Falklands’ dispute reaches the UN: Ban Ki-Moon’s praises peaceful attitude
Argentina’s Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana as had been anticipated on Wednesday formally asked United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to interfere in the “unilateral decisions” Britain has made regarding the Falklands/Malvinas Islands issue and highlighted that “from now on” everyone has to wait until Ban acts within a “good-solicitor” framework.
Following the meeting both held with Ban Ki Moon at the United Nation's building in New York, Taiana pointed out that the interview had been “cordial” and that his arguments were “highly welcomed.”
Taiana remarked that “the underlying reason for the visit was a pending conversation as regards Ban's role of being a good solicitor among the negotiations between Britain and Argentina” concerning the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty dispute.
“He is to make a phone call to Britain and will take care of our situation. Several options are at stake and we'll see how to solve this matter” Taiana summed up.
Previously, it was said that a resolution is also set to be tabled in the UN General Assembly condemning Britain for allowing the Ocean Guardian oil rig to begin drilling 100 kilometres north of the Islands.
Meanwhile the UN website said that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today took note of Argentina’s concerns regarding the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) during a meeting at United Nations Headquarters with the country’s Foreign Minister, Jorge E. Taiana.
“Mr. Ban expressed satisfaction at Argentina’s commitment to resolving its dispute with the United Kingdom over the Islands in a peaceful manner”, according to information provided by a UN spokesperson.
In addition, the Secretary-General reiterated that his good offices are available when requested by all parties in a dispute.
The dispute between the two countries – which fought a war over the islands in 1982 – is back in the spotlight owing to reported oil drilling by the UK off the Falkland Islands.
According to media reports, Argentina says that the UK has broken a UN resolution forbidding unilateral development in disputed waters, while the British Government says the Islands have a ‘legitimate right’ to develop an oil industry within their waters.
Desire Petroleum Company, which is operating the rig, has said that the drilling will take about a month. Further exploration for other companies will follow.
Argentine president Cristina Kirchner said in Mexico that in spite of the British attitude ignoring Argentine legislation, “we’re not going to adopt any measure outside the framework of international law: we don’t believe in such things as blockades”. She added that in this Argentina will act strictly “because the only thing you can’t do with a cannibal is eat him”.
Suggested Stories
-
May 23rd 2012
Following the Falklands’ ad incident Britain/Argentina at the opening hockey match in London
-
May 23rd 2012
Ambassador Castro embroiled in controversy over Falklands and “possible constitutional reform”
-
May 22nd 2012
Royal Navy says HMS Talent reports are “mere media speculations”
-
May 18th 2012
Cristina Fernandez insisted in Angola on the South Atlantic as “an area of peace”
83 comments Feed
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.
So what happened to taking this to the Hague, Jorge?
Ok you may now continue with the racist bigotry.
Bloomberg 25/2
{“It is illegal, against international law and contrary to the desire of the United Nations” Taiana said regarding the drilling. (now the best bit) He didn't reply when asked which UN resolutions were violated by the oil drilling or whether his coutry would seek a resolution against exploration in the UN General Assembly or Security Coucil.}
That is a major own goal by Taiana I am afriad. He says the drilling is illegal but is unable to refer directly to any law which has actually been broken.
Conclusions:
If they were cetain that interantional law had been broken they would refer the matter to the ICJ at The Hague. They are not doing this so clearly no law has been broken.
Taiana couldn't play poker as he would play all of his cards very early into the game and expose his weakness.
The Argentine leadership are playing their own citizens like a banjo and trying to bolster internal support by shouting “Malvinas, Malvinas, Malvinas” because their approval ratings are down 20%. This is a very cynical and disrespectful move by the Argentine government. If I was Argentine I would be very offended that my own government trreats me with so much contempt.
If ou do not agree with me then request that your leadership refer this matter to the ICJ. If they don't do this then wake up and smell the coffee. You are being used by your leadership yet again. Get rid of them and elect someone who actually respects the citizens they are supposed to serve.
Trade and collaboration is a much more rational route to take.
Well you are not. You know a sh*t about being an argentine.
I cannot understand how many ignorants talk about Argentina without knowing a thing.!!!!
