Argentina appeals to “types of force” that pre-empt peaceful solutions
Statement before the United Nations General Assembly 63rd Session, Special Committee of 24 on Decolonisation by the Honourable Janet Robertson, member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, 18 June 2009.
Mister Chairman, Your Excellencies and Committee Members,
We welcome this opportunity once again to address Special Committee to express our concerns about the Draft Resolution on the Question of the Falkland Islands. We are here as democratically elected members of the Legislative Assembly, in our fourth and final year of office before the General Election in November 2009.
We have been attending this meeting for several years and we hope that, over the course of this time, our representations have allowed a greater understanding of our views and particular circumstances. Nevertheless, we are disheartened by the continual adoption of the resolution which is directly contrary to the principles established in the United Nations Charter and contrary to the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
Whilst it would seem, on the face of it, that peaceful negotiation to resolve a dispute is a noble and eminently reasonable course of action, the attempt by both Argentina and the terms of this resolution to force one party to the table to negotiate away the rights and freedoms of the people of a nation, without reference to the democratic wishes of those same people, is quite simply unacceptable and unjust in the XXIst Century and is furthermore contrary to the ethos of the United Nations Charter which upholds the principle of self-determination as an inalienable human right.
I will explain our view regarding certain elements of the resolution, highlighting in the process the elements which are contradictory to established principles and furthermore drawing out, where relevant, the inaccuracies and untruths by which Argentina validates these same inaccuracies. Secondly, I will address issues on the current and future principles and actions proposed by this Committee.
Expressing its preoccupation of the fact that the good relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom has not yet led to negotiations on the question of the Falkland Islands,
There are fundamental reasons why there is no foreseeable prospect that the United Kingdom will agree to negotiate on the question of the Falkland Islands:
a) Firstly the right to self-determination of the people of the Falkland Islands is extended to us through our Constitution. As in all British Overseas Territories our constitution guarantees us the absolute right to determine our own political future, and this principle has been continuously upheld since prior to the events of 1982. In March 2009 during his pre-G20 tour to Latin America and following his meeting with President Kirchner, Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters that: “The essential principle has always been that the islanders should determine the issue of sovereignty for themselves and, let us be clear, our first priority will always be the needs and wishes of the islanders.” To negotiate on sovereignty would thus be to contravene the rights laid out under the legal Constitution of the Islands.
b) In contrast, and to the consternation of Islanders, Argentina asserts that the principle of self-determination is not applicable to the Falkland Islands due to the pre-existing sovereignty dispute. It claims that the principle of territorial integrity is of superior validity to the principle of self-determination. Annexation of the Islands to the Argentine state is therefore the only acceptable solution to the Argentine Government and as such, is a goal enshrined within their own Constitution. This pre-determined outcome on the part of Argentina is wholly contrary to the wishes and interests of the Islands and, consequently, unacceptable to the United Kingdom.
Considering that this situation should facilitate resumption of the negotiations in order to find a peaceful solution to the dispute over sovereignty,
A resumption of negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom without the participation and agreement of the inhabitants cannot, by definition, lead to a peaceful solution unless the express wishes of the Islanders are deliberately and cynically silenced by force. Morally, islanders can no more be compliant with negotiations on the sovereign rights of their homeland than either the people of Argentina or Great Britain can participate in theirs. Negotiation can therefore only lead to a peaceful solution if either the rights of the Islanders to self-determination are upheld, or if their rights are suppressed and ruthlessly imposed, an outcome which would utterly reject the very principles of justice and democracy that the United Nations purports to uphold but which in regard to the Falkland Islands are only upheld by the Administering Power.
Reaffirming the principles of the Charter of the United Nations on the non-use of force or threat of force in international relations and the peaceful settlement of international disputes,
Whilst there is no apparent threat of a repetition of the invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina in 1982, nor indeed of any use of military force, it is evident that other types of force that pre-empt peaceful solutions to matters of mutual interest are an on-going facet of our current relations. Withdrawal from regional co-operation on fisheries and hydrocarbons agreements until such time as sovereignty is placed on the agenda for discussion, the ban on charter flights across Argentine airspace unless we use Argentine carriers to and from an Argentine airfield, the insistence of using since it’s creation in 1982 the name Puerto Argentino instead of Stanley, our capital, despite the fact that the town did not exist prior to 1842, all point to a level of aggression that is not peacefully intended. In the words of one Argentine political essayist, Vicente Palermo: “In short, the Government acts as if it plans to lay siege to the inhabitants of the Islands, as a method to soften them up and to force them to accept everything that they don’t want. This is terrible, for the Islanders, for Argentine objectives in relation to the Islands and, above all, for the respect that Argentines can have for themselves” (Revista “Debate” 2004)
These actions make peaceful co-operation on areas of mutual interest an ever-receding dream in the South Atlantic. Argentina claims that these acts are in response to what they call “unilateral” acts by the British Government, such as the extension of our fisheries licensing regime to include 25 year fishing quotas. In fact, these quite legitimate measures are the result of the Falkland Island Government using its powers to develop long term protection and development of our fishery and are representative of good economic and environmentally sound management practices to the benefit of the inhabitants and environment. It is highly regrettable that every action taken designed to develop our economy, our country and regional co-operation are met with a hostile reaction from our closest neighbours.
