Posted on 09/22/2007 7:42:46 PM PDT by blam
Argentina fury at UK bid for Falkland seas
By Oliver Balch in Buenos Aires and Colin Freeman
Last Updated: 1:00am BST 23/09/2007
Argentina has reacted furiously to plans by Britain to lay claim to vast new tracts of potentially oil and gas-rich territories in the seas off the Falklands.
In a move likely to add new heat to the long-running diplomatic dispute, British officials are preparing to submit a bid to the United Nations to prove that thousands of extra square miles of the surrounding ocean floor are geographically part of the islands.
The claim follows a new approach in international law which holds that a nation's legitimately-held territory can extend up to 350 miles from its coast, if it can verify that it is part of the shoreline's underlying continental shelf.
In the case of the Falklands, that could extend the zone of British exploration rights on the seabed well beyond its existing 200-mile boundary, bringing it into direct conflict with Argentinian claims the other way.
Last night, after details of the legal submission were revealed by British government lawyers, the Argentinian government said it would fight the application vigorously.
Ruperto Godoy, the Argentinian State deputy who is president of a parliamentary group set up to lobby on his government's continued claim to sovereignty over the islands, told The Sunday Telegraph: "We are completely opposed to this proposition of the UK government to extend its territories. We want to restart dialogue about the Falklands, but the British are ignoring this position.
"It is correct that this area has a high potential for energy resource exploration, but we will not stop from our position of reclaiming our islands."
Britain's application is being filed to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, that has asked for all such claims to be submitted for consideration by May 2009. Downing Street is also putting in bids for territories around Ascension Island in the mid-Atlantic, and Rockall, a tiny pinnacle more than 200 miles west of the Hebrides.
The bid on the Falklands has been prompted by British interest in the possibility of huge oil, gas and mineral deposits thought to lie deep beneath the South Atlantic.
Last night the Foreign Office insisted there was no certainty that the bid, being prepared by the UK Hydrographic Office, would go ahead.
"We are considering the possibility of making a submission to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, but no firm decision has been taken yet," said a spokesman. However, Mike Summers, spokesman for the Falkland Islands Legislative Council, told The Sunday Telegraph that the studies had been under way for several years.
"There is a great number of countries around the world who are doing and have been preparing the geological information here for some time, maybe three or four years," he said. "The Argentines will then make a claim in parallel, although I am not sure that they necessarily have the relevant geological information at the moment."
He added, though, that the UN commission would not issue any final binding decision on the matter as long as the ownership of the Falklands was in dispute. "The paperwork has to be put to the UN, as there is a deadline for applications on this matter. But it will then sit on a shelf until there is some movement on the sovereignty issue, and there is no likelihood of that at present."
Nonetheless, Argentina, whose demands for talks on sovereignty have been turned down over the years, views the mere filing of the application as a provocative act.
Mr Godoy said he believed it was "no coincidence" that details of the claim had become public in Britain just days ahead of a speech by Argentina's president, Nestor Kirchner, at the UN in New York. "This shows a lack of understanding of the Argentine position, and if the British do not change their approach we shall have to interpret it as aggression."
Brits better get a Navy building few more ships again or they could borrow chinese ones
Where did this law come from? And what about overlapping claims? Nonetheless, I doubt that WE will ever exert such rights, even when legitimate. Our job is to let the NWO nibble us into small fragments, this to "level the playing field".
One falklands war was par for the course. Two is rediculous. Britain ought make a deal with Argentina while a marginally sane government is in place and worry about other stuff instead of trying to get a bigger stake in the oil market.
Yep, the Iron Lady is no longer in charge … the Brits could end up with egg on their faces over this one. Not to mention that recent history has shown that the British military can come across as less than stellar in their bravery and combat ability.
Amen!
I read a novel on the continuing saga of the Falkland Islands, can’t remember the name of it; Argentina kicks the crap out of the Brits and renames them the Las Malvinas Islands.
“””Not to mention that recent history has shown that the British military can come across as less than stellar in their bravery and combat ability.”””
Bravery? Ah you mean like the U.S military when it’s personnel refused to carry out convoy duty in Iraq in case they got hurt?
As for ‘combat ability’, I believe it’s the USAF that is going around blowing up it’s allies, not the British.
How stellar is your bravery and combat ability?
Regards
UNCLOS. This is no different from Russia's recent claims to the Lonomosov Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.
The validity of a claim or overlapping claims is determined by the commission mentioned in the article, based on technical data.
"I doubt that WE will ever exert such rights"
WE haven't signed the treaty so we can't make claims, nor can we use our tech data to dispute another countries claims, such as Russia's or Canada's.
The US's acceptance of the treaty is an "issue".Clinton signed it, but the Senate has never ratified it. Biden is supposed to take it up soon in Committee, followed by the Senate.
For the millioneth time: Britain never has been, is not now and never will be a Muslim caliphate.
We have a 2-3% Muslim population. For a ‘caliphate’ we also happen to be the only country outside of the US putting its military into heavy combat in the war on terror.