UN resolution 31/49
<<<<Calls upon the two parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended in the above-mentioned resolutions;>>>>
The same UN ask Iran to respect UN resolutions and UK always complain about iranian refusal to do that. HIPOCRYTE!!!!
Thank you for that highly constructive post. Nice to see you are advertising your academic capability .
The point still stands; if one is going to suggest that action is “illegal” under international law then the individual needs to be able to refer to the actual laws in question. Taiana refused to do this because he either doesn't know or this is an admission that no law has been broken and all the shouting is “hot air” going into an election in 2011. Taiana has shown his incompetance on this matter clearly, for all to see.
It was Argentina that “unilaterally” tore up the agreement to collaborate on oil exploration, so by your reasoning this makes Argentina the inital protagonist with regard to the resolution your refer to.
This debate is not about Iran. I have plenty of Iranian friends and students (along with Argentines) and I find that most people I deal with are rational and want the best solution for all parties invovled. Clearly you are unable to engage in these kinds of discussions.
The UK governement has indicated it is willing to talk of the matter of oil exploraton as there was an agreemtn already in place. I stand by my conclusion that all parties have more to gain through collaboration on oil exploration which would give some much needed support to the Argentine economy.
The exploration will continue and given the price of oil it is still commercially viable to move unrefined oil to Africa, US or even to the UK for full refinement. The Argentine leadership are therefore failing to reduce unemployment and provide its citizens with a great opportunity for economic stability through collaboration with the Islands. By any measure this is poor leadership.
Resolution 31/49
Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
1 December 1976
The General Assembly,
Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),
Recalling its resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2065 (XX) of 16 December 1965 and 3160 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973,
Bearing in mind the paragraphs related to this question contained in the Political Declaration adopted by the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, and in the Political Declaration adopted by the Fifth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Colombo from 16 to 19 August 1976,
Having regard to the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and, in particular, the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Committee concerning the Territory,
1. Approves the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and, in particular, the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Committee concerning the Territory;
2. Expresses its gratitude for the continuous efforts made by the Government of Argentina, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the General Assembly, to facilitate the process of decolonisation and to promote the well-being of the populations of the islands;
3. Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to expedite the negotiations concerning the dispute over sovereignty, as requested in General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII);
4. Calls upon the two parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended in the above-mentioned resolutions;
56. Requests both Governments to report to the Secretary-General and to the General Assembly as soon as possible on the results of the negotiations.
==========================
Above is the resolution in full. Now Britain and Argentina reached agreement about oil exploration, which Argentina chose uniltaerally to withdraw from.
So the only country who actually introduced a unilateral modification is Argentina. The FIG has merely pressed ahead with measures agreed in advance with Argentina. And now you're bitching about it, having CHOSEN not to continue to take part.
So clearly the UN resolution you refer to, doesn't actually prohibit what the FIG is doing. So under what International Law is this illegal, again which UN resolution forbids it?
Good to see there are some of us with objectivity in the world. Have a good day.
Firstly, if such a huge nation like argentina claims for the islands, it's not because we are paranoid, we claim them because we consider that they are one more integral part of our territory.<br /><br />
Ther are many reasons to hold that argentina has right s on the malvinas -falklands, i will tell them in my next commentary, beside i repeat that i want to debate deeply about it, with you and much more falklands islanders.<br /><br />
On the other hand, about your comments for argentina, i think they are honest, but you are ignorant, because there are many important facts that you dont know, because you dont live here, you only know one side of the story, you should objetive, beause you are talking about a country that is not yours, beside if you think that you can find free press in the foreign, let me tell you that you are not only ignorant, you are inocent too.<br /><br />
I heard since 2003 from that soposed free press that you deffend, that my country will have a new economic desaster soon, were you aware about any economic catastrophe in argentina?, i wasen't, so, can i believe in that soposed free press?, i dont think so, i dont beleive in the politicians eather, nor in the media, i only believe in the reality, on the other hand, when i inform my self, i do it with those chanels that sopport the goverment, and those that are against it, the media corporations are as corrupters and speculators as the goverments, they omit and lie all the time, that's why i need different opinions with different lines.<br /><br />
The press in the whole world, is only funtional to it's economic interests, in my country, the 83% of our information is in the hands of just 4 corporations, clarin and la nacion (the most powerfull corporations of the media), have allways pushed the presidents, because they want them to be the guards of their economic inerests, they are making now the dirtyest campain against a president that i ever seen in these 26 years of democracy, anyway the k made important mistakes, but no one can denay that we had a great progress in many aspects in the last 7 years, your hate for the k, doesen't let you see more aspects of our reality, the media wants cristina to renounce tomorrow, i understand that as a falkland islander, you have enough reasons to be ungry with them, but like them or not, you should recognize them all the achievements that we had, i am totally sure that you dont dont know not even the half of the good measures took since 2003, anyway i dont want another k goverment, i want the 2011 to come the soonest possible, and choose another authority.<br /><br />
On the other hand, you say that you feel affection for argentina bla bla bla, however, you say that we blame everyone else for our problems, but you are not taking into account that this the tipical phrase used by our shamefull politicians, we are not so idiot to beleive their lies, that's why most our ex authoritys are so rejected betwen most us, your view only shows your ignorance about argentina, and how hipocryte you are.
