Argentina Pitches Falklands Snit, Walks Out Of Americas Summit

Even dumber than the US secret service agents and military personnel who wouldn’t pay their hookers:

Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner has stormed out of the Summit of the Americas in protest against a perceived lack of regional support for her country’s claims in the dispute with the UK over the Falkland Islands.

The summit in Colombia had already been marred by a lack of consensus among attendees, with Latin America countries opposing the decades-old US isolation of communist Cuba.

Several countries put pressure on Barack Obama to end the ban, as the US president continued to be plagued by a US secret service scandal involving prostitutes.

Al Jazeera’s Lucia Newman, reporting from Cartagena, said the summit was at risk of “falling apart” after Kirchner’s exit.

“I suppose the collapse shouldn’t be too surprising. There was complete disagreement about signing a final statement but the nail in the coffin came when Cristina Kirchner stormed out of the summit followed by Bolivia’s Evo Morales.

“[Kirchner] was furious, we are told, because of the lack of full, complete support for Argentina’s claim of control of the Falkand Islands,” Newman said.

“We understand she was very, very angry that [leaders] didn’t even mention the dispute over the islands with the UK.”

“She was overheard saying, ‘This is pointless. Why did I even come here?'”

Until and unless the inhabitants of the islands change their minds about sticking with the UK, no-one’s going to back Argentina’s bid for the resource-rich region and expose themselves to charges of riding roughshod over the islanders’ democratic decision.

This post was read 52 times.

About author View all posts

Steve Hynd

Most recently I was Editor in Chief of The Agonist from Feb 2012 to Feb 2013. My blogging began at Newshoggers and I’ve had the immense pleasure of working with some great writers there and around the web ever since, including at Crooks & Liars. I'm a late 40′s, Scottish ex-pat, now married to a wonderful Texan, with Honours in Philosophy from Univ. of Stirling, UK 1986. I worked most of life in business insurance industry (fire, accident, liability) including 12 years as a broker/underwriter/correspondent at Lloyd’s of London. Being from the other side of the pond, my political interests tend to focus on how US foreign policy affects the rest of the planet. Other interests include early and dark-ages British history, literature and cognitive philosophy/science.

11 CommentsLeave a comment

  • I would add that the “islanders” are all colonialists occupying this territory for Britain. Not sure where that runs out but this isn’t exactly an independent place that has chosen its own destiny.

  • How do you figure? There was nobody living on the islands prior to habitation by settlers – unlike some nations where the white man literally decimated the indigent natives I could mention. When you’ve handed the US back to the original inhabitants, this argument might fly.

  • Apples and oranges.

    I would not make any excuse for the American colonialists decimation of our “native” inhabitants or for our wresting control of their lands from them, first at the behest of the crown, and second on our own behest.

    The question which I believe is a fair one is when do the rights of colonialists who are exploiting territory not naturally their own accrue? Question two, which I also think is fair, is when are the rights of a colonial power far from home assertable over territory that is near and “naturally” associated with another nation?

    Put another way, if China were to send some of its citizens to a heretofore uninhabited Florida Key, hold a vote in which these residents voted for inclusion in China, would you support their right to that island? Immediately? After how many years? Does the law of adverse possession apply internationally?

  • Well the Wiki link rather makes my point than it does yours with Britain having expelled Argentines from the islands when they first asserted their control in 1833. And Argentina did exist in 1833.

    So try answering my questions.

    I am simply disinclined to favor colonialist territories and the representative of those colonialists far from the motherland and I am not sure that planting people in a place gives rights to those people above and beyond the rights of those who have been expelled and/or to a more rational basis of sovereign control based on proximity.

    To the extent this is about resource extraction how about a reasonable sharing relationship given that neither side actually has an incontrovertible claim to the territory?

  • 1) Glee for bashing colonialism and debates over notions of territoriality do not trump the clearly stated democratic wish of actual living people, imho. Not ever.

    2) As to “how about a reasonable sharing relationship” for resources in the area – I’m all for it as long as those democratic wishes aren’t trampled on.

  • Again, your voting population is a population of British citizens colonizing territory far from home. They expelled Argentines to take possession of the islands. There are 3,000 of them.

    Yours is the same logic that allows once-European Israelis, far from home, to do what they want with lands that formerly were occupied by other people – without compensation – and on grant from Britain. And they get away with it because they are a “democracy.”

    And we Americans as former colonists of the crown get away with it here. When exactly do you British propose getting out of the business of imposing your will on other people’s territory through the lie of votes? We at least separated ourselves from the crown’s colonial venture – too bad we only adopted our own. The same applies to the Israelis. The Falklanders haven’t stopped serving the crown’s colonial purposes.

  • for you to apply the same reasoning to Israel, or Attu and Kiska. Or the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Texas when that was a going concern.

    From where I stand, the Brits have no business staking any claims whatsoever to a territory half a world away from their own which they stole on the basis of being white, Christian, “civilized”, or any other such bullshit justification.

    The same applies to American Samoa, Guam, etc. Whether those places wish to remain American possessions might depend on whether you ask the colonial occupiers or only the natives.


    Please close any account you have with Bank of America, Chase, Citi, or Wells Fargo. Do it for your own benefit and that of your community and country.

  • Who from?

    There were no indigenous inhabitants of the Falklands to steal them from. The first settlement was French, the second English. The French sold theirs to the Spanish and thus, eventually, to the Argentinian claim.

    As to historical ownership of any bit of land – how far back is the cut-off date and what’re the criteria for “native”? Should we return Argentinia or the US to only those who can prove pure-bred Native ancestry? Should we return Europe to only those who can prove they have a bit of neanderthal in their DNA? England to only those of Celtic ancestry? Who has primacy, the Arabs ousted in 1945 or the Jews ousted in 77AD? Maybe the Phillistines, if we can find any?

    Should we advocate the final absurd reductio and shoehorn all 7 billion of humanity into the Olduvai Gorge because none of us have a right to claim any other territory that was only inhabited by other species before humanity spread from there?

    Or, should we accept that appeals to historical or genetic primacy are dumbfuck stupid and rely on the stated wishes of the inhabitants – all of them – of any given territory now and a shared belief in co-existence?

Leave a Reply