That is a highly offensive, highly innaccurate statement. The UK military has been the only one outside of the US to actually place itself into heavy combat and it has performed superbly. The British military doesn’t award medals for nothing. Have a look at the dozens of articles about British gallantry on this website. Some awards have been made to UK troops for actions in saving US personnel. The US military has also been superb, but your statement disrespecting the British neglects the US’s own embarrassments:
1) Military personnel captured at sea by Iran without a fight in 2003.
2) British Royal Marines replacing a certain US unit in Afghanistan in 2002 (at the request of the US command) as a certain US unit ‘didn’t do mountains’.
3) The refusal of a unit of US personnel in Iraq to go out on convoy duty. A mutiny over driving supplies.
4) The highly publicised, still debated, incident caught on film where a civilian convoy driver alleged that his US military escprt abandoned him and hs colleagues when under attack.
5) The port of Umm Qasr copntained stubborn pockets of resistance in Iraq during the Iraq invasion in 2003. US forces in the port tried for several days to get rid of it. The Royal Marines subdued the town in 24 hours when called (you may remember that they recieved specific praise for this from the US military).
I could go on.
This compares to:
British embarrassments:
1) Royal Navy personnel captured by Iran
Presumably, by your logic the US military has been even more ‘less than stellar in their bravery and combat ability’.
What a load of nonsense. Both the US and British militaries have performed heroically in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the way: so what if Lady Thatcher isn’t in charge of the UK? You could hardly accuse Britain of being shy when it comes to using its military in recent years.
Delusional, confrontational and obsessed with perceived insults. Also incompetent.
Does Britain do a census? What are the results as to the number of Middle Eastern background individuals living in Britain at present...? I left there in the early 50’s and dropped my dual citizenship in 1971...
yeah it gets tiring on these threads reading some of the comments from chum(p)s who dont know any better.
We know the truth though, so damn the rest of the naysayers.
Concerning the article, I must say thats its good to see that we are sticking by our commitment to the Falklands (due in part to economic reasons ;]). Nothing is free on this world, and if we can get a nice big fossil fuel field in the South Atlantic, then us back home get some of the benefits.
As for our ability to defend ourselves and our territories in the event of an attack, I have every confidence. Battle hardened troops, protecting British territory...We would be fine.
The Brits on the Falklands won't be suprised by an attack from Argentina this time.
Yes, every ten years, the most recent in 2001. Population trends are, however, continually monitored by the Office for National Statistics, and you will find comprehensive information on this and related subjects on their website, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/
I agree, I have served with 1 MEF twice in Iraq. First during the invasion, then during the occupation. Before we invaded, the Brits and us used to trade MREs and other stuff with each other. A real good bunch of guys. I have nothing but respect for the Royal Army and Marines.
Hi mate!
I definately agree that it is a good thing that the UK govt. is standing firm on the Falklands issue. By the way, what did you think of PM Brown’s speech yesterday? I thought it was quite good (of course it was a blatant attempt to woo Tory voters too :-))
Thanks for the reply. Sorry if I came over a bit aggressive: its just that hearing that your country is in the grip of Islam when it very much isn’t over and over again on this board can get a bit frustrating :-)
The last census in 2001 put the UK population as being 92.5% white.
I don’t know if the current British Government has the stones to go to war again over those little islands half a world away.
Thanks for the support mate! I think that the US and UK have achieved great things together these last few years.
“The Brits on the Falklands won’t be suprised by an attack from Argentina this time.”
We’ll have a reasonable number of troops to defend the Islands too next time :-) 10,000 versus 100 was pushing it somewhat last time (though when the Marines were asked by Argentine forces to surrender their response was ‘F*** off you **** b*****ds’. They were eventually ordered to put their guns down by the governor of the Islands :-))
Thanks for your comments mate. You have my utmost respect for your service.
Yeah it was ok. He is continuing the Blair system but making it his own with some shrewd moves. Bringing in conservative and liberal dems into advisory roles in government was a good inclusive gesture.
He is making the political centre ground his own ready for the election, which he gets to decide the date of. The LD’s are miffed cos, if they had got their long term planning right, they are the obvious centre ground party with labour and conservative at opposites. At the mo it looks like an election would bring a labour win, if only to see what all the hype was about Gordon Brown. Hey, after 10 years in the wings, he is going to want to push some of his ideas pretty hard if he wins a full term.
Oh, f**k you.
The British soldier is still as fine and brave as any on the planet. And are still fighting and dying as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan, you ungrateful halfwit.
‘Less than stellar?’.What utter bollocks.From an armchair general no doubt.
I suppose Vietnam and Mogadishu make YOU a military laughing stock by your logic?....
The garrison in the Falklands is a million miles stroner than 1982.
The garrison alone could cripple any landing attempt.
Ruh roh, now why did you have to go bring up things we are trying to forget? LOL
Both of those travesties brought upon us by Democrats, I might add.
Those blunders were the fault of our politicians, not our soldiers.
EXACTLY the point I am making to the other poster.
Neither example makes the US soldier any less brave or accomplished overall.
The other poster seems to think modern British soldiers are a—not very good and b—not very brave.
I am using the US examples to show the idiocy of his point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.