Thursday, 11 October 2012
More doom mongering from naval types
This past month has seen some rather unfortunate trains of thought from experienced naval types.
Last month Sam Woodward, commander of the naval task prophesied that the barely functioning Argentine armed forces would be emboldened by the recent statement from the US, and the lack of any eeer carriers and harriers to invade the islands.
Echoing an equally silly rant from Lord West in November last year, Admiral Woodward seems to miss out all the points entirely and follow the bizarre train of logic which has afflicted many of the Falklands war's most famous names.
Their entire argument has hinged on the rather flawed assumption that the sole reason the Argies have yet to invade is because they where perpetually terrified of our measly Aircraft carriers and 60 year old col war era STOL Harriers holed up in Portsmouth and not of course because of the 1,500 troops, artillery, SAM batteries, Radar facilities, listening posts, 4 Typhoon fighters and a type 42 destroyer actually defending the islands.
The idea that the Army, Navy and Air force units, not to mention the local Territorial Army unit are incapable of defending against any potential threat from Argentina or whoever else takes a fancy to British interests in the area, and that only the might of the navy alone could defend and retake the islands, is quite frankly...well insulting.
Dr Liam Fox summed up the UK's current defence policy on the islands, "We will not need any aircraft carriers to retake the Falklands, because quite frankly we will not lose them".
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Election fever in Argentina, latest
CFK has kick started her re-election as empress of Argentina with a direct appeal to the frothing at the mouth Malvinist sub-section of Argentine society.
In true Argentine style, rather than say how she will steer the country in these dark economic times, or how the average Argentine will benefit from another glorious 4 years of her pouting plastic lips beamed continuously to their TV sets, she cut straight to the chase with an outspoken denunciation of David Cameron's comments in parliament on Wednesday where he stated: "If the Falklands want to remain sovereign British territory, they should remain sovereign British territory-full stop, end of story."
Clearly erked by this stinging denouement of Argentina's imperial ambitions, EL Presidente in front of 200 or so of the party faithful, (complete with anti-British slogans and other Malvinist paraphernalia) invoked the name of the Argentine people and human rights (Although she missed out the islanders human rights) before promptly denouncing David Cameron's remarks as "Crass and stupid" verging on "mediocrity", she then bizarrely attempted to flatter the UK by still claiming we are an imperial power, albeit a "crass" one in "decline".
By the end of her speech the crowd was in full Malvinist rapacious Sammy the seal mode, clapping at every utterance of her holy words, and seemed to have completely forgotten the fact that the country is running up 30% inflation, has a substantial deficit and has had its reserves emptied by the pilfering ruling party pulling a Gordon Brown and bribing off the entire electorate with unsustainable and expensive social policies.
A video of this Malvinist hilarity can be seen here.
In true Argentine style, rather than say how she will steer the country in these dark economic times, or how the average Argentine will benefit from another glorious 4 years of her pouting plastic lips beamed continuously to their TV sets, she cut straight to the chase with an outspoken denunciation of David Cameron's comments in parliament on Wednesday where he stated: "If the Falklands want to remain sovereign British territory, they should remain sovereign British territory-full stop, end of story."
Clearly erked by this stinging denouement of Argentina's imperial ambitions, EL Presidente in front of 200 or so of the party faithful, (complete with anti-British slogans and other Malvinist paraphernalia) invoked the name of the Argentine people and human rights (Although she missed out the islanders human rights) before promptly denouncing David Cameron's remarks as "Crass and stupid" verging on "mediocrity", she then bizarrely attempted to flatter the UK by still claiming we are an imperial power, albeit a "crass" one in "decline".
By the end of her speech the crowd was in full Malvinist rapacious Sammy the seal mode, clapping at every utterance of her holy words, and seemed to have completely forgotten the fact that the country is running up 30% inflation, has a substantial deficit and has had its reserves emptied by the pilfering ruling party pulling a Gordon Brown and bribing off the entire electorate with unsustainable and expensive social policies.
A video of this Malvinist hilarity can be seen here.
Friday, 14 January 2011
Argie contradictions of note II : De-mining shenanigans.
The second phase of mine clearing has begun in the Falkland Islands, hopefully to finally eradicate the mines helpfully left over from the 1982 war by the occupying Argentine forces.
The task is made all the more difficult by the fact the Argentine part of the war effort was run so incompetently, that their military only has the vaguest ideas of where it left its mines, the practice of the day being to lob mines haphazardly from helicopters with no strategic thought process, as far away from Argentine defensive positions as possible, in the vain hope that the liberating British forces would walk through these areas, rather than attack the main concentration of Argentine defenses around the capital, Stanley.
As a result mine fields have tended to be found in a rather informal manner, as demonstrated in this helpful educational video below:
Apart from demonstrating that the Argentine occupation forces were thoroughly unmotivated and lack-luster in defending what was supposedly a sacred integral part of the Argentine motherland, ripped away from its bosom by brutal British imperialists, the mine issue demonstrates the bizarre and contradictory approach Argentina has with its sovereignty claim to the Falklands.
Argentine Politicians have for years been quite happy to publicly condemn with great gusto such great injustices as the "plundering of Argentine resources" by Falklands fishing vessels or the newly controversial current hydrocarbon drilling campaign, or wail with indignant nationalist fury about the (now infamous) "unprovoked aggression" by the evil colonial British military test firing rapiers missiles from the islands. In fact just about any action the islanders have done from attending a conference on sustainable fisheries to being accepted into the world bowls association, has warranted the usual bullshit about some kind of violation of international treaties and UN resolutions, a conclusion reached usually by only the most abstract interpretations as is logically possible without inducing some kind of hallucinogenic drug.
But over mine clearance there is a very awkward and telling silence from the normally jihadi like rants of the Malvinists.
There appears to be a genuine reluctance to identify clearing Argentine mines in the islands, with their notion that the Islands are sovereign Argentine territory.
Even as the clearing has gone on, Argentina hasn't even made so much as a pip, or even once offered to help to clear its own mines from what we are repeatedly told is an integral part of the Argentine republic.
