Topic: British and Argentina relations strained

[Pheeny]

I really have no clue about Falklands politics but if hypothetically, the Brits were only after the oil there, then they would still have an infinitely stronger claim to it then we did when we invaded Iraq.

The Brits have been there for 200 odd years.

[Johnny Foreigner]

Not that I'm agreeing/disagreeing with what he's inferring but it was really obvious what he was saying.

I just find it remarkable that the good people of RAWK who seems to specialise in International Law and territorial rights, doesn't find it a wee bit odd, that Britain has cared about the Falklands twice in 30 years.. (an election to be won and oil to be found)

I have now been convinced that Britain would take what ever bill or responsibility that come their way concering the Falkland-commitment.. In many ways the Sellafield-plant could be used as a blueprint for how things like this should be treated..

[ollick]

I really have no clue about Falklands politics but if hypothetically, the Brits were only after the oil there, then they would still have an infinitely stronger claim to it then we did when we invaded Iraq.

But Iraq was about regime change............................

[BIGdavalad]

I just find it remarkable that the good people of RAWK who seems to specialise in International Law and territorial rights, doesn't find it a wee bit odd, that Britain has cared about the Falklands twice in 30 years.. (an election to be won and oil to be found)

Britain's had a fairly big military garrison there ever since the war in 1982 ended. At least one company of regular British infantry at a time, supplementing the FIDF, four fighter jets (going through from Phantom to Tornado F3 to Eurofighter Typhoon), patrol ships, air search radar and SAM sites and plenty of support troops (still quite a few Royal Signals for instance. My name's in the hat to take one of the posts over the summer).

Before 1982 no-one really realised we had to defend the islands. Since then, we've taken it a lot more seriously.

[Una cerveza, por favor]

The Brits have been there for 200 odd years.

Sure, like I said all I know about it is a war being fought and some hostility towards the Argies. The point I was trying to make with the Iraq analogy is that, in addition to not knowing about the politics there, America's war on Iraq for Oil would make it hypocritical of me to comment on the issue (whether or not the conditions and/or intent were similar) and I didn't want to give the impression that I was saying that Britain was only in it for the oil, and thus cause any offence.

[Johnny Foreigner]

Britain's had a fairly big military garrison there ever since the war in 1982 ended. At least one company of regular British infantry at a time, supplementing the FIDF, four fighter jets (going through from Phantom to Tornado F3 to Eurofighter Typhoon), patrol ships, air search radar and SAM sites and plenty of support troops (still quite a few Royal Signals for instance. My name's in the hat to take one of the posts over the summer).

Before 1982 no-one really realised we had to defend the islands. Since then, we've taken it a lot more seriously.

I stand corrected

[ollick]

Sure, like I said all I know about it is a war being fought and some hostility towards the Argies. The point I was trying to make with the Iraq analogy is that, in addition to not knowing about the politics there, America's war on Iraq for Oil would make it hypocritical of me to comment on the issue and I didn't want to give the impression that I was saying that Britain was only in it for the oil, and thus cause any offence.

Britain are 'in it' 'cos the residents of the Falkland Islands want us to be and definatley don't want the Argentinians to be.

Whether there is oil there or not is irrelevant and disrespectful to the 100's of soldier who died there in 1982 the soldiers who've died there since and the thousands of soldiers who've served there.

People seem to be fixated on putting the cart (oil) before the horse(Britains involvement with the Islands) they don't realise that we've been their for 180 years before oil was discussed.

(sounds like I'm having a go at you again, I'm not mate)

Britain's had a fairly big military garrison there ever since the war in 1982 ended. At least one company of regular British infantry at a time, supplementing the FIDF, four fighter jets (going through from Phantom to Tornado F3 to Eurofighter Typhoon), patrol ships, air search radar and SAM sites and plenty of support troops (still quite a few Royal Signals for instance. My name's in the hat to take one of the posts over the summer).

Before 1982 no-one really realised we had to defend the islands. Since then, we've taken it a lot more seriously.

