StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Argentina leader Fernandez seeks Falklands flight link

President Fernandez says the UK's refusal to negotiate sovereignty is "incomprehensible"
Continue reading the main story
Falklands tensions

Competing claims
Tensions alive in Buenos Aires
Life on the islands
Falklanders confident about future
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez says she wants to renegotiate an agreement with the UK on flights to the Falkland Islands from South America.

The islands are currently served by weekly flights from Chile.

But Ms Fernandez said she wanted the air link to be operated by Argentina's state-owned airline direct from Buenos Aires.

In response, the UK government said any discussions on flights were a matter for the Falkland Islands government.

But the Foreign Office said it expected Argentina to honour its commitments under a 1999 agreement allowing flights from Chile.

In recent months Argentina has stepped up its territorial claim to the Falklands, which it calls the Malvinas.

President Fernandez was speaking in a state-of-the-nation address to the Argentine parliament.

Blockade fear
She repeated her demand that the UK enter negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falklands, and again accused Britain of "militarising" the South Atlantic.

And she said she had asked her foreign minister to renegotiate the 1999 agreement with Britain allowing flights from Chile to the Falklands.

"We want flights to the islands from mainland Argentina - Buenos Aires - operated by our flag-carrier, Aerolineas Argentinas," she said.

There have been concerns in the Falklands that Argentina might block the flights operated by Chilean airline LAN, which are the islands' only air link with South America.

"The weekly flight to and from Chile is a well-established route, and is valued greatly by the Falkland Islanders, including the Chilean community and others," a UK Foreign Office spokeswoman told the BBC.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

President Fernandez's current policy of seeking to isolate and dictate to the Falkland Islanders is indefensible and will not succeed”

UK Foreign Office
"It would be deeply disappointing and utterly unjustifiable if Argentina put pressure on this flight to be suspended".

The spokeswoman added that if Argentina wanted to promote air links between the continent and the islands, it should reconsider a ban on charter flights through its airspace.

"President Fernandez's current policy of seeking to isolate and dictate to the Falkland Islanders - from the harassment of fishing vessels to the closure of shipping ports - is indefensible and will not succeed," she said.

Rising tension
Argentina has stepped up diplomatic pressure on Britain to negotiate over the Falklands in the run-up to the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War, which falls next month.

Earlier this week two cruise ships were turned back from an Argentine port after visiting the Falklands, and Argentina's industry minister urged Argentine companies to stop buying goods from Britain.

The UK says it will not discuss sovereignty as long as the Falkland Islanders wished to remain British.

Tension over the islands has been inflamed by offshore oil exploration by British companies, something Argentina sees as an attempt to "steal" natural resources.

Critics in Argentina have accused Ms Fernandez of using the dispute to distract attention from domestic problems, including high inflation.

On 2 April, both nations will mark the 30th anniversary of the 1982 Falklands War, which began with an Argentine invasion of the islands and ended in victory for a British task force sent to recover them.

Potentially a case could be brought in the world trade organization, but the British are more likely to just wait for Argentina to get screwed over by its own inflationary problems which are a major factor in why Fernandez is playing this up right now. One can more then slightly make the connection to the 1982 invasion having taken place in the as a attempted distraction from Argentinian internal political problems too. Opposition to her is mounting on this point because not everyone in Argentina is a mindless idiot.

Don’t lie to me, Argentina
Why we are removing a figure from our indicators page
Feb 25th 2012 | from the print edition

..

IMAGINE a world without statistics. Governments would fumble in the dark, investors would waste money and electorates would struggle to hold their political leaders to account. This is why The Economist publishes more than 1,000 figures each week, on matters such as output, prices and jobs, from a host of countries. We cannot be sure that all these figures are trustworthy. Statistical offices vary in their technical sophistication and ability to resist political pressure. China’s numbers, for example, can be dodgy; Greece underreported its deficit, with disastrous consequences. But on the whole government statisticians arrive at their figures in good faith.

There is one glaring exception. Since 2007 Argentina’s government has published inflation figures that almost nobody believes. These show prices as having risen by between 5% and 11% a year. Independent economists, provincial statistical offices and surveys of inflation expectations have all put the rate at more than double the official number (see article). The government has often granted unions pay rises of that order.

