion

Argentina's economy has been growing around 10% per year, but lost its energy autonomy precisely when there are threats to international oil supply. It can happen when something vital for a nation is trusted to companies whose sole management goal is profits. Argentina made the right move and now it can correct management objectives and coordinate its policies throughout the hydrocarbon chain, with Brazil and Venezuela, its partners in Petrosur.

This may be the right moment to recall what Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas said over a drop in oil revenue after his oil nationalization: "Better a modest income that benefits the country and its workers than one that enriches foreigners abroad with fabulous profits"


Umberto Mazzei has a PhD in political science from the University of Florence. He has taught international economics at universities in Colombia, Venezuela and Guatemala. He is Director of the Institute of International

Economic Relations in Geneva.
http://www.ventanaglobal.info/
http://alainet.org/active/54509


Thursday, May 3, 2012

Falklands War 30 years on: ‘The British have learned nothing’





Argentine soldiers in their way to occupy the captured Royal Marines base in Puerto Argentino/Port Stanley, a few days after the Argentine military dictatorship seized the islands Malvinas/Falklands (AFP Photo / Daniel Garcia)

Source: Russia Today
http://rt.com/news/falklands-interview-bicheno-ivor-437/

Thirty years after the UK and Argentina fought over the remote Falkland Islands, the war continues to resonate in both countries. Historian Hugh Bicheno says Britain has not learned from the conflict and the islands are still vulnerable to invasion.

After Britain managed to defend a British colony with a population numbering only 3,000 from invasion, Margaret Thatcher’s popularity was boosted, and her image as a strong leader was cast in iron. Argentina’s right-wing government, notorious for its human rights abuses, was humiliated and the stinging defeat hastened its collapse.

Cuban-born but Cambridge-educated, Hugh Bicheno was a UK intelligence officer on a mission in Argentina itself at the time of the conflict. He has also written Razor’s Edge, a top-selling and controversial account of the war, based on the testimonies of many who participated

RT's Ivor Bennett asked him if the Falklands conflict has any relevance today.

RT: You’ve said the British regarded the Falkland Islands as an inconvenience before the war broke out. Why is that?

Bicheno: You know how trendy the country is, and everyone charges in one direction at one time, so everyone at the time thought that we must get rid of the Empire to prove what a modern nation we were. We thought “we must shed our imperial past and everyone is going to like us again.” Overlooking the fact that people’s memories go a long way back.

RT:Why did Argentina invade?

Bicheno: The Argentines invaded because they were told that all Britain would do would be to yap to the UN. They were utterly dumbfounded when Thatcher decided to send down a taskforce. They were totally dumbfounded and totally unprepared for that.

RT:How well was the campaign conducted by the British?

Bicheno: Well, we had to do it. We had a legal and a moral obligation to those islanders, and if we didn’t keep our word to them we were worthless. How close was the campaign? My book is called Razor’s Edge for a reason – that whole operation could have gone either way at any stage. We didn’t underestimate the Argentines, we just didn’t have the capability. If it had lasted another six months, we couldn’t have done it. We had no more aircraft carriers, we would have had no more amphibious capability. If the Argentines had been better at certain small things, Britain could have easily lost the war.

RT:Why does the British government want to keep the islands?

Bicheno: Far from it, the British government desperately wants to get rid of the islands, but they just can’t get rid of them. After that war, it was politically impossible for the British government to sell out the islanders, however much the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence want to do it. You can’t do it. People remember and people will ask what the hell is this?

RT:Looking at subsequent conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, have the British learned anything?

Bicheno: The British are very poor at learning the lessons of anything, broadly speaking because they never face up to the truth of learning about anything. The politicians, if they can, will draw the wrong conclusions about everything, and Blair got us into war after war after war for which we didn’t have the capabilities. We were put in Basra and we were put in Helmand when we didn’t have the capability. And one rages in vain against this, not because of censorship or because I will walk out of this room and be beaten up over what I say, but simply because my opinions and statements of fact will be ignored because they are inconvenient


Thursday, April 26, 2012

Argentine senate approves bill to nationalize Spanish firm


View of the Senate Plenary Session, while voting on a presidential decree to allow the expropriation of YPF, in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires, April 26, 2012

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/238158.html

Argentina's senate has endorsed a presidential decree to nationalize Spain-owned oil company YPF amid widespread domestic support for the plan.