If you go have a beer in Sharkies for me mate and enjoy the laundry (Falkland Islands Laundry Facility - AKA - Filf, you couldn't make it up)

I stand corrected

I'm beginning to think you actually know nothing about the situation you are commenting on, in fact I'm certain of it.

[Una cerveza, por favor]

Sorry mate, I don't know much about the issue to comment on it. Although any country would want to, for the lack of a better word, 'exploit' the resources of its territory.

Just a question for you folk, is the situation with the Falklands similar to that of pre-1988 Hong Kong? Feel free to ignore this bit if its trivial or derails the thread.

But Iraq was about regime change............................

EDIT-
Such a pity that so many civilians and troops were killed to satisfy the greed of a few. Can't believe how anyone voted him into Office.

Britain are 'in it' 'cos the residents of the Falkland Islands want us to be and definatley don't want the Argentinians to be.

Whether there is oil there or not is irrelevant and disrespectful to the 100's of soldier who died there in 1982 the soldiers who've died there since and the thousands of soldiers who've served there.

People seem to be fixated on putting the cart (oil) before the horse(Britains involvement with the Islands) they don't realise that we've been their for 180 years before oil was discussed.

(sounds like I'm having a go at you again, I'm not mate)

Aha, thanks for that. Learn something new everyday! Yeah, I definitely did not intend to disrespect the troops which is why I posted some clarifications of my understanding of the issue.

[ollick]

As a soldier who has served in Iraq I'll never be drawn into the legality debate and I don't know enough about HK to comment other than the people of HK wanted to go back to China (or is it self-governing/independant) the people of the Falkland Islands don't.

If the FI weren't part of the UK I could quite imagine seeing Argentina going in a la Iraq for some 'regime change' which some may say would give their government the political and economic boost that our government felt after going into Iraq, intitially at least.

Aha, thanks for that. Learn something new everyday! Yeah, I definitely did not intend to disrespect the troops which is why I posted some clarifications of my understanding of the issue.

I could be wrong though!! I am sure there's plenty of posters on here who'd disagree with what I've said

[Johnny Foreigner]

Just a question for you folk, is the situation with the Falklands similar to that of pre-1988 Hong Kong? Feel free to ignore this bit if its trivial or derails the thread.

You can tell the maradonas to bugger off, but when Mr. China comes knocking - different story..

[Pheeny]

So ollick I assume you've been,When,where and with Who?
I was at RAF Mt Pleasant in 1990 over the Christmas period (RAF General Engineering Flight)

[ollick]

So ollick I assume you've been,When,where and with Who?
I was at RAF Mt Pleasant in 1990 over the Christmas period (RAF General Engineering Flight)

I was OC B Troop (Royal Signals) part of the Joint Communications Unit Falkland Islands in 2002, we did all the HF recievers and Sat Comms bits and pieces. 

Was a great time to be there as there were loads of veterans from '82 visiting and they'd take us on battlefield tours and show you where they started their attacks from, where their mates died, where they killed their first soldier etc, etc, really humbling stuff. The resident infantry company was made up from the Parachute Regiment who though massively misbehaved were a fantastic bunch of lads.

You can tell the maradonas to bugger off, but when Mr. China comes knocking - different story..

Maybe you could tell us all about the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984?

[Johnny Foreigner]

Maybe you could tell us all about the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984?

You seem to have read up on wikipedia, so is there really a need ?

The inhabitants of Hong Kong has never had any desire to be a part of China, but Hong Kong was intended to serve as the capitalist part of communistic china. britain always realised that pissing off china in their own back yard was extremely dangerous so they put up with a lot of charade where there was never any doubt about the outcome, but britain was entitled to not losing too much face.

chris patten as the british representation out there, was ridiculed and pissed upon by the chinese, but britain never showed any muscles or desire to keep their former colony going back 150 years.

[Wigwamdelbert]

Maybe you could tell us all about the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984?

