So Falklands was all about Oil after all!

[Disco_Destroyer]

So Falklands is about Oil, who'd of guessed
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Falkland-Islands-Desire-Pe troleum-Platform-Begins-Drilling-For-Oil-As-Britain-Argentina-Row-Moun ts/Article/201002415557346?lpos=World_News_News_Your_Way_Region_2&lid= NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15557346_Falkland_Islands%3A_Desire_Petroleum_Plat form_Begins_Drilling_For_Oil_As_Britain-Argentina_Row_Mounts

wow gotta love Sky's untweetable link rofl!

lmao @ this story though, gotta build it in Scotland then ship it over. The cost they'll run to lol
Obviously not too diplomatic/friendly with South America to have it built locally!
No wonder we're in a recession lmao imagine the cost of fuel alone!!!

[conspiracy analyst]

Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one
Richard Gott
The Independent

"People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss
about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The
Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized,
occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim
is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away, and
because much of Latin America is now falling into the hands of the
nationalist left, the government in Buenos Aires will enjoy growing
rhetorical support in the continent (and indeed elsewhere, from the
current government in Iraq, for example), to the increasing
discomfiture of Britain. All governments in Argentina, of whatever
stripe, will continue to claim the Malvinas, just as governments in
Belgrade will always lay claim to Kosovo.

The Falklands were seized for Britain in January 1833 during an era of
dramatic colonial expansion. Captain John Onslow of HMS Clio had
instructions "to exercise the rights of sovereignty" over the islands,
and he ordered the Argentinian commander to haul down his flag and
withdraw his forces. Settlers from Argentina were replaced by those
from Britain and elsewhere, notably Gibraltar. Britain and Argentina
have disagreed ever since about the rights and wrongs of British
occupation, and for much of the time the British authorities have been
aware of the relative weakness of their case.

An item in the Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office
document of 1940 entitled "Offer made by His Majesty's government to
reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina and to agree to a lease-
back". Though its title survives, the document itself has been
embargoed until 2015, although it may well exist in another archive.
It was presumably an offer thrown out to the pro-German government of
Argentina at the time, to keep them onside at a difficult moment in
the war, though perhaps it was a draft or a jeu d'esprit dreamt up in
the office.

The record suggests that successive UK governments have considered the
British claim to the islands to be weak, and some have favoured
negotiations. Recently released documents recall that James Callaghan,
when foreign secretary in the 1970s, noted that "we must yield some
ground and ... be prepared to discuss a lease-back arrangement". The
secretary of the cabinet pointed out that "there are many ways in
which Argentina could act against us, including invasion of the
islands ... and we are not in a position to reinforce and defend the
islands as a long-term commitment. The alternative of standing firm
and taking the consequences is accordingly not practicable."

Of course, some people argue that Britain's physical possession of the
islands, and its declared intention to hold them against all comers,
makes its claim superior to Argentina's. Some believe that the
Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982, and their subsequent forced
retreat, in some way invalidates their original claim. Britain, above
all, owes some debt to the heirs to the settlers who were originally
sent there, a debt recognised in the Foreign Office mantra that, in
all dealings with Argentina about the islands' future, the wishes of
the islanders will be "paramount". Yet no such debt was recognised in
the case of the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, perhaps because Britain
inherited them from the French rather than planting the settlers
themselves."

[conspiracy analyst]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article703 8490.ece

Falklands dispute is a colonial threat to us all, says South American alliance
Eric Goss


It has been a good few days for Latin American unity and rhetoric against the evils of Western imperialism, and yesterday was no exception.

At centre stage was the row over oil rights in the South Atlantic as a British oil rig began drilling 60 miles north of the Falkland Islands. As 32 regional leaders gathered in Mexico yesterday, however, the talk turned to a diplomatic onslaught against the “old colonialism” and a new formal alliance, words that reopened historic wounds left over from the days of conquest, empire and slavery.

