International Relations Stupidity

Some examples today of total stupidity in international affairs:

1. The Armenia Genocide Resolution passes by one vote in the US. A grand victory for those comfortable Armenians in California who want to alienate the most powerful, democratic ally of the US in the region and destroy the reconciliation process between Turkey and Armenia in order to recognize an atrocity that happened under a completely different political structure almost a century ago and has nothing to do with Turkey. Maybe the US should now demand that Armenia break its alliance with the Russian Federation and expel its army.

The next resolution should be one that condemns Syria for the genocidal atrocities committed by Ashurbanipal, king of the Assyrian Empire against anyone he cared to roast alive including, in no particular order, Egypt, Iraq (then known as the Babylonian Empire) and Jordan(then part of the Elam Empire right next door that was essentially wiped out).

While we are at it, it was not so long ago that Italy burned Jerusalem and beseiged Masada. Apologies and reperations to Israel are required.

Last, but certainly not least, the US Congress should admit to its genocide of Native Americans. Oh, wait - they don't have a massive lobby or donate hugely to campaigns. Sorry.

2. Germany, that past paragon of virtue and peace, has suggested that Greece sell off its assets - particularly its uninhabited islands - to settle its debts. Let's see - this from a country that killed 400,000 Greeks between 1940 and 1944 and stole most of the money from the Greek banks. I guess Merkel needs a warm place to retire and will buy low, sell high.

3. Hillary Clinton, whom I otherwise support, delivered a remarkable statement in a news conference with Argentine President De Kirchner. The remarks from both to questions are as follows:

QUESTION: (In Spanish.)

And for the Secretary, it’s about the Falklands. The – President Fernandez talked about possible friendly mediation. Would the U.S. be considered – would the U.S. (inaudible) consider some kind of mediation role between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands? Thank you.


SECRETARY CLINTON: ...we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down. Now, we cannot make either one do so, but we think it is the right way to proceed. So we will be saying this publicly, as I have been, and we will continue to encourage exactly the kind of discussion across the table that needs to take place.

Um. Well, no. The UK has said very clearly that they do not intend to discuss the status of the Falklands so there is no possibility of sitting around a table to discuss that. Furthermore, no one living on the islands is interested in becoming Argentinian. There is no reason for the US to become involved and this statement is not helpful in the least and makes it look like a) the US can negotiate a settlement of territorial dispute that one side - a strong ally - has no intention of discussing and b) the US supports the Argentine position. Next time just say the US has no position.

The Falklands - Issues in International Law

The growing tension in the South Atlantic over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands between the UK and Argentina are unlikely to lead to a second Falklands war for many reasons, not the least of which is that Argentina could not successfully deploy its now depleted forces to the islands without significant bloodshed. Stationed on and around the Falklands are about 1,000 British troops, four fighter/bomber aircraft, a frigate and a local population that is unlikely to be surprised a second time. For all practical purposes a military confrontation is not going to happen. Argentina is indulging in diplomatic tactics coupled with questionable international legal claims that will not change the status of the islands nor stop the current oil drilling. If oil is discovered in the volumes suspected, it would not be surprising to discover revenue sharing as part of the settlement.

From a legal standpoint, Argentina is also on thin ice.

The Guardian reports that the Argentine government has issued a decree which will require all ships bound for the islands or travelling through waters claimed (emphasis mine) by Argentina to secure a permit. The clear purpose is to prevent ships carrying oil exploration equipment from Argentina to the Islands. The Telegraph reports as well that the Argentine authorities have already prevented a ship, the Thor Leader, from leaving port carrying pipeline equipment which it was suspected was destined for the Islands. A claim of territorial waters is not equivalent to a legal right. The dispute raises a number of international law issues.

Under international law, Argentina can limit access by ships to and from its ports provided it has not entered into any treaty obligations which would require it to allow unconditional access to its ports. To my knowledge, there is no provision for unconditional access. However, Argentina has extended its rights to ships passing through its territorial waters of Argentina. Regardless of the extent of territorial waters, Article 17 of the Law of the Sea Convention provides that ships have a right of innocent passage, as defined, thereby making the enforcement of the Argentinian act legally problematic, even if one accepted its territorial water claims.

Argentina has not been successful in establishing its claim to the Falklands in law or in fact. The last attempt in the latter choice ended in military disaster and collapse of the government. It is in the process of drumming up support in South and Central America for its claims, but this is really only smoke and mirrors and costs the supporting countries nothing. However, from a political standpoint, the political position of sovereignty is double edged. Venezuela, for example, in an attempt to be relevant or simply annoying, recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - both legally recognized as part of Georgia. The same argument could theoretically be applied to the Falkland Islands - not a trend, I suspect, that Argentina or its supporters would like to see continued. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, this position is not only weak but very dangerous. Furthermore, the UN Charter contains broad language supporting the right of self-determination which makes the legal claim over the islands - virtually totally populated by British subjects - unsupportable.

Argentina announced that it will take the dispute that has arisen because of oil to the UN. Assuming that Argentina will not raise the issue of sovereignty and only addresses the sea bed issue, it would still be necessary for their representative to set forth the legal reasons why Argentina's jurisdiction applies under the appropriate provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention.

The Law of the Sea Convention applies only to the sea bed outside of territorial limits. Therefore, the position of both the UK and Argentina claiming 200 nautical miles would need to be decided first. The Convention sets forth a detailed definition of continental shelves which may extend the area subject to national control. This limit is, at a maximum, 200 nautical miles from the baseline of the territorial sea. The baseline is further defined to include consideration of the extent of the continental shelf and can be up to 350 nautical miles. It is unlikely that either claim of more than 200 nautical miles, which would otherwise be subject to additional rules should they overlap, is legally supportable. However, Argentina claims sovereignty over the islands on, at least, the extension of its continental shelf as well as the 350 nautical mile limit.

Any dispute under the Convention must be brought to the Commission on the Limits to the Continental Shelf, which, in fact, Argentina has done. That case has not been decided in favour of Argentina as an answer to its claims were filed by the UK in August 2009. Further, a position claiming 350 nautical miles would necessarily bring up the issue of sovereignty of the islands - something that won't be touched by the ICJ or the Commission.

In any case, Argentina, if it chooses to push the matter forward to conclusion, will ultimately need to litigate this matter in the ICJ - a very long process.

Legally, its position regarding the issue of drilling in what Argentina claims as territorial waters will not be easily resolved. Which is why a diplomatic and economic solution will likely be the route both nations will follow.