Falklands tensions

[swerve]

NATO can get involved, but on a voluntary, country by country basis, as in Libya, where enough individual NATO members joined in for the non-participating (& entirely within their rights, because it was an operation not mandated by the treaty) to accept the use of NATO facilities.

The treaty actually covers only attacks on the territory, aircraft, or ships at sea within the specified area, i.e. Europe, North America, the Mediterranean, & the Atlantic Ocean & islands within it north of, IIRC, the Tropic of Cancer. Article 5 of the treaty? It's on line, but ICBA to look it up right now. The Canaries, Azores & Bermuda are covered, but not Ascension, the Falklands, the Netherlands Antilles, Martinique, etc.

One could wonder if the Uruguayan president, & maybe one or two others, agreed to the memorandum because they knew it was meaningless & unenforceable. They could say to Argentina "Well, we showed willing, but we can't break our own laws, & it'll take a long time to bring in legislative changes. Lots of technical issues, you know. We'll start a review, to work out what's needed, to report back in a year or two . . . ".

 

[RobWilliams]

One could wonder if the Uruguayan president, & maybe one or two others, agreed to the memorandum because they knew it was meaningless & unenforceable. They could say to Argentina "Well, we showed willing, but we can't break our own laws, & it'll take a long time to bring in legislative changes. Lots of technical issues, you know. We'll start a review, to work out what's needed, to report back in a year or two . . . ".

Thats actually a very good way to look at it, the whole 'we tried but we can't' attitude, would not be suprised if that was true at all

IIRC Paraguay has imposed a ban too, despite the fact they don't have a single mile of coastline :

 

[Sampanviking]

Energy Reserve Wars coming to a neighbourhood near you!

This is of course only the first shot from the South Americans and the legality of being to allow Falkland flagged ships to dock is a red herring. What matters is that South American nations are coming together and letting it be known that they are displeased with the status quo.

The fact that Brazil is showing leadership on this issue is very significant and reflects its new found confidence as it is confirmed as the worlds 5th largest economy.

Clearly the nations of South America feel that the Oil and Gas reserves of the South Atlantic should belong to them and they will now start ratcheting up the pressure to make the point as unambiguous as possible.

I don't see any hurry for conflict however. The Latin nations clearly appreciate that UK power projection is declining and will deteriorate markedly over the coming years, while they can increase their own power at leisure.

 

[swerve]

IIRC Paraguay has imposed a ban too, despite the fact they don't have a single mile of coastline :

The Paraguayan ban is misunderstood. It isn't completely meaningless. Paraguay doesn't have a coastline, but small ocean-going vessels can (& do) sail upriver to Asuncion. There's a port, with a container terminal, & IIRC a large proportion of Paraguay's trade goes through it.

 

[RobWilliams]

The Paraguayan ban is misunderstood. It isn't completely meaningless. Paraguay doesn't have a coastline, but small ocean-going vessels can (& do) sail upriver to Asuncion. There's a port, with a container terminal, & IIRC a large proportion of Paraguay's trade goes through it.

Ah right I see, i thought it seemed a bit bizarre when i first read it. I just had a quick glance on a world map as to where Paraguay is, didn't check the waterways :smash Thanks for the info!

"If we were Palestine, the European Union would be up in arms,"

this is from the President of the Falklands chamber of commerce [1] which i suspect could be true.

"Malvinas is not an Argentine cause, it is a global cause, because in the Malvinas they are taking our oil and fishing resources

as said by Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

The quote from the de Kirchner epitomises the Argentinian state of mind (in my eyes) that regardless of legality, it will always believe the Falklands to be rightfully part of its own territory. An attitude shared by many Chinese about Taiwan IIRC.

 

[TomHayden]

What happens if the Falkland Island Government registeres her ships to fly a second-flag? Has Panama signed the Mercosur agreement?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

What happens if the Falkland Island Government registeres her ships to fly a second-flag?

As far as I understand it, all Falklands ships can fly the UK flag, which means they can avoid the ban.

 

[RobWilliams]

As far as I understand it, all Falklands ships can fly the UK flag, which means they can avoid the ban.

They could, but i expect the UK flag would be identified as just being a replacement for the Falklands flag and i wouldn't be suprised if they found other ways to prove it to be a Falklands vessel and refused from port. (If laws allowed)

 

[swerve]

I think your last words, "if laws allowed", are going to be the stumbling block. The Uruguayan situation, in which the laws don't allow it, could turn out to be replicated elsewhere.

I wonder what the Spanish government attitude is? The majority of Falklands-flagged vessels are Spanish-owned & crewed fishing boats, re-flagged to get full access to Falklands waters, selling their entire catch in Spain.

 

[swerve]

Ah right I see, i thought it seemed a bit bizarre when i first read it. I just had a quick glance on a world map as to where Paraguay is, didn't check the waterways :smash Thanks for the info! .

I've not actually been to Paraguay, but I've crossed that river in Brazil, several hundred km upstream - and it was still pretty big.

 

[RobWilliams]

I've not actually been to Paraguay, but I've crossed that river in Brazil, several hundred km upstream - and it was still pretty big.

Ah right, sweet

I never knew that about the fishing fleet of the Falklands, that makes it much tricker as IIRC Spain fully supports Argentinas claim to the Islands. One would wonder if Spain was consulted on this, on the one hand they support Argentina but on the other hand their econemy could be effected (all be it slightly i'd imagine)

 

[jorgedr]

Ah right, sweet

I never knew that about the fishing fleet of the Falklands, that makes it much tricker as IIRC Spain fully supports Argentinas claim to the Islands. One would wonder if Spain was consulted on this, on the one hand they support Argentina but on the other hand their econemy could be effected (all be it slightly i'd imagine)

Eleven ships wont change anything, about Spain I'm not aware of any formal declaration beside a complaint from the Spaniard ambassador in Uruguay because one of our coast guard ships tried to check one of such vessels a few weeks ago.
The Spaniard Embassy in Buenos Aires as far as I know remained silent.

