Is it actually Russia that is imposing more and more costs?

[msmobyone]

 There are dual claims to the islands.  I don't feel the need to regurgitate the Argentinian claim, aside from providing links which you aren't choosing to either read, or give any consideration to..

I keep asking you to tell us the basis of the Argentine claim for a very good reason - PLEASE do try to respond with what YOU understand.

IF you bothered to research who is a member of your UN committee, you'd understand who the 24 members were - includes RF, China, Nicuagua, Bolivia, Venuzuela, Costa Rica, Hondoras, Paraguay, Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Uruguay, Brazil, and Guatamala ... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the majority would side against a former colonial power - rather than 'for' Argentina.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/gacol3271.doc.htm


''Further by the text, the Special Committee — formally the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples — would have the Assembly reaffirm the need for both parties to take due account of the interests of the Territory’s population. ''

1/ the people already decided

2/ do you notice any irony in the former title of the committee?   hint: ''formally the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples '' 

Perhaps the solution lies in the Islands declaring independence ?

  I think Russia was right to call out this situation and expose a bit of British hypocrisy...

Having just military taken over Crimea and creating the circumstances for a referendum, and losing a UN gen assly vote 100:11 and having to use their veto to block a Security Council vote on Ukraine's motion you'll 'get' why I'm now mocking you, again ...



 

I recognize the situations aren't analogous but they are in the same vein.

already covered, upthread and you didn't offer a valid risposte ..

    You may think my mind is closed on the subject, but based on what I've read of yours, I'm CERTAIN yours is.  If the UK wants to take a hard line like this they deserve to be called out, despite having to toe a delicate line due to the strength of the UK many of the South American nations agree with the Argentinian stance. 

Hence the UN Committee of 24's 'conclusion'...


YES.. closed - as there is nothing to 'negotiate' ... the Islanders keep pointing out that they want NOTHNG to do with Argentina and their 'claim' is baseless - and I will keep asking YOU to point out what it is. You know why I ask, so why avoid answering?

Perhaps coincidentally the British are also claiming a sizable section of Antarctica based on their minor island 'possessions' i.e. The Falklands, which overlaps an earlier Argentinian claim...seems fair they are only about 10000 miles away from the Antarctic.    How many South American nations are making claims up in the Arctic circle?  ZERO of course. 

Oh Dear FT, you have a fondness for 'waking onto punches', it seems.

May I point you in the direction of the Antarctic Treaty System..?

The first Argentine set foot on the Antarctic in 1902.. do check back and find out who was there, LONG before....

Get back to us, when you look at two of the initial signatories ...HINT: Argentina and Chile... The UK  / US / USSR were also initial signatories...

As for the Arctic, please point out which nation - other than Denmark, Russia, Norway, Canada and the US are making claims? The UK, the 'dreaded colonialists' are not players. Those rights went to Canada

[Muzh]

Ditto on you and your Muzh.  Too bad he pissed his pants when somebody interrupted his virtual world fantasy.

Yo Rubickcube, I asked you nicely to keep me away from this lover's quarrel.

[fathertime]

I keep asking you to tell us the basis of the Argentine claim for a very good reason - PLEASE do try to respond with what YOU understand.

IF you bothered to research who is a member of your UN committee, you'd understand who the 24 members were - includes RF, China, Nicuagua, Bolivia, Venuzuela, Costa Rica, Hondoras, Paraguay, Mexico, Columbia, Peru, Uruguay, Brazil, and Guatamala ... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the majority would side against a former colonial power - rather than 'for' Argentina.

 

I was of course aware that the UK felt the committee was biased against them.  One reality is that the world is made up of around 200 countries and obviously quite a few of the developing countries (which compose a majority population) have a say in how things are run.  This particular UN committee has decided the UK needs to work this out with Argentina and not have a 'take it or leave it' attitude.   Having a couple 1000 residents there (many military) appears to be an implanted population to the UN committee.   

Oh Dear FT, you have a fondness for 'waking onto punches', it seems.

May I point you in the direction of the Antarctic Treaty System..?

The first Argentine set foot on the Antarctic in 1902.. do check back and find out who was there, LONG before....

Walking into punches...If that is the metaphor we are using I guess you just ran into a haymaker. 