This inevitably leads us to one logical conclusion: the Argentine republic has a very selective attitude to sovereignty of the islands, and seemingly only selectively chooses when the islands are an integral part of the republic, and when they are not, the mining issue is one such examples of this selective attitude.
If the Argentine republic did truly beleive its won rhetoric and insisted that the Islands are an integral part of the great and most glorious republic, they would have been clambering over the tables at the Ottawa convention demanding that they, the true owners of the islands, not the British usurpers, should be de-mining the islands.
But why has such an action not happened?
The first reason can be found within the context of the Ottawa convention of 1996, which banned landmines, specifically paragraph one of article five of the convention, which states:
"Each state party undertakes to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control, as soon as possible but not later than 10 years after the entry into force of this convention for that state party"
So this specifically sets in law that the Islands are indeed under British sovereignty, and are certainly not an integral part of the Argentine republic as they so publicly wish the world to beleive, the fact that Argentina has never once protested at this article in the convention would seem to suggest that even Argentina accepts that the Islands are not its sovereign territory.
This is indeed a rather embarrassing contradiction for the Argentine govt which in recent years has publicly implemented decrees attempting to control shipping between the islands and mainland South America and has now started issuing fines of up to $7,000 to people traveling from the islands who do not admit on immigration forms that the islands are part of the Argentine republic, the fact that this contradiction has received virtually no coverage in the Argentine press adds weight to the idea that this is an embarrassing contradiction ignored in the hope that by ignoring it, it isn't true.
Another reason for the inability of Argentina to put her mouth were her words are over mine issues, are of course elections and declining popularity of the leader of the day, essentially the Falklands only becomes a nationalist public issue in Argentina when the current president is losing popularity and an election is round the corner. Obviously de-mining is not a popular nationalist issue that will get you votes, especially when the external enemy and rapist of the beautiful glorious republic, is clearing YOUR mines, from what YOU publicly proclaim to be YOUR land! But decrying hydro carbon exploration, military exercises and god knows what else, from YOUR land is a populist nationalist issue, and bound to get you votes and popularity esspecially among a population who have been pretty much brought up with only a singular and very narrow narrative about the Falklands issue, and the nationalist vote although very short-term is an easy vote winner, and a very quick vote winner, especially when evil nasty external enemies are involved threatening the great and glorious motherland.
So it seems that Argentina's irredentist claim to the Falklands is blighted by the twin evils of the need to shore up wavering presidential popularity with nationalist rhetoric, and the rather amateurish and undeveloped approach that Argentina currently has with resolving disputes with other countries.
Quite a bit different to the narrative Argentina wishes to present us, and her people, that the whole claim is and has been about "recovering" lost land, or indeed the current flawed logic that the islands are still somehow a part of Argentina, despite them not being anything close. This is indeed a recipe for failure in Argentina's attempt to gain sovereignty over the islands, whereas the UK has been relatively consistent and simple with its claim (continuous British sovereignty, and self-determination of the inhabitants) Argentina has not, and its claim continually fluctuates depending upon the domestic well being or whatever regime is in power in Argentina, if Argentina cannot be consistent with its claim on a matter as simple as mines, it begs questions as to whether the entire claim is consistent or even legitimate, it is quite clear, at least to this writer, that Argentina's claim is motivated by irrational nationalism and pride rather than anything benign such as reclaiming "that which was lost" a view supported by Myron Weiner (refer to general meanings 1: irredentism) who stated that no irredentist claim is motivated for benign purposes, and certainly the lack of inaction and contradictions by Argentina over de-mining shows how contemptible her claim really is, and what it is at face value, a sinister extremist-nationalist motivated claim, to excercise national ego and a good way to shore up failing public support close to election time, or to hide embarrassing political scandals.
Stand by for more contradictions of note in the future.
The task is made all the more difficult by the fact the Argentine part of the war effort was run so incompetently, that their military only has the vaguest ideas of where it left its mines, the practice of the day being to lob mines haphazardly from helicopters with no strategic thought process, as far away from Argentine defensive positions as possible, in the vain hope that the liberating British forces would walk through these areas, rather than attack the main concentration of Argentine defenses around the capital, Stanley.
As a result mine fields have tended to be found in a rather informal manner, as demonstrated in this helpful educational video below:
Apart from demonstrating that the Argentine occupation forces were thoroughly unmotivated and lack-luster in defending what was supposedly a sacred integral part of the Argentine motherland, ripped away from its bosom by brutal British imperialists, the mine issue demonstrates the bizarre and contradictory approach Argentina has with its sovereignty claim to the Falklands.
Argentine Politicians have for years been quite happy to publicly condemn with great gusto such great injustices as the "plundering of Argentine resources" by Falklands fishing vessels or the newly controversial current hydrocarbon drilling campaign, or wail with indignant nationalist fury about the (now infamous) "unprovoked aggression" by the evil colonial British military test firing rapiers missiles from the islands. In fact just about any action the islanders have done from attending a conference on sustainable fisheries to being accepted into the world bowls association, has warranted the usual bullshit about some kind of violation of international treaties and UN resolutions, a conclusion reached usually by only the most abstract interpretations as is logically possible without inducing some kind of hallucinogenic drug.
But over mine clearance there is a very awkward and telling silence from the normally jihadi like rants of the Malvinists.There appears to be a genuine reluctance to identify clearing Argentine mines in the islands, with their notion that the Islands are sovereign Argentine territory.
Even as the clearing has gone on, Argentina hasn't even made so much as a pip, or even once offered to help to clear its own mines from what we are repeatedly told is an integral part of the Argentine republic.
This inevitably leads us to one logical conclusion: the Argentine republic has a very selective attitude to sovereignty of the islands, and seemingly only selectively chooses when the islands are an integral part of the republic, and when they are not, the mining issue is one such examples of this selective attitude.
If the Argentine republic did truly beleive its won rhetoric and insisted that the Islands are an integral part of the great and most glorious republic, they would have been clambering over the tables at the Ottawa convention demanding that they, the true owners of the islands, not the British usurpers, should be de-mining the islands.
But why has such an action not happened?
