PDA

View Full Version : New British Argentine falkland war on the horizon?



Stark
02-18-2010, 10:00 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7031163.ece#

Argentina will ‘take measures’ to stop British oil drilling off Falklands

The imminent arrival of a British oilrig in waters around the Falkland Islands heightened tensions between Britain and Argentina yesterday after Buenos Aires said that it would take measures to prevent the rig “illegally” drilling in the area.

While it was unclear how Argentina might enforce the shipping blockade that it declared on Tuesday, its Foreign Ministry said that it intended to prevent operation of the rig around the Falklands, known locally as Las Malvinas.

Asked by local media about the arrival of the Ocean Guardian, which crew waiting in the Falklands say has been shadowed by Argentine jets, Victorio Taccetti, the Deputy Foreign Minister, said: “If it’s going to Las Malvinas it will have to request authorisation.”

Mr Taccetti said that Argentina would take unspecified measures to stop oil exploration off the Falklands but said that he was not considering a repeat of the 1982 conflict with Britain. The rig was on the verge of moving from international waters and into territory claimed by Britain and Argentina around the Falklands last night. It is due to move to its drilling location on Friday.
Times Archive, 1982: Fleet assembles for Falklands action

The Government is assembling a naval task force in response to Argentina's seizure of the Falkland Islands

The British Government responded by reiterating that Argentina had no jurisdiction in the area. “This does not affect Falkland Islands territorial waters, which are controlled by the island authorities,” a spokesman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said.

That view was shared by Desire Petroleum, the British company that intends to use the rig, which said that the situation had been foreseen for some time but would not affect the Ocean Guardian’s arrival “in any way”.

Even without direct Argentine naval or airforce interference in Falklands waters, any controls that block shipping from using Argentine ports could render oil exploration uneconomic. Forcing ships on to longer routes would make supplying oil operations far more costly and complicated.

The sudden expansion of the dispute over territory followed the decree this week by President Kirchner requiring ships that travel between the Argentine mainland and the Falklands, or crossing waters claimed by Argentina, to seek permission from Buenos Aires.

The action drew anger from British politicians. The secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on the Falklands, Andrew Rosindell, demanded that the Argentine Ambassador be called in.

“I don’t think we should appease Buenos Aires — we found out what happens last time,” Mr Rosindell said.

The group’s chairman, Sir Nicholas Winterton, dismissed the decree as sabre rattling, describing it as a “pathetic and useless” ploy for internal political purposes.

But he nevertheless decried Argentina’s “hostile behaviour”, saying that he would seek a meeting with senior Foreign Office officials when Parliament returns from recess next week.


While the Falklands dispute is regarded in Britain as long settled, in Argentina, where schoolbooks show the islands as part of the national territory and every border crossing proclaims “Las Malvinas are Argentina’s”, the issue still burns in the national consciousness.

President Kirchner has fanned long-smouldering resentment by making Argentina’s claim to the islands a central plank of her presidency, insisting that the country’s right to them “will never be surrendered” and accusing Britain of violating international law.

With presidential elections next year and the Government’s popularity plunging amid economic woes, President Kirchner, who once styled herself “Evita with a clenched fist”, is rallying nationalist sensibilities around the cause in order to shore up popular support, unite a fractured ruling alliance and distract opponents.

With Gordon Brown also facing elections amid poor poll ratings, the parallels with the 1982 conflict between the ailing governments of Margaret Thatcher and Leopoldo Galtieri have not been entirely lost on Argentine commentators.
Times Archive, 1982: Fleet assembles for Falklands action

The Government is assembling a naval task force in response to Argentina's seizure of the Falkland Islands

The leading daily newspaper, Clar*n, published an editorial yesterday entitled “A conflict again escalating to the rhythm of two weakened governments”.

Nevertheless, the strategy has been politically successful. Responding to the shipping decree, Ricardo Alfons*n, of the opposition Radical Civic Union and vice-president of the lower house of Congress, declared that all Argentina was “committed to this true national cause”.

Fabiana R*os, the opposition governor of the province of Tierra del Fuego, into which the Falklands were incorporated under Argentine law last year, also backed the Kirchner Government, calling for unity “without distinction for political flags” to defend Argentina’s territory from “foreign usurpation”.

While the Argentine Government has expressed its hopes to resolve the matter peacefully, the authorities in the Falklands have warned that Buenos Aires would be risking an international incident if it tried to prevent ships from supplying the islands.

“These are our waters,” said Emma Edwards, of the Falklands Legislative Assembly. “Should Argentina try to upset that, they would cause an international upset, which I would hope they won’t be silly enough to do.”