 Towards the bottom this link shows that Argentina made a claim in 1904 after which the British made a claim overlapping their's in 1908....using the Falklands as the basis of their claim.   Of course none of these claims make a difference in that the world doesn't recognize these claims...nor should they.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica

I keep asking you to tell us the basis of the Argentine claim for a very good reason - PLEASE do try to respond with what YOU understand.

Here is the Argentinian claim, I've read it and agree with it:



The Argentine government alleges that it has maintained a claim over the Falkland Islands since 1833, and renewed it as recently as December 2012.[66] It considers the archipelago part of the Tierra del Fuego Province, along with South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

Supporters of the Argentine position make the following claims:

That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence in 1810,[67] a principle known as uti possidetis juris.
That Spain never renounced sovereignty over the islands, even when a British settlement existed.
That Great Britain abandoned its settlement in 1774, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention.
That the British dropped their claim by acquiescence by not protesting the many years of pacific and effective Spanish occupation, after the abandonment of Port Egmont.[68][69][70] :34–35
That, in addition to uti possidetis juris, sovereignty was obtained when the islands were formally claimed in Argentina's name in 1820, followed by Argentina's confirmation and effective occupation from 1826 to 1833.[71][72][73]
That the establishment of British de facto rule on the Falklands in 1833 (referred to as an "act of force" by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina on 17 June 1833 and repeated in 1841, 1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the UN.[74][75]
That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population (see below).[76][not in citation given]
That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because, as Argentina argues, the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine.[76][77][not in citation given]
That self-determination is further rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with a forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, thus there is a failure to comply with an explicit requirement of UN Resolution 1514 (XV).[76][77]
That the UN ratified this inapplicability of self-determination when the Assembly rejected proposals to condition sovereignty on the wishes of the islanders.[76]
That the islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.[78]
That Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier.[79]

[msmobyone]

I was of course aware that the UK felt the committee was biased against them.  One reality is that the world is made up of around 200 countries and obviously quite a few of the developing countries (which compose a majority population) have a say in how things are run.  This particular UN committee has decided the UK needs to work this out with Argentina and not have a 'take it or leave it' attitude.   Having a couple 1000 residents there (many military) appears to be an implanted population to the UN committee.   

Sighs,

How many of the committee are members of the OAS? Who's viewpoint is already known to the UK  .. 12.. plus Russia and China = 14 out of 24.

Having watched you play 'devil's advocate' on behalf of the Kremlin - are you detecting any irony in your counter stance .. re self-determination for Crimeans ?   .....

Walking into punches...If that is the metaphor we are using I guess you just ran into a haymaker.

Hardly, Sir ! You have failed to respond to the knockout blow - re the Antarctic - and the 'Referee' just disqualified you for 'aiming a blow at me' - having already awarded me the  contest ; )..

You have tried to avoid the FACT - as to why the UK has a presence in Antarctica  - could we deal with this 'oversight' of yours ?

Towards the bottom this link shows that Argentina made a claim in 1904 after which the British made a claim overlapping their's in 1908....using the Falklands as the basis of their claim.   Of course none of these claims make a difference in that the world doesn't recognize these claims...nor should they.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica

As I quoted from said page and read it - thoroughly -..This is unfortunate for you.

AGAIN.. the UK claim to the Falklands and outlying islands is longer-standing and based on BEING THERE - consistently and MOST importantly - were based on the islanders wishes to remain a dependency of the UK - IF you had actually checked - the matter of joint sovereignty has failed as a result of the Islanders wishes several times last century...

Here is the Argentinian claim, I've read it and agree with it:

The Argentine government alleges that it has maintained a claim over the Falkland Islands since 1833, and renewed it as recently as December 2012.[66] It considers the archipelago part of the Tierra del Fuego Province, along with South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

Supporters of the Argentine position make the following claims:

That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence in 1810,[67] a principle known as uti possidetis juris.

Ahem, please tell us which state recognised Argentina's claim to the Falklands ?  IF you check - the 'independence' and continental land shelf of Argentina come much later - and DO NOT include the Falklands ..

That Spain never renounced sovereignty over the islands, even when a British settlement existed.