While you're at it, please also elaborate on the lease which Chine granted to the UK for HK which expired thus necessitating the return to the Chinese.

[Yorkykopite]

You seem to have read up on wikipedia, so is there really a need ?

The inhabitants of Hong Kong has never had any desire to be a part of China, but Hong Kong was intended to serve as the capitalist part of communistic china. britain always realised that pissing off china in their own back yard was extremely dangerous so they put up with a lot of charade where there was never any doubt about the outcome, but britain was entitled to not losing too much face.

chris patten as the british representation out there, was ridiculed and pissed upon by the chinese, but britain never showed any muscles or desire to keep their former colony going back 150 years.

Different with Hong Kong though wasn't it? We signed a 100-year lease with China in 1895 or whenever it was. Britain was contractually bound to leave HK, and did. There's no such contract with Argentina over the Falklands.

[ollick]

You seem to have read up on wikipedia, so is there really a need ?

The inhabitants of Hong Kong has never had any desire to be a part of China, but Hong Kong was intended to serve as the capitalist part of communistic china. britain always realised that pissing off china in their own back yard was extremely dangerous so they put up with a lot of charade where there was never any doubt about the outcome, but britain was entitled to not losing too much face.

chris patten as the british representation out there, was ridiculed and pissed upon by the chinese, but britain never showed any muscles or desire to keep their former colony going back 150 years.

I actually studied parts of it for a promotion exam in the Army, I don't really remember too much of it but pretty sure this;

Different with Hong Kong though wasn't it? We signed a 100-year lease with China in 1895 or whenever it was. Britain was contractually bound to leave HK, and did. There's no such contract with Argentina over the Falklands.

Is more accurate than your, yet again, mis-informed viewpoint.

[hansen6]

Whether there is oil there or not is irrelevant and disrespectful to the 100's of soldier who died there in 1982 the soldiers who've died there since and the thousands of soldiers who've served there.

It's not irrelevant given the wars that have taken place since over the same thing.  Do you honestly think that the political situatuion in 82 and the mineral wealth there had nothing to do with it?. The british government had denied the islanders citizenship only a year earlier.

[Yorkykopite]

It's not irrelevant given the wars that have taken place since over the same thing.  Do you honestly think that the political situatuion in 82 and the mineral wealth there had nothing to do with it?. The british government had denied the islanders citizenship only a year earlier.

There's no question that Thatcher used the Falklands crisis to boost her flagging popularity in unemployment-hit Britain. There's no question the whole thing was really badly handled too. But you need to think through what you've just said. If Britain was solely motivated by mineral rights why on earth did it deny the Islanders citizenship? That's one way to loosen your grip!

And naturally the Fascist Galtieri only had national honour in mind when he invaded the Falklands didn't he? All those grubby minerals only motivated us, right? 

[ollick]

It's not irrelevant given the wars that have taken place since over the same thing.  Do you honestly think that the political situatuion in 82 and the mineral wealth there had nothing to do with it?. The british government had denied the islanders citizenship only a year earlier.

Was oil discovered there in 1982? no.  Was the 1982 conflict about oil? no.  Do the Falkland Islanders want to be governed by Argentina? no. Did the Falkland Islanders welcome the Argentinean invasion? no.

So is the 1982 invasion and subsequent liberation about oil? no.

Would any future invasion/liberation be about oil? partly but also the fact that the Falkland Islands are an overseas territory and the people of the Falkland Islands want to maintain their links to the UK.
 
People seem so keen to turn this issue into purely being about oil and making the UK out to be solely interested in the oil, bearing in mind oil exploration didn't start until 1998, that's 16 years after the conflict ended, how do you then justify the millions spent on maintaining a presence there for the last 180 years?

There's no question that Thatcher used the Falklands crisis to boost her flagging popularity in unemployment-hit Britain. There's no question the whole thing was really badly handled too. But you need to think through what you've just said. If Britain was solely motivated by mineral rights why on earth did it deny the Islanders citizenship? That's one way to loosen your grip!