The first reason can be found within the context of the Ottawa convention of 1996, which banned landmines, specifically paragraph one of article five of the convention, which states:
"Each state party undertakes to destroy or ensure the destruction of all anti-personnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control, as soon as possible but not later than 10 years after the entry into force of this convention for that state party"
So this specifically sets in law that the Islands are indeed under British sovereignty, and are certainly not an integral part of the Argentine republic as they so publicly wish the world to beleive, the fact that Argentina has never once protested at this article in the convention would seem to suggest that even Argentina accepts that the Islands are not its sovereign territory.
This is indeed a rather embarrassing contradiction for the Argentine govt which in recent years has publicly implemented decrees attempting to control shipping between the islands and mainland South America and has now started issuing fines of up to $7,000 to people traveling from the islands who do not admit on immigration forms that the islands are part of the Argentine republic, the fact that this contradiction has received virtually no coverage in the Argentine press adds weight to the idea that this is an embarrassing contradiction ignored in the hope that by ignoring it, it isn't true.
Another reason for the inability of Argentina to put her mouth were her words are over mine issues, are of course elections and declining popularity of the leader of the day, essentially the Falklands only becomes a nationalist public issue in Argentina when the current president is losing popularity and an election is round the corner. Obviously de-mining is not a popular nationalist issue that will get you votes, especially when the external enemy and rapist of the beautiful glorious republic, is clearing YOUR mines, from what YOU publicly proclaim to be YOUR land! But decrying hydro carbon exploration, military exercises and god knows what else, from YOUR land is a populist nationalist issue, and bound to get you votes and popularity esspecially among a population who have been pretty much brought up with only a singular and very narrow narrative about the Falklands issue, and the nationalist vote although very short-term is an easy vote winner, and a very quick vote winner, especially when evil nasty external enemies are involved threatening the great and glorious motherland.
So it seems that Argentina's irredentist claim to the Falklands is blighted by the twin evils of the need to shore up wavering presidential popularity with nationalist rhetoric, and the rather amateurish and undeveloped approach that Argentina currently has with resolving disputes with other countries.
Quite a bit different to the narrative Argentina wishes to present us, and her people, that the whole claim is and has been about "recovering" lost land, or indeed the current flawed logic that the islands are still somehow a part of Argentina, despite them not being anything close. This is indeed a recipe for failure in Argentina's attempt to gain sovereignty over the islands, whereas the UK has been relatively consistent and simple with its claim (continuous British sovereignty, and self-determination of the inhabitants) Argentina has not, and its claim continually fluctuates depending upon the domestic well being or whatever regime is in power in Argentina, if Argentina cannot be consistent with its claim on a matter as simple as mines, it begs questions as to whether the entire claim is consistent or even legitimate, it is quite clear, at least to this writer, that Argentina's claim is motivated by irrational nationalism and pride rather than anything benign such as reclaiming "that which was lost" a view supported by Myron Weiner (refer to general meanings 1: irredentism) who stated that no irredentist claim is motivated for benign purposes, and certainly the lack of inaction and contradictions by Argentina over de-mining shows how contemptible her claim really is, and what it is at face value, a sinister extremist-nationalist motivated claim, to excercise national ego and a good way to shore up failing public support close to election time, or to hide embarrassing political scandals.
Stand by for more contradictions of note in the future.
Friday, 12 November 2010
Lord West suffers from same stupidity currently afflicting Argentine governemnt
An interesting piece of news this week from the Times.
Ex First Sea Lord, Lord West and his ex naval chums have written an indignant letter to the times expressing their fear that the current cuts in the Navy as a result of the Strategic Defence Review, would mean that "Newly valuable Falklands and their Oil Fields, for the next 10 years at least, Argentina is practically invited to attempt to inflict a national humiliation on us".
Are indeed Lord Wests fears justified? Is a future war with Argentina in the next 10 years likely?
....Hardly.
Lord West and others are basing the entire reason for not cutting the Navy on distinctly flawed military logic:
1. That the Argentine military and government are capable of launching an invasion, both politically and militarily.
2. That the British deterrent force is incapable of resisting an Argentine invasion.
3. That because of the above point, an expedition force with harriers and carriers will be needed to re-take the islands.
To begin with, Lord West has not consider the most obvious flaw in his argument: the capability of the Argentine armed forces.
In the 30 years since the Falklands war, the Argentine military has not recovered from the thumping it received in 1982, it has been since a shadow of its former self, it has reduced all its land, air and sea considerably, they now only have about 10 heavy lift aircraft (C-130 Hercules), half of which do not work, and one seaborne landing platform (ARA Bahia San Blas). The majority of its land forces although now professional volunteers, are chronically underfunded to the point where although on paper it is stated as having 70,000 men under arms, they barely have enough money in the coffers to pay for the training of 40,000, they also only have enough ammunition for about 20 hours of combat, half the attack aircraft don't have enough parts to be airworthy (None of the Super Etendard Exocet missile platforms have flown since the war) and the Air-force now only has 2 airbases within striking distance of the islands, these are now also fully dedicated search and rescue stations and logistic facilities for the Argentine garrison in Antarctica.
On top of that, there is just no stomach for round two in Argentina, both politically and militarily, the prospect of potentially losing another round would ultimately sink any prospect of getting somewhere in the sovereignty dispute and destroy forever the reputation of any Argentine govt stupid enough to consider such a proposal, and I can't even begin to imagine what the international fall out would be, especially among Latin American neighbours.
Thus we get onto our second point, although the UK military has shrunk, the capability has been upgraded significantly, but more importantly is the significant changes to defence in the Falklands:
British forces South Atlantic (as they are now called) now boast powerful ground, sea and air assets, which is a significant capability upgrade from the understrength Royal Marine detachment and local TA unit (the Falkland Islands Defence Force, who were useless overall) which jokingly was referred to as garrison in 1982, and unlike the garrison in 1982, todays garrison can get reinforced in under 18 hours by air, quite a change from 3 weeks sailing back then! Not only that Britain now employs significant intell assets in the region, from listening posts to radar domes, quite simply it would be very hard for Argentina or any other potential hostile to mount a significant enough force to take the islands without being spotted and the garrison reinforced significantly.