What seems to have started as a desire to avoid bad headlines in a country with a history of hyperinflation has led to the debasement of INDEC, once one of Latin America’s best statistical offices. Its premises are now plastered with posters supporting the president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Independent-minded staff were replaced by self-described “Cristinistas”. In an extraordinary abuse of power by a democratic government, independent economists have been forced to stop publishing their own estimates of inflation by fines and threats of prosecution. Misreported prices have cheated holders of inflation-linked bonds out of billions of dollars.

We see no prospect of a speedy return to credible numbers. The trade secretary, Guillermo Moreno, who led the assault on INDEC, is still one of the president’s closest advisers. The IMF has “noted” that Argentina is failing in its obligation to provide it with reliable figures, and made recommendations and set deadlines for it to improve. However, when Argentina ignores it, the fund merely wrings its hands, laments the “absence of progress”—and feebly sets a new deadline.

In 2010 we added a precautionary footnote to our statistical tables. From this week, we have decided to drop INDEC’s figures entirely. We are tired of being an unwilling party to what appears to be a deliberate attempt to deceive voters and swindle investors. For Argentine consumer-price data we will look instead to PriceStats, an inflation specialist, which produces figures for 19 countries that are published by State Street, a financial services firm. Had we switched to one of the provincial statistical offices still generating reliable figures, we fear it would have come under government pressure. One of the country’s best independent analysts made us a generous—and brave—offer of its data against legal advice and on condition that we conceal the source and lightly disguise the numbers. That might have generated confusion.

PriceStats is based in the United States, beyond the Argentine government’s reach. The oodles of online prices on which its index is based are tamper-proof. Argentina will no doubt say that it measures consumption by the rich rather than the poor, who may not shop online. But PriceStats’ methods are based on solid, peer-reviewed research and have proved an impressive match for (dependable) official figures in countries such as Brazil and Venezuela.

We hope that we can soon revert to an official consumer-price index for Argentina. That would require INDEC to be run by independent statisticians working unhindered. Until then, readers are better served by a credible unofficial figure than a bogus official one.

CORRECTION: This article originally described State Street as an "investment bank". A "financial services firm" is a more accurate description of what it does. This was changed on February 24th.

Would have worked better if they had played that card before the recent isolation, embargo & blockade policy. The Falklanders are hardly in a very trusting mood vs Argentina these days.

Potentially a case could be brought in the world trade organization, but the British are more likely to just wait for Argentina to get screwed over by its own inflationary problems which are a major factor in why Fernandez is playing this up right now. One can more then slightly make the connection to the 1982 invasion having taken place in the as a attempted distraction from Argentinian internal political problems too. Opposition to her is mounting on this point because not everyone in Argentina is a mindless idiot.

http://www.economist.com/node/21548242



If this is to be believed, the situation in Argentina is pretty much what I suspected it to be. Kirchener is grandstanding to divert public attention from the economy, and making herself and her country look like a pack of idiots in the process. It would certainly explain why so few governments are showing Argentina any support beyond back-rubbing gestures like Mercosur banning Falklands-flagged ships (considering how easy it is for a ship to change flags).

Seriously, what in the almight fuck is going on?

Gotta wonder if there's no redress in international law to deal with this.

The "Argentinian miracle" under the Kirchers largely based on resource exporting and undervalued peso with a side order of government spending. This worked, after a fashion until the 2008 recession, when demand for Argentinian resources slumped, especially in Brasilia their biggest trading partner.

Argentina failed to come back to the global bonds market ever since their default, so they can't get loans from anyone, except Venezuela. To counter this, Kircher tried some unorthodox* economic policies, like unilaterally nationalizing the pension funds in 2008 and tapping into the central bank's foreign currency reserve in 2010 (firing the bank's president in a controversial way, when he opposed the move). The last one resulted in another capital flight from the country(anecdotal info from 2011 autumn: even common people try to exchange most of their pesos to dollars regularly).

