When there is a 99.8% vote for something, either it isn’t a democracy or it is a very stupid question. Nobody has ever disputed that the majority of the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British. The point of the referendum was simply to annoy and upset Argentina, and that is very stupid indeed.
You cannot escape geography. The trade and communication links of the Falklands should naturally be with Latin America, not with another small island half the world away. Given that Latin America is undergoing an economic, cultural and political resurgence that is truly exciting, while the UK is in an accelerating spiral of decline, that should be a good thing. Unless you are very stupid.
David Cameron is fond of citing individual cases of families in the UK whose benefits cost the British taxpayer over £30,000 per year. But each and every family in the Falkland Islands costs the British taxpayer ten times that – something which Cameron does not detail.
But the first expenditure is motivated by compassion, which enjoys precious little political and media support. The second expenditure is driven by militarism and jingoism, which can never be questioned and enjoy unlimited political and media support.
Britain’s ability to sustain the Falklands will not last forever, not least militarily. With expenditure cuts and every last penny of discretionary expenditure going into the black hole marked “Trident”, Britain would be hard pushed to re-invade the Isle of Man, let alone the Falklands. The inability of the islanders to read the writing on the wall is astonishing. They have all the long term vision of that other island race, the dodo.
But they do have the right to be stupid. Attachment to the rule of international law is central to my belief on how the world should be run, and I am obliged to say that, in international law, Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands is a nonsense. The Argentinians are not the indigenous inhabitants of the islands, nor does the Argentine government represent the indigenous population of the Falklands. The large majority of Argentinians are not even the indigenous population of Argentina. They are simply a rival bunch of colonialists, very many of British descent.
Like Diego Garcia, which should and must be returned to its native population, any genuine indigenous population would have the right to the islands in international law under decolonisation. But there is not one. A rival and defeated colonial occupier does not have the claims of an indigenous population. There is no important rival here to the principle of self-determination in the legal argument.
The Falklanders do have the right to be stupid. The refendum is a prime example of how to be stupid, as it is the opposite of the link-building and cooperation that needs to be done. The potential oil fields have been greatly exaggerated, but what oil there is lies under deep water and is already very difficult; potential conflict blights the possibilities for investment completely. Cooperation is in everybody’s interest.
Were I the Argentinian government, I would smother the Falklands with love. I would completely open all air links and sea routes. I would initiate a regular free postal service to forward on mail through Argentina. I would provide an air ambulance service on permanent standby to whip very serious cases from the Falklands to the mainland for free treatment. I would organise a regular supply ship of subsidised goods and food. I would provide free university scholarships to all Falklanders. I would give a large government subsidy to any company in Argentina which employs a Falklander.
I would also work hard on the darker diplomatic arts. I would identify a couple of Falkland Island councillors and put ten million dollars each into numbered Swiss accounts for them, on condition that they facilitate the provision of the free air ambulance service (which is easy to reconcile the conscience to, and an easy way to start). I would put attractive young Argentinian agents into the path of Falklanders, any Falklanders, at every opportunity.
I appreciate that all Argentinian offers would suffer inital rebuff. But Argentina should keep trying. Switch off the rhetoric, and turn up the love. Geography and economic trends are with the Argentines here. The Falklanders do have the right to choose. Argentina’s task is to change their minds.
Mark @ 1:28
I saw that yesterday and wondered if Francis was just transporting two more pedophiles to another Parish.
Has anyone interviewed Madame Pinochet (Thatcher) on the Papal selection?
Habbakuk;
I fear you are too obsessed with the minutiae. Not that it’s bad, in itself; but it appears like you are trying to trip someone up. I know that’s not your intent, so just a word to the wise.
@ Jemand :
“What say you, Habbabkuk? A gentleman is required to make his true intentions known”
Jemand, you surprise me. Surely you must know that a gentleman would never attempt to raise a lady’s hopes too high?
I can see that you would never get invited to take afternoon tea at the Duchesse de Guermantes’. 🙂
Mark Golding recounts as follows :
“An interesting piece of 1841 Falklands history is the failure of the British Government to accept the offer of General Rosas to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims in return for relief of debts owed to now defunct Barings Bank in the City of London.