Quite simply the current state of the Argentine armed forces and their very very limited transport and landing capabilities could not enable them to take on the current garrison, even if they gained a foothold on remote West Falkland they would have to rely entirely on parachute drop and a ship every 24 hours, whereas the garrison at mount pleasant would be getting reinforced constantly every 18 hours by heavy lift. Even in the most apocalyptic scenario, Venezuelan involvement, would begin and end badly, any build up of Venezuelan air sea and land assets would not go unnoticed, and even the Venezuelan military has equally diabolical transport and logistic capability.
On the final point, it is indeed very poor military thinking from an experience military man to suggest that we are going to need carriers and harriers, to retake the islands because the garrison will fall in the next 10 years, not because we have significant air sea and land assets in the islands now, but because we have scrapped our carrier capability?
Really Lord West? a political and militarily impotent half arsed medium rate country is going to launch an invasion against the Falklands, which are now bolstered by jet fighters, artillery, a destroyer, Rapier missiles, an attack submarine, radar domes and several infantry companies.......based solely on the premise we no longer have any carriers and harriers?
It is a wonder Lord West kept his job for as long as he did.
Ex First Sea Lord, Lord West and his ex naval chums have written an indignant letter to the times expressing their fear that the current cuts in the Navy as a result of the Strategic Defence Review, would mean that "Newly valuable Falklands and their Oil Fields, for the next 10 years at least, Argentina is practically invited to attempt to inflict a national humiliation on us".
Are indeed Lord Wests fears justified? Is a future war with Argentina in the next 10 years likely?
....Hardly.
Lord West and others are basing the entire reason for not cutting the Navy on distinctly flawed military logic:
1. That the Argentine military and government are capable of launching an invasion, both politically and militarily.
2. That the British deterrent force is incapable of resisting an Argentine invasion.
3. That because of the above point, an expedition force with harriers and carriers will be needed to re-take the islands.
To begin with, Lord West has not consider the most obvious flaw in his argument: the capability of the Argentine armed forces.
In the 30 years since the Falklands war, the Argentine military has not recovered from the thumping it received in 1982, it has been since a shadow of its former self, it has reduced all its land, air and sea considerably, they now only have about 10 heavy lift aircraft (C-130 Hercules), half of which do not work, and one seaborne landing platform (ARA Bahia San Blas). The majority of its land forces although now professional volunteers, are chronically underfunded to the point where although on paper it is stated as having 70,000 men under arms, they barely have enough money in the coffers to pay for the training of 40,000, they also only have enough ammunition for about 20 hours of combat, half the attack aircraft don't have enough parts to be airworthy (None of the Super Etendard Exocet missile platforms have flown since the war) and the Air-force now only has 2 airbases within striking distance of the islands, these are now also fully dedicated search and rescue stations and logistic facilities for the Argentine garrison in Antarctica.
On top of that, there is just no stomach for round two in Argentina, both politically and militarily, the prospect of potentially losing another round would ultimately sink any prospect of getting somewhere in the sovereignty dispute and destroy forever the reputation of any Argentine govt stupid enough to consider such a proposal, and I can't even begin to imagine what the international fall out would be, especially among Latin American neighbours.
Thus we get onto our second point, although the UK military has shrunk, the capability has been upgraded significantly, but more importantly is the significant changes to defence in the Falklands:
British forces South Atlantic (as they are now called) now boast powerful ground, sea and air assets, which is a significant capability upgrade from the understrength Royal Marine detachment and local TA unit (the Falkland Islands Defence Force, who were useless overall) which jokingly was referred to as garrison in 1982, and unlike the garrison in 1982, todays garrison can get reinforced in under 18 hours by air, quite a change from 3 weeks sailing back then! Not only that Britain now employs significant intell assets in the region, from listening posts to radar domes, quite simply it would be very hard for Argentina or any other potential hostile to mount a significant enough force to take the islands without being spotted and the garrison reinforced significantly.
Quite simply the current state of the Argentine armed forces and their very very limited transport and landing capabilities could not enable them to take on the current garrison, even if they gained a foothold on remote West Falkland they would have to rely entirely on parachute drop and a ship every 24 hours, whereas the garrison at mount pleasant would be getting reinforced constantly every 18 hours by heavy lift. Even in the most apocalyptic scenario, Venezuelan involvement, would begin and end badly, any build up of Venezuelan air sea and land assets would not go unnoticed, and even the Venezuelan military has equally diabolical transport and logistic capability.
On the final point, it is indeed very poor military thinking from an experience military man to suggest that we are going to need carriers and harriers, to retake the islands because the garrison will fall in the next 10 years, not because we have significant air sea and land assets in the islands now, but because we have scrapped our carrier capability?
Really Lord West? a political and militarily impotent half arsed medium rate country is going to launch an invasion against the Falklands, which are now bolstered by jet fighters, artillery, a destroyer, Rapier missiles, an attack submarine, radar domes and several infantry companies.......based solely on the premise we no longer have any carriers and harriers?
It is a wonder Lord West kept his job for as long as he did.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
The Madness of Queen Kirchner
Her great glorious majesty, Christina Fernandez De Kirchener.As the majority of people in the world are unaware, the mighty Queen Botox of Argentina has scored a spectacular own goal in recent weeks demonstrating why heads of state should never express their real private opinions on the internet.
The latest acute attack of stupidity to afflict the Argentine Presidency began when the British Ministry of Defence informed their Argentine counterparts about routine test firing of the of the Rapier anti-air missile batteries stationed at Mount Pleasant Airbase and the three radar facilities on east and west Falkland.
As always, these tests involved firing several years wages from the British taxpayer into the sea of East Falkland, this always has been and is a regular procedure conducted every 6 months and has been so for the last 28 years, and one would think quite normal considering that in order to have an effective military, the military must be sure its weapons work.
But such matters are never so simple, especially when the neighbouring country seems to suffer lapses of logic and common sense on a far to frequent basis.
When the current regime in Argentina learned of this historical and routine military exercise, rather than ignore it for the complete irrelevance it was and should be, all hell broke lose, mostly in part due to the rather amateurish performance by Argentina's Deputy Foreign Minister, Alberto D'Alotto, who immediately and very publicly came to the rather bizarre conclusion that the rapier (6km ranged anti air missile) possessed inter continental ballistic capabilities and might accidentally travel 400km from east Falkland to impact on Argentine soil.