...and this lack of objectivity on behalf of the Spanish - 'helps' your contention exactly, how ? The UK is used to this - Gibraltar ? 

That Great Britain abandoned its settlement in 1774, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention.

''Some points about the Nootka Sound Convention. Article VI" It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects."

1) It is debatable that it applies to the Falklands. It refers to adjacent islands. The Falklands at 300 nautical miles from Argentina are not adjacent to Argentina.

2) It was suspended in 1795 due to war between the two countries. It may or may not have been renewed in 1814 after the war.

3) It's a reciprocal treaty. Both countries, Spain as well as Great Britain (the respective subjects), were forbidden to form establishments on the coasts mentioned. Spain, by forming settlements late 18th -early 19th century in what is now San Clemente del Tuyú (directly south of the Banda Oriental -now Uruguay), was in breach of the Convention

4) If it does apply to the Falklands, Argentina, by establishing a settlement on the Falklands in 1826 (subjects of any other power),rendered article 6 null and void as per the secret article:

Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.

(Argentine web pages on Nootka and the Falklands never mention the secret article)

5) New states do not inherit treaties without the consent of other signatories to those treaties.

6) Argentina did not inherit the Falklands so neither did she inherit any treaty Spain may have signed with any country regarding the Falklands.''

That the British dropped their claim by acquiescence by not protesting the many years of pacific and effective Spanish occupation, after the abandonment of Port Egmont.

 - see above

That, in addition to uti possidetis juris, sovereignty was obtained when the islands were formally claimed in Argentina's name in 1820, followed by Argentina's confirmation and effective occupation from 1826 to 1833.

- see above

That the establishment of British de facto rule on the Falklands in 1833 (referred to as an "act of force" by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina on 17 June 1833 and repeated in 1841, 1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the UN.

How 'interesting'..

1/ In 1841, General Rosas - leader of Buenos Airies Provence - which became 'Argentine Convention'  offered to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims in return for relief of debts owed to Barings Bank in the City of London. The British Government chose to ignore the offer

2/ In 1850, the Arana-Southern Treaty otherwise known as the Convention of Settlement was signed between Britain and Argentina. It has been argued by several authors on both sides of the dispute that Argentina tacitly gave up her claim by failing to mention it and ceasing to protest over the Falklands. Between December 1849 and 1941, the Falklands were not mentioned in the President's Messages to Congress.

That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population (see below).




That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because, as Argentina argues, the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine.[76][77][not in citation given]
That self-determination is further rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with a forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, thus there is a failure to comply with an explicit requirement of UN Resolution 1514 (XV).[76][77]

All the above negated by Argentina's occupation of the islands - as previously pointed out

That the UN ratified this inapplicability of self-determination when the Assembly rejected proposals to condition sovereignty on the wishes of the islanders.

Ooops, the conditions for self-determination - the would satisfy the UN - have already begun - all I alludes to in an earlier post - you must have missed it - hint - a form of independance.

That the islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.

Some 'news' for you : Argentina announced its claim without consultation with the United Kingdom and despite the fact that the United Kingdom has administered the area, for the most part peacefully, for over 180 years. In the years 1990 to 2005 fishing and mineral resources in the area were administered by joint commissions between Argentina and the United Kingdom, Argentina unilaterally withdrew from these organisations in 2005 to pursue a more aggressive stance in its claim to the Falkland Islands. At any one time Argentina usually has a single vessel patrolling the undisputed area of its claim, the vessels do not enter the exclusive economic zone of the United Kingdom although there have been reports of Argentine warships threatening vessels on the Falkland side of the border by radio.

Under the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Article 59 disputed and overlapping claims have no legal force until the dispute is resolved between the opposing parties.

That Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier.

Whoever wrote this should know that it's the United Kingdom and has been since the Act of Union in 1706 ... the UK was at war with both France and Spain - are the British there, now ?


Sources:

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/COMMENTS/PW080313.HTM

Wiki



On a parting note : 


Two opinion research companies ran a poll in 2012..on the island's future .. 1700 - 1800 polled

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/04/10/falklands-war-britain-and-argentina/

They 'forgot' to ask the people LIVING there .. something you, the UN  and Buenos Airies  would do well to remember ... 