At the Wednesday session of the senate, legislators from both the ruling party and the opposition voted in favor of the decree issued by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner last week, AFP reported.

The proposal, which enjoys nationwide popularity, will be sent to the lower house of the parliament for final approval.

Fernandez said on Monday that Argentina had to take back the oil firm, formerly a state-owned Argentine oil company for over 70 years, as it is the only nation in Latin America "that does not manage its natural resources."

YPF was privatized in the early 1990s and the Spanish energy giant, Repsol, acquired a majority of the company’s stake in 1999.

With a market value of USD 10.6 billion, YPF accounts for about 25 percent of Repsol’s profits and 60 percent of its production.

Repsol President Antonio Brufau said on Tuesday that the company would take legal action against Argentina, seeking a compensation of about USD 10 billion.

Argentina’s move has infuriated Madrid and drew sharp criticism from the US and the EU, prompting Brussels to warn of retaliatory measures against Buenos Aires.

The South American state accuses Repsol of draining the oil company as well as underinvesting in its oil and gas fields since it took control. Repsol, on the other hand, blames Argentina’s ever-changing mix of subsidies and price caps for depressing production.




Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Argentina to expatriate Spanish oil firm


Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner announces that oil company YPF is subject to expropriation during a speech in Buenos Aires on April 16, 2012.

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/236566.html

The Argentine government says it will present a bill to the country’s senate for the nationalization of the YPF oil company which owned by Spanish firm Repsol.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez said on Monday that the bill would allow the government to expropriate 51 percent of YPF shares, while the country’s oil producing provinces would get 49 percent.

"This president is not going to answer any threat, is not going to respond to any sharp remark, is not going to echo the disrespectful or insolent things said," Fernandez said.

YPF has been under heavy pressure from the Argentine government over the past two month for not investing enough in the country’s oil fields.

The move has already been criticized by the Spanish government. Spanish officials say Argentina risks becoming "an international pariah" if it takes control of the YPF, in which Repsol has a 57.4 percent stake.

Spain is Argentina's largest foreign investor and YPF is Argentina's biggest oil company. Last year YPF announced a major find of 1 billion barrels of shale oil.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Cameron in hysterical delight over US stance on Malvinas


Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/231955.html

British Prime Minister David Cameron has expressed hysterical delight by his repeated use of the phrase ‘status quo’ in comments, which followed the US President Barak Obama’s saying Washington was content with the status quo in Las Malvinas.

“The US position is that they support the status quo, they don't argue against the status quo and that is very welcome. They are content with the status quo, they are not challenging the status quo,” said Cameron at Ground Zero in New York.

Cameron’s delight came after the two leaders met in Washington running a show of reassuring their commitment to the so-called ‘Special Relationship.’

This way, British officials could believe “that Britain is still Great Britain, still punching above its weight and playing Greece to America’s Rome, endlessly re-living the glory days when much of the world did our bidding,” as described by writer and journalist Matthew Carr.

Cameron’s hysterical delight is not unexpected considering concerns raised earlier by British officials over why the US remained silent on the issue of Malvinas islands and did not take sides with Britain.

Last month, Nile Gardiner, an aide to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, said the US did not understand “the difference between Great Britain and Argentina” after US Acting Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson said Britain and Argentina were equal partners in the eyes of the US.

Gardiner also expressed worries over why the US “fails to express any support whatsoever for the UK, and remains silent” on the issue of Las Malvinas.

“Our position remains the same. This is a problem between two of our partners. We do not want to change our position,” Jacobson said on Las Malvinas in an interview in Peru last month.

Cameron has claimed that the US president has taken a U-turn saying Obama has reassured him that the US was content with the status quo.

Given the bigger picture that the US and Britain have tried to run a show of their commitment to the ‘Special Relationship’ and that prior to the meeting of the two leaders several reports said that they would discuss imposing further sanctions on Iran and supporting Syria’s armed rebels, Matthew Carr poses a question.

“Some might ask, for example, where America and Britain have acquired the right to decide what happens in Syria, Iran, Somalia or anywhere else,” asked Carr.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Britain has no legal right to the Malvinas islands


Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/231329.html

Britain’s deployment of nuclear weapons in response to Argentina's peaceful efforts to resolve the Malvinas issue is a grave violation of Chapter 1 Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (which prohibits the threat of force), a new report says.

