British oil dispute with Argentina escalates

reply to post by infinite


Drug problem fuelled by the consumption of the U.S, Europe. Evo Morales, defending the indigenous peoples rights in Bolivia. At least Chavez stands up to the U.S and many of his social programmes have helped the impoverished in Venuzela.

If you actually knew anything about South American history you would be aware of the Pink governments who ran many of them from the 50's until 70's-80's when they were overthrown by American supported Dictators. I.E Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil.

These governments were not Communist, just socialist who wished to provide for their people and not allow American goods, companies and ideas to flood the continent at the expense of the people. Now America couldn't allow this, in its sphere of influence(domination), and instigated these coup's. The U.S has alot to answer for in regards to the state of South America today.

Read some history.

Infinite has chosen to ignore me for no other reason than i challenged his views.

The thread is not about America indeed, but Infinite was the one who started going on about how undemocratic South America is, based on nothing more than one example, Chavez. And then proceeded to go on about the 'drug problem' and 'gang violence' without considering the effect that the intervention of foreign powers and the West's voracious appetite for Illegal drugs has on the continent

I felt having visited and lived in South America for 6 months, that it was just and proper within the thread to respond to this accusation on their behalf. Ignorance is bliss though i suppose.

Sorry to stray from the thread so much, but this had to be said.

I would like to come back, if I may, to a disagreement in the thread over the specific point of UK air defence capability between Hans Kammler and my old mate Neformore (how are you?)

I have to say Nef, that Hans is right on one major aspect. That is the Harrier GR9 cannot perform the CAP mission. It is purely configured for the close support role and its two sidewinders are for self defence only.

That the Shar 1 in 1982 never carried any radar guided AAM's is quite correct, as you say, but the Argentine pilots were under instruction to abandon their attacks and get the hell out if they were pinged by the Shars radar. This was the reason so many raids were aborted. The GR9 is utterly incapable of repeating that trick. Radar detection also allowed the RN pilots the luxury of dictating the terms of the WVR engagements they were involved in, hence the score of 28-0.

Following the 1982 event the Shar 2 got upgraded radar and AMRAAM to provide a BVR kill capability it previously lacked. The removal of the Shar 2 from service totally removed this capability with it, criminally so in my view.

On the other hand, though, this loss is not so grievous, in terms of fleet defence around the Falklands specifically as it might appear. The Sea King ASaC7 is present to provide a radar screen and the island-based Typhoons provide a more capable air combat capability than any British pilot of the 1980's could hope to dream of and which the Argentine pilots of today definitely wont want to be on the recieving end of.

For the Navy to have no air cover would require a repeat of 1982 and for the islands to fall to Argentina. There is not even the slightest chance of that happening this time, with more Typhoons and C-17's only a phone call away this time around. And we are alert to the threat this time around, which makes a hell of a difference

Originally posted by grantbeed
Why the Hell do we own the Falklands anyway?

It's off the coast of Argentina. give them their own territory back and let them drill for their own oil.

This world is all wrong.

Yeah your so right, in fact why dont all the South American immigrants go back to Spain where they came from.


Oh, sorry, I thought it was a stupid statement competition

[edit on 18-2-2010 by waynos]

reply to post by Freeborn


Do you think Brown would be capable of pulling off what Thatcher did, to revive his election chances? or do you think nothing will come of this?

reply to post by Dagar
You would have a point, but what would you say about Northern Ireland, Scotts and Diego Garcia ?

Originally posted by curioustype
Best article I have found yet explaining the background to this spat is here in the Telegraph...link

It is still a confusing picture, as we don't really know what is happening diplomatically, and I still don't quite understand the renewed Argentinian hostility.

I remain curious about how China may view or react to the situation too, perhaps it would actually be in UKs favour? I mean Argentina now have massive Chinese investment and influence to appease, and the UK are currently engaged in a critical role alongside US forces helping China to secure and pacify Afghanistan which China has made clear is a major strategic priority for their own future security. So who knows?

Anyone know any better?

China will probably not interfer, even if Argentina looses to the British, China might stand to gain even more from it. Since, British and USA would avoid Argentina's jungle warfare environment like a plague, but their usual sanction thing. China export of goods and import of raw materials can only goes up, and cheaper too.

Oh, about Brits and Yanks helping China in Afghan? That's oxymoron, cause it was not intentional. While most of the Yanks are station along the shiny pipeline, the brits and nato are spread out doing garrison duties in remote towns and cities. The Chinese are largely unarmed extracting copper in further remote regions The Chinese don't seemed to be the Target.

reply to post by waynos


thank you waynos, im not running down the raf or royal navy but its true there are differences between gr9 and shar, and the capabilities we lost when axing shar was a dangerous gamble.
would argentina be so bold now if the old sea harrier was still flying?
the typhoon is poptent, but if ascension island is in ruins, where do the land and refuel? can they get to falklands with in air refuelling?