Why the silence over French Guyana, and the fact that Belize's head of state is the Queen.
So much Hypocrisy in the ranks of latin America!
And refering to one of the resolutions....
2. Expresses its gratitude for the continuous efforts made by the Government of Argentina, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the General Assembly, to facilitate the process of decolonisation and to promote the well-being of the populations of the islands;
When have Argentina ever promoted the well-being of the popluation of the Falkland Islands?? They haven't, and it appears to me that the are the ones breaking their beloved UN Resolutions.
Now can we all get talking about making some serious money please. ££££££££££££
You can check this out yourself at:
www.un.org/news/dh/pdf/english/2010/24022010.pdf
Falklanders have legal right to do as they please withing their own territorial waters. Falklanders should now make claim for all waters east from the Falklands to the continental shelf and westwards up to mid-way bewtween Falklands and Argentina.
As long as your side dont recognize our rights on the islands, we will have more of these problems, and my goverment once and for all must talk to the f.i.g.<br />
It's obvious that the u.k. wont never talk to argentina about the sovereign dispute, the solution is in your hands, and ours, dont you realise that with all the prosperity that the islands have, you should be independent now, it's the most prosperous place in the whole world, as long as your side keeps on avoiding to talk about the dispute, it wont never give you neather the chance of becoming into independent, the dispute with argentina is a limitation for your independence, that's why, your side and mine must sit and talk about the conflict, recognize the rights of both and find a fair solution for both.<br />
May be it's true the fact that my country didn't claim for many years, which is a very big mistake, but bretain also made mistakes too, it's very hipocrye to say that our arguments are false, because any nation can't claim a territory with false arguments.<br />
If we wouden't have any right on the islands, so why the u.n. still calls both sides to resolve pacefully this problematic, if argentina wouden't have any rights on the islands, the u.n. only would recognize the rights of bretain, beside we can't recognize your right to self determination, because if we do it, we will loss our rights, you will allways choose to be british, it's your culture, it would be unfair too to pretend that the islanders accept only the argentine sovereignty.<br />
The u.k. have allways refused to talk about the sovereignty, in these way, you will have even 30 generations of falkland islanders.<br />
What happened in 1833, in some aspects was illigal, the british only had right to stablish on the islands, because they were soported by the san lorenzo treaty, beside when the british left their garrison in port egmont in 1774, during 59 years they didn't exercise any sovereign right on the islands, since 1774 untill 1833 there were just esporadic settlements of british and american sailors, but it doesen't give any sovereign rigt to the u.k., the islands were submited to the jurisdiction of the virreynato del rio de la plata, that's why when we got the independence, thanks to our effort, we had right to excercise our sovereignty in the malvinas-falklands too, they were just one more part of our territory.<br />
It's true that vicerroalty was joined by uruguay, paraguay, and part of bolivia too, but those nations decided to separate and became into independent, for different reasons, so they lost their rights on the islands, if i would take what you and ja. robert say about a soposed right by these nations, then they should claim also all the rest of the argentines provinces, because the islands were one more integral part of our territory like cordoba, santa fe, catamarca, tucuman etc etc, so what you say is really rediculous.<br />
Bretain didn't have any right to force the argentine authoritys to leave the malvinas, that was a true abuse of power, how could an incipient nation like mine, to fight against the most powerfull colonial nation in the world?, this si the reason why i hold that in some aspects, what happened in 1833 was illigal, it would be totally unfair and hipocryte to ignore these facts from 19 centenary, because for those events, we are having a conflict with u.k. since 177 years, there is nothing more i can say, the solution is in our hands, i will do what i can, i will take your arguments and my ideas for a solution to the conflict to mr taiana, i will tell him what i think about the policy of both sides, and he will have to give me sustainable reasons to my questions, in your case, what will you do?, i have another commentary for you it's number 10.