The British Government chose to ignore the offer.”
I should jolly well hope so. Sounds like an attempt to extort money with menaces to me.
*************
La vita è bella, life is good! (Habbabkuk against muggers)
Habbakuk begins to appreciate US foreign policy:
“Sounds like an attempt to extort money with menaces to me.”
Mary writes as follows about me :
“Somebody who shall be nameless took me to task as is his/her wont:
“Can you indicate why you think the referendum was a farce?
Can you assure us that had there not been a referendum, you would not have critised the government for not holding one?
Thank you”
Now that somebody seems to agree with Craig”
You must learn to distinguish, my dear, between an attempt to tease out a contributor’s position on something and a discussion of substance.
If you would be kind enough to read both Craig’s post and my first post on this thread, and the question to you (above) which you quote, you may notice the followng :
1/. The question quoted above limits itself to asking you something and does not say whether I think the referendum was a farce or not.
2/. Craig’s post uses the word “stupid” and not the word “farce”. Furthermore, I indicate that I quibble with the Craig’s description.
So, Mary, I fear that the conclusion must be that you have again let your urge to best me overcome careful reading and normal critical faculties.
**********
La vita è bella, life is good!
Herbie (16h40) opiçnes as follows :
“It’s left to whistleblowers and alternative media to break the illusionist’s hold”
Oh, such modesty, Herbie! Surely you should include yourself and your co-Eminences in that select category?
***********
La vita è bella, life is good! (ex Herbio lux)
Exelnt Post Craig Beautiful ideas of your own in there too.
My boy was to be posted to the Falklands with military,1n 2012, thank goodness there was a change of plan – as i’m certain he was only half joking about Breaking a leg ( Quite by accident )
Jemand @ 2;23.
Mary is Quite right to point out Hab’s hypocrisy. As many of us on Crags Blog hold Craig himself as a hero in some ways, not least for being Brave enough to put his own life at risk to expose uk complicity in Torture, but also Craig highlight Government Corruption, (Gould Werritty ) Police Brutality ( Ian Tomlinson Murder, De Menezes murder )…The Growing breaching of international Law charters ( Fire bombing of German cities, Atom bombing Of Japan, Napalm Ect in Vietnam, The list goes on and on, and growing ) The theft of Thousands of Sq miles of Scotland’s Waters.
But the point is Craig Goes about his work with compassion, as a real humanitarian, as many sentences in this very thread would confirm
hab on the other hand is here for exactly the opposite reasons, as almost his first words @ 11 ; 08 am – ( and could feel my combative sap starting to rise, ) – Make plain
One would certainly be forgiven for, (after many months of Em, wondering ) coming to the conclusion that hab is a troll, Since it constantly argues with one and all, and even bullies, at least one lady commenter.
Why would the people who employ trolls do so, spreading disruption and ill feeling onto this, or any other well meaning Blog, Ultimately its to suppress Knowledge, and free speech, and even some of Craig’s insightful ideas Regarding dark arts, But trolling is the more Evil art.
As you wish, Habbakuk.
My feeling though is that the illusionist’s hold will be broken, as before, by new forms of communication.
This is why the illusionist is so desperate to destroy whisteblowing and those who best understand new media.
The referendum was a strange waste of time and the result a foregone conclusion however you can’t blame the islanders for voting the way they have. Kirchner’s rhetoric has hardly been warm and friendly, she’s likend the islanders to squatters, so what kind of future would they face under Argentine rule? Argentina has as far as I can work out not published any guarantees regarding the islanders’ rights or any details of how they would administer the islands. Given the habit of governments world wide to promise one thing then do another would anyone believe them if they did? Acceptance of Argentine rule would really be a step into the unknown which the islanders might find themselves powerless to control.
Whilst some parts of South America might be doing well Argentina’s economy is in serious difficulties which is possibly why Kirchner is trying to deflect attention to the Falklands. They had an opportunity to cooperate with the UK on fisheries and oil but threw it away.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/03/the-falklanders-have-the-right-to-be-stupid/#comment-399275
http://static8.depositphotos.com/1007989/1011/i/950/depositphotos_10118071-Yawning-Smiley.jpg
A result so nearly unanimous strongly suggests that the voters did not believe their votes would be kept secret. (Something that is also a big part of the explanation for the near unanimity of Hitler’s Anschluss referendum.)
