UK denies ‘militarising’ South Atlantic as Falklands row grows
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner will issue a formal complaint to the UN. Picture: Getty
DOWNING STREET officials have denied claims from the Argentinian government that Britain is creating a risk to international security by “militarising” the long-standing dispute over the Falkland Islands.
Argentina will make a formal complaint to the United Nations over the UK’s decision to send a warship and the Duke of Cambridge to the South Atlantic, President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said.
But No 10 said the despatch of destroyer HMS Dauntless to the Falklands to replace the frigate HMS Montrose did not amount to an escalation of military activity.
“We are not militarising the South Atlantic,” said a Downing Street spokeswoman.
“Our defensive posture in the Falklands remains the same.”
The spokeswoman confirmed that the Government has contingency plans in case of aggressive actions towards the self-governing British overseas territory.
But she stressed that the contingency plans have been in place for some time, and are not a response to the recent spike in tension between London and Buenos Aires as the 30th anniversary of the war for the islands approaches.
Ms Kirchner’s comments are the latest in a series of very public displays of anger from Buenos Aires over development surrounding the disputed archipelago.
Last week William began a six-week posting in the region in his role as an RAF search and rescue pilot.
His deployment came after the Government confirmed it was sending Dauntless, one of its newest Type 45 destroyers, to the South Atlantic.
The warship is due to set sail for the region on her maiden mission in the coming months to replace the Montrose in a handover of responsibility described as “entirely routine” by Foreign Secretary William Hague.
It has also been reported that the Royal Navy is sending a nuclear submarine to the region to protect the islands from possible Argentinian military action. This has not been confirmed by the Ministry of Defence.
Speaking to an audience including Falkland war veterans and other politicians at Argentina’s presidential residence last night, Ms Kirchner it was difficult to see how “the sending of an immense and modern destroyer accompanied by the royal heir who we would have liked to see in civilian clothes and not in military uniform” was not a show of purposeful military strength by the UK.
She said: “I have instructed our chancellor to present formally to the Security Council of the United Nations and before the General Assembly of the United Nations this militarisation of the South Atlantic which implies a great risk for international security.”
Argentina would be opposing “this militarisation of the South Atlantic” because it was a region where “peace reigns”, said Ms Kirchner.
Speaking to reporters at a daily Westminster briefing today, the Downing Street spokeswoman said it was a matter for Argentina what issues it wished to raise at the UN.
She said: “The people of the Falklands choose to be British. Their right to self-determination is a principle enshrined in the UN charter.
“The Falklands are already discussed by a UN committee and it is up to the Argentines to decide whether they are going to raise it at the UN.
“The fact is that one of the key principles of the UN charter is self-determination and that is what we are talking about in relation to the Falkland Islands.”
There was “no suggestion” that Britain needs to increase its military presence or its defence assets in the South Atlantic, said the spokesman.
Asked if the Government had plans in place to deal with any aggression against the Falklands, she replied: “Yes, we have contingency plans. You would expect the Government to have contingency plans.”
But asked if these plans were new, she said: “No. The contingency plans have always been in place.”
The Foreign Office made clear that the UK will not enter into negotiations over the sovereignty of the islands, which have been in British hands since 1833 and are known to the Argentinians as Las Malvinas.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “The people of the Falkland Islands are British out of choice. They are free to determine their own future and there will be no negotiations with Argentina over sovereignty unless the islanders wish it.”
Relations between London and Buenos Aires have been increasingly frosty in the run-up to the anniversary of the Argentine invasion on April 2 1982.
In December, Prime Minister David Cameron accused the Buenos Aires administration of “colonialism” after the Mercosur grouping of countries, which includes Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Paraguay, announced that it would ban ships sailing under the Falkland Islands flag from docking at their ports.
Interest in the islands has been heightened by recent progress in the drive to exploit oil and gas reserves under the seas off their shores.
Ms Kirchner denied last night she was beating the drum for war.
“We are people who have suffered too much violence in our country. We are not attracted to armed games, or wars, on the contrary,” she said.
“No land, no place can be a spoil of war. We do not believe in the spoils of war.”