[edit on 18-2-2010 by hans kammler]

reply to post by hans kammler


Ascension is well out of harms way, Argentina does not have the weaponry to attack it, even putting RAF Mount Pleasant out of action would be a tall order due to the fighter screen ( a Typhoon can track 28 targets simultaneously and engage 4 individual targets with its 4 AMRAAM BVR missiles simultaneously as well, it then has its ASRAAM IR missiles and its 27mm gun to fall back on, thats ONE fighter). You then have ground based AA systems that will make life extremely uncomfortable for anything trying to bomb the runway.

In 1982 the RAF reached the Falklands with an obsolete bomber and bombed it thanks to refuelling, and the bomber did not land, but returned to base. Ferry flights to there to land are no problem at all. The engines on modern aircraft are much more efficient and the tankers themselves much more capable than was the case in 1982

Any large raid designed to swamp the RAF will give plenty of advanced warning of its launch, any smaller raid will be repulsed precisely because we are looking for it.

I really can't see any possible gain for Argentina trying to turns its words into actions.

That said, that the RN is forced to depend on the RAF Typhoons as it cannot provide its own air cover is an appalling state of affairs. It might even be the case that the history of what happened in 1982 coupled with the retirement of the Shar provides at least a part of Argentina's current motivation.

But then again, I might only be saying that because its exactly what I predicted would happen 4 years ago

[edit on 18-2-2010 by waynos]

reply to post by waynos


im just thinking about other players that may be involved, not just the argentin ians and british.
yes the vulcan did make a bombing mission to stanley in the war from britain.some vulcans were also fitted out to act as improvised refuellers, ingenious.
the thing is, i know argentina is far to weak to challenge britain. im thinking of different situations that could arise from a confrontation, which is highly probable.
think about whats been happening in south america the last few years.

chavez nationalising oil companies,
usa reactivating its fourth fleet (south america)
venezuela buys russian military hardware ,announces falklands can be retaken and should ally with argentina if conflict with uk arises.
usa opens military bases in columbia and raises tensions to war level.troops massed on venezuelan/columbian border.
argentina attempts blockade of falklands..........

am i the only one looking at the big picture?

[edit on 18-2-2010 by hans kammler]

reply to post by hans kammler


I touched on my thoughts on this area in my last reply on the other thread.

Originally posted by mobydog
reply to post by Dagar

 

You would have a point, but what would you say about Northern Ireland, Scotts and Diego Garcia ?

Don't know the situation with Scotts or Diego Garcia.

With regard to Northern Ireland... If/when the majority of people there wish to be ruled from the Republic, then fine, let that be the case.... until then present situation has to stand.

With regard to the Falklands, and Gibraltar (where I was born)... the populations have been there and British for hundreds of years... 200 for the Falklands, over 300 for Gibraltar. Both populations desire to remain British and that should be respected by Argentina, Britain and the UN in the Falkland's case, and Spain, Britain and the UN in Gibraltar's.

To not respect the wishes of the present inhabitants is to pander to political expedience, and to go back to the days of 'Might Is Right'.

As far as I'm aware Great Britain has returned nearly every colony and every overseas territory it ever ruled, certainly those that wished to have independence. To my knowledge, their only remaining territories are those whose inhabitants wish to remain British. There may be one or two that they retain that are virtually uninhabited, and I think the inhabitants of Diego Garcia were forcefully removed by the UK when the US asked to build a base there... a SHAMEFUL episode that needs to be redressed. I don't know what the situation currently is there, though.

In as far as the subject of this thread... The Falklands should remain British until their inhabitants decide otherwise.

reply to post by paraphi


Labeling something a colony does not at all mean that all indigenous people are forced out. That is in fact quite rare. Britain did not force out all the people of India did they? If you look, you will see that there are very few cases where the indigenous population was forced out by the new colonial owners. Argentina has clearly indicated that they have no intentions of even attempting to force out the local Falkland Islanders. They have stated quite clearly that if, and I say IF, the territory was returned to them, that they would guarantee a "continuity of lifestyle" for all inhabitants.

As for the Falkland Islanders not considering themselves a colony.. They can call themselves what ever they want, but by legal definition they are indeed a colony.

Argentina is not making any "renewed threats" as you stated. This topic is about the current Oil exploration going on there. Argentina simply refused any sharing deal as it would be contrary to the UN call for decolonization. If they had accepted the deal, it would seem to add legitimacy to Britians position.

When you state that Britains position is based on events Prior to 1833, then you would be misinformed. As part of the Nootka Conventions in in the late 1700's , Britain ceded all previous claims to the Islands "without proviso" or without conditions. They renounced all previous claims to the area. They can not go back at a later date and say, " err. we didn't mean it." They made a legally binding international agreement. They also at a later date fully recognized Argentinas sovereignty and ownership of the Islands when Argentina became independent from Spain. Britain later in violation of international law seized the islands and forced out the inhabitants at gunpoint. The history is all there as are the treaties etc. if you wish to read them. Argentina has never relinquished their legal claim of sovereignty, and the U,N as well as the group of 77 developing nations, continues to call for decolonization.

Argentina is making no threats, nor are they seeking to force anyone out of their homes. Argentina even built and paid for the civilian airport for the islanders, when the British government started to and then backed out. Prior to the Argentinians building the airport, getting to and from the island was a lengthly ordeal, and those in need of emergency medical service were up the creek without a paddle. The lifestyles of the Islanders was significantly improved by the Argentinian efforts.