According to the report, the Malvinas were terra nullius [no man’s land] when the French colonized the islands in the 18th century. They were then sold to Spain, a transfer of sovereignty which Britain recognized.

However, upon decolonization and under the principle of uti possidetis [as you possess], sovereignty should have been transferred to Argentina, which declared independence in 1816.

In 1833, Britain expelled the islands' inhabitants. Argentina's Foreign Minister Don Manuel Moreno was told by Prime Minister Palmerston that Argentina "could not reasonably have anticipated that the British government would permit any other state to exercise a right as derived from Spain which Great Britain had denied to Spain itself."

Writing in the Yale Law Journal, W Michael Reisman affirmed that "Upon acquiring independence, a former colony", i.e. Argentina, "ordinarily inherits all the territory of that colony.

This principle, enshrined in Latin America and, a century later, in Africa, would certainly appear to apply to the Falklands [Malvinas]." For Britons, the legal status of the islands is an open-and-shut case: Britain has no legal right to the islands. This has been reiterated at the General Assembly.

General Assembly Resolution 2065 (XX), adopted on 16 December 1965, "Consider[ed] ... the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)." The Resolution left it to Argentina and Britain to negotiate the issue using bilateral diplomacy. Britain violated this aspect of the Resolution. As a result, in December 1973, General Assembly Resolution 3160 (XXVIII) "Express[ed] its gratitude for the continuous efforts made by the Government of Argentina ... to facilitate the process of decolonization and to promote the well-being of the population of the island." The Resolution also "Urge[d] the Governments of Argentina [and the UK] ...to put an end to the colonial situation."

Successive British governments have not only consistently violated the Resolution, but the Chatham House journal International Affairs - like the General Assembly - acknowledged Argentina's peaceful efforts to resolve the issue (except, of course, the 1982 War, for which the previous government has apologized).

Guillermo A Makin's paper in the journal recognized that "the use of force has not been a permanent feature of the approach of the various very different Argentine political regimes to the [Malvinas] dispute."

A few years ago, the "British firm Rockhopper Exploration discovered a massive natural gas deposit - one that could be as big as 7.9 trillion cubic feet," Money Week reported.

"By 2029 there is expected to be a considerable increase in demand for energy. In particular gas will be of increasing importance as states struggle to maintain energy supplies," the Ministry of Defence explained.

"Many boundary disputes, such as those in the Arctic, Gulf of Guinea and the South Atlantic will become inextricably linked to the securing of energy supplies."

Does anyone seriously think that were it not for the oil and gas, 1,400 soldiers (around one per islander) would be deployed at a cost of £40 million a year to defend a bunch of rocks that few Britons could find on a map?

Monday, March 5, 2012

Britain will lose Las Malvinas’



Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/230077.html

One of Britain’s most senior military chiefs has warned that Britain would have to surrender the sovereignty of Las Malvinas to Argentina in case a military confrontation over the islands takes place.

Former commander of the Royal Marines Major General Julian Thompson said it would be the “end of story” if Argentina decides to engage in a military confrontation as tensions between London and Buenos Aires grow stronger.

Britain has categorically ruled out the possibility of negotiations over the sovereignty of the archipelago while its military might has been questioned from within the British army.

“The Argentines have a marine brigade. They've got a parachute brigade and some good special forces. All they've got to do is get those guys on to the islands for long enough to destroy the (RAF) Typhoon jets and that's the end of it,” said Thompson in an interview with the Times.

“You have got to take your own air support with you and you can't without a carrier. End of story,” said Thompson, who was the commander of land forces in the 74-day war between Britain and Argentina in 1982.

Britain’s Royal Navy will be without an aircraft carrier until HMS Queen Elizabeth, which is supposed to be operative by 2016, enters service.

Britain’s Royal Navy will be without an aircraft carrier equipped with fighter jets for 10 years because of the rising costs of the Ministry of Defense’s (MoD) projects, reported the Telegraph on 2 March.

Furthermore, former head of the British army General Sir Michael Jackson said earlier in January that it would be “impossible” for Britain to re-colonize the islands in a worst-case scenario.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

US remarks on Malvinas disturb Britain


Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/226163.html

US officials’ remarks on the Malvinas (Falkland) islands have disturbed the British press as Britain is concerned over any damage to its Special Relationship with the US.

US Acting Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson’s remarks about the issue of Las Malvinas have been another setback to the British government as it refuses to engage in negotiations asking Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon to rule out the possibility of negotiating over the islands.