While some of their statistics might look better than the UK's, their economy is more vulnerable to the fluctuating demand and monetary isolation. Think of it as Russia Jr, without nukes and better weather.

* read: it'll scare away possible foreign investors and lenders really fast.

While some of their statistics might look better than the UK's, their economy is more vulnerable to the fluctuating demand and monetary isolation.

Then explain why Argentina's unemployment rate is not only substantially lower than Britain's, but has been falling since the 2008 crash. If their policies were so bad wouldn't it be going up or at least stalling?

Then explain why Argentina's unemployment rate is not only substantially lower than Britain's, but has been falling since the 2008 crash. If their policies were so bad wouldn't it be going up or at least stalling?

And in spite of all that pearl-clutching the economy in Argentina is still doing pretty good. It looks like the country can get along just fine without the banksters running the show.

If both countries are doing poorly economically, that does not in and of itself imply anything about which of the two governments is using this to distract the voting public; or for that matter, whether both governments are doing so. It's pretty much bullshit either way. So, just saying "the UK economy is doing poorly too" doesn't prove that Argentina isn't sabre-rattling for political reasons, nor does Argentina's sabre rattling prove that the UK isn't also guilty of it.

They're certainly not taking over from Galtieri et. al., but that doesn't mean that they can't make noises. This whole episode is nothing but a lot of posturing,

“We’re talking of defending our resources. When the big powers need resources, they go after them, not matter where. Malvinas must be seen as the defence of our fisheries, of our oil resources and of the environment” said the Argentine leader on a two day visit to neighbouring Chile where she arrived Thursday evening.

“Currently the world has 16 colonial enclaves of which ten belong to the UK. They are an anachronism and an affront to humanity”, added the Argentine president, who underlined that “in democracy is when solutions are found for differences”.

At a news conference in Buenos Aires, the minister called the exploration and drilling activities “illegal” and announced Argentina will bring civil and criminal charges to sanction the companies involved in any way in support of the Islands hydrocarbons industry.

“With these actions we assume the responsibility of defending Argentina's natural resources,” Timerman said. “The South Atlantic's oil and gas are property of the Argentine people.”

“Legislation in the world indicates that those who recommend investments must explain the risks of which each operation entails, and therefore must report that they are recommending illegal operations”, cautioned Timerman who went on to say that “We will warn all agents working on the stock market with the companies involved so that they publicize the dispute“.

I suspect the market have done that calculation and decided that it is far preferable to invest in a place ruled by law and under foreign threats than it is to invest in a place like Argentina whish is ruled by friends of Chavez, defaulted on it's loans and cant even be trusted to provide accurate economic statistics anymore. Why else would there be prospecting in Falklands waters but not in Argentinian waters? It is not as if all the potential oil and gas finds are within Falklands territory.

You can count on your cronies in London (government and media) to gin up breathless agitprop about how Britain is under siege from the other side of the Atlantic.

Has US bloodlust for BP gone too far?
The oil spill could be down to BP's failings, but bankruptcy would destroy livelihoods and pensions on both sides of the Atlantic

As each day goes by, the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico becomes more gruesome. Oil-drenched birds and turtles wash up along the shoreline, pristine beaches are polluted by balls of tar and an oily slick laps at Louisiana's ecologically fragile marshland. Understandably, Americans are livid. But has the bloodlust directed at BP gone too far?

Egged on by catch-all protest coalitions, a "seize BP" campaign is organising demonstrations in major cities calling on the US government to snatch the British company's US assets. A "boycott BP" action group advocates shunning BP service stations. Placards abound with slogans such as "God bless America – go to hell BP" and "BP – billionaire polluters". The wife and children of BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, are under police protection following threats.

Urged by political strategists to act more angrily, Barack Obama shed his uncharacteristic cool this week and declared that if it was up to him, BP's boss would be fired. The White House now wants BP to pay not only for cleaning up the Gulf, but also for the cost of jobs lost on 33 other oil rigs because of a government-imposed six-month moratorium on offshore drilling. And the US department of justice is threatening legal action to halt BP's dividend payouts to investors.

Anthony Weiner, a usually sensible Democratic congressman, declared: "Whenever you hear someone with a British accent talking about this on behalf of British Petroleum, they are not telling you the truth."