I agree that there is little likelihood of the UK keeping their word to negotiate in earnest for the return of the Islands, nor following the UN mandate to return the Islands to Argentina. There are simply too many bad feelings involved. Will it happen someday? Well, It is possible. but it certainly wont be in my lifetime. The UK had negotiated for the return of the Islands to Argentina, but they never seem to get very far with the deal. They reneged on a deal shortly before the Falklands war, which is one reason why it happened in the first place. The chief reason for that war, was a very stupid Argentinian President, who was soundly kicked out of office by his own people as fast as they could. He only served to create a great deal of damage to the negotiations, enough to put things off for generations.

When the subject of decolonization comes up, one often hears that the current locals should decide. But is this true in every case and what should the rules be? When the UN was formed, one of it's chief tasks was to oversee decolonization. The UK was involved from the start and helped to write the rules for decolonization. They crafted the rules for when self determination came into play. What they established is as follows.

In the case of an oppressed population, where the locals were being oppressed by colonial masters from a distant nation, they would get the right to self determination. Let the oppressed choose their own freedom and who they wished to align themselves with. When the local population was a transplanted population having been wholly imported from the colonizing nation, they would not get the right to self determination. If for example a nation came into an area, kicked out all of the locals, and transplanted their own people, those people would not get to choose.

The UK helped create these rules, and was at the top of the committee.

In the case of the Falklands, we have a transplanted population and an artificial immigration policy that maintains an exclusive population. Stacking the deck in this manner used to be a common way to control a territory. If I came into your house and forced you out at gunpoint, should I get the right to choose to stay? This is what happened in the Falklands.

No one is suggesting that the current inhabitants be forced from their homes, or be forced to give up their lifestyles. Argentina is certainly not suggesting this and neither is the UN.

Originally posted by Terapin
... The chief reason for that war, was a very stupid Argentinian President, who was soundly kicked out of office by his own people as fast as they could. He only served to create a great deal of damage to the negotiations, enough to put things off for generations.

I think we have an agreement! Regardless of the history and the various political, legal, social and economic perspectives, the 1982 war has acted to set the UK position in concrete. Argentina can squeal as much as it likes, but sovereignty discussions are taboo. It is incumbent on Argentina to concede this fact and make provision for it in the way they approach this problem, or rather “their” problem.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


It is not solely "their problem" when the UN and the group of 77 developing nations continues to call for decolonization. That very fact makes it an international issue. I recall that Britain stated that they would never leave India, and all of England stated the same. Yet all it took was one simple man to change their way of thinking. Stranger things have happened and I do not rule anything out. Britain has more experience with decolonization than any other nation, and some of those former colonies many thought Britain would never give up. Do I think it at all likely within the next 50 years the UK will honor it's promises to decolonize the Falklands? No, absolutely not. Give it a few generations however, and things may change.

reply to post by Terapin


Taken at face value your historical post looks quite authoritative, however it contains several factual errors, such as the Argentine colonists being expelled, they were not, they were invited to stay. Also that Argentina has never relinquished its claim, they have done so, you appear to be saying that Britian cannot change its mind, does this not apply to Argentina also? In fact on one occasion where you say Britian did relinquish sovereignty they did no such thing. They left a plaque behind them stating British sovereignty. A feeble gesture, but not what you described.

Gun boat diplomacy was the way it was done in the 18th and 19th centuries, talk of British actions being in breach if international law are disingenuous as there was no such thing before th foundation of the un, only agreements that were always being made and withdrawn, so there was nothing unque in the Falklands situation.

As far as I can tell the Argentine claim is based purely on a historical link with the Spanish Empire, didn't Spain colonise Argentina itself? So it is surely no more valid or legitimate than a claim with its historical roots in the British Empire?

There never was an indegenous population on those islands, only one lot of colonists after another, all but the British remaining only for a fairly brief time. So what is the Argentine claim actually about?

I have looked through several agreements between Argentina and Great Britain. I have found agreements on slavery, trade, the independance of Argentina from Spain, several protests over the actions of each other, buit nothing ceding sovereignty of the islands to Argentina or recognising its legitimacy, can you furnish these?

Believe me when i say that most Argentinien dont like there currupt goverment and are thinking, give then that f.. island and plaese take the whole country too, maybe it would go much better for Argentina. If Britian dont get them they will sell it like they did with eveything they owned so thats why people dont care about them, stupid currupt goverment, vry rich country but very stupid people

According to researcher Ian R Crane, the reason the UK went o war in '82 and things are heating up now are~:

1) Access rights to Antartica, as the Falklands has the closest land mass to Antartica it allows the UK the majority access.

2) Oil, oil is the secondry reason, as in '82 the UK could have started drilling for it by now.

It has always been about major access to Antartica with all its oil reserves which are waiting to be drilled once legal issues have been removed.

The escalation at the moment would lead me to think that rights have been removed and this is now pissing-off Argentina.

The escalation also now allows access around the continent for military actions in South America if the Panama canal comes under threat.


[edit on 19-2-2010 by Valorian]