Jacobson called for a diplomatic solution to the issue of sovereignty over the Malvinas islands saying Britain and Argentina are equal partners in the eyes of the US.

“Our position remains the same. This is a problem between two of our partners. We do not want to change our position...We prefer that both countries negotiate a diplomatic solution in that matter,” said Jacobson in Lima, Peru, as she is on a tour to Peru and Argentina.

This comes while the British press has not welcomed Jacobson’s call for equality as UK officials are already concerned about any damage to the Special Relationship.

Nile Gardiner, an aide to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, lashed out at the US stance on the issue saying the US is not aware of “the difference between Great Britain and Argentina.”

Gardiner also raised concerns over why the US “fails to express any support whatsoever for the UK, and remains silent” on the issue.

Furthermore, last month, the US Department of State released a statement on its official website calling for a negotiated solution to the dispute.

The department’s reference to the islands as Malvinas, while Britain insists on calling the archipelago “the Falklands,” came as another slap in the face of the Special Relationship.

This comes against the backdrop of the US president Barak Obama’s describing France as the closest ally of the US.

Moreover, earlier this month, The Daily Telegraph revealed that the US had cast a skeptical eye on Britain’s military capability refusing to let Britain take part in its show of strength when a flotilla of US vessels passed through the Strait of Hormuz. The British newspaper described the move as “humiliating” for the British establishment.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

UK rules out negotiation over Malvinas


Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/225772.html

Tension between Britain and Argentina over the disputed Malvinas Islands has reached new heights after British government once again ruled out the possibility of getting involved in further negotiations.

Argentina's President Cristina Kirchner, who has repeatedly insisted on negotiations, condemned Britain for militarizing the dispute over the islands and announced that she would make a formal complaint to the United Nations over the issue.

Kirchner stressed that the deployment of an heir to the throne, the Duke of Cambridge, to the islands along with the presence of an advanced warship destroyer HMS Dauntless was considered as “a grave danger to international security.”

Meanwhile, British government defended its right to send a warship to the coasts of the “occupied” Malvinas (Falklands) islands, and claimed it was not militarizing the archipelago.

“We are not militarising the South Atlantic. Our defensive posture in the Falkland Islands remains unchanged,” a Downing Street spokesman said.

“The people of the Falklands choose to be British. Their right to self determination is a principle that's enshrined in the UN charter,” he added.

As the 30th anniversary of the 1982 war approaches, the dispute over the territory is heating up. The British government is attempting to prevent any counter-move taken by Argentina to reclaim “its stolen islands.”

UK government’s constant military threats have also raised tensions among the British politicians. UK shadow defense secretary Jim Murphy repeated government’s colonialism, saying, “It is for the UK and UK only to decide which forces to send overseas, when and where.”

He accused Buenos Aires of misrepresenting Britain’s routine deployments in order to serve its own diplomatic ends. Insisting there was no evidence to justify the Argentine government’s actions, since did not demonstrate the will of the islands’ residents.

"We will support the Government as long as they support the Falkland people's right to self-determination and the defense and security of the islands,” he added.

However, Peter Slowe, former policy adviser to Tony Blair, urged the Tory-led government to make peace with Argentina.

“The solution to the Falklands was always - and still is - to cede Argentina sovereignty while ensuring by treaty the British way of life for the tiny local population in a local democracy and sharing oil or other resources with Argentina,” said Slowe.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Britain resorts to nuclear bullying against Argentina


Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/224831.html

Britain is apparently violating its UN commitment by using nuclear weapons on non-nuclear armed states, after Prime Minister David Cameron has personally authorized the deployment of an advanced nuclear submarine to the Malvinas Islands amid escalating tensions with Argentina.

British media reported that the UK navy was deploying one of its most sophisticated Trafalgar-class submarines to the South Atlantic in order to provide an outer barrier of invisible protection for the islands and prevent any possible counter-move taken by Argentina to reclaim its occupied islands.

Considerably, the heavily-armed sub set to be in the islands' waters by April, as the 30th anniversary of a war between the two countries over the disputed territory approaches.

Analysts regard the deployment of the vessel as the third war signal by the British government to Argentina, as it formerly sent an heir to throne, the Duke of Cambridge, and an advanced warship destroyer HMS Dauntless to the region to secure its last colony in South America.