And naturally the Fascist Galtieri only had national honour in mind when he invaded the Falklands didn't he? All those grubby minerals only motivated us, right? 

Spot on there.

[hansen6]

There's no question that Thatcher used the Falklands crisis to boost her flagging popularity in unemployment-hit Britain. There's no question the whole thing was really badly handled too. But you need to think through what you've just said. If Britain was solely motivated by mineral rights why on earth did it deny the Islanders citizenship? That's one way to loosen your grip!

Whether the islanders were full british citizens or not would be irellevant for the mineral rights - they might even have less claim to keep a share for themselves. But to deny them citizenship then go to war a year later on their behalf?.

And naturally the Fascist Galtieri only had national honour in mind when he invaded the Falklands didn't he? All those grubby minerals only motivated us, right?

 
I'm certainly not a fan of the Galtieri, it's possible to be against both. It's worth noting that Thatcher cosied up to Pinochet, so she probabaly had no problems with south american fascists.

[hansen6]

Was oil discovered there in 1982? no.  Was the 1982 conflict about oil? no.  Do the Falkland Islanders want to be governed by Argentina? no. Did the Falkland Islanders welcome the Argentinean invasion? no.

So is the 1982 invasion and subsequent liberation about oil? no.

Would any future invasion/liberation be about oil? partly but also the fact that the Falkland Islands are an overseas territory and the people of the Falkland Islands want to maintain their links to the UK.
 
People seem so keen to turn this issue into purely being about oil and making the UK out to be solely interested in the oil, bearing in mind oil exploration didn't start until 1998, that's 16 years after the conflict ended, how do you then justify the millions spent on maintaining a presence there for the last 180 years?

The Falklands were surveyed for Oil in the 70s.

[ollick]

The Falklands were surveyed for Oil in the 70s.

Ahh you're right those surveys showed potential oil fields (that'd have been negated by the low barrel price/high cost of retrieval) 

So it was all about oil after all, fuck what the Falkland Islanders wanted, fuck that it's an overseas territory, fuck that it was invaded, it's all about the oil.

[hansen6]

Ahh you're right those surveys showed potential oil fields (that'd have been negated by the low barrel price/high cost of retrieval) 

So it was all about oil after all, fuck what the Falkland Islanders wanted, fuck that it's an overseas territory, fuck that it was invaded, it's all about the oil.

As I said in my post the political situation here at home played a part as well, probably more so.

Both the Argies and the UK went to war to shore up public support for an unpopular government - the rest is history.

[Johnny Foreigner]

Different with Hong Kong though wasn't it? We signed a 100-year lease with China in 1895 or whenever it was. Britain was contractually bound to leave HK, and did. There's no such contract with Argentina over the Falklands.

Britain was contractually bound to leave - but put up a relatively long diplomatic fight that even included talks with uncle sam, but the chinese played hardball  : "a deal is a deal - end of story".. and britain gave in..

[BIGdavalad]

If you go have a beer in Sharkies for me mate and enjoy the laundry (Falkland Islands Laundry Facility - AKA - Filf, you couldn't make it up)

Will do, if I come out of the trawl!

[rotistgeil]

Britain could have kept HK Island and Kowloon, the lease was for the New Territories and without those it would have been pointless to just keep an Island and Peninsula (China would have probably turned off the water/gas tap). I lived there from 91-2000 and trust me, after the handover all my chinese friends were gutted. Many of them mentioned to me that they wished that the UK would have stayed in power, eventually allowing HK to become self governed.

But as Johnny Foreigner already has mentioned. The Chinese played hard ball.

[the_prodigal_s0n]

I don't really know too much about this issue, but how come the Falkland residents 'get' what they want, yet Chagossians didn't?

[The Gulleysucker]

I don't really know too much about this issue, but how come the Falkland residents 'get' what they want, yet Chagossians didn't?