Even if it is somehow still applicable (and as a matter of law I have some doubts given that it was completely abrogated by Argentina by the 1982 invasion) can someone please explain to me why Menem's amendment to the Argentine constitution re the Falklands in the late 1990s is not a unilateral act.
It's a well known fact at the Foreign Office here in the UK that the great Baboon (chavez) is all word and no action! Even the Russians and Chinese are embarrased to sell weapons to him!
he knows at heart that if he was to try and attempt to put his tin pot navy to use, some of our cousins to the north and their friends to the west of Venezuela would have a thing or two to say! ;)
”3. Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to expedite the negotiations concerning the dispute over sovereignty, as requested in General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII); “
That´s the reason: UN specificly ask both governments to ”expedite negociations concerning the dispute over SOVEREIGNTY” (not resources, not oil, not administration, not falklenders, but SOVEREIGNITY, and UK always refused to do that.
The 1982 argentine military capture was only an attempt (a silly and unprepared one) to recovery its own territory, all the rights to do that.
to 23Unclesam
The British WERE a world power because they have been the more THIEVES...
I mean as a nation... some of them are nice people. At least my british friends are so... of course, they all know that Malvinas are ours.
Have a look at section 4 of the resolution and explain why the invasion of the Islands by Argentina wasn't a fundamental breach of that section of the resolution.
The point I was making still stands - i had thought, mistakenly, that this resolution was introduced during the conflict, not before it. I'm simply questioning whether the resolution is still applicable given Argentina's invasion, and subsequent military defeat, in 82. My view is that it isn't applicable any more, but I'm interested in the thoughts of others.
However, Argentina never once came up with any ideas or budged one iota in its demands, if anyone wasn't willing to negotiate on sovereignty it was Argentina.
And as Stevie P and J.A.Roberts has pointed out negotiations on sovereignty DO NOT require the British Government to capitulate on Argentine demands.
If we (Argentina) accept to talk about other things, this would weaks our strong and very well documented and supported claim... and UK might say that it was a tacit admitance of their occupation.<br /><br />
Besides all that... and I repet this for ... what time?... We are not in this for oil, fish, water, mineral resources, etc... We have plenty of all that without Malvinas... And personally; well, I know that what I´m going to say now is not as unanimous feeling here as it is our ownership of Malvinas... But many of us think that oil must remain just were it is: underground. Enough contamination in the world, it´s time to develop better sources of energy...
<br />
MICHAEL, maybe what you say is true, and my country finally didn't claim for 91 years, if is it true, then maybe we have no more to claim, i know about the arguments of your side, and that's why i really hold that both nations made big mistakes, answer me what right had the u.k. to force the argentine authoritys to leave the islands?, i think they had lost them before, because since 1774, untill 1833, they didn't exercise any sovereign right on the islands, they only had a prior claim, but when they arrived in 1833, the islands were allready ocupated by argentina.<br />
<br />
<br />
J.A ROBERT:<br />
<br />
I know perfectly that argentina wasen't the only heir of the vicerroalty, i know about my history, but those nations separated part from the provincias unidas, if they would have any claim on the islands, like you say, then they should claim also all the rest of the argentines provinces, because the malvinas were just one more part of our territory, beside i recognize that it's a mistake to say that we inherited the islands from spain, because spain didn't cede us anything, in fact all that we could get, was thanks to our effort, QUE SUPIMOS CONSEGUIR (it's part of our national amsong, it means, all that we could get), beside spain recognized our independence more tham 30 years later, it's true what you say that we dind't inherate the islands from spain, it's just a social construction to hold the fact of inherance from spain, and i realised now , jaja, i respect your opinion but i dont agree, i hope i can find this year and expert in international law, and i will give him or her your arguments, i will debate with that persons, and them i will tell you and all the rest of the islanders about my conclutions, i am objetive, it's difficult, but i can do it.<br />
<br />
Justin.<br />
<br />
You know that it's a joke to say that bretain was prepared to transfer the falklands to argentina if it was the interets of the islanders, we all know perfectly that the islanders were never interested on being argentine, and they are never going to be, so, holding that is just a hipocryte assertion, it's just one more way to justify their ocupation, they are never going to recognize that their invation from 1833 , in some aspects was illigal, i have two comments for you in this page, they are number 10 and 19.