For a Falklander, being British overrides everything regardless of how much money Argentina were to spend to make the life of a Falklander better. Let the U.K. spend every cent that’s required to keep the Falklanders British. With time, the U.K. that will abandon the Falklanders and willingly give the island to Argentina. It will be called a great agreement, but everyone will know that keeping the island British is a dead horse. Time makes all problems disappear, one way or another.
ARGO – The Movie
One of America’s leading experts on covert operations believes that Argo is the propaganda project of an intelligence agency or agencies, and that its purpose is to convince the American people to go along with Israel’s plan to drag America into a war on Iran.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/13/293328/argo-cias-covert-black-ops/
This film is NOT propaganda. It will never convince the American people to go along with any plan to smash Iran.
This film is a cheap shot at altering history that fails on all counts.
Jimmy Carter, the American President at the time of the hostage crisis, echoed Harris’s viewpoint. While receiving an honorary degree at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Carter took issue with the film. In his acceptance speech, Carter said, “I saw the movie Argo recently. I was taken aback by its distortion of what happened. Because almost everything that was heroic or courageous or innovative was done by Canada, and not the United States.”
https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-museum/experience-the-collection/text-version/stories/rescue-of-the-canadian-six-a-classic-case-of-deception.html
Lastly in true American style the film makes no mention of the Operation Eagle Claw, the attempted rescue operation of the remaining 52 American citizens on April 24, 1980.
That abortive mission resulted in the deaths of eight American servicemen.
Their names are sadly absent in the Argo film credits.
Shame on America.
Very interesting article.
I’m sure it’s not lost on Craig that the purpose of the jingoistic sabre rattling in BA (and London) is not to resolve the issue either way but to distract those at home from other more pressing issues.
I contend that too much oil has already been discovered and if extracted and burned it will tip global warming totally over the edge – so however much exists there is irrelevent.
Luckily, Argentina is too weak militarily to mount an invasion – just as the UK is too weak to mount a reinvasion…
So nothing will come of this making it a HUGE waste of money and main stream media time.
I wish the FIs had been relocated to New Zealand or the Hebrides with a nice fat 1 million pound compensation package per family of 4 (or fraction thereof) some time around 1980 and then the Argentineans could have had the godforsaken place.
This would have saved us millions if not billions not too mention a decade of tory misrule and most of all the lives lost and shattered by a war that competent diplomats and governments should have avoided. Carrington did the right thing by resigning – though I doubt the blame was all his. I still blame that mad woman in blue…
Mark – John Pilger is in agreement.
‘Hollywood has returned to its cold war role, led by liberals. Ben Affleck’s Oscar-winning Argo is the first feature film so integrated into the propaganda system that its subliminal warning of Iran’s “threat” is offered as Obama is preparing, yet again, to attack Iran.
That Affleck’s “true story” of good-guys-vs- bad-Muslims is as much a fabrication as Obama’s justification for his war plans is lost in PR-managed plaudits. As the independent critic Andrew O’Hehir points out, Argo is “a propaganda movie in the truest sense, one that claims to be innocent of all ideology.” That is, it debases the art of film-making to reflect an image of the power it serves.
The true story is that, for 34 years, the US foreign policy elite have seethed with revenge for the loss of the shah of Iran, their beloved tyrant, and his CIA-designed state of torture. When Iranian students occupied the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, they found a trove of incriminating documents, which revealed that an Israeli spy network was operating inside the US, stealing top scientific and military secrets. Today, the duplicitous Zionist ally — not Iran — is the one and only nuclear threat in the Middle East.
In 1977, Carl Bernstein, famed for his Watergate reporting, disclosed that more than 400 journalists and executives of mostly liberal US media organizations had worked for the CIA in the past 25 years. They included journalists from the New York Times, Time, and the big TV broadcasters. These days, such a formal nefarious workforce is quite unnecessary.
