Being that the sources are themselves British officials who were part of Cameron’s mission to the G20 conference in Los Cabos, I find it of little note that they thought Fernandez was ‘rambling’. It’s a standard reaction to say that of someone when they have something lengthy to say in a response that you do not want to hear. Fernandez, for her part, was only asking the UK government to come to the table and talk about outstanding issues regarding the Malvinas – the same position held by many others, including the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Cameron for his part thought that the self-determination referendum in the islands should be the end of the matter. He spoke with the confidence of someone already assured of the vote’s outcome.
It is Argentina’s eternal misfortune that the concept of ‘self-determination’ was an inapplicable one to the British government in the 1830s when it came to their own interests in the South Atlantic. The Hague Convention of 1907 wasn’t in effect, and naturally laws cannot be applied ex post facto. All Argentina could do was go to the UN Committee on Decolonisation in New York and raise her periodic objections. Our foreign minister, Hector Timmerman, made a few comments after the Cameron-Fernandez confrontation while detailed the Argentine position on the matter.
It’s of no consequence to me that I am indirectly accused of ‘rambling’ on the Malvinas thread. The curious thing about that is that after I quoted from several British sources that they knew their legal title to the Malvinas was tenuous under modern international law, a couple posters then ceremoniously cleansed their hands of the argument and claimed they had better things to do. It was a natural reaction, since they were unprepared to offer commentary on the various British Foreign Office admissions that I had detailed. Now we get to the accusation of ‘rambling’. Being the only articulator of the Argentine position, and answering several posters’ questions or comments in the same post, my comments did indeed jump from one point to another. If you seek to discredit them by labeling them as ‘rambling’, then that's your prerogative. My true sin was in challenging the self-perceived intellectual authority of a few by offering my own commentary which wasn’t in line with the prevailing opinion. A few egos might have been wounded, but that was not my intention at all. Lest I be accused now of ‘rambling’ further, I’ll bring my comments to a close.