That´s rigth... but over all, the matter is that UK was never interested in the islander´s opinion... they are just an excuse foor them. They didn´t ask anybody`s opinion... they didn´t ask people living in hong kong before restore it, many of them didn´t want their living place beoing under chinese rules...
Ireland Thanks for the support. Mixed feelings against the pirates.
A closed mind is a terrible waste.
No Britain didn't give it up in 1774, it was actually 1776 when the garrison left, amazing how you always pick the date that minimises the British presence. Argentine claims of the British absence are a myth, there is material in your own archives that show this to be true but you believe what you want to and aren't prepared to think about it critically. And no in 1833, the islands weren't occupied by Argentina, the truth is less clear cut than you make out. The Argentine case is fundamentally flawed in that you failed to exercise effective control and further the settlement was established with the knowledge and consent of the British.
Not only was Britain prepared to transfer sovereignty, the FCO conspired with the Argentine Government to persuade the islanders to accept it. As usual, you managed to undermine that yourselves. But if you choose not to believe the truth of the matter then really there is no hope for the brain washed.
The Hong Kong case is very different, the territory was leased in a written agreement that the British honoured, they withdrew at the end of it.
But then you just ignore whatever gets in the way of justifying your prejudice against the British don't you.
<br />
“A closed mind is a terrible waste”... I totally agree; it doesn´t seem to me that we are the closed-minded here...<br />
<br />
And pre-judice, as the word says, is a previous judgment or opinion , that is to say a judgement formed before having witness of the facts. This is not the case, Justin... my opinion and judgement has been formed after all I´ve seen about UK policy trough history.<br />
I don´t have bad feelings against the British, as you say... I actually do think that they have many good things, but piracy and to steal foreign lands and resources as they did, weren´t one of them. <br />
In addition, I admit that almost every britisher I know personally (may be they are not a lot, but I know them well) is a good and nice person.<br />
I was simply rebutting to your assertion that “the islands were submited to the jurisdiction of the virreynato del rio de la plata, that's why when we got the independence, thanks to our effort, we had right to excercise our sovereignty in the malvinas-falklands too...”
Argentina derived then and derives today no special rights to the Falklands simply because they were once part of the Viceroyalty. You NOW have the right to exercise your sovereignty on the bits of land you managed to take and hold onto, sometimes by agreement (the Chileno bits of Patagonia for example) and sometimes by force (the Conquista del Desierto). You never managed to hold onto the Falklands though...
Some facts:
Anyone wanting tp prrospect or survey or drillwithing the 200mile limit has to apply to and get a permit from Falkland islands Govt - not the British one.
An Agreement was reached between UK and Arg in 1995 over offshore oil, Arg recognised the legitimacy of the drilling phase that went on in todays area in 1998 as being in waters under our control. She had areas to the west under her control, and there was an area in the middle under JOINT control. Falklands Govt issued the prospectus for further study and drilling under this AGREEMENT in 2002-2205 and by 2005 it was all taken up and all notified to Arg Government and discussed at the meetings. Then in 2007 - 2 YEARS AFTER they knew about it and had accepted it in the Agreement - Arg decided to UNILATERALLY walk out, get into a huff and pretend it was all somebody elses fault.
Same stories with Fisheries Conservation.
So you see it is Arg that refuses to talk about OIL etc!