Thankfully the more sane elements of the Argentine political establishment (and they are far and few between) managed to reel him before he made a greater tit of himself, but not before the great and glorious president of the republic, Christina Fernandez De Kirchener, in solidarity with her clearly clueless deputy foreign minister, attempted like a beaver on ecstasy tablets to start a full blown diplomatic incident via the use of the social website Twitter.
The bizarre single digit IQ statement that resulted was posted on the Argentines Presidencies official Twitter, page, (And in another rare example of common sense in the Argentine political establishment the post has sadly long since been deleted) and serves more to show the bizarre train of thought resident within El Presidentes mind, than it does about the Falklands dispute. A full transcript of the nutty raving in all its glory can be read here.
Wishing to demonstrate her credentials as a towering international colossus, CFK came up with the bizarre conclusion that the missile tests constituted a "Militarization of the South Atlantic". Quite how such logic was reached, is a job best suited for a psychiatrist, but even he might be hard pressed when we see that in the past 28 years, Britain's South Atlantic presence has dropped by 75% from a high of 6,000 in 1982, and the withdrawal of its entire garrison from the also disputed South Georgia Island in 2001.
Such bizarre logic is further called into question when we see poor threatened and oppressed Argentina hasn't exactly been the model example of not militarising the South Atlantic as CFK wants herself to believe, as recent announcements by the Argentine defence minister have shown. Amongst such peaceful un-militaristic initiatives (with Christian's approval) are an increased defence budget by 50%, deliberate rival drilling operations adjacent to the Falklands EEZ, deployments of military personnel in Antarctica including tanks and the building of five new corvettes; with the (unbelievable but true) officially sanctioned purpose to bother the islanders and active challenging of British sovereignty.
Christina further demonstrated her clearly loosening grasp of reality, by declaring these exercises would lead to a "South Atlantic arms race", although it is yet to be confirmed whether other states (Angola, Brazil, Chile, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Namibia, Republic of Congo, South Africa, Uruguay) who have South Atlantic coastlines, have had a sudden urge to develop a rival anti-air system to the cold war era rapier. With such clearly insane analysis one might say that the Royal Navy firing a 24 gun salute on HMS Victory with Napoleonic era cannons celebrating Trafalgar day caused the arms race that lead to World War One.
But Christina simply could not stop herself there, she went on,
“Serious very serious, Royal Navy occupying Colonial force in Falklands Islands reports military exercise with missiles on the coast of Isla Soledad”
And on.
“Typical 19th-century colonialism, anachronistic use of force, violating international law, they don’t care, clear example of double standards.”
Her clear lack of understanding about the Falklands and what actually goes on there, becoming ever more apparent with each sentence, as well gifting more evidence to speculation about a bi-polar disorder.
It clearly requires quite a deranged mind to conclude that the Royal Navy is an occupying colonial force or that it is conducting missile exercises which were carried out on land by the Royal Artillery, even more bizarre is her idea that it was an “anachronistic use of force”. When I think of the term use of force, I like many refer to the so called shock and Awe tactics used by the Americans on a regular basis; gratuitous amounts of fire-power bombing the crap out of very visible targets for the worlds media to see. This routine test fire however, I think, would not fall under such a term, tell me if you are awed at this show of strength.
The final coup de grace of this lunacy was her assumption that Britain has violated international law, of course answer are a bit thin on the ground from the Argentine President about which law says that firing missiles on ones own territory violates international law?
“Synthesise pirates forever?”
I think the MOD summed up her reaction beautifully:
“We have been conducting these missile tests regularly for the last 28 years without any issue, the unofficial statement released by the President seems odd in light of these facts”
Bravo Christina, for your efforts in reminding the islanders why Argentina should never be allowed to obtain sovereignty.
Monday, 21 June 2010
General meanings vol 1. Irredentism.
Irredentism is a word that is going to crop up alot in this blog and so it is best that I define it for the reader as a reference to refer back to.
So what on earth is Irredentism? Very few people in the world save for international political theorists have encountered it, and less than double digit numbers of books have even remotely addressed this concept, which is surprising because once defined in real situations today it becomes very easy to understand, and very significant given that it governs the relationship of many states with each other in , sometimes in a violent fashion.
1. Historic and basic definition:
Irredentism is Italian in origin and is drawn from the Italian word Irredenta which translates as; To Redeem,this definition in turn was the name taken by a group of 19th century Italian Nationalist's, the Italia Irredenta. The purpose and nature of this group? Quite simply the redeeming of Italian speaking areas from the rule of various foreign powers, namely Austria.
Put very simply, irredentism is a Nationalist or political process, by which states or non state nationalist groups call for the annexation of territory that is part of another state, owned by another state, and in some cases the annexation of a state in its entirety for a variety of reasons such as ethnicity, history or a component in a constitution.
2. Motivation of claims:
Irredentist claims are motivated by a variety of reasons, this can include but are not limited too the below reasons, and certainly in some cases can exist in conjunction with each other:
2.1 Ethnic/co-national Irredentism: This form of irredentism advocates the annexation of a territory based upon the presence of co-nationals, a current example is the Serbian irredentist claims to large areas of Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro, a historical example would be Nazi irredentism prior to world war two.
2.2 Historical irredentism: An Irredentist claim in this case is motivated by past possession of a territory whether it be actual or perceived, many sadly tend to fall in the perceived or at least exaggerated category, either bringing ridicule to the irredentist advocate (as was the case with the more nuttier elements of the SNP claiming Berwick Upon Tweed) or leading to unfortunate conflicts and pointless deterioration in relations between states, Nazi irredentism proving to be the most prominent example of the dangers associated with Historical irredentism.
2.3 Constitutional Irredentism: In most cases Irredentist states usually to try and add credibility to their claims and make sure that it never falls of the agenda; will formalize their claims to territories, by including the claim in question within their constitutions, the most prominent example today is the Argentine claim to the Falklands and other British South Atlantic territories which it recently in 1994 included within Part 3 section I of its constitution......history does not recall if the inhabitants of the Falklands gave democratic approval to this amendment.