She also made clear her view that the British are occupying the Falklands, saying: “It is an anachronism that in the 21st Century that there are still colonies: there are only 16 cases (of colonisation) in the whole world, 10 of them are English.”
Towards the end of her speech she made a direct plea to Mr Cameron, saying: “I want to simply ask the English Prime Minister that he gives peace a chance, that some time he gives peace a chance.”
British Falklands veteran Simon Weston, who was badly injured during the conflict, described the Argentinian president as “a troubled woman”.
He told the BBC: “I don’t know what she thinks she is going to gain by annoying everyone with these continuing arguments.
“Ultimately, what are the UN going to do? Are they going to sign a sanction against Britain? I doubt it very much.”
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 9 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
arielalejandro
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 07:33 PMtartantt: Answer your own review: Then a group of Argentine 100 or 200 we settled on 6 or 7 blocks from London with weapons and claim self-determination, since we are Argentines, even though we live in 4000km of our nation. Only reality is the force of arms. Thank you.
arielalejandro
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 07:24 PMfirst: the whole invasion is illegal because it had the possibility to negotiate peacefully. I agree with this. second, the prospect of invasion in 1833, implementation of originating ENGLISH (NOT BRITISH) ENGLISH, is illegal without limitation of time. third, the situation of illegality English is not justified invasion time with Argentina. In Northern Ireland did the same .... remember? That life will not remove welfare memory. That life of well-being not buy you the opinion. tanks
ELDee
Saturday, February 11, 2012 at 06:23 AM#6, the Falklands history is patchwork as you say. However under the UN 150 year rule on colonisation; the Falkland Islands are British, but at year 149 (1982) General Galtieri and his team invaded. The invasion was illegal; Argentine signed up to the 150 year ruling many years before General Galtieri invaded it. Hence the 150 year ruling stays. I hardly think several thousand sheep or a few dozen fishermen ravage the resources of the Falkland Islands
arielalejandro
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 07:48 PMI put this example .... the English come to their land, expel its people and finally settle English people ..... 200 years after you claim their land taken, and these "gentlemen" call artificially installed peoples self-determination theory, while these "gentlemen" ravage their natural resources. I know you understand these words ....... I understand that this has ever suffered in any way, you're not English .... thanks
ELDee
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 06:48 PMSo what English or British; are you saying you support the argies shooting farmers at Darwin or Goose Green out of hand just because they are Brits? Because that is what nearly happened 30 years ago.
Trotsky
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 02:06 AMAye, its only going to get more hyped up, the Argentinian's can see that the Brit State is skint so are upin the stakes. Yes it is a colony but, the Argentinian's themselves are colonists & at great expense to the indigenous peoples of South America. I don't imagine it would be such a big deal to them if it was the Spanish & not the UK that was on the islands & fine she, their president, knows that. Someone should also educate her & others around the globe that, English & British are not the same. The unionists on this island are giving it big at the moment so, there is an oportunity for them to clarify this ignorance to people such as Kirchner, if being a Brit is so important then at last can this term English subing fo British finally be put out of use?
Trotsky
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 02:06 AMAye, its only going to get more hyped up, the Argentinian's can see that the Brit State is skint so are upin the stakes. Yes it is a colony but, the Argentinian's themselves are colonists & at great expense to the indigenous peoples of South America. I don't imagine it would be such a big deal to them if it was the Spanish & not the UK that was on the islands & fine she, their president, knows that. Someone should also educate her & others around the globe that, English & British are not the same. The unionists on this island are giving it big at the moment so, there is an oportunity for them to clarify this ignorance to people such as Kirchner, if being a Brit is so important then at last can this term English subing fo British finally be put out of use?
tartantt
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 10:33 PMThe media continue to talk up this as a dispute. The Falklands are British. The Falklanders want to remain British. The current Argentine regime are recreating the imperialist language of 30 years ago & our media should do all they can to support OUR people, There is no dispute, only an aggressive regime. Say it as it is please.
aberdingdong
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 08:05 PMSend an aircraft carrier down....ahh...maybe not
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.