<br />
Simon Jenkins<br />
<br />
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance<br />
Thank you for that highly constructive post. Nice to see you are advertising your academic capability .”.................
Thank you and yo can F.....O.....
..........”This debate is not about Iran. I have plenty of Iranian friends and students (along with Argentines) and I find that most people I deal with are rational and want the best solution for all parties invovled.“..........
Yes, it is in some way because bratain fill its mouth talking that Iran must respect UN resolutions and everyone in the world can see this is ”DO WHAT I SAY, BUT NOT WHAT I DO“.
..........”Clearly you are unable to engage in these kinds of discussions.“.......
eeeerrr yeah, ok. Again you can F......O......
.......”I stand by my conclusion that all parties have more to gain through collaboration on oil exploration which would give some much needed support to the Argentine economy.“.........
Argentine economy does not need anything of Malvinas to grow. This is about sovereignty, any other businesses are just complementary things.
.......”The Argentine leadership are therefore failing to reduce unemployment [THAT'S NOT TRUE] and provide its citizens with a great opportunity for economic stability through collaboration with the Islands. [ NONE BUSINESSES IN MALVINAS COULD PROVIDE STABILITY TO ARGENTINE ECONOMY. YOU ARE JUST GIVING YOURSELF THE IMPORTANCE YOU DON'T HAVE].
........“By any measure this is poor leadership.”........
Look at your own leadership gíl de goma!
.........“So clearly the UN resolution you refer to, doesn't actually prohibit what the FIG is doing. So under what International Law is this illegal, again which UN resolution forbids it?”...........
Argentina withdraw from the agreement so that there is no more agreement since a while. You are illegally there. Punto!
...........“It is useless to try to reason with unreasonable people. It doesn't matter how many facts one presents or how logical and congruent one's argument can be, nationalistic and irrate argies will not pay attention to these arguments. Therefore, what I suggest doing is to piss them off: YOU WILL NEVER GET THE FALKLANDS BACK!!!!”...........
You can't piss anyone Gíl de cuarta!.
.........“The British are a world power because they have been more intelligent, more honest, and more dilligent in how they conduct their business, and that makes you jealous.”............
LMFAO. Priceless comedy.
..........“can someone please explain to me why Menem's amendment to the Argentine constitution re the Falklands in the late 1990s is not a unilateral act.”.........
It is not an act that modify anything on the islands. Very simple.
........”It's a well known fact at the Foreign Office here in the UK that the great Baboon (chavez) is all word and no action! Even the Russians and Chinese are embarrased to sell weapons to him!”.........
Do you really think so????? lol. They are just doing businesses. You, anglo countries are losing theses markets (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and even Brazil, Colombia and Perú are buying Russian weapons), that's why you believe that fantasy of “Russian and China embarrased”. It is expected you to see more Russian and Chinese weapons here. Chavez buy them weapons since USA denied to replace parts of F-16's. They lost that market because they (USA) are stupids.
..........“Britain should demand reparations from Argentina to pay for the war and for the clearance of the 14,000 land mines they left lying about.”.........
lol. Sit down and wait!.
Argentina will not pay for trying to recover its own terretorie.
To negotiate about something means both parts should cede something. What part should we cede or what part do you cede???? We only know when you sit down to talk. Sitting down to talk does not mean you are capitulating, just talking, but as we all know, you are not willing to talk. You are just perpetuting this colonial situation in century XXI.
.........“Actually its a mattter of public record that the British Government did negotiate on sovereignty and tried to come up with several formulas to satisfy all parties unsuccessfully and even though it was confident in its sovereignty claim was prepared to consider a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina if it was in the interests of the islanders.”........
None country confident on its sovereignty give it up just like that. UK knows they are illegally there just because the force of weapons in 1833 and 1982 and islander's interests are just an excuse. Everyone knows that population of british origin will always want to remain british. This has been pointed out by Axel arg and Llen.
.....“Argentine claims of the British absence are a myth, there is material in your own archives that show this to be true but you believe what you want to and aren't prepared to think about it critically.”.......
OH this guy seems to have worked in “Archivo General de la Nación”. lol
What a joke!