 

[RobWilliams]

Eleven ships wont change anything, about Spain I'm not aware of any formal declaration beside a complaint from the Spaniard ambassador in Uruguay because one of our coast guard ships tried to check one of such vessels a few weeks ago.
The Spaniard Embassy in Buenos Aires as far as I know remained silent.

Well a complaint to Uruguay would make little differents, a previous post by swerve says that Uruguay has agreed to post the ban if their laws allow it, which they don't

True, i just thought the Spaniards might be a bit pissed off with Argentina. I expect thats why an ambassador complained to Uruguay as legally it can't put the ban in place anyway, make it look like they're against the ban when actually it makes little difference if they protest to Uruguay.

It just looks like a pointless embargo, if anything all its shown is most of South America still agrees with Argentina.

 

[CheeZe]

Well a complaint to Uruguay would make little differents, a previous post by swerve says that Uruguay has agreed to post the ban if their laws allow it, which they don't

True, i just thought the Spaniards might be a bit pissed off with Argentina. I expect thats why an ambassador complained to Uruguay as legally it can't put the ban in place anyway, make it look like they're against the ban when actually it makes little difference if they protest to Uruguay.

It just looks like a pointless embargo, if anything all its shown is most of South America still agrees with Argentina.

They came to such an agreement some years ago at a conference for South American countries. It's nothing terribly new. I don't know whether the Central American countries (El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, etc) actually partook in the conference and signed or simply weren't a part. But all the South American states have already agreed to support the Argentine claim to the Falklands.

What they intend to accomplish with this, I don't know. It's like they're getting their dander worked up over a minor issue.

 

[RobWilliams]

What they intend to accomplish with this, I don't know. It's like they're getting their dander worked up over a minor issue.

Thats pretty much the baseline for this entire issue, they keep trying a political track which always hits a dead end, the one time they tried physically it was a no-go. So they don't really have any chance either way of doing anything significant about it both politically and militarily.

I suppose its just a reminder to the UK that Argentina hasn't let the issue go and is still pro-active in that belief.

 

[cynicalbeard]

I think the Falkland Islanders may well go for the simplest solution: If they can't use ports on the South American mainland then develop their own deepwater port facilities.
In fact they're looking at three potential sites: Mare Harbour (which already has the Navy terminal buildings set up there), Stanley itself (although they are worried about the potential shortage of space for expanding facilities) and Navy Point (which is across the bay from Stanley, where the Navy used to have it's coal bunkers.

It's looking like Argentina could well be doing itself (and Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile and Brazil) out of the business of dealing with the (mostly Spanish) fishing fleet. I'm sure that the Islanders will be more than happy to pick up the business...

 

[RobWilliams]

I think the Falkland Islanders may well go for the simplest solution: If they can't use ports on the South American mainland then develop their own deepwater port facilities.
In fact they're looking at three potential sites: Mare Harbour (which already has the Navy terminal buildings set up there), Stanley itself (although they are worried about the potential shortage of space for expanding facilities) and Navy Point (which is across the bay from Stanley, where the Navy used to have it's coal bunkers.

I'm fairly sure the vast majority of the affected shipping are simply fishing vessels, nothing that requires anything like the facilities of a deepwater port could offer.

 

[swerve]

Indeed. There are just 34 vessels, & half are Spanish fishing boats. It's hardly worth building a new port for them.

 

[cynicalbeard]

Indeed. There are just 34 vessels, & half are Spanish fishing boats. It's hardly worth building a new port for them.

Agreed, it wouldn't be worth it for 34 vessels, however the islands have been looking at replacing (or refurbishing, which would involve taking it out of commission for a long period) the FIPASS floating dock that the MoD built in 1983 for a couple of years now. It would make things considerably easier for the tourist trade as well, at present transfers ashore are via small boats to the public jetty, which can be difficult to the point of impossibility on windy days, whereas a decent dock would mean your tourists wouldn't arrive quite so well shaken.

 

[RobWilliams]

This is a bit strange

Earlier in the day the Foreign Secretary William Hague addressed a statement to Parliament updating the dispute over Falklands’ flagged vessels saying that following on ‘productive and honest discussions’ with Uruguay, Chile and Brazil, these countries have no intention of participating in an economic blockade of the Falkland Islands and that all Falklands-related commercial shipping will continue to enjoy access to their ports, in accordance with domestic and international law, if they are flying the Red Ensign or another national flag when docked.

[1]

Then this follows it

“Foreign Affairs minister Hector Timerman personally contacted his peers Antonio Patriota, Alfredo Moreno and Luis Almago who confirmed that their respective governments had not modified their position since the adoption of the Mercosur and associate states 20 December declaration regarding vessels flying the illegal flag of the Malvinas Islands” and as such was transmitted to the government of the UK.

[1]

Either Hague's a liar, or the other foreign affairs ministers are flip-flopping their opinions depending who they talk to. Could it be a replay of the Uruguayan situation where they said they supported it but by law couldn't enforce it, that same idea? Say 'yeah we'll enforce that ban' and actually just not really bothering about it. Thoughts?

[1] Argentina says no change in Mercosur decision to bar Falklands’ flagged vessels — MercoPress