Mercosur countries to agree on a common protocol for vessels from the Falklands
Monday, March 5th 2012- 06:10 UTC
Mercosur countries to agree on a common protocol for vessels from the Falklands
Mercosur country members are scheduled to hold a meeting in Rio do Janeiro to agree on a common protocol for all vessels originating in the Falkland Islands and calling at regional ports, announced Uruguay’s Defence minister Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro.
“We’re holding a meeting in Brazil to adjust criteria, so from statements we can move to concrete measures. That is, what vessels will be allowed to dock, and which won’t? We want all countries in the region to have a common criterion. The same with aircraft flying to and from the Malvinas Islands, although there’s a difference between a naval vessel and a fishing or cargo ship” added the minister.
Uruguay will take to the meeting its traditional position in support of Argentine sovereignty claims over the Malvinas Islands, which is the position adopted by Unasur members. However, “this will be made official by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In Defence we are not involved in policy: we receive orders from Foreign Affairs”, pointed out Minister Fernandez Huidobro.
“We’re holding a meeting in Brazil to adjust criteria, so from statements we can move to concrete measures. That is, what vessels will be allowed to dock, and which won’t? We want all countries in the region to have a common criterion. The same with aircraft flying to and from the Malvinas Islands, although there’s a difference between a naval vessel and a fishing or cargo ship” added the minister.
More:
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/05/mercosur-countries-to-agree-on-a-common-protocol-for-vessels-from-the-falklands
= new reply since forum marked as read
...but, having tracked this matter back a couple of centuries, I can find NO EVIDENCE of anyone asking the inhabitants of the Malvinas (the Falklands) what they want, recently, or historically, and, on the contrary, all decisions about their colonial status have been made in London, by the Crown, the P.M. and Parliament.
So, for starters, it is a false argument to hark to "the wishes of the islanders" as a shibboleth (in order to call the questioners of this policy "NOT progressive"
without having any concrete evidence of what these islanders want. They don't even offer anecdotal evidence--which would not be sufficient, in any case. Economically interested imperialists are good at producing anecdotal evidence, on cue.
Nobody has ever asked them! And nobody ever will, given England's oil and military interests in the Falklands.
I suspect that they might vote to continue as a colony, because, in the 1830s, England threw the Argentinians out and colonized the islands with Britishers. The current inhabitants are mostly their descendants. But there are also Creoles and Indigenous on the islands, and certainly poor farmers, craftspeople and workers, who might, if their voices were heard, object to being a colony. And even the Britishers and the rich have never been given a choice. If there were free and full debate, and an honest vote, what would they choose?
Nobody knows for sure.
I can certainly understand Argentina and other South American countries not wanting a full-fledged British navy and military outpost a few hundred miles off their shores. For one thing, England totally supported George Bush, Jr., in his oil war on Iraq (despite 80% opposition to it, by the English people!). Argentina has oil. Brazil has oil. Venezuela has oil. Others have oil. As Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, said, when the Bushwhacks reconstituted the U.S. 4th Fleet in the Caribbean, that act "is a threat to Brazil's oil." England and the U.S. are in cahoots on stealing other peoples' oil. (indeed, one of the sore points for Argentina, re the Falklands, is British encroachment on Argentina's off-shore oil reserves.)
South America has basically declared its independence from the U.S. and most of its countries are pursuing policies that assert their sovereignty over their natural resources, as well as policies of social justice that are anathema to Wall Street looters, and anti-Wall Street and anti-World Bank/IMF policies (that have amounted to the looting of LatAm economies). They have reason to be worried about a British-militarized Falklands.
It was a RIGHTWING Argentine government (indeed, a fascist dictatorship) that waged the Falklands War, back in Margaret Thatcher's day. Not the Left. And my judgement of the Left in South America now is that they would never have waged war over this issue. Their leaders are an assemblage of the lawful and the peaceful. They are also strong believers in democracy. They will pursue this matter peacefully unless England decides to provoke them, and they might, in that case, defend Argentina's and their own interests. If it comes to that, and they won, I think the first thing they would do is a plebiscite in the islands, run by the UN. They would offer independence to the Falklands (vs being acquired by Argentina). I don't know that they would offer the return of the British military or colonial status. The Falklands could be brought into UNASUR and given cooperative military protection, by the region.
Those are my guesses. I'm quite sure that South American leaders (including Argentina's) don't want an oil war, but I am not at all sure that England isn't spoiling for one, in cahoots with the U.S. The "rights" of Falklanders and democracy in the Falklands do not enter into their considerations, except as propaganda fodder. The corporate oil interests that run both governments--the U.S. and the U.K.--have no more respect for the rights of the People than they have for the LIVES of the people they have slaughtered and are contemplating slaughtering, to gain more control of the world's oil supply.
It would make me laugh, if it weren't so tragic, to see BP and Exxon Mobil execs get all teary-eyed over the "wishes of the islanders." What a joke.