.........“And no in 1833, the islands weren't occupied by Argentina, the truth is less clear cut than you make out. The Argentine case is fundamentally flawed in that you failed to exercise effective control and further the settlement was established with the knowledge and consent of the British.”.........
What could one disscuss with someone who believes what he wants to believe as he says!
.........“But if you choose not to believe the truth of the matter then really there is no hope for the brain washed.”.....
The truth's owner has spoken!
.........“Jorge and others. All this rubbish from K and Lady T about Brtish unilaterism.
Some facts:
Anyone wanting tp prrospect or survey or drillwithing the 200mile limit has to apply to and get a permit from Falkland islands Govt - not the British one.”.........
No. FIG are just british puppets. A local “goverment” which it is not elected under argentine sovereignty due to british piracy is not a goverment for us. For argentine goverments, everything there is done by the british and its local clowns. When UK finally sits down to negotiate (which will occur some day) Argentina surely will recognize local authorities elected by local people.
A formula has been suggested in these forums where the UK transfer sovereignty to Argentina and in the the same instrument or document Argentina immediately grants recognition and full independence to the Falkland Islands. Provided the Islanders agree, this could easily be the outcome of “talks without preconditions”. An imaginative solution which means Argentina “recovers” the Falklands, albeit briefly, and the Islander's right to self-determination is respected.<br />
Like I said. Until Argentina drops it's pre conditions there will be stalemate.
About the invation by bretain to bs as before and during rosas's goverment, it's true that those events were true gests of heroism,and patriotism of our people (los criollos), to defend our self from brutal abuse of power from the most important country in the whole world, wich tryed to subdue us, but if bretain decided to give up, it wasent because we were better prepared tham they were, actually they felt humilliated, they couden't believe how could a couple of people with obsolet guns, produced so many deathes in the british side, i think they felt mercy for us, if they wanted, they could have destroyed all of us, and we all would be spaking english now.
Britain protested repeatedly to the Argentine Government about their proclamations over the Falkland Islands. Those protests were ignored, Vernet also had acted unilaterally in seizing American ships leading to the Lexington raid and the very real fear of the British that the Americans were about to seize the Falklands.
Trying looking at things from the British perspective.
They gave Vernet permission to set up a settlement, he supplies regular reports, he requests a garrison, then the United Provinces proclaims him “Governor”, the British protests are ignored, Vernet claims his interest is purely commercial, then Vernet interferes with American shipping, further protests are ignored, then we have the Lexington raid, then Mestiviers appointment, more protests are ignored, then a garrison is sent and the islands shortly are in uproar when the garrison mutinies.
In their position what would you do?
Powerfull nation have allways done whatever they want, and they will allways do it, just because they are powerfull, we are not jelaous of the u.k , like one of your idiot compatriots said, the only one thing we want from the u.k., is a solution to the malvinas-falklands conflict, we have so many prouved reserves of oil and gold in many parts of our submarine bassins ,we dont even need the islands to have more progress in argentina, but if they are ours, we must claim for them, and find fair solution for both sides, the same ignorance that many argentines have about the arguments of the islanders, is the same ignorance that many of your compatriots have when they talk about argentina, they think that they can find only corruption and unstable goverments, this is evident that the dont know a shit about my country, they dont have not even one line of obejetivity, they only felt ungry because they are ignored by our goverment, but if they want to make a comment about country they should be objetive, and my side should know more about your arguments, anyway it's not our fault, since we are children we are told that the malvinas are argentine, and we know so little about the history of the islands, regards.
BTW Spain withdrew its garrison, if you're saying by withdrawing its garrison the British claim collapses, then so does the Spanish claim and from that any Argentine claim to have inherited it. Just to point out the contradiction there nothing more.
Now I asked a simply honest question for your personal opinion to consider something from another's perspective back in 1833. Your personal opinion nothing else.