“The question of Las Malvinas is not only a question about a sovereignty dispute,” President Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina, using the Spanish name for the Falklands, said. “It has to do with the history of the region and the world over the last two or three centuries.”

Mrs Kirchner got the approval she wanted, with the rest of the Rio Group signing a declaration affirming their backing “for the legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain”. She did more than rally support for its cause over drilling for oil in the South Atlantic — she framed the dispute in terms of a colonial threat to the entire region.
Related Links

* Escalating Falklands oil dispute goes to UN

* Latin America backs Argentina on Falklands

* Residents stand firm against Argentina

Argentina’s claim to oil rights was an “exercise in self-defence” of the continent, she said. After the meeting, the President said that winning such strong backing in the territorial dispute was an important development but warned that “even more important will be to achieve a change of attitude in the big powers, in this case those which have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council”.

Mrs Kirchner has made the recovery of the islands a key theme of her presidency. At home the arrival of the Ocean Guardian oil rig has revived long-simmering resentment at what is perceived as a foreign occupation.

Furthermore, current estimates put Falklands reserves at anywhere between 8 billion and 60 billion barrels, meaning a potential bonanza for whoever claims ownership of the oil.

The regional leaders insisted on negotiations between Britain and Argentina, flagging up UN resolutions that require both parties to abstain from unilateral actions with respect to the islands while they remain under contention.

“We have approved a declaration in which leaders of countries and governments present here reaffirm their support for Argentina’s legitimate rights in its sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom,” President Calderón of Mexico said.

Last week Mrs Kirchner moved to obstruct supplies to the oil operations, imposing shipping controls requiring all maritime traffic moving through Argentine-claimed waters to the Falklands to seek its authorisation. She sought to dispel speculation yesterday over the potential for conflict, insisting that Argentina would not blockade the islands but instead pursue legal options to halt the exploration.

However, she kept up the war of words. In the 21st century “the great challenge is going to be the management of natural resources, renewable and non-renewable — in this case oil — and fundamentally also the behaviour of the big powers of the world, who systematically break UN resolutions but impose on other countries compliance with those same resolutions referring to other issues when it affects their interests”.

This double standard was one of “principal sources of tension” in international relations, she added.

It was a theme leapt upon by the staunchly anti-imperialist President Chávez of Venezuela, who decried Britain’s presence in the Falklands as “the most gross expression of the old colonial era, allied to neocolonialism”.

The day before, he had addressed his remarks to the Queen, saying: “Things have changed. We are no longer in 1982. If conflict breaks out, be sure Argentina will not be alone like it was back then.” British control of the islands was “anti-historic and irrational”, he continued, adding: “Why do the English speak of democracy but still have a queen?”

He did not waste the opportunity to raise his own colonial complaint — Dutch control of the Caribbean territories of Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire “in the noses of Venezuela”, their closest neighbour.

Yesterday, at a meeting in Cancún between the Rio Group and the Caribbean Community (Caricom), leaders discussed plans for a pan-American alliance that would exclude Canada and the United States — a move backed by the continent’s vocal left-wing governments.

This could serve as an alternative to the Organisation of American States (OAS), which includes the North American neighbours and has been the main forum for regional affairs in the past 50 years.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, rejected accusations that Britain was acting illegally. “British sovereignty in respect of the Falklands is absolutely clear in international law ... There is no question about it,” he said. “The exploration that is going on off the Falklands ... is fully within international law, fully based on precedent.” The islanders had the right to a decent life and to build their own economic future, he added.

Chris Bryant, the junior foreign minister, said that the Rio Group’s position was nothing new and that it was not unexpected that Latin American countries would throw their weight behind one of their own.

[Disco_Destroyer]

Still love the thats ferry a huge chunk of Iron half way round the world, presumably because we piss off the locals too much =D

[satya]

this world is going the wrong way. Controlled by greed and fear. That is not what humanity is about

[Husq]

Joe Vialls did something about this along time ago. A very interesting read.