Look at the Buffs... http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&q=-7.313333,72.411111&ie=UTF8&ll=-7.312614,72.416301&spn=0.004624,0.006239&z=18
Look at the Tankers.
Look at the 4 hangers for the B2 Spirit Stealths.
Look at the large ships in the lagoon to the right containing armoured vehicles and enough stores for an 80 day or so full on conflict.
Look at the GPS synchronizing station to the North, the only one outside North America....

And you wonder why?

[the_prodigal_s0n]

Look at the Buffs... http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&q=-7.313333,72.411111&ie=UTF8&ll=-7.312614,72.416301&spn=0.004624,0.006239&z=18
Look at the Tankers.
Look at the 4 hangers for the B2 Spirit Stealths.
Look at the large ships in the lagoon to the right containing armoured vehicles and enough stores for an 80 day or so full on conflict.
Look at the GPS synchronizing station to the North, the only one outside North America....

And you wonder why?

A bit confused by what you're trying to say, but I'll address what you've mentioned first. Didn't the Chagossians ask if they could use the outer islands? I assume that America doesn't control every single part of them, but could be mistaken. So why has the British government neglected to help them? Even if there is no possibilty of them going back, why was there no compensation put in place? They've seemingly been screwed over by a number of British governments. It's a far cry from what happened in the Falklands.

Anyway, the military base wasn't always there. If America wanted to use the Falklands as a military base, would the British give it to them? Surely there were other islands in the Indian Ocean that could have been used instead.

So again, why were Falkland islanders granted more rights than Chagossians? Your point, as far as I can see, doesn't answer my question.

[The Gulleysucker]

A bit confused by what you're trying to say

I think there was a thread about this a few years ago.

Yes, I totally agree, their treatment is absolutely appalling but I doubt that any progress will be made in returning any of the islands surrounding the base until the US has somewhere else to park their assets and a major component of their precision guidance technology.
I think the base was in use by the RAF back in the 30's through to the late 60's or so as a staging post when we still were in Malaya and Singapore and also extensively used during the 2nd world war as a safe harbour by the British Navy after Tricomlee was attacked by the Japanese. After we withdrew from the far east in the late 60's was when the US stepped in.

As for compensation for the Chagos islanders, yep, other than measly penny pinching and possibly caution at setting some kind of precedent, I too really don't understand why they haven't had a fair and just settlement.

Perhaps they are just not 'British' enough like say the Falkland islanders, to enable them to raise their profile and have the UK recognise their unjust predicament.

Think how hard it has been to try and get the iniquitious treatment by the UK Government and the MOD of the Gurkhas sorted out, and that struggle is still not over, and these guys fought for us and in many cases lost their lives to defend us and our way of life.

A similar situation of the UK government leaving a place to to wither and ignoring the inhabitants seems to be occuring with St Helena.

I haven't looked into it, but I expect the French may well invest much more in their overseas vestiges of Empire than the UK these days.

[BIGdavalad]

So again, why were Falkland islanders granted more rights than Chagossians? Your point, as far as I can see, doesn't answer my question.

Because unfortunately for the Chagossians, their land is ideally placed within easy(ish) reach of most of the biggest flashpoints and trouble spots in the world (Arabian Gulf, Horn of Africa, Indian subcontinent, Straights of Malacca, China/Taiwan) and the Falklands aren't.

[BIGdavalad]

I haven't looked into it, but I expect the French may well invest much more in their overseas vestiges of Empire than the UK these days.

The French were certainly more sensible in regards to keeping overseas bases for their military when they gave up their Empire. They announced a big drawdown (possibly complete closure) of their base in Dakar yesterday though, although they do keep troops in a couple of other African countries (Djibouti and Gabon I think, as well as peacekeepers in other countries). They also recently opened a new naval base in the UAE.

They have sadly been much more far-sighted in terms of their military and foreign bases than Britain has been for many many years

[Maggie May]

I disagree that the Falklands War was "all about" protecting an unknown (or unprofitable) quantity of oil shown in a survey over 10 years previously.  I've never heard (nor on checking several authorities have they) that this was of any significance whatsoever.