Reaffirming the need for the parties to take due account of the interests of the population of the islands in accordance with the provisions of the General Assembly resolutions on the question of the Falkland Islands,
Resolutions on the questions of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are alone in referring, not to the inalienable right to self-determination of the inhabitants, but merely to the interests of the population, as if these can be better determined by people and Governments other than the Islanders themselves. It has never been clearly established why this Committee considers that of all remaining denominated colonial peoples in the world, only Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders are denied a right to self-determination. This is not reasonable, it is not in accordance with democratic principles, and as from October 2008, it is not in accordance with the General Assembly: at the meeting of 4th Committee last year the Assembly voted to adopt an amendment to remove a recent insertion into Draft Resolution VI which qualified the principle of self-determination with the words “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty”. Delegates who spoke in favour of the motion to remove the insertion expressed their deepest concern at the attempts made to qualify one of the principle tenets of the United Nations Charter. It seems evident, consequently, that there is no qualification on the principle itself and this resolution should not be accepted without due reference to that principle, including the much-used argument of “territorial integrity” which will be put forward by Argentina today.
The issue of the right to territorial integrity, that is, that “the partial or total disruption to national unity” is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter, has been upheld in Resolution 1514 to which this draft resolution refers. The principle of self-determination is deemed to apply to the peoples of states, colonies, trusts and Non-Self-Governing Territories, but not to groups within territories unless these same groups are not democratically represented by the Government of the sovereign state of which they are a part (H.Quayne “The United Nations and the evolving right to self-determination” 1998). The basis of the principle was to prevent future break-ups of established states, but not to resolve sovereignty disputes rooted in the past. In any event, this does not apply to the Falkland Islands, where Argentine occupation of the Islands was very brief and occurred whilst ownership of the Islands was in plain and documented dispute. The Islands have therefore never formed a part of Argentina, and existed as a political entity in its current form for considerable time before the modern boundaries of Argentina had been established in the mid to late 19th Century. Until the repossession of the Islands by the British in 1833, the Islands had been claimed variously by the British, the French, the Spanish and finally, by Argentina. A brief period of occupation by Argentina in the 1820’s consisting of a small population of 32 civilians of mixed nationalities and a military garrison, was protested by Great Britain at the time. Contrary to Argentine assertions, whilst the garrison was indeed returned to Argentina following the murder of their Governor - which had led to the intervention of the British in the first place - the civilians were invited to stay on the Islands. Indeed the captain of the British ship Clio recorded in the log that he “had great trouble to persuade 12 of the gauchos to remain on the settlement otherwise the cattle could not have been caught.” Some descendents of these gauchos could still be identified in the Falkland Islands census of the 1870’s.
Aside from the very dubious claim of territorial integrity favoured by Argentina, there are contradictions inherent in using that principle to support its claim to sovereignty of the Islands and its vaunted wish to bring cessation to the so-called colonial status of the Islands currently. Resolution 1541 lays down the Principles that establish the criteria to be used to determine removal of non-self governing territories from the list of existing colonies. The three possibilities put forward, namely, full integration, sovereign independence and free association are well known. Principle IX decrees that “the integrating territory should have attained an advanced stage of self-government with free political institutions, so that its peoples would have the capacity to make a responsible choice through informed and democratic processes” and that “the integration should be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory”. It is clear that in Non-Self-Governing Territories, of which the Falkland Islands is de facto a member, integration with its Administering Power, or indeed any other sovereign state, pre-supposes that in doing so that the wishes and democratic choices of the territory are conditional to the action. It is self-evident from the assertions already made that the people of the Falkland Islands, who already enjoy an advanced stage of self-government and free political institutions, would never choose to be annexed by or integrated into Argentina. Any negotiations, therefore, which propose a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina, whether immediate or in the long-term, would be a direct contravention of this principle and would exacerbate, not resolve, the injustice meted out to Non-Self-Governing Territories by ambitious States.
Mr. Chairman,
Next year, 2010, represents the end of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. The past decade, whilst bringing some successes in this regard, has not led the world much closer to this aim than it was at the end of the previous decade. Hence the need to re-examine the conditions and criteria for determining the end of colonization is of the utmost importance over the next months. This was recognized by the Special Committee during 2008 and is explicitly referred to in the Special Report for that year:
“In view of the variety of circumstances of individual Non-Self- Governing Territories, some participants noted the need to consider exploring new thinking relevant to the case of each Non-Self-Governing Territory…
In cases where a particular Non-Self-Governing Territory is clearly in favour of building upon the basis of its existing situation, the Special Committee might wish to consider steps that it could take, bearing in mind the Territory’s interests in that regard; the UN goal of decolonization could thus be achieved in a relatively straight-forward fashion.”
In the resolutions relating to other British Overseas Territories reference is made to the constitutional developments taking place in those territories, and welcomes the progress of such development. The Falkland Islands are no exception in this regard and our current Constitution, which came into force on 1st January this year, is evidence of a continuously developing process of internal self-government. Major steps forward, such as the binding requirement for the Governor to accept the advice of Executive Council on all matters other than defence and foreign affairs, enhance the maturing status of our relationship with Great Britain. Furthermore, in reference to Principle VI of Resolution 1541, and in terms of identifying XXIst Century models for the free expression of self-determination by small and often vulnerable states, it represents a possible 4th option for determining whether a Non-Self-Governing Territory has achieved a full measure of self-government. We would seriously encourage the Committee to take due note of the developments in the British Overseas Territories, including the Falkland Islands, when considering the actions to be taken in the Third Decade.
Mr. Chairman,
Whilst deeply appreciating the work that this Committee has put in over the last 40 years - and more - to bringing about the end of colonialism, it is clear that the position in 2009 is very different to that of 1969. The remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories are progressing more-or-less away from typical colonial situations into systems based on the principle of self-determination freely expressed through democratic processes and institutions. In regard to the Falkland Islands, it is becoming ever more anomalous that this Committee should be making reference to a 200 year-old sovereignty dispute at the expense of the rights of inhabitants of a Non-Self-Governing Territory. During deliberations over the next year we would urge the Committee to consider whether this action is truly in the spirit of the ethos and principles of the United Nations Charter.
