|
|
Updated Monday, February 6, 2012 11:53 am TWN, By Jorge Rueda, AP |
  | |||||||||||||||||||
Chavez, allies back Argentina on FalklandsArgentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman thanked Chavez and other presidents for their support at the meeting in Caracas. “The issue of the Malvinas Islands is an issue that concerns us, especially with the strong language that has emerged from the British government, accusing Argentina of being colonialist,” Chavez said, calling it “the world in reverse.” The dispute heated up recently when Prince William, a Royal Air Force helicopter pilot, was assigned to the islands on an upcoming military tour along with a warship in the run-up to the 30th anniversary of Argentina's April 1982 invasion, which sparked a 10-week war. Argentina, which claims Britain stole the archipelago from it 180 years ago, calls them the Malvinas Islands and has protested the British deployment. The eight member countries of the Bolivarian Alliance bloc, or ALBA, approved an agreement barring any boats flying Falkland Islands flags from docking in their ports. “I'm speaking only for Venezuela, but if it occurs to the British Empire to attack Argentina, Argentina won't be alone this time,” Chavez said. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa suggested the countries take stronger measures. “We have to talk about sanctions,” Correa said. Argentina hopes diplomatic and economic measures will pressure Britain to comply with United Nations resolutions encouraging both countries to negotiate the islands' sovereignty. British leaders have refused to do that. Turning to economic matters, Chavez told the group of presidents that their countries should work together to strengthen their economies to withstand global troubles. He called for “a more ambitious project” in economic cooperation. “The economic issue is first on the agenda. You all see how the world is. There's a terrible crisis,” Chavez told the presidents, including Cuba's Raul Castro and Bolivia's Evo Morales, among others. Chavez said countries within the ALBA group should expand their use of a virtual currency known as the Sucre for trade. Chavez has promoted the Sucre since 2010 as an accounting unit to replace the dollar for some trade. Venezuela has used the system to pay for some of its food imports from Bolivia and Ecuador. Correa complained that thus far the bloc's economic plans “don't advance more quickly.” Also attending the televised meeting were the leaders of ALBA members Nicaragua, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, along with nonmember Haiti. Chavez said Suriname's president, Desi Bouterse, would arrive on Sunday to join the meeting. Comments February 8, 2012 cloggedwithguts@ Reply It's rather hilarious for the British to lecture others about colonialism while itself has such a tainted record in history. But from a historical and geographical perspective, Argentina is the rightful owner of Islas Malvinas. February 9, 2012 ludahai_twn@ Britain has owned the islands for two centuries and the residents of the islands wish to remain British. Argentina has never exercised sovereignty over the islands and the people do not wish to be governed from Buenos Aires. Argentina COULD file an ICJ case, but they know they would lose so they try to win in the court of international public opinion. February 10, 2012 cloggedwithguts@ ludahai_twn@ wrote: Wow...this ludahai character really is right-wing to the core! Aside from supporting Jap militarism and the criminal regime of Israel with a passion, you also support British imperialism (though they fought against your Japanese daddies in SE Asia)! Britain has owned the islands for two centuries and the residents of the islands wish to remain British. Argentina has never exercised sovereignty over the islands and the people do not wish to be governed from Buenos Aires. Argentina COULD file an ICJ case, but they know they would lose so they try to win in the court of international public opinion. Get your history straight. Las Malvinas was stolen by the Brits in 1833 while the islands were in a state of disarray. As a way to exert sovereignty, the Brits later populated the islands with inhabitants originating from the British Isles (a similar trick was utilized with Northern Ireland). What's next for you now? Are you also going to deny the Holocaust (perpetrated by Nazi Germany, aligned with your Japanese daddies)? February 11, 2012 CURTISAKBAR@ Clogged you're an idiot, learn your British history before you make grand statements. The British were in the Falklands long before 1833 and had settlements there at the same time as the Spanish. The British never ceded their claim to the islands, even when other countries tried to settle them. In 1833, the British decided to re-settle the islands and at that time Argentina had a small settlement and the British asked them to leave, which they did. Argentina claims it was forced deportation whereas Britain claimed it was peaceful. The truth is forgotten in time. The only true claim Argentina has, is geographical and that is no basis for sovereignty. To compare Ireland and the Falklands is just retarded. February 11, 2012 ludahai_twn@ The Brits were there before 1833. They left temporarily in the 1770s when the Spaniards took advantage of the British state of disarray (your term). When they left, they left behind their claim to the islands. The Spaniards temporarily took possession, but left about two decades later. The British re-established their long-standing claim in the 1830s.Argentina COULD take it to the ICJ. They don't simply because they know they would lose. The islands are British, NOT Argentinean. I support the rule of law, not war. The rule of law rules here. The islands are British according to international law. For someone who supports the criminal regime in Beijing and its imperialism which has no basis in international law, your bias