[fathertime]

Regarding the Falklands:  I think I've said what I wanted to say, and don't feel the need to speak further on it...Clearly we don't agree on this, nor does UK and Argentina, and all the people on their respective side of the issue. 


Fathertime!   

[AC]

Regarding the Falklands:  I think I've said what I wanted to say, and don't feel the need to speak further on it...Clearly we don't agree on this, nor does UK and Argentina, and all the people on their respective side of the issue. 


Fathertime!

You don't have to agree.  The flag flying there is the Union Jack, and the World recognizes that as the legitimate flag which should be flying there.  End of story. 

[fathertime]

You don't have to agree.  The flag flying there is the Union Jack, and the World recognizes that as the legitimate flag which should be flying there.  End of story.

No, the world does NOT agree, but yes the flag does wave there for now. Obviously the story NEVER ends actually. If you looked at the world 150 years ago, vs now, the changes have been dramatic....150 years from now I don't doubt the changes will be dramatic once again...weather the human race hasn't blown itself up by then or not.   


Fathertime!

[AC]

weather the human race hasn't blown itself up by then or not.   

I'm going to assume you meant "whether", and that part we can agree on.   

[fathertime]

I'm going to assume you meant "whether", and that part we can agree on.   

that was quite a silly mistake...and I looked at it for a moment when I typed it  and said yup that is the right version....major brain fart there.

Fathertime! 

[msmobyone]

Well, now we have left the Falklands  Can we get back to Russia ?

I know I want to get back there...in the three weeks I've been away the rouble has appreciated 25 percent against the Pound Sterling.

From a Russian perspective, prices in the food shops are still rising and tourist companies and their host nations are suffering.

A week at a 5 star Hotel in Antalyia is £180 in Russia - incl. flights and meals and £460 from from UK


IF you have a job in Russia, bargains are to be had.

[fathertime]

As I was casually browsing the internet I found a little article that is discussing the recent arms deal regarding Russia and Iran.  It seems that Russia is now possibly going to sell modern defense to Iran, as a response if we (the USA) or Israel get too involved in Ukraine.   There is quite a bit more to it, but the gist appears to be that there will be continuing costs/consequences for extensive Western interference. 


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russian-missile-sale-iran-involves-200000180.html



“The public announcement of the possible sale of S-300 to Iran is no more than a political gesture aimed at the U.S. to motivate it in restraining its arms transfers to Ukraine,” says Konstantin Makienko, deputy head of Moscow’s Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.“In any case deliveries of S-300s to Iran will remain a bargaining chip between Moscow, the United States and Israel in talks on a wide range of issues.”

Fathertime!  

[Larry1]

As I was casually browsing the internet I found a little article that is discussing the recent arms deal regarding Russia and Iran.  It seems that Russia is now possibly going to sell modern defense to Iran, as a response if we (the USA) or Israel get too involved in Ukraine.   There is quite a bit more to it, but the gist appears to be that there will be continuing costs/consequences for extensive Western interference. 


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russian-missile-sale-iran-involves-200000180.html

“The public announcement of the possible sale of S-300 to Iran is no more than a political gesture aimed at the U.S. to motivate it in restraining its arms transfers to Ukraine,” says Konstantin Makienko, deputy head of Moscow’s Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.“In any case deliveries of S-300s to Iran will remain a bargaining chip between Moscow, the United States and Israel in talks on a wide range of issues.”

Fathertime!  

Neville, what weapons is the US actually selling/giving/leasing to Ukraine?

Larry1!

[fathertime]

Neville, what weapons is the US actually selling/giving/leasing to Ukraine?

Larry1!

Did something in my post prompt this question?  I couldn't possibly know what we are selling/giving/leasing to Ukraine.  Do you know something about this?


Fathertime!   

[Larry1]

Did something in my post prompt this question?  I couldn't possibly know what we are selling/giving/leasing to Ukraine.  Do you know something about this?


Fathertime!   

Why yes:

  It seems that Russia is now possibly going to sell modern defense to Iran, as a response if we (the USA) or Israel get too involved in Ukraine.  Fathertime!  

[sleepycat]

Oooops...

 

[fathertime]

Why yes:

I have responded to your question despite it not making sense as to the link or comments I posted. 