In 2010, the New York Times made no secret of its collusion with the White House in censoring the WikiLeaks war logs. The CIA has an “entertainment industry liaison office” that helps producers and directors remake its image from that of a lawless gang that assassinates, overthrows governments and runs drugs. As Obama’s CIA commits multiple murder by drone, Affleck lauds the “clandestine service … that is making sacrifices on behalf of Americans every day … I want to thank them very much.”‘
/..
The New Propaganda Is Liberal — The New Slavery Is Digital
By John Pilger
March 13, 2013
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34289.htm
Apparently the result has been verified Wee Dougie Alexander organised the plebiscite and The Returning Officer from Glenrothes Constituency had complete oversight of the entire election.
Therefore there can be no doubt it was a completely fair election.
Only one drawback the electoral rolls have gone missing.
A spokesperson for Douglas Alexander immediately blamed Alex Salmond and the SNP.
“Sounds like an attempt” is temporal Habbakukk and has no meaning.
What is factual is the Argentinian attempt at negotiation, that means diplomacy, a starting point for arbitration that just might, -just might… have prevented war and the death of my best friend in an imperial adventure favored by tactless politicians and their masters.
I have to say the President would get my vote any day.
Why can we not politicians that look like that?
Your comment 7:04 completed the circle for me Mary – with thanks.
I remember Diana Gould questioning Thatcher on the Belgrano.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O184yGKknSQ
[..]
By 29 April the ships were patrolling the Burdwood Bank, south of the islands. On 30 April the Belgrano was detected by the British nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine Conqueror. The submarine approached over the following day. On May 1, 1982, Admiral Juan Lombardo ordered all Argentine naval units to seek out the British task force around the Falklands and launch a “massive attack” the following day. The Belgrano, which was outside the exclusion zone to the north, was ordered south. Lombardo’s signal was intercepted by British Intelligence. As a result Mrs Thatcher and her War Cabinet, meeting at Chequers the following day, agreed to a request from Admiral Sir Terence Lewin, the Chief of the Defence Staff, to alter the rules of engagement and allow an attack on the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone.[6] Although the group was outside the British-declared Total Exclusion Zone of 370 km (200 nautical miles) radius from the islands, the British decided that it was a threat. After consultation at Cabinet level, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher agreed that Commander Chris Wreford-Brown should attack the Belgrano.
[..]
The two escort ships were unaware of what was happening to the Belgrano, as they were out of touch with her in the gloom and had not seen the distress rockets or lamp signals.[14] Adding to the confusion, the crew of the Bouchard felt an impact that was possibly the third torpedo striking at the end of its run (an examination of the ship later showed an impact mark consistent with a torpedo). The two ships continued on their course westward and began dropping depth charges. By the time the ships realized that something had happened to the Belgrano, it was already dark and the weather had worsened, scattering the life rafts.[14]
Argentine and Chilean ships rescued 772 men in all from 3 to 5 May. In total, 323 were killed in the attack: 321 members of the crew and two civilians who were on board at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
Hello Craig, have you are starting to feel a bit better.
Excellent balanced piece that, despite supporting the Falklanders right to self-determination, I find it hard to disagree with.
The question on the potential oil fields is an interesting, and probably pivotal, question. You are correct to state that any reserves are likely to be located in deep water, but that does not immediately mean they will not be highly profitable and sought after.
One of my friends who works for an Aberdeen based exploration company is currently in Port Stanley at the moment setting up an IT system(he claims to have been tailed by Argentinan Intelligence, not sure if he’s pulling my leg). Yes there is still to be a significant discovering of viable removable reserves, but most industry insiders believe they are there, it’s just a matter of locating them. Most of the big players are standing back at the moment, leaving the donkey work to smaller explorers. If one of these companies does find the proverbial needle in the haystack, you can bet the big players will have drilling rights within weeks and be all over the Falklands like a rash.