Mr. Chairman,
We have no quarrel with the people of Argentina, and recognize that it is a country of great potential which is working hard to overcome the political and economic turmoil that it experienced through the XXth Century. We would welcome any opportunity to engage with them on subjects of mutual interest always provided that discussions on sovereignty are NOT conditional to such engagements. We welcome visitors from Argentina to our shores and look forward to the pilgrimage of the next-of-kin due to take place later on in the year. We hope that grieving families will be able to find some comfort and sense of closure from visiting the Argentine cemetery at Darwin.
We would, however, ask that the leaders of that country consider rationally whether actions taken with the intent to force inhabitants of a small territory to their will is commensurate with modern political principles and practices. We realize that the de facto situation of the Falkland Islands is very disappointing to them but desire for possession is not sufficient justification either for the exertion of economic pressure on a population or for the goal of annexation and subjugation of that same population.
Mr. Chairman,
I thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee.
52 comments
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Janet Robertson was actually born in Argentina!!! Do try to get your facts straight old chap.
See:- http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assembly/Ms_Janet_Robertson.html
By the way are you going to send all the immigrants in Ushuiaia and Argentina back to their origins? Maybe you are one yourself?
How many generations have your family been in Argentina? Did they come from Italy in the 1940s perhaps?
However they did not claim the land for their country of origin, nor the British (tens of thousands) living in mainland Argentina.
I'm not sure what your point is? Argentina did not choose to remain Spanish so the Falklands by default are not allowed to remain British?
Argentina had a choice, and the Argentines were allowed to exercise their self determination (no matter what their heritage was, Anglo, Swiss, German, Italian etc). Whatever situation Argentines were allowed to choose for themselves, independence or remaining Spanish, or whatever, is irrelevant - the fact is they were allowed to make that choice.
However, Argentina wants to deny exactly the same choice to Falkland Islanders. Why should Falkland Islanders not be allowed to decide their future?
Saludos
Leased from China, returned as promised. Nice try, no cigar.
As regards Hong Kong, a mainly Chinese population who identified with China. Your point is exactly? I can't see it.
How do you know they identified with China? HMG "forgot" to ask them about their "wishes".
The islands will return to Argentinaeither either like Hong Kong or like Goa. With or without the islanders.
However, I agree that the interests of falklanders in the islands must be carefully respected in future sovereignty negotiations.
The pretext of self-determination? Lets look at the facts for a second. The FCO desired better relations with Argentina, considered the islands to be worthless and would have handed them over in a heart beat to get rid of them. The islanders regard the Government of Argentina and the FCO as "equals".
What stymied the FCO was the effective lobby organised by the islanders themselve.
And listen to yourselves. "With or Without the Falklanders". Do you plan a spot of genocide perhaps? The Falklanders don't enjoy the right to self-determination, tell me where in the UN charter is the right prescribed? It clearly states "all peoples have the right to self-determination".
There is no discrimation, actually thats not correct there is. But the people doing the discriminating kid themselves, like all racists, that they're justified.
You're not justified in the slightest.
Whatever HMG really wants to do, does not change the fact the Islanders wishes are not a pretext, but actually a right, and this should be respected by the British government as much as the Argentine government.
Mossaddeq was toppled in 1953 (by the CIA, not the British), Irish partition happened in 1920 when Ulster CHOSE to remain part of the UK and not join the Freestate. We are in 2009 Javier, perhaps everyone (including Argentina) should be learning from the mistakes of previous generations.
The Chagossian situation is a massive scandal, I could not agree with you more, and I am very pleased they are starting to get justice of some kind. I have signed many petitions in their support. The irony is, though, this is exactly how Argentina wants to treat the Falkland Islanders, riding roughshod over their rights, and yet you see no problem in using the Chagossian plight as justification for Argentine sovereignty in the Falkland islands. How very odd...
I don't see how Hong Kong or Goa (which was actually Portuguese, not British) have any relevance to the Falkland Islands? Please explain.
Cossimo, the Falkland Islanders have an undeniable right to self determination, no matter where they were born or what your personal opinion is. Please read Chapter XI, article 73, of the UN charter. It's not just their interests, but also their wishes which have to be taken into account. You are incorrect that Argentines are not allowed to live in the Falklands. They can apply to live there, subject to the same conditions as any any other foreigner (or British citizen for that matter).
There is nowhere in international law which denies the right to self determination because a sovereignty dispute exists.
I wonder what would you say should we aplly the islanders a Law like HMG established for Ireland from 1691 on:
1) "No catholic will have a seat at the Irish parliament"
2) "No catholic can be 'procurador' , ranger or policeman"
3) "No catholic may HAVE A HORSE of a value superior to 5 pounds. Any protestant who has that sum can take over the work or hunting horse of his catholic neighbour"
4) "No catholic can attend university, have a school or send his children abroad to be educated. There is a 10 pounds reward for the discovery of any catholic school teacher"
5) "No catholic can live in Limmerick and Galway or to buy properties inside their city walls limit"
6) "No catholic can buy land or accept them as a present from a protestant"
7) "No catholic can be a child's tutor. The catholic orphans must be raised as protestants"
8) "No catholic is allowed to have a gun."
Islander, I ask you a question, if in Tierra del Fuego now lives 150.000 people; how many people do you think may live in malvinas withot the conflict with Argentina??
