Argentina imposes shipping rules in Falklands oil row

[Adsos Letter]

Source: BBC

Argentina has imposed new controls on shipping to the Falkland Islands in a growing oil dispute with the UK.

The Argentine government has ordered ships heading to the islands via its waters to apply for permission first.

The move comes as Argentina has become increasingly agitated at the forthcoming start of oil drilling in Falkland Islands territorial waters.

Argentina claims sovereignty over the British Overseas Territory, and it invaded the islands in 1982


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518982.stm

[damyank913]

1. Chavez might wanna think twice...

If he plans to take on the Brits. I get the feeling that a whole bunch of new naval weaponry is about to field tested.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. ?

Argentina not Venezuela.

[nyy1998]

3. Venezuela will back up Argentina either way

And we'll hear another hypocritical speech from Chavez

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Chavez: Ooga Booga!

I get it.

[Regret My New Name]

17. To be fair...

I believe a little over a year or so ago, Chavez mentioned giving/liberating the Falkland islands to Argentina. It was kind of a big deal then... Not sure if he's said anything recently though. :/

[damyank913]

5. Sorry-brain fart.

[Odin2005]

4. The islanders consider themselves Brits, so Argentina needs to grow up.

Putting historical "land claims" over the right of self-determination is so very much in violation of the spirit of anti-colonialism.

[Peace Patriot]

6. I gather from the comments here that this may be more U.S. trouble-making in Latin America,

this time instigated by U.S. war profiteer partner, the UK, to add to a long list of provocative U.S. actions over the last several years, including...

1. The U.S./Colombia dropping a load of U.S. "smart bombs" on a FARC guerrilla camp just inside Ecuador's border, which almost started a war between the U.S./Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela. March 2008.

2. The U.S. reconstitution of the U.S. 4th Fleet (mothballed since WW II) in the Caribbean, which Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, said "is a threat to Brazil's oil." (Everybody south of the border knows that it is a threat to Venezuela's.) Summer 2008, simultaneous with the South Americans forming of UNASUR, a prototype South American "common market."

3. The U.S. embassy funding/organizing a white separatist secession plot--including riots and murder--in Bolivia. Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, threw the U.S. ambassador out of Bolivia for this. UNASUR backed up Morales. September 2008.

4. President Barack Obama, during his inauguration week, goes on Spanish-language TV to say that Hugo Chavez is causing trouble in the region! Mid-January 2009.

5. Pentagon and U.S. State Department complicity in the rightwing military coup in Honduras. The ousted president of Honduras, Mel Zelaya, was allied with Chavez in the ALBA trade group. June-Dec 2009.

6. Several illegal overflights of Venezuelan territory by U.S. military planes from the Dutch islands off of Venezuela's oil coast. 2008-2010.

7. U.S./Colombia military agreement for U.S. "South Vietnam"-style occupation of Colombia, including U.S. military use of SEVEN military bases in Colombia, use of ALL civilian infrastructure, doubling of U.S. military 'advisors' (deja vu all over again) to about 1,600 U.S. soldiers and U.S. 'contractors,' with full diplomatic immunity for whatever U.S. soldiers and contractors do in Colombia. Escalation clauses for all of this.

8. On-going, long term, intense U.S. psyops/disinformation campaign, mainly targeting Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, but also other leftist leaders allied with Chavez, including Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Evo Morales (Bolivia) and Cristina Fernandez (Argentina).

---------------

Now England seems to be carrying some of the "divide and conquer"/war provocation burden for the U.S.--as they carried water for the U.S. in the heinous war on Iraq. This has the appearance of an Argentine/UK dispute. I'd bet money that it isn't just that--or even primarily that. The U.S. and local rightwing operatives have been working on toppling leftist Cristina Fernandez, president of Argentina, for some time. This dispute looks made to order to cause her further trouble. And the reaction of certain posters here--presuming that this is a dispute with Chavez, and saber-rattling, bragging about new Naval weapons--may be a bit of a clue as to what's really going on with this dispute.

If the Pentagon and other U.S. war profiteers have their way, and successfully instigate a region-wide war, Argentina and Venezuela will both be handicapped by having offshore islands in the control of foreign and potential war-combatant powers. It would be rather as if Japan had gotten control of Hawaii, or--even more pertinent--the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara, prior to WW II. The Netherlands has a rightwing government that is permitting the U.S. military to use its Caribbean islands, off Venezuela, to harass Venezuela. England could use the Falklands--Islas Malvinas--the same way, in addition to taking what is arguably Argentina's oil.

Another dispute that could erupt--given the rather mystifying rightwing victory in Chile--is Bolivia's access to the sea (the Pacific). Chile's leftist president, Michele Batchelet (85% approval rating; just termed out), negotiated a peaceful end to that 100+ year old dispute (once a cause of war), by granting Bolivia access to the sea in northern Chile. She also was critically important as to UNASUR backing of Evo Morales during the U.S.-instigated white separatist uprising (which also involved resources--the white separatists wanted to split off Bolivia's gas/oil-rich eastern provinces into a fascist mini-state in the control of the gas/oil and allied to Washington). But with a fascist billionaire now running Chile--and U.S.-allied Peru (with an extremely corrupt "free trade for the rich" government)--disputing the Chile-Bolivia compromise, tensions on those borders could also erupt. Potential "divide and conquer" situation.