2.4 Economic/Strategic Irredentism: Although no irredentist claims as such are advocated under such pretensions, it has become common knowledge that many claims advocated for other reasons are a smoke screen to hide true intentions....annexation of another countries rich mineral resources, strategic economic placement or purely for its strategic value. several examples spring to mind, the Venezuelan claim to well over 3/4 of Guyana, these 3/4 coincidentally just happen to straddle one of the richest mineral regions in Norther South America, other economic claims would include Iraq's claim to Oil rich Kuwait and also its strategic access to the sea, and last but not least, Spain's claim to Gibraltar, no coincidence to do with the fact Gibraltar controls all passage in and out of the Mediterranean and thus to and from the Suez.
2.5 Political Irredentism: This form of irredentist could probably be done in conjunction with most forms of irredentist, but in this specific context it is used as a means to garner nationalist support for a political gain in the short or long term, usually by exploiting an already established but very low level irredentist dispute, the most prominent example to date is undoubtedly the Falklands, which tends to fluctuate in sync with the popularity and electoral prospects of the incumbent Argentine Administration, other examples include Irish irredentism to Northern Ireland during the poverty stricken period after independence, where it was claimed that the British North was leaching the republics wealth and talent, nothing of course to do with the fact that post independence Ireland was ruled rather incompetent under a traditionalist conservative government.
"We wantss it! It belongs to usses!"
3. The great evil of irredentism.
Although in the 19th and 20th century, the claiming of territory as ones own, was in itself the norm of the day, as we reach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, it seems increasingly anachronistic that states should still embark on a policy which demands the annexation of other states or territory, and even more so when, like in the majority of irredentism claims: involve the annexation of territory not inhabited by peoples of the same nationality or ethnicity of the claimant state, what is even more disturbing, that despite democratic objections irredentist states still continue to claim these territories, an example close to home would be Gibraltar. Despite 2 referendums (1967 and 2002) rejecting (with well over 90% of the vote) any change of sovereignty to Spain, however Spain still continually, despite these overwhelming democratic objections, claims sovereignty over Gibraltar.
It is quite clear that irredentism is and has been a plague upon world politics for centuries. International relations, peace, prosperity, democracy, self-determination, human rights and much much more are under threat or have been violated in the name of a states irredentist claim.
Time and time again it has been inherently obvious that irredentism serves no benign purpose except to benefit the irredentist state at the expense of somebody else, it is an inherently extremist nationalist trait, as in most cases of irredentism the concerns of third parties even if they are in the majority of the claimed territory are wholeheartedly ignored in the pursuit of that territory or country, their voices drowned out in a frenzy of nationalist fanaticism. The late Myron Weiner was acutely aware of the danger of irredentist claims and noted in his writing The Macedonian Syndrome (New Balkan Journal of Politics, 2, March, 2000) that most irredentist states are driven by nationalist sentiment and obsession with the past. This obsession he tells us more often than not, leads to a manipulation of history in order to justify the irredentist states claims.
4. Benefits of Irredentism?
But it is not all to say gloom and doom, not all aspects of irredentism are vile nationalist reactions, some such as uniting a dispersed peoples can be inevitably beneficial to both the irredentist and the claimed territory. The Indian annexation of Goa stands as one of these few examples, as does the Unification of East and West Germany, who both had an irredentist claim on each other, but these rare examples share one trait, they were claiming territories with co-nationals and in the case of Goa where India's co-nationals lived under the rule of the a Portuguese Junta, thus in some cases irredentism can be a humanitarian response.
Even in cases where the irredentist is claiming a territory which contains natioanlities different from its own, a positive outcome can be achieved. The Aland islands dispute in the 20's is one such example.
The Majority Swedish speaking islands; (historically a part of the Swedish kingdom prior to their annexation by Russia in 1809) yet ruled by Finland, demanded at the close of world war 1, self-determination and a desire to be reunified with Sweden, a call reiterated by Sweden. The League of Nations, in what was that bodies first successful test in international arbitration, eventually decided that Finland should retain sovereignty of the islands, effectively ignoring the islanders self-determination, however Finland had placed various guarantees on the islands, granting them a very generous degree of autonomy, and exempting the population from Finlands longstanding practice of conscription.
Overall it has been agreed that Finnish rule has been benevolent, the islanders rights have been respected and their population and well being has grown and expanded greatly under Finnish rule, and the Islanders now see a common future with Finland, as a Swedish province within the republic of Finland.
5. Conclusions.
Overall though it seems that the Aland Islands are the exception to the rule, and generally, the claiming of territory by other states where the population share no common ethnicity nationality or allegiance to the claimant, tends to result in negative outcomes and circumstances.
Although there is possibly a moral case for claiming territory on which co-nationals reside on that basis. To claim territory where no co-nationals reside is a fundamentally immoral act, made more so by a refusal to abide by that groups desired and stated wishes, whether it is to be an identified state or remain as the territory of another state, an argument may be allowed in this respect, to support ignoring the population, but only within the confines of an occupied territory for instance with clear evidenced of a displaced population by violent means and ethnic cleansing, a prime example would be the current situation in Palestine and the Golan heights.
However far too many states have used the above reason to justify irredentist claims, many of them on false pretensions, especially when they appeal to distant history.
It is these historical claims which should be regarded as the most dangerous, because history can be and is re-interpreted and falsified by an irredentist state, the fluid nature of history means that any quote or action can be abused or made up to the suite the stance of any irredentist state. What is more, it is used as a mean to justify overriding human rights, take the respective claims of both Argentina and Spain to the Falklands and Gibraltar, both are based primarily on perceived historical possession dating back several centuries, is thus just that human rights and democracy should be ignored just to go and correct changes in the borders hundreds of years ago? I say not borders have changed dozens of times to donate in international law would be to legitimize wholesale violations of peoples self-determination and democracy the world over.
In my opinion irredentism claims can be summed up with a phrase from the film Inception (2010) "An Idea is like a Virus, resilient highly contagious and the seed of an idea can grow, it can grow to define you....or destroy you".