Britain's third controversial decision would trigger bitter response from Argentina government and the Argentinean nationals, as it would remind the people of the Argentine flagship General Belgrano, that was sunk by a British submarine during the 74-day war with the loss of 323 sailors.

It is now believed that Britain's plan to militarize the dispute over the islands would lead to more deterioration in the already fraught relationships between the two nations.

While burning Union Flags on Friday after Prince William arrived in Malvinas for a six-week deployment, Argentinean protesters promised to target different UK business every week to show that the members of the colonialist country are not welcomed in Latin America.

Analysts wonder if the UK government would again consider the submarine deployment as a "routine operational deployment" just as they claimed about their previous controversial steps.

Ministry of Defense (MoD) refused to give further comments over the move, with an MoD spokeswoman only said, "We do not comment on submarine deployments."

The submarine is predicted to be either HMS Tireless or HMS Turbulent, which was active last year during Libya war and other regions in the Middle East during the crisis. It is reported that the vessel is equipped with 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes, with 148 members of crew.

MoD sources also insisted that a team of Spanish-speaking communications technicians will be on the vessel in order to control maritime radio transmissions in the region.

Retired Admiral Richard Heaslip, who was the chief of the Defense Staff's office during the war, admired the deployment of a submarine to “potential flashpoint.”

“The Argentines had a good navy in 1982. But after we got a nuclear submarine down there they went back to port and never dared venture out,” he said.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Argentineans protest arrival of Prince Williams on Malvinas



Britain's Prince William

Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/224586.html

Demonstrators take to the streets of Argentina's capital to protest the arrival of Britain's Prince William on the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands.

Hundreds of angry protesters gathered in front of the HSBC Bank branch in the capital Buenos Aires on Thursday, throwing objects at British bank to show their fury at Prince's presence on the archipelago.

Earlier in the day, a group calling itself Quebracho, also staged a march in the city and demanded that their government cut trade links with Britain.

Esteche Fernando, the leader of the group, accused the UK of "imperialism," saying, "This sort of reigniting of the Malvinas dispute is more about hiding the financial crisis and economic suffering."

Britain's Duke of Cambridge arrived in Malvinas Islands for a six-week deployment as a Royal Air Force search and rescue pilot.

His deployment came as a war of words with Argentina over the territory intensified.

Buenos Aires government is furious that the Prince has been sent to the islands as the 30th anniversary of the 1982 was between Argentina and Britain nears.

"The Argentinean people regret that the royal heir is coming to the soil of the homeland with the uniform of the conqueror and not with the wisdom of a statesman who works in the service of peace and dialogue between nations," Argentine foreign ministry said on Wednesday.

Moreover, British Ministry of Defense announced on Tuesday that it will send its most advanced warship, destroyer HMS Dauntless, to the islands.

Britain and Argentina fought a 74-day bloody war in 1982 over the islands which ended with the British side claiming victory over Argentineans.

Tensions between the two countries have escalated since 2010 when London authorized oil prospecting around the islands.

Malvinas Islands, located about 485 kilometers off Argentina's coast, has been "occupied" by Britain for over 180 years.

However, Buenos Aires claims sovereignty over the territory as it controlled the islands prior to its colonization by the British.

UK first war signal arrives in Malvinas



Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/224541.html

Britain's Duke of Cambridge has arrived in the “occupied” Malvinas Islands for a six-week deployment as a search and rescue pilot while wearing the uniform of the “conqueror.”

His deployment came as a war of words with Argentina over the territory intensified. Buenos Aires strongly condemned Britain's “provocative” move to post Prince William as a member of UK armed forces to the islands.

"The Argentinean people regret that the royal heir is coming to the soil of the homeland with the uniform of the conqueror and not with the wisdom of a statesman who works in the service of peace and dialogue between nations," Argentine foreign ministry said on Wednesday.

Moreover, British Ministry of Defense (MoD) also announced on Tuesday that it will send its most advanced warship, destroyer HMS Dauntless, to the islands. The move was considered by a navy source as giving the Argentina government “serious pause” for thinking about their claims, since the warship could “shoot down Argentine fighters as soon as they take off from their bases."

Analysts believe that Britain's controversial decisions to deploy an heir to throne and a sophisticated warship to the region were apparent war signals to Argentina, as the British government has been seeking to militarize the dispute over the occupied islands.

