If the events in Ukraine are to appear as more than a series of disconnected events, you really must take the long view. So if you want to understand why it looked last night as though war was about to break out in the Crimea, perhaps take a look at this piece of analysis by Stratfor. It's a company that focuses on geography and history to explain what is happening in the world. Stratfor makes its money by signing up paying subscribers, but makes some of its work freely available. The book from which this is taken, The next hundred years, is also worth reading.
With the London 2012 Olympic Games just around the corner, I was left dumbfounded when faced with Argentina’s answer to an ‘Olympic advert’.
Despite the obvious difficulties of dissociating the Olympic games with politics – in fact any sporting event with politics – in fact anything with politics these days - Argentina laying claim to ‘their Malvinas’ seems to me beyond insensitive, so close to the most famous sporting event in the world, which at its heart promotes international union above politics.
I can accept the arguments presented to the British by Argentina to the Islands 8077.99 miles away from the British mainland – but I struggle to understand why Argentina continues along its current path of foreign policy to land it has never legitimately claimed.
On their current path Argentina might as well ask Chile if they could have a slice of land while they’re at it.
After watching the video, I was left wondering: Who hired the Argentine Foreign Minister? And why its foreign policy is still so tightly geared in favour of claiming the Falklands...
I suspect much like Thatcher’s government, the Argentines use the Falkland’s as a political tool to win public opinion and assert political power, but in our modern age, with the lessons the world should have learned from other historic land battles, why does Argentina persist?
The advert, which was broadcast on Argentine national television yesterday, showed an Argentine hockey player (Fernando Zylberberg) training against a backdrop of the Falkland Islands most famous landmarks.
The advert was filmed secretly on the Islands, concluding with the message: “To compete on English soil, we train on Argentine soil”.
I realise the Falkland Islands present little more than a political toy to our government, used and abused to sway public opinion past and present, but I am lost for words as to who thought the Argentine Olympic Game advert was a good idea.
George Grant posed an interesting point in an article for the Telegraph in February: “Giving the Falkland Islands to Argentina makes as much sense as giving Alaska to Canada: none whatsoever.”
You can read his article here
He goes on to say: “Ms Kirchner’s (Argentine President) claims to sovereignty over the Falklands are bogus, and she should know it. The reason why the notion of handing Alaska to Canada sounds so absurd is because the Alaskans have no desire to become Canadian, and the rest of us respect that fact. “
“There is, as it happens, a term for such sentiment in international legal parlance. It is called the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. If Ms Kirchner cared to look, she would find this written down in Article 1.2 of the Charter of the United Nations, to which her country is a signatory. “
The residents of the Falklands are British, and want it to stay that way, so when will Argentina realise and spend the time wasted on the Falklands dispute on more pressing issues effecting their own Country?
Also, who got Sean Penn involved?
The British claim to sovereignty dates from 1690, and the United Kingdom has exercised de facto sovereignty over the archipelago almost continuously since 1833. Argentina has long disputed this claim, having been in control of the islands for a brief period prior to 1833. The dispute escalated in 1982, when Argentina invaded the islands, precipitating the Falklands War.