50.000??
who wins from that hypotetical situation?? the argentines, the kelpers or both??
The War of the Triple Alliance, in which Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay effectively eradicated the male population of Paraguay.
The Conquest of the Desert, that many modern historians class as a genocide, in which Rocas effectively annihilated the indigenous peoples of Patagonia.
We could of course mention more recent history such as the Dirty War. But that is not in any way a cogent argument, they're irrelevant in relation to a modern and democratic Argentina.
What relevance do 17th Century laws have to the Falklands dispute? Perhaps a balanced viewpoint would include the Huegenot refugees, my ancestors among them, that were given refuge in Britain when fleeing Catholic persecution in Europe. They have no relevance to modern day multicultural Britain.
What relevance do any of the distorted examples you purport to have listed. There are many examples of the morally indefensible that were done in the name of Empire, equally there were many aspects of the Empire that were good.
But lets be honest about this, you care nothing for any of those people whose examples you quote. You quote them solely to create a negative impression of Britain, nothing more. Your comments are little more than a racist diatribe to justify your personal prejudices.
You denounce expulsions yet a few sentences later advocate that the Falkland Islands can either submit to Argentine demands or else be expelled. I don't suppose for one second that the utter hypocrisy in your statement struck you for one second.
They are a population who have lived in the Falklands for 9 generations. Most Argentines are descended from late 19th Century immigration to put that into perspective. Few have more than 5 generations in Argentina.
And were we to apply your "argument" to Argentina. Patagonia was seized by armed conquest, you have populated it with an implanted population of European immigrants. Clearly, if we follow your argument that since this was done in the late 19th Century that Argentina has even less right to be there. That simple example shows those views are little more than naked racism.
Who are the racists?
"Todo viene de la Providencia Divina. La tarea de crear esas colonias y celar por ellas fue tan inequívocamente confiada por la Providencia al pueblo de este país, que deberíamos renunciar al nombre mismo de ingleses si fallásemos en ese deber" (Prime Minister Gladstone)
"Everything comes from the Divine Providence. The task to create these colonies and to care for them was without possibility of error entrusted by providence to the people of this land, that we should renounce to the name of Englishmen if we fail in this duty" (British PM Gladstone).
_____________________________________________________
“There is a destiny now possible to us, the highest ever set before a nation to be accepted or refused. We are still undegenerate in race; a race mingled of the best northern blood... Will you, youths of England, make your country again a royal throne of kings, a sceptred isle, for all the world a source of light, a centre of peace... This is what England must either do or perish: she must found colonies, as fast and as far as she is able, formed of the most energetic and worthiest men, seizing every piece of fruitful waste ground she can set her foot on, and there teaching these her colonist that their chief virtue is fidelity to their country, and their first aim is to advance the power of England by land and sea...”
John Ruskin’s inaugural lecture at Oxford University, 1870.
_____________________________________________________
“The idea gleaming and dancing before one’s eyes like a will-of –the wisp at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not form a secret society with but one object, the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for THE RECOVERY OF THE UNITED STATES, for the making THE ANGLO-SAXON RACE BUT ONE EMPIRE?
What a dream, but yet it is probable, it is possible”
Cecil Rhodes, “Confession of Faith”
British hero Cecil John Rhodes added nearly a million square miles to his country’s African Empire and gave his name to a country larger than England, Germany, France and the Low Countries combined – Rhodesia.
"I walked between earth and sky, and when I looked down I said, 'This earth should be English' and when I looked up, I said 'The English should rule the earth'"( Sir Cecil John Rhodes, British hero and empire builder).
“I contend we are the finest race in the world and the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race” (Sir Cecil John Rhodes)
“ I believe that the German People are called by the divine destiny to be leaders of the world for the glory of the German being as well as for the benefit of the human race” (Adolf Hitler, any similarity between both ‘heroes’, their nations and concentration camps is a mere coincidence).
I know they will never admit it, but Brits somehow share all those statements (except Hitler's: after all, German cousins are not as good as the English and should be ruled by them too).
They cannot conquest the USA, they cannot 'make the anglo-saxon race but one empire'...but FOR THE TIME BEING they can keep the Malvinas British.
Keep dreaming in peace. Argentina will always be here in the South Atlantic caring for you. Sooner or later, we'll help you to wake up.
QUOTE A: “I suggested that we should discuss the Polish question. He [Stalin] agreed and invited me to beguin (...) Personally I thought Poland might move westward, like soldiers taking two steps ‘left close’. If Poland strod in some German toes, that could not be helped, but there must be a strong Poland. (...)” [END OF QUOTE]
[including the issue in the agenda of the Conference] QUOTE B: “We agreed to look at the problem. Stalin asked wether it would be WITHOUT(*) Polish participation. I said ‘YES’(*), and that when this was all informally agreed between ourselves we could go to the Poles later. (...)”[END OF QUOTE]
QUOTE C: “I then demonstrated with the help of three matches MY(*) idea of Poland moving westwards. THIS PLEASED STALIN(*), and on this note our group parted for the moment” [END OF QUOTE]
The following are quotes to Sir Winston Spencer Churchill’s “The Second World War”, volume 6 “Triumph and Tragedy”, book 2, Chapter 22 “Russia and Poland: the Soviet Promise” and to Chapter 39: “Postdam: the Polish Frontiers”
QUOTE D: “I then said it was my duty to state the position of His majesty’s government. I had repeatedly declared in Parliament and in public my resolution to support the claim of the U.S.S.R. to the Curzon line as interpreted by the Soviet Government. That meant including Lvov in the U.S.S.R.” [END OF QUOTE]
QUOTE E: “Russia had advanced her frotier to the Curzon Line. This meant, as Roosevelt and I had realised, that the three or four million Poles who lived on the wrong side of the line would have to be moved to the west” [END OF QUOTE]
That is a wonderfull example of respect for self determination (which as every Kelper knows, is paramount for HMG!)