Analysts also stress that Argentina's bitter response to the deployment of the Duke was because they could remember his uncle Prince Andrew, also a helicopter pilot, who flew missions during 74-day war in 1982 that left 650 Argentines and about 300 British soldiers dead.

Malvinas, situated about 250 nautical miles from Argentina, has been a British colony for over 180 years.

However, Argentina also claimed sovereignty as it controlled the islands before, and the two countries fought a destructive 74-day war over the islands in 1982.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Britain to send war message to Argentina


Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/224185.html

In a bid to secure its last outpost in South America, the British government is to deploy its most sophisticated warship to the occupied Falkland Islands to give a clear war message to Argentina.

The Ministry of Defense revealed that destroyer HMS Dauntless will sail to the South Atlantic in order to substitute frigate HMS Montrose in the coming weeks. It was claimed that the deployment was long planned but the decision is evidently put in practice when a war of words between Argentina and Britain over the disputed Falkland islands (known as Las Malvinas to Argentina) has intensified.

Tory MP Julian Brazier, who is also a defense select committee's member, stressed that Britain's move will send a “powerful and timely message” to the Argentina government that UK “means business when it comes to defending the Falklands.”

While repeating UK government's colonial policy, Brazier said, "These islanders want to remain British and any oil or gas found in its waters will be British.”

The islands, located about 250 nautical miles from Argentina, have been a British colony for over 180 years. However, Argentina also claimed sovereignty as it controlled the islands before, and the two countries fought a destructive 74-day war over the islands in 1982.

As 30th anniversary of the Argentina-Britain war nears, the dispute over the territory is heating up once again. The British government is attempting to prevent any counter-move taken by Argentina to reclaim its occupied islands.

Jeremy Browne, Foreign Office minister in charge of Latin America, will travel to the islands in June to attend the anniversary of capturing the islands from Argentina. It was formerly announced that the Duke of Cambridge Prince William will also be posted to spend six weeks on the islands as an RAF search-and-rescue pilot next month. Buenos Aires described the move as being “provocative.”

The destroyer is a £1billion warship equipped with supersonic Sea Viper missiles, radar and an air defense system, being able of shooting a cricket ball moving at three times the speed of sound out of the sky.

A Navy source said that the warship could “shoot down Argentine fighters as soon as they take off from their bases," insisting the deployment would give the Argentina government “serious pause” for thinking about their claims.

Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary William Hague underplayed the deployment of the warship, claiming they were routine moves, but warning “the Royal Navy packs a considerable punch.”

Sunday, January 29, 2012

UK cannot confront Argentina



Source: Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/223813.html

A British senior military figure says Britain would not be able to confront Argentina over Las Malvinas, sending a clear signal to British officials to stop boasting of UK's military capability.

Former head of the British army General Sir Michael Jackson said that it would be impossible for the British military to confront Argentina in case a military confrontation takes place over the sovereignty of the Malvinas islands.

“What if an Argentinean force was able to secure the Mount Pleasant airfield? Then our ability to recover the islands now would be just about impossible,” said Jackson in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph.

Jackson's comments came after Britain's Minister for International Security Strategy Gerald Howarth accused Argentina of “sabre-rattling” threatening Buenos Aires with a military response.

The comments were a response to Argentinean President Christina Fernandez who hit out at British Prime Minister David Cameron for accusing her country of colonialism.

“In this upside down world, in my absence I've heard they were calling as colonialists,” said Fernandez.

However, Fernandez underlined the importance of diplomacy and negotiations over the disputed islands as she promised the Argentinean people to rigorously work and have Britain sit at the table of negotiation.

“We will continue claiming our Islands with far more political, juridical, and diplomatic rigour and with the so many supports that we are receiving. But it's good to remember that this is not an overnight achievement, it has taken years,” said Fernandez.

Proud of their victory in the 74-day war in 1982, British officials have been provocative as the country's Ministry of Defence announced a contingency plan to increase their military presence on the island.

Moreover, Duke of Cambridge Prince William is supposed to spend six weeks on the islands as a search-and-rescue co-pilot.

Despite the provocative line taken up by Britain, its military capability has been seriously questioned as the Harrier fleet, Britain's aircraft carriers that secured her victory in 1982, is sold to the US Marine Corps.

ICJ delivers ruling in favour of South Africa

South Africa's Closing Argument Against Israel for Genocide at the ICJ