is noted -- as is your ignorance of international law. February 12, 2012 jvrday@ Good to see the British protecting the oil... no I mean islanders. The argentines have no chance what-so-ever to get there hands back on the "FALKLANDS"..... February 13, 2012 carltanong@ That sheet of white paper is NOT International law nor rules of law, but a sh+t in engagement of war.If ICJ is impartial, how come only Hitler and Mussolini were convicted as war criminal and your grand-daddy Hirohito was NOT? February 13, 2012 cloggedwithguts@ ludahai_twn@ wrote: So whoever doesn't agree with your rhetoric is an "agent of Beijing", huh? Doesn't get anymore redneck-like than that! Beijing is Israel's biggest ally in East Asia, and your Japanese and American daddies are also actively engaging them...you're a walking contradiction!The Brits were there before 1833. They left temporarily in the 1770s when the Spaniards took advantage of the British state of disarray (your term). When they left, they left behind their claim to the islands. The Spaniards temporarily took possession, but left about two decades later. The British re-established their long-standing claim in the 1830s. Argentina COULD take it to the ICJ. They don't simply because they know they would lose. The islands are British, NOT Argentinean. I support the rule of law, not war. The rule of law rules here. The islands are British according to international law. For someone who supports the criminal regime in Beijing and its imperialism which has no basis in international law, your bias is noted -- as is your ignorance of international law. The Brits were not even the first European power to set foot on Islas Malvinas, the French were. A group of sailors from St. Malo in Brittany first arrived in the 18th century, naming the islands Îles Malouines (which eventually evolved into the Spanish name of Islas Malvinas). The Brits and the Spanish later laid claims to the islands in the 1760s, but the Brits were later forced to withdraw due to economic pressures stemming from the simmering situation in the North American colonies. Spain then administered the Islands from Buenos Aires until 1811. In 1812 Argentina won its independence, and thus inherited the control of the islands (as part of the United Provinces). In late 1832, the Brits used a fishing dispute as an excuse to send to naval vessels to the region to "re-assert" British sovereignty and pressured Buenos Aires to hang over the islands. Thus colonizing the Malvinas. With Britain's historical attitude to the world, it is rather ludicrous to lecture others about colonialism. February 17, 2012 pampeano19@ Totally agree with Clogged. It is also funny the British talking about how important is the self determination of the people who lives in Malvinas. However they don’t recognize the right of Palestinian to self determination. Of course differences are huge, Palestinians have been living there for centuries - falklanders haven’t, Palestinians are culturally Palestinians (I mean they roots are there) - falklanders are culturally British (they where put there by the government). However it seems the right of the falklanders is stronger, here another example of how hypocrite is the British government (as usual). The Malvinas are Argentinean because Argentina inherited them from Spain, Argentina never gave up its claim. The UN, different international organizations and different countries has been calling the parties to sit and negotiate, the British has been rejecting this calling. So it seems the UN, international organizations such as OAS, ALCA, and many states like Brazil or Chile (both democracies) are wrong. Just don’t be that polite ...just say we have the guns so we have the right...not need to disguise the issue with diplomatic clothes.... About IJC .... the Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings. PERFECT!!! ......However.....such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council. So suppose Argentina won the dispute in the court and then??? What are the British gonna do?? Are they gonna enforce a decision which is against its interests? So you make the rules and you are the judge....tragic.... very tragic for those states which are not powerful as yours.....we have the guns so we have the right.... shame on you.... February 21, 2012 ludahai_twn@ pampeano19 - Britain's claim and settlement predated that of the Spaniards. Britain also never gave up its claim. Spaniards did settle after the British left in the late 18th century, but they never gave up their claim. Similarly, the Spaniards left after settling the islands. The British returned to confirm the prior claim that they had. The claims you made are political, not legal. The UN General Assembly makes political statements, not legal ones and their statements have no legal bearing.Carltanong - Neither Hitler nor Mussolini was convicted as war criminals and the ICJ had nothing to do with it. The European war crimes trials were held at Nuremburg in the late 1940s while those of the Pacific Theater were held in Tokyo also in the late 1940s. The ICJ had nothing to do with either tribunal. Sorry history and facts get in the way of your story. February 24, 2012 carltanong@ ludahai_nippon It's a sorry state for you and your grand daddy Japan and its fanatical imperial military war criminals that have an international reputation for historical AMNESIA. Better have an executive general check-up in the world renown "UNIT 731 Biohazard WMD Center". February 24, 2012 jeremy@ Never mind who claimed what in the early 19th century, the most important issue about the Falklands in the 21st century is that the current population of 3000 people have the right to self-determination and wish to remain British citizens. That right should be respected, shouldn't it? February 24, 2012 pampeano19@ ludahai_twn Thanks for your comment but I disagree with you. There is no probe about who discovered