More Argie Bargie
Discussion
Maybe a more knowledgable person can comment but as pointed out, the area is in dispute and remains unsolved so not enforceable?
However, a belligerent leader with some new toys might see it differently. On the worlds stage, I would look past Argentina as the obvious first party and look to the string pullers.
However, a belligerent leader with some new toys might see it differently. On the worlds stage, I would look past Argentina as the obvious first party and look to the string pullers.
DrDeAtH said:
This isn't going to end well....
It'll be fine if/until oil is found. Then I imagine all sorts of places will have an opinion. I don't see anything of any significance happening militarily again. The Argentines don't have the resources for that and I think realise that doing what they're doing here may ultimately be more productive...and I don't see anyone else wanting to kick off a war over it.
jmorgan said:
Maybe a more knowledgable person can comment but as pointed out, the area is in dispute and remains unsolved so not enforceable?
However, a belligerent leader with some new toys might see it differently. On the worlds stage, I would look past Argentina as the obvious first party and look to the string pullers.
From what I have seen he's a lot better than the last one. Thankfully this didn't come out while she was still in power.However, a belligerent leader with some new toys might see it differently. On the worlds stage, I would look past Argentina as the obvious first party and look to the string pullers.
This is the best take I've read on it, the following are not my words:
[i]Here's the actual UN press release: http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sea2030.doc.htm
It deals with numerous bits of ocean around the world, but here's the bits relevant to Argentina:
At the plenary level, the Commission adopted, without a vote, two sets of recommendations, namely the recommendations in respect to the submission made by Argentina, and ... With regard to the recommendations in respect of the submission made by Argentina, it is recalled that, previously, the Commission had already decided that it was not in a position to consider and qualify those parts of the submission that were subject to dispute and those parts that were related to the continental shelf appurtenant to Antarctica (see CLCS/64, paras. 76 and 77 and CLCS/76 para. 57).
It's all about deciding where the continental shelf ends, in order to define rights to sea bed resources (e.g. oil). This is not the same thing as territorial seas. The UN commission noted that it had already said it wasn't going to even consider areas that were subject to dispute, nor anything related to Antarctica. However, Argentina has plenty of other continental shelf which is not near either of those areas.
Furthermore (but not in the story or press release), there is a deadline for submitting technical data for sea bed claims. I suspect that Argentina would need to submit such claims anyway even if they knew the UN wouldn't consider them, so that they would be on record within the deadline period for potential future use (not that they're likely to need them). Since they're still claiming the Falkland Islands, they can't very well not include those on their official charts, or else the UK would use that against them in future.
It should be noted that the Argentinian foreign ministry "tweet" referenced by the Guardian mentions nothing about the Falklands.
Long story short - this has nothing to do with the Falkland Islands or the sea around it, as those areas were not even being looked at by the UN. In other words, the Guardian either didn't read the actual UN press release, or didn't understand it.
[/i]
[i]Here's the actual UN press release: http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sea2030.doc.htm
It deals with numerous bits of ocean around the world, but here's the bits relevant to Argentina:
At the plenary level, the Commission adopted, without a vote, two sets of recommendations, namely the recommendations in respect to the submission made by Argentina, and ... With regard to the recommendations in respect of the submission made by Argentina, it is recalled that, previously, the Commission had already decided that it was not in a position to consider and qualify those parts of the submission that were subject to dispute and those parts that were related to the continental shelf appurtenant to Antarctica (see CLCS/64, paras. 76 and 77 and CLCS/76 para. 57).
It's all about deciding where the continental shelf ends, in order to define rights to sea bed resources (e.g. oil). This is not the same thing as territorial seas. The UN commission noted that it had already said it wasn't going to even consider areas that were subject to dispute, nor anything related to Antarctica. However, Argentina has plenty of other continental shelf which is not near either of those areas.
Furthermore (but not in the story or press release), there is a deadline for submitting technical data for sea bed claims. I suspect that Argentina would need to submit such claims anyway even if they knew the UN wouldn't consider them, so that they would be on record within the deadline period for potential future use (not that they're likely to need them). Since they're still claiming the Falkland Islands, they can't very well not include those on their official charts, or else the UK would use that against them in future.
It should be noted that the Argentinian foreign ministry "tweet" referenced by the Guardian mentions nothing about the Falklands.
Long story short - this has nothing to do with the Falkland Islands or the sea around it, as those areas were not even being looked at by the UN. In other words, the Guardian either didn't read the actual UN press release, or didn't understand it.
[/i]
DMN said:
Long story short - this has nothing to do with the Falkland Islands or the sea around it, as those areas were not even being looked at by the UN. In other words, the Guardian either didn't read the actual UN press release, or didn't understand it.
[/i]
[/i]
<----- this is my surprised face
Bad timing - there's nothing down there to stop the Argentinians from intruding into Falklands waters
http://home.bt.com/news/world-news/falklands-witho...
http://home.bt.com/news/world-news/falklands-witho...
for thatMartG said:
Bad timing - there's nothing down there to stop the Argentinians from intruding into Falklands waters
http://home.bt.com/news/world-news/falklands-witho...
What a load of hysterical nonsense; the grey funnel line is going through a bad patch right now with various technical issues but the article overlooks the fact there is an OPV permanently detached to the Falklands and that the Argentine Navy is indisposed to do anything other than have its ships rot alongside. Thornberry is a disgrace of a shadow defence sec and is making cheap political capital out of nothing.http://home.bt.com/news/world-news/falklands-witho...
In addition the major warship commitment is for patrolling the entire Atlantic south of the equator, not just intimidating tinpot loons in Buenos Aires.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Saturday 2nd April 13:39
Godalmighty83 said:
Very much so, it's a damn shame that the country has been led by corrupt sociopaths for so long as I honestly feel we could have solid and beneficial relations with Argentina.
I don't know what it is with South American countries but they so often seem to end up in the same situation.
They were colonised by Spanish and Portuguese instead of British. Check out Australia or New Zealand or Canada vs Argentina and most of South America I don't know what it is with South American countries but they so often seem to end up in the same situation.
The same as N Europe economies vs Portugal Spain and Greece today.
Edited by el stovey on Saturday 2nd April 16:32
el stovey said:
Godalmighty83 said:
Very much so, it's a damn shame that the country has been led by corrupt sociopaths for so long as I honestly feel we could have solid and beneficial relations with Argentina.
I don't know what it is with South American countries but they so often seem to end up in the same situation.
They were colonised by Spanish and Portuguese instead of British. Check out Australia or New Zealand or Canada vs Argentina and most of South America I don't know what it is with South American countries but they so often seem to end up in the same situation.
The same as N Europe economies vs Portugal Spain and Greece today.
Edited by el stovey on Saturday 2nd April 16:32
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff