Chile Forum

I say we send letters of encouragement to AR to go ahead and try and take the Falklands back. Then Chile can sieze back the oil fields in the south while their military is over committed in another war. The same way they swiped it in the first place.

They can keep the pampas however. I have still not seen a piece of more boring geographical turf on earth. It makes the Artic and most desserts look rather geologically interesting. I made the mistake of once of spending 12+ hours on the Patagonia Express to the ocean. There is not much to look at.

john wrote:My understanding of the history is as follows:...

Well, there's a theory, probably not dissimilar to the official Argentinian one. Some of those links seem rather tenuous though, and the fact is that the population of the Falklands today identifies itself with Britain and in any case is largely self governing, I believe.

Cheers,

James.

The BBC is reporting that Argentina has rallied Falklands support at a regional Latin American/Caribbean summit just held in Cancun. If true, this could raise the political/diplomatic temperature considerably.

Hmmmm,
I'd been wondering about what International Maritime Law might say about this....
Here it is...
Seems like the Brits are WAY out of line here.

British foreign secretary David Miliband claims that his county’s oil exploration in the South Atlantic is "completely in accordance with international law (sic)".

But the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) states that the outer maritime limit for territorial claim by any country is 22 nautical miles (22km) from its coast. This is well short of the location where Britain has started drilling for oil off its colony – 62 miles (100km) – never mind the absurd remove of 8,000 miles (12,000km) from dear old Blighty. The self-declared British territorial claim around the South Atlantic islands of 200 miles (370km) is simply that: a self-declared claim that has no basis in international law.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17758

And another excellent/timely article on the subject...
Touching on the old themes of imperialism... colonialism...
Well worth the read...
Beware...
A pro-Argentinian & socialist perspective.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17737

Are the Brits signatories to the convention? The US has wisely stayed away from it and is not bound by it.

John Hyre

Those sorts of claims normally come down to who has the bigger ship.

Very Few countries signed the UN 22mile limit Canada being one of them we claim 300 kn to keep the riffraff off the George’s Bank. The 22 mile limit is not realistic, I think several land locked countries signed it.

greg~judy wrote:Hmmmm,
I'd been wondering about what International Maritime Law might say about this....
Here it is...
Seems like the Brits are WAY out of line here.

British foreign secretary David Miliband claims that his county’s oil exploration in the South Atlantic is "completely in accordance with international law (sic)".

But the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) states that the outer maritime limit for territorial claim by any country is 22 nautical miles (22km) from its coast. This is well short of the location where Britain has started drilling for oil off its colony – 62 miles (100km) – never mind the absurd remove of 8,000 miles (12,000km) from dear old Blighty. The self-declared British territorial claim around the South Atlantic islands of 200 miles (370km) is simply that: a self-declared claim that has no basis in international law.

Actually... the Brits are right in like with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982). Because in that convention there is a "Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)", that

extends from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles from the baseline (low tide line in most cases). Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. So that drilling location that is 62 miles of the coast is well with in the zone that Britan can claim.

It is not possible for Argentina to win this battle... they won't be able to get a favourable ruling at the UN since the Brits have more pull (they provide over 6.5% of the UN's funding) and Veto power in the UN Security Council and they would get there asses handed to them in any type of Navy altercation.

Rarely do these things ever come down to who is right… it is usually who has the bigger stick.

Truly it probably matters not who is right or wrong. The But....the continental shelf from Argentina extends under the Malvinas. This is why Argentina continues to assert claims. The claims are not out of nowhere.

http://www.printableworldmap.org/printa ... l-wiki.jpg

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... of_the_Sea

Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource.

The continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margin’s outer edge, or 200 nautical miles from the coastal state’s baseline, whichever is greater. State’s continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nautical miles from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles beyond the 2,500 meter isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters).

And "The Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, located 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of Argentina"

Both the UK and Argentina are claiming this gives them the right. It would appear the UK is certainly overstepping the 12 miles,raising it to 68 miles thinking the EEZ clause comes into play. Argentina is claiming the continental shelf clause applies. 200 miles from Argentina, 200 miles from the islands-I see that is a problem with only 300 miles between.

Argentina doesn't want to go to war but they think the UK should treat them like a country and sit down and negotiate.

Russia claimed the arctic under the same continental shelf theme all the way to 12 kn of Canada’s Arctic Islands, it didn’t work for them it won't work for the Arggies.
Argentina signed a treaty after the 1982 conflict giving exclusive rights to the Brits over the Islands(years ago I read the document and it is very clear what the treaty entailed), now they want to take them back, it’s the same way they borrow money from all over the world, and then don’t pay it back. In the last 30 years Argentina has had 4 currencies and screwed over many many investors, Companies and plain citizens, they have no credibility in the international realm. I think the Brits have a better claim to the Islands than the Argentines not by much but better in the view of many people. Its like the Bolivian claim to the sea, its old news get over it, well in that case very old news.

Times online today reports that Argentina has gathered the support of 32 countries including Brazil and Chile. A resolution is also set to be tabled in the UN General Assembly condemning Britain for allowing Ocean Guardian to begin drilling 60 miles north of the islands. Chavez is telling the Queen to tear down that wall - or something. The US is reported as "tepid"about the matter, I take that as poli-speak for " Theres nothing in it for us, so we don't give a rodents rectum what happens". Argentina has a long leg up on the war of words.
Britain has sent a frigate and a sub into the area and upgraded the air defenses on the islands, but thats just rattling the flatware. It's possible the the UN will get to pass a resolution that gets listened to for a change.
My prediction, England will back off the drilling - until they can find a friend, the Kirchners will find something else to take everyones mind off the fact that they have eaten the seed corn - again, and Chavez will continue to be malévolo. All will be normal.

Of course Chavez is down with Argentina, but Brazil now too...... I think eventually even Chile would get behind this, although reluctantly. I think they all smell oil and energy independence. If Argentina regains the Falklands/Malvina's these other players probably think they can swing some sweet deals and get the better of the Argie's. Definite self interest in seeing Argentina regain control.