Land of opportunity

• Military forces from China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam patrol the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, where there is thought to be oil

— In the 1990s Russia tried to have the Caspian Sea redefined as a lake. Bordered by five countries, it holds 47.5 billion barrels of oil, and if it is downgraded to a lake all territorial zones could be voided, allowing Russia to veto oil deals

— The islands of Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tumb, in the oil-rich Gulf, have been disputed by Iran and the United Arab Emirates since 1971, when Iran occupied them after the departure of the British

— The first Gulf War began after a dispute over the Rumaila oilfield, on the Iraq-Kuwait border. Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of using slant drilling to steal Iraq’s oil. He claimed Kuwait as Iraq’s 19th province

— Melting polar ice caps have raised fears of a “cold war” over oil beneath the Arctic. Russia, Canada, Norway, the US and Denmark are hotly disputing territorial borders they have ignored for years as the prospect of drilling becomes feasible

— The uninhabited Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea have an area of less than 2.5 sq miles but are a stumbling block in Sino-Japan relations. They were claimed by Japan in 1895 but China has asserted sovereignty since the 1400s in an dispute fuelled by oil deposits

Reactor-Axe-Man
02-18-2010, 10:57 AM
I'm wondering how much of this is political theater for the Argie voters and how much of this is serious. I suspect that a good chunk of it is serious now that there may be a lot of oil wealth involved. The question I have is this: Lacking an Iron Lady who would not stand for this crap, will Gordo have the, ah, intestinal fortitude to meet this saber rattling with the definitive beatdown the situation may require?

scoutsout80
02-18-2010, 12:06 PM
Argies are still a banana republic

GTFPDQ
02-19-2010, 01:19 AM
Well since 82, we have upped our capabilities significantly compared to Argentina. I dont think at this moment in time, Argentina would make a move even if there are only 2000 troops and 4 or 5 Typhoons. That is enough to dissuade them from doing something stupid.

However, when you think about opportunity, now is the right time to move. When the oil platform gets there, you can bet that the islands defences increase.

Toki
02-19-2010, 10:54 AM
The Brits would turn Argentina's army into Saddam's post-Gulf War army.

ianstone
02-19-2010, 08:06 PM
The Argies are just after cash for there corrupt debt ridden country.
As has been proven before, they send out ships and the good old royal navy submariners will sink them.
Each submarine has more torpedoes than they have ships anyway

Yono
02-20-2010, 01:28 PM
The Brits would turn Argentina's army into Saddam's post-Gulf War army.

Have to agree with that.

death2mooj
02-20-2010, 02:43 PM
I think they will just try to threaten their way into a paycheck. They dont want to start a war with Britain now, they know better. Atleast you would hope they know better because that war would be completely one sided.

death2mooj
02-20-2010, 02:44 PM
The Argies are just after cash for there corrupt debt ridden country.
As has been proven before, they send out ships and the good old royal navy submariners will sink them.
Each submarine has more torpedoes than they have ships anyway

Didnt notice you said the same basic thing as me.

joelee
02-20-2010, 04:52 PM
One good thing came out of the last conflict between the UK and the Argintine forces. The US Navy had "observers" with the Royal Navy who shared intel from satellites,subs, hydrophone system,etc. In return the RN shared all the post-conflict investigation findings. There were many lessons learned, mostly pertaining to damage control.From the vital use of close in missle defense systems, to the simple use of long sleeve shirts to mitigate flashfire burns, and shaving beards to create a tighter seal on the facemasks of breathing apparatus.(The last did not go over very well with US sailors, since having a beard was a perk of being E-4 and above)
I don't believe that Argentina would risk another ass kicking by the Brits. But if they do, you can bet that the USN will be there taking notes, and providing assistance.

Scott
02-23-2010, 03:11 PM
oh hell no, is this for real? Argentina trying to fuck with us? there be flattened like a pancake by our kick ass troops and fighter jets.

thats our Island :)

drummer
02-28-2010, 10:49 AM
Well guys I was there in 82 in the Royal Marines [don't worry no war stories just explaining my start point] the Argentinian polictical situation that was in place then was a military Junta that needed to divert attention from the poor state the country was in as well as the thousands of its people who were killed by them. We of course had Maggie, who love her or hate her had the bollocks to stand up to that agression [her stance also helped her political position at home to] The end result was about 3000 dead and the Falklands still belong to us. There was a kill ratio of about 10 to 1 against the ill prepared Argy forces. Their air force was skiilled and brave but the navy didn't want to play after the Belgrano went down. Whilst it would be more difficult for us to put together a similar task force I beleive it could be done and with the same result as last time.