Good old Sir Winstor (HM Prime Minister at the time) generously forwarded his nice ‘idea’ (1) of moving Poland westward. Of course, the FORCED DISPLACEMENT of SEVERAL MILLION Poles & Germans from their homes was just a triffle. Colonialist forum members will probably think that Germans had no rights because they were to be vinced – thus behaving exactly like the nazis and impulsing an ethnic cleansing.
What about the Poles? Oh, they were their most beloved allies. So much so that the Polish forces were been sent to the most desperate actions of the war, like in Monte Cassino and Arnhem. Again, as self determination was paramount, Sir Winston decided to discuss Polish new frontiers and the forced desplacement of MILLIONS of her citizens WITHOUT THEIR PARTICIPATION.
Well, if Britain (and good old Sir Winston, the ‘last Lion’) not only didn’t objected but proposed such a thing as shifting to the west of a whole nation, which implied (“as Roosevelt and I had realised...”) the forced displacement of “three or four million” civilians of his own ally (please note: three or four: a million more or less made no difference to HMG), I wonder he wouldn’t had objected to the displacement of the Diego Garcians.
By the way, how many are the Kelpers?
Regards – J
PS: HMG promoves the ethnic cleansing not only of enemies (Germans) but of allies (Poles) and peoples under their ‘protection (Diego Garcians) as well. NOBODY IS SAFE
(1) The british seem to fe full of nice ‘ideas’: Rhodes was another good example!
(2) Are you going to insist in the hypocrital argument that you refuse to negociate because “self determination comes first”?
(*) the capitals are mine for everybody to note the ‘detail’
You really are quite confused, throwing us quotes from people in power when the UK was at the height of Imperialism. Argentina also has colonial baggage - the Conquest of the Desert - and even more recent. Tierra del Fuego only became an Argentine Province in 1990! Did anyone ask the Yaganes or the Telhuelches if they wanted to be colonised? I don't think so... Cecil Rhodes DIED in 1902. Can I remind you again. We are in 2009. What the British (or any other colonial power) did in the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries is of little relevance to the Falkland situation TODAY.
Did Poland not spend 50 years subjugated under the Soviet Communist yoke? Somehow you forget that, but focus on Churchill's efforts to save Poland - in some form. What relevance does this have to the Falkland Island situation today? Nothing.
As for the Chagossians, you still quote what happened to them, but fail to see the irony. Argentina wants to treat the Falkland Islanders in EXACTLY the same way, walking all over their rights, and yet somehow that is OK? I think the Diego Garcia card is nothing more than an Achilles heel for you.
You Argentines always trot out Hong Kong as a justification for getting your hands on the Falklands, but apart from Hong Kong being a former British colony, their situations have nothing in common. There is no relevance, and this is even more so for Goa, where the Goans WANTED to become part of India.
Most chilling of all: You seem to believe acquiring territory by military means, in 2009, is acceptable? Shame on you!
Argentina might always be in the South Atlantic, but so will the Falkland Islands...
How many children has HMG killed today?
Iraq, another example on unilateralism and old policies of an old empire. Now Justin if empire policies are over, show me the evidence that justify an invasion of iraq territory. Links with al qaeda? never proved. Weapons of mass destruction? never proved. Im waiting you justification on that war of the 21 century.
Unilateralism? Colonial policies? Sorry, but whatever the legalities, and those are still being debated, the UK was part of an international coalition during the Iraq invasion in 2003. In case you have not read the news for a while - it seems you only care about things that happened 50 years ago or more - there are no longer any UK combat troops in Iraq (there goes your colonialism argument up in flames). For your information the coalition included Spain, the US, Australia, Denmark and Poland (and boom, there goes your unilateralism argument).
The UK might have invaded Afghanistan in the past, but again, that was when the India was British and the UK was at the height of its imperial powers. For the current war in Afghanistan the UK is also part of a coalition: US, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Poland, Netherlands, Australia, Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, Denmark, Turkey, Belgium, Norway, Czech Republic.
Before you say these countries were coerced into joining the coalitions for Iraq and Afghanistan, don't forget, they are all democracies and capable of choosing for themselves. There is an example of this: Spain withdrew from Iraq.
From your comments I take it you think the Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein and the Afghans had a better life under the Taliban? One of the stated reasons for the 2003 Iraq invasion was to get rid of Saddam Hussain. I think that was justification enough.
Whether the coalition were legal in invading Iraq and Afghanistan is not for me to say, but how that is at all relevant to the Falkland Island situation I have no idea? Please explain.
Sorry, but you guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find reasons why Argentina's very weak claim trumps the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination.
You seem to conveniently forget that Argentina also has a brutal history of colonialism, invading territory and subjugating indigenous populations. The "conquest of the desert" by Roca. Some of this even more recently - the Napalpi massacre of 1924 comes to mind.
You have been peddling this nonsense in other forums for years past on the basis of academic pre-eminence. It makes no more sense now than it ever did.
I guess there is probably nobody left alive now who remembers the old British Empire that you harp on about.
Your aim as always it to obtain the Falklands and any potential resources; the whys and wherefores of the merits of any claim are really of no interest to you. It just the smash and grab mentality.
You said it elsewhere your ambition is to take the Falklands with or without the Islanders about whose future you care not a jot.