And I repeat that the Falklanders do need the oil.  Their present income is through fishing licences and tourism.  And the argies have repeatedly harrassed and disrupted their income sources and continue to do so.

And if it does make them millionaires - so what?  I certainly don't begrudge them - or wish them to be poor, humble and grateful.  And in any event, how rich is a country allowed to be on the Corkboy Scale before they are told "Stop that, you're rich enough, give most of it away"?  Tell you what - have a go at the Saudis and let's know how you go on.   

[El Campeador]

Tell you what - have a go at the Saudis and let's know how you go on.   

Saudi Arabia's major oilfield Ghawar is just shy of 400 square miles, and has been producing oil for a half century. Most of the countries around it are also oil-producing nations, and the GCC has become an economic trading bloc to the benefit of all its members. No matter how many Bentleys and private planes they may have, at the end of the day, that entire peninsula has developed economically thanks to the oil that's spread around all of them. The people of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and others have come a very, very long way from where they started in terms of education, employment, industry, and opportunity thanks to the oil riches. Obviously, there are factors that make those places not-so-nice to live in, but most of those are cultural and political in nature, not economic.

But from what I've read on this particular subject, it's not entirely clear that who outside of three thousand or so Falklanders are going to benefit from this potential oil bonanza. The Falklanders stand to gain about five million dollars per day in oil royalties alone, but does anyone know how it's supposed to be divvied up? Do they get a check for a million bucks each, cash-able at 4pm each day? There's also the matter of 20-28% of total profits to be divvied up also.

Don't get me wrong - had Argentina controlled the Islanders thirty years ago, I'm sure the place wouldn't be as developed or as free as it is now. Nor would I trust the Argentine government and economists do much good with the profits and royalties. But while noone on this board can definitively answer the question of who benefits from this (and how much), we certainly all know who is *not* going to benefit, and that's everyone else in the region.

Unlike Saudi Arabia and the GCC.

[ollick]

.....................we certainly all know who is *not* going to benefit, and that's everyone else in the region.

Unlike Saudi Arabia and the GCC.

What do you mean by that?

Why should anyone other than the people who's territory the oil is found in benefit? and where do draw the line, 10 miles, 100 miles a 1000 miles? and why don't we apply this to other aspects fishing, gas, diamonds, platinum.

The United Kingdom will benefit through taxes.

[El Campeador]

What do you mean by that?

That was my (long-winded) response to MM's comment about the telling the Saudis "Stop that you're rich, give it all away." The Saudis do give something back to the poor around them, was sort of my point.

Why should anyone other than the people who's territory the oil is found in benefit? and where do draw the line, 10 miles, 100 miles a 1000 miles? and why don't we apply this to other aspects fishing, gas, diamonds, platinum.

The United Kingdom will benefit through taxes.

Now I'm a bit confused. I must admit I don't know as much as a lot of people here about the history of the Islanders and their ties to the UK, nor have I read much about the Argentinian claims to the area. But it wasn't my intention to get caught up in the political claims to the oil, but rather to concentrate on specific numbers related to the oil itself (which noone has seemed too interested in discussing, even corkboy, who started out by saying it's all about the numbers).

It's a fucking shitload of oil, and a goddamn motherfucking treasure chest of royalties.

Will the Islanders get all of the benefits of the oil? And if not, who else will share in the bonanza?

If as you say, the Islanders deserve all the fish, minerals, and oil that they sit upon, then surely you're alright with them getting $5,000,000 a day in royalties?

[ollick]

That was my (long-winded) response to MM's comment about the telling the Saudis "Stop that you're rich, give it all away." The Saudis do give something back to the poor around them, was sort of my point.

Now I'm a bit confused. I must admit I don't know as much as a lot of people here about the history of the Islanders and their ties to the UK, nor have I read much about the Argentinian claims to the area. But it wasn't my intention to get caught up in the political claims to the oil, but rather to concentrate on specific numbers related to the oil itself (which noone has seemed too interested in discussing, even corkboy, who started out by saying it's all about the numbers).