It appears that Russia is willing to sell defensive weapons to Iran, as a cost/response to what it perceives as too much Western interference in Ukraine.


Fathertime! 

[LiveFromUkraine]

Neville, what weapons is the US actually selling/giving/leasing to Ukraine?

Larry1!

What's up with the name calling?   

[Steamer]

It seems that Russia is now possibly going to sell modern defense to Iran, as a response if we (the USA) or Israel get too involved in Ukraine.

These are the key words you guys should focus on. This was standard cold war stuff back in the day. If the US has too much free time and starts to bother Russia they begin arming our enemies elsewhere to take some of the focus off of Russia.

[southernX]

ft As I was casually browsing the internet I found a little article that is discussing the recent arms deal regarding Russia and Iran.  It seems that Russia is now possibly going to sell modern defense to Iran, as a response if we (the USA) or Israel get too involved in Ukraine.   There is quite a bit more to it, but the gist appears to be that there will be continuing costs/consequences for extensive Western interference. 

interference


/ɪntəˈfɪər(ə)ns/


noun

noun: interference; plural noun: interferences
the action of interfering or the process of being interfered with.

"concerns about government interference in church life"

synonyms:

intrusion, intervention, intercession, involvement, impinging, encroaching, trespass, trespassing, obtrusion;

strange how it is ukraine that is actually asking for this help & involvment by the west  in its sovereign lands & actively requesting russia and its citizens to dessist in its sovereign lands

 yet russia who has no legal right to any input into ukraine decisions and is being asked to butt out is fantastically manipulating the propoganda here .

almost truly unbelievable if where not fact

SX

[LiveFromUkraine]

interference


/ɪntəˈfɪər(ə)ns/


noun

noun: interference; plural noun: interferences
the action of interfering or the process of being interfered with.

"concerns about government interference in church life"

synonyms:

intrusion, intervention, intercession, involvement, impinging, encroaching, trespass, trespassing, obtrusion;

strange how it is ukraine that is actually asking for this help & involvment by the west  in its sovereign lands & actively requesting russia and its citizens to dessist in its sovereign lands

 yet russia who has no legal right to any input into ukraine decisions and is being asked to butt out is fantastically manipulating the propoganda here .

almost truly unbelievable if where not fact

SX

I agree, just like I think if Iran asks Russia for help the US and other countries shouldn't get involved.

[southernX]

I agree, just like I think if Iran asks Russia for help the US and other countries shouldn't get involved.

involvement is fine , when its called diplomacy and done correctly to express a perspective, or valid point of view 
it should however stop when requested by the country concerned

SX

[LiveFromUkraine]

involvement is fine , when its called diplomacy and done correctly to express a perspective, or valid point of view 
it should however stop when requested by the country concerned

SX

Diplomacy is great.   I have a problem with sanctions being used to coerce behavior or threats of attack.  You can't meddle in the affairs of other nations and then say others shouldn't do the same. 

[southernX]

Diplomacy is great.   I have a problem with sanctions being used to coerce behavior or threats of attack.  You can't meddle in the affairs of other nations and then say others shouldn't do the same.

AGREE , it aplies to all
question is how long has russia or the US been meddling in ukraine ?  who started the game off ?


  russia would be guilty first going on past history

SX

[LiveFromUkraine]

AGREE , it aplies to all
question is how long has russia or the US been meddling in ukraine ?  who started the game off ?


  russia would be guilty first going on past history

SX

No doubt Russia has been involved, in Ukraine, long before US involvement.  I think Russia has always been actively pulling strings in the background.   

That is probably why they see the US involvement as a threat to them, personally.  Steamer hit the point up thread.  I would be inclined to believe the same as I don't think the US would be involved if it wasn't to keep Russia in check.

Ukraine is a proxy war as far as I see it.  Hopefully the US will be the lessor of two evils.  I still think the bigger obstacles is within the country itself, namely the corruption.  It's stifling...  That is if they can ever settle this war with Russia.

[southernX]

LFU

yes i agree you above ,
ukraine has lots of issues all of which are taking second place to the curent war,

that situation is how mr putin wants it to be at present imo ,

im optimistic in time ukraine will improve, the younger genration will help to drive it i hope given what we have seen on the ground there
SX