HMS Dauntless at the centre of new Argentina/UK diplomatic row
ROW HMS Dauntless
Argentina is to make a formal complaint to the United Nations Security Council after accusing Britain of ‘militarising’ their long dispute over the Falkland Islands.
President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said the UK’s decision to send Portsmouth-based HMS Dauntless, one of its most modern navy warships, to the South Atlantic and to post the Duke of Cambridge on military duty in the region posed a risk to ‘international security’.
Her announcement comes amid simmering tensions between London and Buenos Aires in the run-up to the 30th anniversary of the 1982 Falklands war, which saw Argentinian forces invade the archipelago in a row over its sovereignty.
Speaking to an audience including Falkland war veterans and other politicians at Argentina’s presidential residence yesterday, Ms Kirchner 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.’
Following the speech, the UK government insisted that it would not enter into negotiations over the sovereignty of the disputed islands. 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 the UK and Argentina have been frosty in recent months.
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.
Last week Prince William began a six-week posting in the Falklands region in his role as an RAF search and rescue pilot, while the Government has also revealed it is to send HMS Dauntless, to the South Atlantic. The Type 45 destroyer is due to set sail for the region on her maiden mission in the coming months to replace frigate HMS Montrose.
In her speech, Ms Kirchner said 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 Argentina would be opposing “this militarisation of the South Atlantic” because it was a region where ‘peace reigns’.
William Hague has described the deployments of HMS Dauntless and Prince William as ‘entirely routine’ and said that commemorations would go ahead to mark the 30-year anniversary of the conflict in April. He also accused Argentina of attempting to “raise the diplomatic temperature” on the Falklands issue.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Portsmouth
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 25 C
Wind Speed: 22 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 24 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 39 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
Le Critique
Friday, February 10, 2012 at 09:43 AMI don't see what the Argies are so bothered about. If they leave the Falkland Islands alone then they've got nothing to worry about. If they were planning something then they've got everything to worry about. We're not there to be aggressive towards Argentina, we're there to stop them being aggressive towards us. They must know by now that we're no push over.
ConDems Out!
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 08:04 PMNot a chance... I look with revulsion at everything she represents. That was a typically foolish, headl-line grabbing byt wide-of-the-mark comment by Mandy. He may have made more comebacks than anyone could have expected, but I'll take comfort from the fact that another simply has to beyond even him.
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 06:35 PMdelete John Smith insert Margaret Thatcher and I will agree with you. (unlikely I know, but as Mandelson said were all Thatcherites now)
ConDems Out!
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 04:28 PMPolitics seems destined, for the time being at least, to be dominated by Oxbridge drones in a way that it never was... Cameron is superficial and self-serving, Clegg is a nonentity with a priviliged background too (who'd be a Tory but for Europe) and the likes of Miliband, Balls etc appear to be similarly lacking in real life experience. That's no crime in itself as long as you think they can puncture the bubble they inhabit, but views on that are exhaustive and well-documented! Britain needs a John Smith-type leader like never before.
The Jazz Funkster
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 01:54 PMWhere is HMS Troutbridge? I do miss Shipmate Troutbridge on debates this is. Come back Troutbridge, you made me laugh!
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 11:31 AMMy thoughts on the Thatcher era are based on my experiences , I was in HM forces during part of her time as PM. We got better pay and conditions , much better equipment and training was at a much higher tempo than under the previous Labour Government. Plus we didnt go aound breaking up strikes, ie firemans stike of 1977 and the tanker drivers strike of 1978 spring to mind. What really got on our nerves is that those strikers were getting much better pay than most servicemen of the same level or rank....Westland fiasco as I remember was that we either jumped in bed with the US or the Europeans, in the end we did neither and now do not have a viable helicopter industry.... Foot was peceived as a flag bearer of the looney left, trouble with modern politics its all about perception rather weight of arguement. We only have ourselves to blame for that.
ConDems Out!
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 11:04 AMThe sad thing is that Michael Foot was anything but a standard bearer for extremism. He was a brave bloke... he saved the Labour Party, scarificing his own interests in the process. I don't think he could have held Plymouth Devonport for as long as he did either if he'd had no understanding of the military and especially the Navy. He might have been leading figure in CND, but he wasn't a pacifist. That's a bit of a rosy view of the Thatcher era... it was characterised by "political positioning" (e.g. Westland, the Black Hawk controversy etc) and an almost complete absence of long-term planning and investment.
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 10:47 AMTSR2 project is very interesting, the demanding RAF specifiications a very complex and costly aircraft. By 1964 the RAF realised that the TSR2 the sircraft they had specified was not up to the job and was costs were going through the roof. The RAF by 1965 didnt want the TSR2 it wanted the US F111 aircraft which at the time was cheaper and more capable. Whoever had won the 1964 election would have cancelled the TSR2, shocking I know but that is the truth. The RAF didnt want it and the treasury couldnt afford it. So the F111 was ordered, but then cancelled in 1968 and replaced by the Buccaneer in the short term and the UKVG project which became Tornado in the long term. For once Labour got a defence question right the TSR2 had to be cancelled it was not a world beater, it had several technical flaws which meant it would have been an operational- financial disaster just like Concorde.
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 10:30 AMAs far as I am concerned, and the statistics back me up, it was only during the Thatcher era that the armed forces were properly funded (since WW2). That doesnt mean they got everything right for example the proposed reduction in the RN surface fleet proir to 1982, but there were majos improvements to the UK armed forces, in terms of equipment procurement, training, personnel terms and conditions and the operational effectiveness overall.....As for Michael Foot, good man he may have been but his political leadership was a disaster for the Labour party. He was perceived to be flag bearer of the looney left and British public will only vote for a leader who is perceived to be centre right, for example Tony Blair (I hate that man). You let Foot stand as Labour Party leader in a 10 elections and he wont win one of them. For the best possible chance to win a UK general election you must be seen to be occupying the centre right political terriorty (well since the Atlee Government). To far to the right or left then you stand no chance.
ConDems Out!
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 09:32 AM@wizard of oz.... the underfunding of the forces has been going on muc longer than that, I'd say... possibly from the commissioning of Polaris onwards? There was the TSR2, the CVA-01, the 1981 Defence Review etc. Think you're being unfair to Michael Foot... a principled, decent, knowledgeable and intelligent politician many, many leagues above the likes of Diane Abbott.
MWacEU
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 08:32 AMDoes anyone know where our Trident subs are? I suspect we have one nearby floating around somewhere.
wizard of oz
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 08:05 AMPost 13 has been moderated and found acceptable. Was it worth the wait? probably not!...... Diane Abbott for Labour Party leader. female version of Michael Foot without the donkey jacket.
ConDems Out!
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 06:57 PMDA has been damaged goods in most people's eyes ever since that story broke... if not in hers...
wizard of oz
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 06:55 PMand Diane Abbott minister for education, so every child can have the right to a private education just like her son.
ConDems Out!
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 06:54 PMYeah, Dan Jarvis looks a formidable bloke - but more importantly, he appears to conduct himself well and have some standards. It would be a welcome change for someone with a forces history to become Defence Secretary. John Mann IS a top bloke... the kind of politician who can relate to normal people even though he probably has the political establishment quaking in its self-consumed boots?
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.