first the islands, it could be done by the Spaniards or English. The first reliable sighting is attributed to the Dutch (that is the reason of why they have been called Sebald Islands). Britain knew the existence of these group of Islands and sent ships (actually these ships where on a route to Puerto Deseado - an Argentinean city in the continent - however the captain didn't claim them - didn't settle. Until that moment we can assume the British only passed over there as they did also over other places in Patagonia (either in the continent or any other island). The French founded the first settlement after that the British founded the second one and the story started. The Spaniard acquired the French colony and then after the Argentinean independence Argentina inherited those islands. The Spanish acquisition was completely right. Of course British never gave up its claims, but that fact doesn't give the British sovereignty or a better right over the Islands. Please don’t think British fundaments are legal and Argentinean fundaments are illegal, you just only assume one position thinking the other party is wrong. In other words, what I am saying is Argentina also has good fundaments to support it claims and those are as good as the British ones. There something funny about your statement about the UN, you say this world organization made political statements, right? It seems when these statements are against British interests you qualify this body as a political body, weird isn’t? Of course it is not a court, however if we live in a civilized world we should listen what they said, since it is a democratic body which represent all the countries in the world. What I am saying is I don't expect the UN decided over the sovereignty, what I expect is if the UN called Britain to negotiate with Argentina, the British do what they have been requested, just only that. PS1: by the way don’t also forget British tried to invade twice Argentina during the XIX century, I am still asking myself which right assisted them to do that? February 25, 2012 curtisakbar@ First thing first, Palestine under the British mandate was a complete mess and when Britain couldn't get the situation under control, returned Palestine to UN control and it was the UN that created Israel largely due to American pressure. Not all countries agreed to the creation of Israel therefore in theory Israel is an illegal country. Not once has Britain said Palestinians can't live in Palestine. So stop making things up PAMPEANO.The question is, why would anyone living in the Falklands want to become Argentine when they have basically starved the country with economic blocks and suspension of transport links. That is a great way to show the world you care about the islands by making them have to import food from the UK when they used to get it from South America. That's like China plunging Taiwan back into the stone age by cutting off all its trade with Taiwan and blocking transport links to the neighbouring countries whilst still claiming 'We Care'. Also, for the inhabitants of the Falklands, not all of them are of British ancestry, yet they all have a British passport which Argentina requires them to give up if they wish to remain in their homes if Argentina gains control of the islands. So imagine, having to give up your home or your nationality through no fault of your own. Is this a government you would want? March 6, 2012 ludahai_twn@ pampeano19@ wrote: pampeano19 -- Thanks for your ability to discuss this in a rational manner. Many others on here could learn from your example.ludahai_twn Thanks for your comment but I disagree with you. There is no probe about who discovered first the islands, it could be done by the Spaniards or English. The first reliable sighting is attributed to the Dutch (that is the reason of why they have been called Sebald Islands). Britain knew the existence of these group of Islands and sent ships (actually these ships where on a route to Puerto Deseado - an Argentinean city in the continent - however the captain didn't claim them - didn't settle. Until that moment we can assume the British only passed over there as they did also over other places in Patagonia (either in the continent or any other island). The French founded the first settlement after that the British founded the second one and the story started. The Spaniard acquired the French colony and then after the Argentinean independence Argentina inherited those islands. The Spanish acquisition was completely right. Of course British never gave up its claims, but that fact doesn't give the British sovereignty or a better right over the Islands. Please don’t think British fundaments are legal and Argentinean fundaments are illegal, you just only assume one position thinking the other party is wrong. In other words, what I am saying is Argentina also has good fundaments to support it claims and those are as good as the British ones. There something funny about your statement about the UN, you say this world organization made political statements, right? It seems when these statements are against British interests you qualify this body as a political body, weird isn’t? Of course it is not a court, however if we live in a civilized world we should listen what they said, since it is a democratic body which represent all the countries in the world. What I am saying is I don't expect the UN decided over the sovereignty, what I expect is if the UN called Britain to negotiate with Argentina, the British do what they have been requested, just only that. PS1: by the way don’t also forget British tried to invade twice Argentina during the XIX century, I am still asking myself which right assisted them to do that? However, I must point out that there are some problems with your narrative. 