And, of course, the Venezuelan/Colombia border is made-to-order, by the U.S., for the next 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident used to justify hostilities--with the U.S. military ensconced all over Colombia--including USAF planes and pilots, US Navy ships using Colombian ports, and increased numbers of U.S. soldiers and U.S. 'contractors.' Recently, a mass grave containing 2,000 bodies*--which local people claim to be 'disappeared' relatives who were active as union, community or human rights leaders--was discovered in La Macarena, an area of very special U.S. interest and planning in Colombia. It's possible that La Macarena was the site of "turkey shoot" practice for Colombian/U.S. (including 'contractor') forces for Afghanistan. The graves have recent dates (but no names), 2005-2010. A Washington-designed program of military action followed by rightwing imposed local government was used for this project. In any case, it is representative of U.S./Colombian policy which has been implemented in the Colombia/Venezuela border areas --many military/paramilitary murders of local political opposition to rightwing rule and also displacement by terror of 3-4 million peasant farmers ("cleansing" areas possibly for both big cocaine production and military purposes). Tens of thousands of peasant farmers have fled Colombian military death squads and terror campaigns, into Venezuela and Ecuador, causing a huge humanitarian/refugee problem for those countries, and facilitating crime and chaos in the border areas. This looks like quite a deliberate policy by the U.S./Colombia, with parallels in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan.

The thing that the U.S. never wants to see again is UNASUR, acting unanimously, to back up a Latin American country whose government has been targeted by the U.S.--as it did on Bolivia. The U.S. successfully maneuvered around Brazil's and almost all other Latin American countries' backing of Mel Zelaya. UNASUR is South American. (And, by the way, Brazil has proposed a "common defense" within UNASUR's framework, which Colombia has been sabotaging.) Central America/the Caribbean didn't have a strong enough trade group (ALBA) to fend off the Honduran coup. Brazil tried and failed. Next--more "divide and conquer"? And war? As to the latter, I see an awful lot of elements pointing that way. An Argentina/UK dispute could be part of a trigger, combined with other maneuverings and events.

----------------------

*(http://www.cipcol.org/?p=1303 )

[WriteDown]

7. Yep, it's always the US. We rule the world. nt

[Peace Patriot]

8. If you've been following the Iraq war hearings in the UK, you will know that

the US war establishment ran right over the chief legal officers of the UK as well as UK intel and military advisers, controlled the PM, and overrode the will of EIGHTY PERCENT of the people of England, to drag them into a heinous and illegal war.

And if you pay any attention at all to history and current events, you will know, a) that the US today occupies and controls two countries by force where the U.S. has no business whatsoever--neither the one million people that the Pentagon slaughtered in Iraq nor the numerous civilians they are slaughtering today in Afghanistan have ever harmed us. And, 2) that the US war establishment considers Latin America to be its "back yard"--and they don't tolerate uppity countries in Latin America asserting their own sovereignty and taking control of their own governments, resources and other business.

And if you have read the "Project for a New American Century," you will know exactly what this is all about--to assert U.S. domination and control of the world, including commandeering its oil resources and imposing U.S. corporate rule everywhere it can. No, the U.S. doesn't "rule the world." But those who rule the U.S. WANT TO rule the world. And it can only cause them the greatest of aggravations that Latin America has asserted its right to rule itself. That does not fit with the Big Game Plan.

[WriteDown]

9. Like I said....

We rule the world.

[Stella_Artois]

12. Well, he certainly seems to think so...

The concept that country A may want something that country B has and, fantastically, this has nothing to do with the US seems to be be entirely foreign to him.

[hack89]

10. Oil drilling is trouble making? Really? nt

[Stella_Artois]

13. PNAC put the oil there

Its part of "The Plan"

[damyank913]

14. That's right it must be the US...

The fact that many of these govts are totally corrupted has to be the fault of the US. It can't be pure, unadulterated greed can it. Or perhaps an unobstructed quest for power. No it's the US keeping thier collective feet on the neck of the Latin American. I think you've lost touch with reality...

[naaman fletcher]

15. huh?

This has the appearance of an Argentine/UK dispute. I'd bet money that it isn't just that--or even primarily that. The U.S. and local rightwing operatives have been working on toppling leftist Cristina Fernandez, president of Argentina, for some time.

Assuming what you are saying is true, an easy thing for Fernandez (and Chavez) to do is to not take the bait and not comment on the Falklands issue, not demand the land "back" (although Argentinians never lived there) and otherwise ignore it.

[anonymous171]

18. England is doing this under their own perogative.

America has no strategic interest in the Falklands. The UK has always had a very strange obsession with that island that has little to do with American imperialism.

Not everything is America's fault.

[LibertyLover]

16. Hugo might just want to remember that if Argentina

goes the 1982 route with the Falklands and he offers Venezualan help, the troops the British send over will be battle hardened, not troops who either had never seen combat or whose combat experience was pretty much related to patrolling Northern Ireland. Battle tested and experienced British troops are not what you want to see on your doorstep.