My point being that the current Argy government knows this and would not not be stupid enough to try another invasion. It would be a disaster for them but that does not stop them sabre rattling about an issue that gets the whole latin machismo nation shouting and flag waving.
Geographically the Falklands are nearer Argentina. However, if you go there and meet the people they are all English, drink tea, drive on the left, roast dinner on a sunday etc etc and so historically belong to the UK for lifestyle and protection. Yes, it is a hangover from the old colonial days but penquins, oil, National concience all matter not when it comes to the people who live there.

My solution would ultimatley be a shared ownership, not because i want that but because I am a realist and i would rathe see that than another 3000/4000 dead again [of either side] perhaps not the aggressive stance you might expect from an ex marine but Iv'e been there,got the t shirt fought the buggers so I figure i am entitled to an opinion based on experience!

Skanza
03-03-2010, 07:09 AM
Right now we (the Brits) probably couldn't send a task force down there big enough to deal with it, unless we rented a cruise liner like last time...

They have sent a Trafalgar class submarine down there which has nuclear capabilities.

Argentina was not even a fully formed nation when the British claimed the territory. So they have no rights. Technically your territory spans 100miles from your coastline, the falklands are 300...

GTFPDQ
03-04-2010, 02:08 AM
The casualties during the conflict were 649 Argies and 258 British, not 3000. The Argies counter to popular belief were well equipped, well armed, well fed and had better cold weather gear than us. They however lacked good leadership or a belief in the value of what they were trying to do. They never thought that Britain would send such a large force, land troops and move those troops through leg power across the island. They never expected that the Harrier would kick their arses on the ground or in the air.

Also, they never expected that a British officer would phone them up and ask that they surrender......

We never expected that we would lose so many ship and materiel on Atlantic Conveyer. Or that, one day, the deaths of Falklands veterans through, suicide would outnumber those killed in battle.

drummer
03-04-2010, 06:41 PM
The casualties during the conflict were 649 Argies and 258 British, not 3000. The Argies counter to popular belief were well equipped, well armed, well fed and had better cold weather gear than us. They however lacked good leadership or a belief in the value of what they were trying to do. They never thought that Britain would send such a large force, land troops and move those troops through leg power across the island. They never expected that the Harrier would kick their arses on the ground or in the air.

Also, they never expected that a British officer would phone them up and ask that they surrender......

We never expected that we would lose so many ship and materiel on Atlantic Conveyer. Or that, one day, the deaths of Falklands veterans through, suicide would outnumber those killed in battle.

sorry, I did mean to say casualties not killed. In total there were around 3,000 killed and wounded on both sides. amended by drummer

Braveheart
03-05-2010, 05:09 PM
I;d have to agree that the Argie goverment is getting worried that there might be some big bucks to be made here with regards to the off shore oil, i would like to hope that they would not be stupid enough to engage our troops over this, with everything going on in the middle east right now this would seriously stretch our forces but we would still crush them in the end, if thats what it comes to so be it!

nastyleg
03-05-2010, 05:45 PM
I;d have to agree that the Argie goverment is getting worried that there might be some big bucks to be made here with regards to the off shore oil, i would like to hope that they would not be stupid enough to engage our troops over this, with everything going on in the middle east right now this would seriously stretch our forces but we would still crush them in the end, if thats what it comes to so be it!

I am all for the diplomatic approach if both sides are willing to talk to each other W/O holding back and letting all of thier intentions on the floor. Being 100% honest is the only way situations like this will not go to blows. If a leader uses troops to solve problems first then the leader has failed everyone.

hadrian1
03-08-2010, 01:20 AM
Hi, I'm Argentine and I want to say that in my country is not talking about the issue at all. Besides the government of former President Nestor Kirchner dissolved completely the Argentine army to date. We have neither the money nor the technology to face a new war. In my country we have a conflict over money and the rise in the dollar. The export crisis is leaving us very badly.

GTFPDQ
03-08-2010, 02:33 AM
Thanks for that insight Hadrian1.

I think that diplomacy is the only way, but I undestand why the UK wont talk. Its a matter of if they start to talk they are admitting that there may be a case for the Argies.

If it came to a fight, I think that after the first salvo of cruise missiles it will be over. No one want another war.

hadrian1
03-13-2010, 12:04 AM
It would be best as you say. I think the British have a high haughtiness on the rest of the world. I wonder why are impinged on malvinas. I just hope it ends well. Since our current president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, is a communist (I dare say ultra-leftist) ... and our country is entering a tremendous economic crisis.
greetings charlie!