Mark Golding 7.13 p.m., your loss of a best friend in the Falklands conflict puts you in an unenviable position to know the real futility of war and the bereavement it can incur. It is not however the government’s view that their lives might have been saved had negotiation been the course of action. So they get some wounded ex-soldier at the war arboretum at Alrewas to say on their behalf how that wounded soldier did not want to think he saw his comrades die in vain by handing it to Argentina. The truth is all dead soldiers die in vain, and if the dead ever come to meet one another face to face in some “Hell” of killers who have killed, it is indeed a “Strange meeting”.
Sorry, everyone else has managed to keep on-topic, so what are two posts about the film “Argo” doing on this thread?
O/T A video is not up yet but there was an amazing interview with Straw by Alex Thomson on Channel 4 News just now. Thomson repeatedly challenged him on the legality of the Iraq war and about the non existence of WMD. Straw became icier and icier and his left eyelid was visibly drooping. Strange that his partner in war crimes, Bliar, also has a drooping right eyelid.
Thursday 14 Mar 2013
Jack Straw ‘edging towards the S word’ on Iraq
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/jack-straw-edging-word-iraq/4330
Czesc Habba,
I know it is difficult, but just ignore the trolls!(And their film reviews! 🙄 ) 😉
Czesc The CE! You’re right, we shouldn’t let ourselves get drawn into the hijackers’ game.
On the argument that the referendum was a waste of money and that it’s an even greater waste of money to subsidise the Falkland islanders to the tune of £x thousands or millions a year, I think that it’s worth recalling that far greater sums of money were spent by Labour governments subsidising much less worthy causes with much less ultimate effect. The examples that always spring to my mind are the vast sums spent by Labour govts. in the 1970s on motorcycle workers cooperatives and on car factories in the Midlands and the shipyards on the Clyde (also workers cooperatives in part, I think), but I’m sure there must be more recent examples as well. Just a thought.
From: http://www.channel4.com/news/trolls-internet-beat-battle-boxer-curtis-woodhouseSo how can you tackle a troll?
Don’t go one-on-one with a troll
Trolls pray on the vulnerable – people who are not internet savvy, and not confident on social forums. The aim, according to Dr Cassidy, is to extract an emotional response.
“The first thing is not to give in to the troll. Get up. Go away from your machine and calm down. Then think through what is happening here.
“It would also be a good idea to tell a confidante or someone who can support you.”
He described the activities of trolls as trying to engage in “psychological warfare” with other users.
Don’t feed the troll
“Trolls tend to have low self-esteem. They have this motivation to get a response from these online communities. They feed off the emotional pay off. Some get a sense of empowerment from creating a response,” says Dr Cassidy.
Trolling is a curse sweeping the country at the moment – Dr Arthur Cassidy
The best thing to do therefore? Ignore the advances of a troll and hope that, without the emotional food, the troll will give up.
Dr Cassidy also advises becoming more confident in your abilities on the internet, and making sure you understand the ways in which social networks work.
Block the troll
Social media networks such as Twitter, Facebook and Youtube all have methods by which you can block and report users for abusive content, which can be found here: Facebook, Twitter, Youtube.
However, users should be aware that trolls can be deceptive and strategic.
“They can switch identities, change their startegies, change their machinery. Trolls are often treating their trolling like a business.” He also warned that groups of trolls can come together to share strategies.
Dr Cassidy also said that, until the major social networks come up with a united method of “protecting the user”, trolls will be able to implement their strategies.
“This is something that needs to be tabled in the House (of Commons)” he said. “Trolling is a curse sweeping the country at the moment”.
Call in the troll-catchers
Rather than vigilantism, Dr Cassidy says it is far more advisable to call in the police if you are being targeted with malicious remarks. He added that three or four posts can be enough to cause clinical depression in a victim.
Director of public prosecutions Kier Starmer has recently updated his guidance on prosecutions for cyber crime. That advice states that “the approach we have taken is to distinguish between two broad categories of case.
“In the first category are messages or communications that amount to credible threats to the individual or to property, or amount to campaigns of harassment against an individual, or breach court orders. That category of case will be prosecuted robustly.”
The second category includes behaviour that could be abusive or controversial, but which nevertheless could attract freedom of speech protection. Those cases, Starmer says, there will be a “high threshold of prosecution”.
they might well take your advice…….