This is the real and official policy of Argentina, all the rest of the garbage is just for show to people who couldn't care less one way or the other.
The Justins have it about right!
Justin, Unilateralism has nothing to do with the coalition, the US presented false proof and without waiting for un resolutions they prepared the invation and colected allies for its cause. Now you think El Salvador presented proof against iraq to participate in the coalition or is it more a political favor to the us?.
Well in Iraq, contrary to the un, you went there and destroyed all of it just becouse you didnt wanted Sadam Hussein. The same happens with malvinas, you dont care about sovereignty, the un, International rights, you just made a consitution for islanders and thats it, they think they are independent becouse of that.
Justin, about the legality is not for debate, you think the weapons of mass destruction can be found after all this years? or its conection with al qaeda?. Those proof were made by the US for political purpose and it was investigated by them.
Expat, Empire is gone but its habits are back.
Our new constitution was made and drafted by Islanders , it was led by an islander born elected councillor with input from the other councillors,the general public, and then the lawyers in the end to get the words correct and was then finally approved by UK - it was not made by them. I guess some of you will just never accept or understand that in the 21st century we run our country - not UK. They only have responsibility for defence and foreign affairs.
Why are you so quiet about Argentina's crimes? The conquest of the desert by Roca (which many consider to be genocide), the taking of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. Do you have any comments about the Napalpi massacre, or do you just prefer to ignore the bits which you don't like (or perhaps feel embarrased about)? What are your comments? You call me naive, however it's naive of you to think the UK is the only country which indulged in imperialism in its past.
Your view of the events in Iraq and Afghanistan is exactly that, a view, an opinion - and I am quite prepared to concede that my views are only an opinion. You are no more correct than I am, which is why I continually repeat that the legality etc is still in question and that the historians will figure it all out in the future. We may not know the truth in our lifetimes. The invasion was not only about WMD, there were more complex reasons for the invasion. You also conveniently forget about the earlier aggression and invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
British oil companies are not the only ones currently in Iraq, despite what you think, it is not a free-for-all for British companies. You seem to conveniently forget about companies from other countries. For example the Chinese state oil company just signed a deal with the Iraqi government. I still don't see how Iraq has any relevance to the Falkland Islands?
"The same happens with malvinas, you dont care about sovereignty, the un, International rights, you just made a consitution for islanders and thats it, they think they are independent becouse of that."
Well, the facts prove otherwise Luis: The FI constitution is as a direct result of the UK's obligations under Article 73 of the UN Charter. Also, the Islanders have an undeniable right to self determination, under international law, enshrined in the UN charter, yet the only country trying to deny that right is Argentina - talk about not caring about international rights.
Iraq was incredibly divisive in the UK, it provoked the biggest protests this country have ever seen. I will not justify it, as I was one of those who protested against our involvement. It was not justifiable.
But to claim it was colonialism is farsical. The British have all but pulled out of Iraq.
As regards the Falklands, you're now being utterly ridiculous. The Falklands are of no value to the British, they maintain a base there purely to defend the islands against Argentine aggression. Prior to 1982 there was no presence; it is solely a product of continued Argentine aggression.
Javier, you post is constructed of the most bizarre twisted logic. It is not worthy of a riposte, it is its own criticism.
Justin R, i have the links that indicate the US admited the proof were bad handled if you really want to read it. So its not only my opinion. So how if you tell me whats your opinion about what made the uk took the desition to invade?( i hope you answear it)', dont let historians to figure it out.
Justin Kuntz, Is not necesary to keep military forces to maintain a colony. As long as you control the economy and its polititians. About the economy its obvious there was no iraq's aproval to british petroleum have acces to iraq's oil, and about polititians, the current "president" of iraq were living in the us and was brought by the allies (should i substantiate more). And if your response is that there was an election i ask you if the Ba'ath partie participated on the elections?.
Islander, i sincerely interested in your constitution. Why the uk had to aprove your constitution if they only take care of defense and foreign office? why your constitution does not include your own governor?, Is the constitution equally to those of Walles, England, Scotland or NorthIrland? or equally to those of commonwealth? i ask you without intention to offend you, but from my point of view your constitution does not change at all your current status quo.
Guys, when the mayor combats ended, you didnt helped iraq's inhabitants to develop its oil resources, americans corporations and british oil corporations were waiting to extract oil since the first day mayor combats ended.
Oh, dear! Surely, those millions killed by your war feel better killed under your bombs than alive under Saddam! Those mutilated and those who have lost everything they had are now very happy because they are “free” now. And they surely granted the control of their oil to US and British interests as a prove of their eternal gratitude…
There is a mention in the comments to a coalition. The coalition of Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria invaded Yugoslavia in 1941. So according your reasoning, as it was a coalition that was pretty good…
It was your “coalition odf the willing” who laugh on the UN, on international Right, on written treaties and the world by unleashing your brutal carnage of 100000 people and destruction of a country which YOUR GOOD TONY BLIAR accused of being able to launch WMD in an hour, (proven ABSOLUTELY FALSE), as all other reasons which has been invoked by HMG and USA. It was YOU who defy the UN and the world by the commission of that CRIME AGAINST PEACE, like those commited by NAZIS . You laugh on the Geneva convention, too.
There are many tyrants in the world, like your good allies in Oman, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Pakistan, Egypt, KUWAIT, etc. When are you going to allow them (that is, those who survive your ‘liberation’) to walk free? NOT while their governments let you suck their oil or are functional in ant way to your interests. You will commit ANY CRIME to control oil.