It's a fucking shitload of oil, and a goddamn motherfucking treasure chest of royalties.

Will the Islanders get all of the benefits of the oil? And if not, who else will share in the bonanza?

If as you say, the Islanders deserve all the fish, minerals, and oil that they sit upon, then surely you're alright with them getting $5,000,000 a day in royalties?

Why should it bother me? it's not my oil, I don't live there, are you jealous? the UK will benefit through additional taxes, the economy might benefit through an increase in trade of goods to the FI (don't know)

[Corkboy]

Why should it bother me? it's not my oil, I don't live there, are you jealous? the UK will benefit through additional taxes, the economy might benefit through an increase in trade of goods to the FI (don't know)

Do you honestly believe that turning a population of 3,500 into multimillionaires overnight is a more favourable outcome than raising the standard of living for hundreds of millions of genuinely poor people?

It won't "help the economy". It will turn the Falklands into Bizarro World.

[Corkboy]

Latin American leaders back Argentina over Falklands oil drilling

Solidarity vote is a diplomatic bonus for Cristina Kirchner but backing of Venezuela and Brazil unlikely to end UK drilling

   
    * Rory Carroll, Latin American correspondent
    * The Guardian, Wednesday 24 February 2010

Latin America and Caribbean nations appeared to close ranks behind ­Argentina yesterday in its dispute with Britain over oil exploration in Falkland islands' waters.

A summit of 32 countries in Mexico endorsed an Argentine document accusing Britain of flouting international law by permitting drilling to begin this week, said Argentina's president, Cristina Kirchner.

"We have achieved very strong support, something that legitimates our claims fundamentally against the new petroleum activity."

The Argentine statement quoted Mexico's president, Felipe Calderón, saying: "The heads of state represented here reaffirm their support for the legitimate rights of the republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain."

The Rio Group summit, meeting in Cancún, made no immediate official statement but there was no doubting support for Argentina from leftist allies. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega demanded the UK hand back the Falklands, which Argentinians call Las Malvinas, to Buenos Aires.

The Argentine government is seeking to escalate its diplomatic offensive in New York today when its foreign minister, Jorge Taiana, meets with UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, to press Argentina's claim. The UN has called for talks between Britain and Argentina but has little power to intervene without the backing of the Security Council where the UK can veto substantive resolutions. The longstanding sovereignty stand-off flared earlier this month over the arrival of a rig, the Ocean Guardian, which is to drill offshore for oil and gas deposits which could turn the archipelago into an oil-rich region.

Desire Petroleum, a small British company, started drilling on Monday about 60 miles north of the islands. Geologists say there could be up to 60bn barrels although sceptics doubt its commercially viability.

The row has brought Anglo-Argentine relations to a new low since the 1982 conflict but Kirchner ruled out any attempt to blockade the islands. Analysts said ­Buenos Aires scored a diplomatic victory in mustering regional solidarity but that the practical effects were negligible.

"Beyond making Kirchner, and some other Latin American leaders, feel good and perhaps getting a bit of a political bounce at home, the collective regional posture will mean very little on the ground," said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue thinktank.

The main purpose of the two-day summit, which finished yesterday, was to agree on a new pan-regional body which would exclude the US and Canada and eclipse the toothless Washington-based Organisation of American States.

However, pledges of solidarity were overshadowed by a row between Chávez and Colombia's president, Alvaro Uribe, who reportedly traded insults at a lunch. Chávez reportedly said "vete al carajo" – which can be translated either as "go to hell" or "go fuck yourself" – and threatened to walk out while Uribe replied that the Venezuelan should "be a man" and stay to argue his case rather than hurl insults from afar. Cuba's president, Raúl Castro, intervened to cool the row.

Source

[El Campeador]

it's not my oil, I don't live there

the UK will benefit through additional taxes

This is the bit that has me confused.