With something close to relish, financial pundits are mooting a BP bankruptcy. A New York Times columnist, Andrew Ross Sorkin, guessed that the cost of the gulf disaster could reach a staggering $40bn (£27bn), making corporate collapse a real possibility (calmer industry experts put the cost at $5bn to $15bn). A prominent, albeit retired, oil analyst, Matthew Simmons, has been touring television studios to declare that the oil spill was "entirely BP's fault" and that the company will be bust within months. Predictions of doom are self-perpetuating in business and BP's stock price has duly plummeted by 40%. The company's market value has fallen by nearly £50bn, even though BP makes a profit of more than £11bn annually.

Perhaps it's time, though, to pause for breath. It isn't yet clear exactly what happened on the Deepwater Horizon platform in the hours leading up the catastrophic fire on April 20 that sent the rig under water, killed 11 people and left BP's Macondo spewing oil. This accident may well be down to BP's failings – but shouldn't we wait until we know for sure before we become not only judges but executioners?

Of the 126 people working on the Deepwater Horizon, only eight were BP employees. BP had a 65% share in the well, while a partner, Anadarko, had 25%. The rig was owned and operated by a US firm, Transocean. A failed blow-out preventer was made by another US firm, Cameron, while Halliburton, the oil services firm once run by Dick Cheney, carried out cement work that was supposed to seal the well.

BP was calling the shots on the project – and it is tempting to rush to judgement on the British firm, given its dismal US record. Neglect and lax safety oversight caused an explosion at BP's Texas City oil refinery in 2005, killing 15 workers. The following year, poor maintenance prompted BP's pipelines in Alaska to spring a leak, sending oil gushing into the Arctic wilderness.

There have been allegations, as yet unproven, that BP was cutting corners on the Deepwater rig – perhaps by filling the well with unstable water, rather than drilling mud. Nevertheless, there are plenty of questions outstanding. Just this week, a US congressional committee asked Transocean to explain apparent poor staffing on the rig on the night of the gulf disaster. There were 18 employees on shift that evening, the lowest number in a fortnight of records, and there were no engineers, electricians, mechanics or subsea supervisors. BP isn't allowed to suggest that others might share responsibility – that amounts to "finger pointing", which prompts howls of political outrage.

Irrespective of liability, it is worth pondering whose interests a BP bankruptcy would serve. Although based in London, the company has been effectively Anglo-American since its 1998 merger with Amoco – it employs 80,300 people, of whom 29,000 are in the US. Some 40% of its shares are held in the UK, while 39% are held in the US. A collapse of BP would destroy livelihoods, damage pension funds and wipe out savings on both sides of the Atlantic. For critics of "big oil", that's hardly a cause for tears. But BP's failure wouldn't dent America's reliance on fossil fuels even slightly. Ironically, the real beneficiaries would be other big oil companies.

The US government isn't likely to let a Russian, Chinese or Middle Eastern buyer pick up the assets of a crippled BP. The richest, most likely buyer of valuable remnants would be ExxonMobil, which, lest we forget, is a company that defines hardline. Until very recently, Exxon spent millions funding groups that deny global warming. Of all the major energy companies, it has been the slowest to invest in renewable energy – in 2007, it made a profit of $40bn but put just $100m into a research project on wind, solar and green technology. And before the Gulf of Mexico disaster, Exxon was the worst oil-spiller in US history.

BP hasn't done itself many favours. Initially, the company woefully underestimated the scale of the spill. And BP's chief executive has produced a string of cringeworthy remarks. The company was ill-prepared for such an unprecedented disaster but has finally made some progress in plugging the leak. Yet BP has consistently promised to foot the bill for cleaning up the gulf and to meet all valid compensation claims.

Many will argue that BP deserves to die, and anger is entirely understandable. But critics should be careful what they wish for. America is a nation with a tradition of due process and everybody – even "big oil" – is entitled to a fair trial.

• This article was updated at 1pm on 10 June 2010

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

How about this one from the Guardian?
...
The wife and children of BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, are under police protection following threats.