Which is the nature of your present Afghan war? This war is just a battle for world oil supply, a new version of the “Great Game” played in Central Asia and the Middle East during the XIXth century, though Britain seems to play now a more humble part. The Russian bear is ill and in the cave; USA cannot go for it (it is still a bear...) but you will take the opportunity of conquering all that you can while she is in her cave and there is no world balance.
The destruction and control of Afghanistan (most of the country is controlled by ‘good warlords’ allies) will allow you to build the pipelands to take out the Central Asian oil. The proven reserves of Kazakstan are 17.6 billion barrels (the USA are 22 billion barrels) and Turkmenistan has the fifth largest gas reserve in the world. There is a president for life there, but he seems to be a “good dictator” to make bussiness with... On the other hand, in Kazakhistan there were “free elections” but the main opposition leader was barred from running... But who cares? They are willing to make buissiness. You will provide them with chemical weapons, given the circumstances.
There is a dictatorship in China at least since 1949 (previous to that, we must remember that Chiang Kai Sek was a “good dictator”). When are you going to harrase and occupy China, so they (that is, those who survive your ‘liberation’) can walk free? How on earth could HMG have handed over Hong Kong to that dictatorship without obbeying “the wishes” of the 5 000 000 Hong Kongers themselves? They cannot walk free nowadays! To defend their “right of self determination” with weapons in hand would have been a good start for the ‘liberation’ of the other 1000 000 000 Chinese... GO AHEAD! Oh, don’t tell me that China has no oil and plenty ammunition? That has no bearing, you kill just for principles, not for interests...
The invasion of Irak is a perfect example of violation of self determination, as everybody knows who appointed the present puppet government there (in the same way Hitler appointed Mr Quisling in Norway). In spite of everything the US and Britain had stated, there were no WMD. Let’s suppose –for exercise sake- that it was just a mere “mistake”. How many people have being killed and injured? How many cities had been reduced to rubble? Who is going to pay for that “mistake”, both pennaly and econommically? When will Mr Bliar be trialed and under wich court?
Anyway, it looks like the Irak war was not a mistake, but just a simple and brutal war of aggression, that is, a “crime against peace”. What does that figure mean?
The following is a quote to the Rules for the International court at Nurenberg, that trialed the nazi leadership
QUOTE:
“II - JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article 6
(...)
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsability:
a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the acomplishment of any of the foregoing;
b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill tratment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory , murder or ill-treatment of prisioners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity,
c) (...)
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”
[END OF QUOTE] (1)
Many nazi leaders were condemned to the death penalty by the Nurenberg Tribunal, including Messers Goering, foreign minister Ribbentropp, Marschalls Jodl and Keitel, etc. But of course, that happened ONLY AFTER THEY LOST THE WAR.
A) and C) seem to be precisely what has been (and still is) done in Irak, does it not?
Best,
1) Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
2) He can use it against them with just 45 minutes notice.
3) UN weapons inspectors are deceived by Irakis and so they cannot find the WMD; but Britain has sound proof of them and her intelligence knows where to look.
4) The opinions of UN (in general) and UN Security Council (in particular) are ‘irrelevant’.
5) Britain invaded Irak to defend freedom and democracy.
6) This invassion is pretty legal.
7) The Iraki people will receive them as liberators.
8) The US-British coalition uses intelligent weapons and against military targets only (no explanation was given about super intelligent weapons that hitted wrong countries, including “axis of evil” [Iran] or a close NATO ally [Turkey]).
9) Any reports of hospitals, schools, markets or civilian areas in general destroyed are just Saddam’s propaganda.
10) Cassualties on HM armed forces were caused by friendly fire and not by Irakis.
11) The mothers of Iraki children dead or injured will thank God because they will be free (HMG Minister of Defense dixit).
12) The cause of the invassion was not Irak’s oil (a truth said with deep indignation!).
13) The fact that Basra has STILL NOT running water is caused by thechnical problems. The fact that in the meantime IRAK OIL IS BEEN PUMPED for BP (British Petroleum) and Shell is a happy coincidence!
14) Mr David Kelly committed ‘suicide’...
We all should consider again those ‘truths’ and OOOOPPPS! I almost forgot one!!! Self determination and the islanders whishes are paramount for HMG! In the meantime, a HMG will carry out a “change of regime” in Irak...
Let’s keep good memory of all that in order to alway give HMG THE CREDIT IT DESERVES.
Best - Javier
PD: the use of capitals doesn’t mean any shouting; it is used for emphasis only.
Also as the Adminisering Power UK has responsibility under EEC Law to make sure that all the European type laws and practises of good government are maintained here. Also at the ultimate point we are british territory-even if selfgoverning - so Britain has to make sure we have our laws etc that meet british standards of democracy and individual rights.
As for where the Governor comes from - maybe one day we will have a Governor who is born here. But do not forget he has no direct power inside the Islands, only our elected councillors control that. He is the figure representation of the Queen as Head of State - but inside the Islands all his power is to advise and sign laws - same as the Queen does in Britain, and like the Governor General in Australia - he is the representative head-of-state there as an example, the only difference is that they are independent so make their own foreign policy as well.
What on earth are you rabbiting on about? We all know what you think and say. The Falklands will be Argentine "with or without the Islanders".
There is no relevance to the Falklands in any of your quotes and they are simply examples of diversionary propaganda designed to muddy the waters and impress with your pseudo academic brilliance and grasp of the so called facts. Goebbels is probably cheering in his grave.
Congratulations on being the most irrellevant and overtly anti British propaganist poster on this site.
Self determination is invoked by HMH for deniyng Argentinean right.
Self determination is conveniently forgot by HMG while she makes ballant aggression wars with millions killed and countries harassed.