Like in Inception, irredentism is like a virus, the smallest idea of territorial ownership is planted and it grows over time into a contagion within a nations psyche, a malicious contagion which demands the overriding of democracy and human rights to satisfy the populist nationalist call of the day.
And like all viruses it needs to be fought tooth and nail to stop it gaining its wicked little way.......
2. Motivation of claims:
Irredentist claims are motivated by a variety of reasons, this can include but are not limited too the below reasons, and certainly in some cases can exist in conjunction with each other:
2.1 Ethnic/co-national Irredentism: This form of irredentism advocates the annexation of a territory based upon the presence of co-nationals, a current example is the Serbian irredentist claims to large areas of Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro, a historical example would be Nazi irredentism prior to world war two.
2.2 Historical irredentism: An Irredentist claim in this case is motivated by past possession of a territory whether it be actual or perceived, many sadly tend to fall in the perceived or at least exaggerated category, either bringing ridicule to the irredentist advocate (as was the case with the more nuttier elements of the SNP claiming Berwick Upon Tweed) or leading to unfortunate conflicts and pointless deterioration in relations between states, Nazi irredentism proving to be the most prominent example of the dangers associated with Historical irredentism.
2.3 Constitutional Irredentism: In most cases Irredentist states usually to try and add credibility to their claims and make sure that it never falls of the agenda; will formalize their claims to territories, by including the claim in question within their constitutions, the most prominent example today is the Argentine claim to the Falklands and other British South Atlantic territories which it recently in 1994 included within Part 3 section I of its constitution......history does not recall if the inhabitants of the Falklands gave democratic approval to this amendment.
2.4 Economic/Strategic Irredentism: Although no irredentist claims as such are advocated under such pretensions, it has become common knowledge that many claims advocated for other reasons are a smoke screen to hide true intentions....annexation of another countries rich mineral resources, strategic economic placement or purely for its strategic value. several examples spring to mind, the Venezuelan claim to well over 3/4 of Guyana, these 3/4 coincidentally just happen to straddle one of the richest mineral regions in Norther South America, other economic claims would include Iraq's claim to Oil rich Kuwait and also its strategic access to the sea, and last but not least, Spain's claim to Gibraltar, no coincidence to do with the fact Gibraltar controls all passage in and out of the Mediterranean and thus to and from the Suez.
2.5 Political Irredentism: This form of irredentist could probably be done in conjunction with most forms of irredentist, but in this specific context it is used as a means to garner nationalist support for a political gain in the short or long term, usually by exploiting an already established but very low level irredentist dispute, the most prominent example to date is undoubtedly the Falklands, which tends to fluctuate in sync with the popularity and electoral prospects of the incumbent Argentine Administration, other examples include Irish irredentism to Northern Ireland during the poverty stricken period after independence, where it was claimed that the British North was leaching the republics wealth and talent, nothing of course to do with the fact that post independence Ireland was ruled rather incompetent under a traditionalist conservative government.
"We wantss it! It belongs to usses!"3. The great evil of irredentism.
Although in the 19th and 20th century, the claiming of territory as ones own, was in itself the norm of the day, as we reach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, it seems increasingly anachronistic that states should still embark on a policy which demands the annexation of other states or territory, and even more so when, like in the majority of irredentism claims: involve the annexation of territory not inhabited by peoples of the same nationality or ethnicity of the claimant state, what is even more disturbing, that despite democratic objections irredentist states still continue to claim these territories, an example close to home would be Gibraltar. Despite 2 referendums (1967 and 2002) rejecting (with well over 90% of the vote) any change of sovereignty to Spain, however Spain still continually, despite these overwhelming democratic objections, claims sovereignty over Gibraltar.
It is quite clear that irredentism is and has been a plague upon world politics for centuries. International relations, peace, prosperity, democracy, self-determination, human rights and much much more are under threat or have been violated in the name of a states irredentist claim.
Time and time again it has been inherently obvious that irredentism serves no benign purpose except to benefit the irredentist state at the expense of somebody else, it is an inherently extremist nationalist trait, as in most cases of irredentism the concerns of third parties even if they are in the majority of the claimed territory are wholeheartedly ignored in the pursuit of that territory or country, their voices drowned out in a frenzy of nationalist fanaticism. The late Myron Weiner was acutely aware of the danger of irredentist claims and noted in his writing The Macedonian Syndrome (New Balkan Journal of Politics, 2, March, 2000) that most irredentist states are driven by nationalist sentiment and obsession with the past. This obsession he tells us more often than not, leads to a manipulation of history in order to justify the irredentist states claims.
4. Benefits of Irredentism?
But it is not all to say gloom and doom, not all aspects of irredentism are vile nationalist reactions, some such as uniting a dispersed peoples can be inevitably beneficial to both the irredentist and the claimed territory. The Indian annexation of Goa stands as one of these few examples, as does the Unification of East and West Germany, who both had an irredentist claim on each other, but these rare examples share one trait, they were claiming territories with co-nationals and in the case of Goa where India's co-nationals lived under the rule of the a Portuguese Junta, thus in some cases irredentism can be a humanitarian response.
Even in cases where the irredentist is claiming a territory which contains natioanlities different from its own, a positive outcome can be achieved. The Aland islands dispute in the 20's is one such example.
The Majority Swedish speaking islands; (historically a part of the Swedish kingdom prior to their annexation by Russia in 1809) yet ruled by Finland, demanded at the close of world war 1, self-determination and a desire to be reunified with Sweden, a call reiterated by Sweden. The League of Nations, in what was that bodies first successful test in international arbitration, eventually decided that Finland should retain sovereignty of the islands, effectively ignoring the islanders self-determination, however Finland had placed various guarantees on the islands, granting them a very generous degree of autonomy, and exempting the population from Finlands longstanding practice of conscription.
Overall it has been agreed that Finnish rule has been benevolent, the islanders rights have been respected and their population and well being has grown and expanded greatly under Finnish rule, and the Islanders now see a common future with Finland, as a Swedish province within the republic of Finland.
5. Conclusions.
Overall though it seems that the Aland Islands are the exception to the rule, and generally, the claiming of territory by other states where the population share no common ethnicity nationality or allegiance to the claimant, tends to result in negative outcomes and circumstances.