1. From the current legal context, the notion of who saw it first is quite irrelevant. It is possible the Spaniards did, but they didn't make any claims or settle at the time. Contemporary maps of their provinces make no note of the Falklands/Malvninas. In fact, Patagonia was outside the sphere of Spanish colonization in the mid-17th century. 2. How did the Spaniards acquire the 'French colony'? The British settled an island that was uninhabited at the time and Spanish claims to the island were sketchy at best. Spain did not govern the islands from Buenos Aires, so any notion that they devolved to Argentinean control after independence is tenuous at best. 3. Frankly, all of that is not relevant as the Spaniards left of their own volition and no longer administered the islands. Even were their claim valid, the English also retained their claim after they left in the 1770s. So essentially, both England and Spain voluntarily left the islands and ceased administering them, effectively leaving them terra derelicta. The English then re-asserted their prior claim to islands neither the Spaniards nor the Argentineans were administering. 4. The Falklands have been under British rule for nearly 200 years. They have clear sovereignty over the islands. The islanders wish to remain British. The Argentines could not win a court of international law, so invaded them. They lost. Granted, it could easily be argued that the Peron regime did not represent the Argentinean people and that the war was for the sole purpose of distracting the people from the serious problems at home. This is almost un-argued by most observers. However, it doesn't change the fact that the Argentinean state launched an aggressive war - one it lost. 5. In recent decades, the ICJ has employed a doctrine of effective control in territorial disputes. Given that the Argentine claim is tenuous at the very best, the fact that the British have administered the islands for nearly two hundred years AND the islanders wish to remain British give the British VERY STRONG legal claim; one that Argentina has no chance of winning in an international court of law -- they can only win in the court of international public opinion, but that has no basis in legal rights. March 6, 2012 johnny.brian@ Tiny islands (Palestine, Falklands, Ireland or any islands like Spratly), create big troubles that never leave yesterday, today or tomorrow. Luckily, I am living in Taiwan peacefully, but may run out any time soon once any wacko DPP declares independence once KMT losses its grip. Bye, bye my Taiwan. March 7, 2012 carltanong@ @ludahai_nipponDo you know that Scotland wanted to be separated from Great Britain? What law should be applied for the Scottish to divorce themselves from the Brits? I hear that the Scottish was the one feeding (BREAD WINNER) for the Brits like HK before. Just curious and wanted to know the answer from ludahai-nippon. March 8, 2012 ludahai_twn@ carltanong@ wrote: British domestic law, of course. Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom and the situation is clearly an internal matter of the United Kingdom. At least the Scots will get a referendum on the question and be able to freely express their opinion on the matter. The Acts of Union in 1707 were passed by both the elected representatives of England and Scotland.@ludahai_nippon Do you know that Scotland wanted to be separated from Great Britain? What law should be applied for the Scottish to divorce themselves from the Brits? I hear that the Scottish was the one feeding (BREAD WINNER) for the Brits like HK before. Just curious and wanted to know the answer from ludahai-nippon. March 8, 2012 ludahai_twn@ carltanong@ wrote: Ever hear of the Acts of Union? The parliaments of both England and Scotland approved a TREATY (do you know what that is?) to create a union between the two countries and create the United Kingdom of England and Scotland (later called The United Kingdom of Great Britain, with Ireland added later as the result of another Act of Union). Thus, as a single state under international law, internal British law governs the situation. @ludahai_nippon Do you know that Scotland wanted to be separated from Great Britain? What law should be applied for the Scottish to divorce themselves from the Brits? I hear that the Scottish was the one feeding (BREAD WINNER) for the Brits like HK before. Just curious and wanted to know the answer from ludahai-nippon. However, it should be noted that like the USA with Puerto Rico, Canada with Quebec, and France with Corsica, the Scots will be permitted to vote on this. March 13, 2012 cloggedwithguts@ johnny.brian@ wrote: Or should we refer them as "right-wing, redneck, McCarthyist wackos"?Tiny islands (Palestine, Falklands, Ireland or any islands like Spratly), create big troubles that never leave yesterday, today or tomorrow. Luckily, I am living in Taiwan peacefully, but may run out any time soon once any wacko DPP declares independence once KMT losses its grip. Bye, bye my Taiwan. March 20, 2012 mordrake@ I have to laugh at all the retarded "go back home to where you came from" gang.Really? The Brits should go home? THEN SO SHOULD CHAVEZ, TIMERMAN, AND MOST OF THE INHABITANTS OF SOUTH AMERICA - GET BACK TO SPAIN WHERE YOU CAME FROM!! Utter retards. And you know it. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Subscribe |
Advertise |
RSS Feed |
About Us |
Career |
Contact Us
Sitemap | Top Stories | Taiwan | China | Business | Asia | World | Sports | Life | Arts & Leisure | Health | Editorial | Commentary
Travel | Movies | TV Listings | Classifieds | Bookstore | Getting Around | Weather | Guide Post | Student Post | English Courses | Terms of Use | Sitemap
Sitemap | Top Stories | Taiwan | China | Business | Asia | World | Sports | Life | Arts & Leisure | Health | Editorial | Commentary
Travel | Movies | TV Listings | Classifieds | Bookstore | Getting Around | Weather | Guide Post | Student Post | English Courses | Terms of Use | Sitemap
Copyright © 1999 – 2012 The China Post. Breaking news from Taiwan, China and the world.