Don't see the point? The reasons invoked by HMG are simply lies. Britain is still a colonial power, Britain is still a brutal power, Britain is still killing people like ants for her lust of sacking.
The rights and wrongs of British actions outside the Falklands arena have nothing to do with that case, you simply use them as a diversionary tactic to muddy the waters. Either that or you are confusing the issue of the rights of non self-governing territories with those of the sovereign states to which you refer.
There is actually no great battle between the UK and Argentina it is all in your mind, as far as I know they are the best of friends in all other arenas.
The right of self determination is enshrined for the Falklands by the UN and was re-iterated by the UK in 1964 in front of Argentine claims at the UN (the wrong body to solve your claims by the way) it is nothing new and reflects the movement in international attitudes in the 20th century whilst your attitudes are still fixed in the 19th century.
Britains support for self determination applies universally to all its Overseas Territories so I do not see how in can possibly be invoked as you say to deny Argentine rights. It does however negate all Argentine claims which are spurious and invented in the extreme in nearly all arenas.
The proof of the existence of the Commonwealth of Nations is testament to Britains modern acceptance of the end of Empire and support for the rights of all peoples of all races.
Yes we make mistakes as does Argentina, but you conveniently forget that Vernet's brief from BA was to establish a viable COLONY in the Falklands within three years which he demonstrably failed to do. The British presence and US visitation came after he had abandoned his post and left the Islands and his putative COLONY to its fate.
So presumably any return to Argentina would be to Colonial status as it was then designated so then again presumably you would grant self-determination to the inhabitants whose rights are so fully recognised and confirmed as such by the UN in their charter and resolutions.
Give me a break!!!
I'm sorry, I don't see the relationship. The UK's involvement in Iraq, whether it was right or wrong, does not in any way strengthen Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands.
Islander, about your constitution i wonder if it represent your selfgovernment as you say, why is that her magesty have powers to make laws in the islands, quote in page 3, last paragraph of your constitution. Why is that her magesty can change the governor power as her pleasure, quote in page 21, last paragraph?. And again in page 33 with the tittle "the governor to consult the executive council" where it says :
The governor shall not be obliged to consult the executive power-
a)When acting under instruction given to him or her by her magesty through a secretary of state pursuant of section 23.
In page 33 with the tittle "the governor may act against advice of the executive council" says in point 4:
whenever the governor act against the advice of the executive council, any member of it may require that there shall be recorded in the minutes any advice or opinion he or she gave on the question at issue and his or her reasons.
Islander as long as i read it several times i can only figure it that:
- The executive council can only advice the governor.
-Her majesty can decide the term of the governor seat.
-Her majesty can change law or make new laws.
-The governor can grant lands on behalf of her majesty under the public seal. quote in page 35, point 73.
-Under page 25 the government can dissolve the legislative assembly by proclamation published in the gazette.
-Her Majesty can dissalow any ordenance of the legislative assembly as quote in page 30 point 54 (2).
Islander my natural language is Castellano so i'll be glad if you can give me further details on those point i mention to see what if the little part of the constitution favor the queen or your selfdetermination.
Link of the "falkland" constitution:
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assembly/documents/The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008.pdf
Whether I like the FI Constituton and how it works or not is my business entirely.
It does not matter at all wheter you like it or not as it is really none of your business.
The Governor is the representative of the Queen who is the Sovereign and Head of State of the Falkland Islands which is a self-governing British Overseas Territory with a symbiotic relationship with the mother country for the time being exactly the same as the other territories of the BOT group. Nothing designed at all to frustrate Argentina but to support the legitimate rights of of British Overseas Territory Citizens who are all also British Citzens as well as Citizens of their own respective territories. I know Argentina understands dual nationality as about 50% of Argentines reputedly keep up dual loyalties. The speed of progress to full autonomy, or indeed not as the case may be, is in the hands of the Islanders themselves who share such powers as they will with their sovereign as it suits them as as is their own business.
This has no bearing on your claim whatsoever and the constitution is a matter for the Islanders and the legal administering power the UK which as it is presently obliged to do has reported the change in the constitutional status to the UN.
I fully expect that the Falklands will formally report its satisfaction with its degree of self government to the UN through the administering power and request its removal from the UN listing of NSGT's as is the approximate position of Gibraltar.
If my expectations are correct, happily for you and your country, you will then be able continue to talk to the wall without contradiction from the FIG.
By the way there is the precedent of the Sovereign using her powers through the Australian Governor General to sack their Prime Minister and I think nobody would question the fact of self government in Australia.
I do hope you understand this post.
British constitutions have always been a bit like this as we have an unelected monarch as Head of State and thus with all the final powers in principle - but as democracies its done differently in reality with the Head of State as an advisor and accepting the decisions of the elected representatives and signing the papers. Its all part of our slightly crazy - but often envied - history and traditions.
Believe me, I live here happy to know that today real effective power in the Islands lies with the people I can vote for every 4 years. Your constitution is different and maybe much clearer to follow as to where real power lies.
So, think very carefully about it, think in long-term policy.
Your current government might not, but hopefully a future one will.
It's just as much Argentina's loss, and don't kid yourself that the Islands can't live without you.
Do you notice how this report concerns a comment that Argentina always uses coercion to attempt to influence the islanders, never mind that its utterly counter productive. And then an Argentine comes along, states that discussions are pointless then demands talks or else.
I think the original point is proven. QED
Of course it would be better for our economy(and much better for international fishery conservation), and better in the future long term for Argentina if we could co-operate more and be friendly normal neighbours. But the bottom line is we can survive quite well without it. We have not torn up any Agreements - somebody else has.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!