Although there is possibly a moral case for claiming territory on which co-nationals reside on that basis. To claim territory where no co-nationals reside is a fundamentally immoral act, made more so by a refusal to abide by that groups desired and stated wishes, whether it is to be an identified state or remain as the territory of another state, an argument may be allowed in this respect, to support ignoring the population, but only within the confines of an occupied territory for instance with clear evidenced of a displaced population by violent means and ethnic cleansing, a prime example would be the current situation in Palestine and the Golan heights.
However far too many states have used the above reason to justify irredentist claims, many of them on false pretensions, especially when they appeal to distant history.
It is these historical claims which should be regarded as the most dangerous, because history can be and is re-interpreted and falsified by an irredentist state, the fluid nature of history means that any quote or action can be abused or made up to the suite the stance of any irredentist state. What is more, it is used as a mean to justify overriding human rights, take the respective claims of both Argentina and Spain to the Falklands and Gibraltar, both are based primarily on perceived historical possession dating back several centuries, is thus just that human rights and democracy should be ignored just to go and correct changes in the borders hundreds of years ago? I say not borders have changed dozens of times to donate in international law would be to legitimize wholesale violations of peoples self-determination and democracy the world over.
In my opinion irredentism claims can be summed up with a phrase from the film Inception (2010) "An Idea is like a Virus, resilient highly contagious and the seed of an idea can grow, it can grow to define you....or destroy you".
Like in Inception, irredentism is like a virus, the smallest idea of territorial ownership is planted and it grows over time into a contagion within a nations psyche, a malicious contagion which demands the overriding of democracy and human rights to satisfy the populist nationalist call of the day.
And like all viruses it needs to be fought tooth and nail to stop it gaining its wicked little way.......
Argie contradictions of note vol I : Owning something, despite not eeer! owning it.
In my many wanderings on mercopress and others and my long term following of the Falklands issue, I have come to find the true bizarre reality of Argentina's claim to sovereignty over the islands and the that the claim itself is riddled with contradictions, which are never ever addressed by anyone in Argentina, or indeed the other Latin American states who lavishly brown nose Argentina over this issue without any logical questioning of the facts Argentina presents, in fact very few people hit on to these contradictions, and probably even fewer (even the British and Falklands govts) make it into a means to challenge Argentine reasoning for its claim.
That is why I have set up this series of posts, Argie contradictions of note with the aim of listing and disseminating the most glaring and bizarre contradictions Argentina and Argentinians have come up with over the years, in the vain hope that people will read them and start to question in much greater detail the rational and lapses of logic that appear to drive the reasoning behind Argentina's claim and obviously just show case how bizarre the claim really is and how tainted it is with extremist nationalism, rather than anything benign. I hope to try and be consistent on this front, I can envisage certain occasions where contradictions of note will overlap with my other post series Argie Myths, however this shouldn't happen to often.
So I shall begin with my most favorite contradiction at the minute, that of the very popular slogan in Argentina and amongst ardent Malvinist's:
"The Malvinas, were, are and will be Argentinian"
The origins of said slogan come from the Falklands war and started appearing on various TV shows at the end of the program with the playing of the national anthem. As it happened it became infectious and appeared just about everywhere. Even with the conclusion of the war, like with many habits Argentina acquired from that conflict, this phrase has been very hard to shake off, and nobody has really questioned it glaringly obvious insulting contradictions of logic, they just say, and take it as a indisputable matter of fact.
In fact the whole slogan contradicts itself so obviously, it beggars belief as to why nobody has stood up in Argentina and said "wait a minute here!".
The first part of the phrase "were Argentine" states that the islands were Argentine, in fact as a standalone phrase, this could be argued as fact to an extent, since the country before Argentina, the United Provinces of Rio Plata, briefly for a few months had limited control of the islands.
However it is the second statement "are Argentine" where logic starts to unravel spectacularly, although at the time of the creation of this slogan it was indeed fact, since Argentina was occupying the islands, and thus at least on a temporary basis they were Argentine, it is however the continual use of this phrase so long after the war, that it falls flat on its arse.
The present tense (are) contradicts itself spectacularly with the past tense (were), the past tense implies that the islands were once possessed by Argentina, but not anymore, but then suddenly an amazing leap of logic occurs and the islands have now suddenly become a present possession of Argentina and ignoring the glaringly obvious, that the islands are currently under de-facto British sovereignty.
The final Coup de Grace in this sorry tale is the use of the future tense (will be) as this then implies that Argentina does not currently posses the islands, and did not posses them, and thus possession is an aspiration which will be achieved in the future, indeed yet another amazing leap of logic which could probably only be physically achieved within the realms of Dr Who.
So thus how can Argentina have possessed something, which it currently posses (but does not) but yet in the future will acquire possession of it?
It seems that with such a baffling train of logic that is physically impossible and contradicts the reallity of the situation, such an idea in Argentina can only be confined entirely to the realm of meta-physics.
But it also perfectly demonstrates the bizarre contradictions of Argentina's claim, and also how truly dangerous the claim is, as Carlos Escudes a controversial political theorist in Argentina wrote (controversial because he is one of few Argentinians to question the plausibility and legality of Argentina's irredentist claim):
"Despite the obvious contradictions of this slogan, nobody has challenged or even questioned its meaning, because in Argentina we are taught from birth that the claim is unquestionable, even when faced with such obvious contradictions, because it involves the sacred Malvinas, it therefore cannot be questioned. Even if the govt declared something as outrageous as the Malvinas being covered in lush forests, running with milk and honey and that they were a gift from god to Argentina, people would still not question it, because it involves that which cannot be questioned"
So how may I ask are the UK and others meant to challenge a claim which is so unquestionable that even the most bizarre ideas about the islands cannot be questioned, a claim which nationalist doctrine, cannot be questioned, no matter how bizarre and contradictory it may appear. Change in the Argentine mindset appears to be critically needed, as do far more robust challenges publicly on the international stage, by the UK and the Falklands, identifying the illogical manner and contradictions by which Argentina presents its claim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)