About spain, saying that argentina inherated the islands from spain, is just a social construction, our mother land didn't cede us anything, we decided to declare independent, and spain took more tham 30 years to recognice our independence.<br />
On the other hand, dont you realise that this dispute with argentina is a limitation to get your own independence, as long as you keep on avoiding to discuss with argentina about the conflict, it wont never give you the chance of becoming into independent, the islands are the most prosperous place in the world, you should be independent now, so, be smart, and talk to my goverment once and for all to find a fair solution for both sides, obviously my side should include you in the negociation firstly, you know that in some aspects , i dont like the policy of both.<br />
When i can know all the truth about the history of the malvinas-falklands, i will recognize if my country doesen't have more rights on the islands, i want the truth, and nothing but the truth, i dont want to defend a territory if it really doesen't belong to us, i dont want to spend the rest of my life telling false arguments to my piupirls, ALL THIS IS MY PERSONAL AND HONEST OPINION, beside i want to discuss with you about others issues, i have 2 more comments for you in this page, they are number 10 and 19, regards.
-First of all, I don't know wether or not Buenos Aires is better, but something is for sure, Buenos Aires would never deny citizenship to its citizens like london did with Kelpers.
-Second of all, UK recognized argentine independence in 1825 without mention a word about argentine sovereignty claim on Malvinas made in 1820. UK did not say a thing after Argentina appointed Luis Vernet as a governor.
P.S.: Don't suggest me your dirty link wich I've already read.
www.malvinense.com.ar ENJOY!
But, islander wishes is a precondition because we all know that they strongly feel british and everyone in the world who feels as part of a nation would never give their nationality up.
Self-determination is under international law as much as terretorial integrity and self-determination does not apply to islanders since they belong to the ocupying power.
...........”A formula has been suggested in these forums where the UK transfer sovereignty to Argentina and in the the same instrument or document Argentina immediately grants recognition and full independence to the Falkland Islands. Provided the Islanders agree, this could easily be the outcome of “talks without preconditions”. An imaginative solution which means Argentina “recovers” the Falklands, albeit briefly, and the Islander's right to self-determination is respected.”..............
-Are you out of your mind???
What would Argentina gain from doing that???
We want sovereignty, if we gained it and gave it up to the islanders would mean we are here in a stupid discussion. We were not claiming to gain sovereignty and give it up overnight. That's ridiculous.
You talked about formulas. Well, taking into acount that we are not the ones who are gonna solve this, I suggest UK sit down to negotiate the terms of the transfer with islander interests in mind, that would mean some kind of leaseback and when it finishes, Argentina grant autonomy to Malvinas, but always under argentine flag and without treating argentines as foreigners. Other would be the case of Puerto Rico.
Talking about intelectual honesty Justin??????
Oh! I see, so, everyone who is against the argentine claim has intelectual honesty and the ones in favor are liar pigs.
That's your logic, that's your way of reasoning, very intresting.
With regard to Carlos Escudé, as I said before, he is just a racist who hates peruvian, paraguayan and bolivian inmigration.
He is also a well-know anti-muslam who supported and praised George W. Bush regarding his invations of Irak and Afghanistan. [EN BOCA DE UN MENTIROSO, HASTA LO CIERTO SE HACE DUDOSO].
Not a surprise you admire him since you are a fascist from the killer catholic church!
You're not doing well to your anti-argentine cause every time you praise Carlos Escudé, my little and arrogant friend Justin.
I realize now why you praise Guido Di Tella all the time.
Carlos Escudé was his adviser. Justin praise Carlos Escudé, Carlos escudé always praised Guido Di Tella and this one was a well-know traitor also praised by Justin.
This is a kind of circle, the circle of facism and betrayal.
P.S.: This comment is posted in several articles for everyone to know what kind of person Carlos Escudé is. A person praised by Justin.
Who met Jewett in the Falklands in 1820?
Suggest you read up on the Isabella incident.
Have a perusal of Google books and you'll find a number of accounts of voyages to the Falklands in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries.
Look in your own National Archive, there is plenty of evidence there.
Then come back and tell me there is no evidence the British were there from 1774 till 1833.
Jorge
I merely commented that Carlos Escude was pilloried from his job for expressing doubts about the Argentine sovereignty claim. Judging by your hysterical condemnation of Guido di Tella and Carlos Escude, two men who said Argentina could achieve more with dialogue and co-operation than conflict and confronatation, clearly you have proven my case far better than I ever could.
The analogies with the Argentine habit of cutting of noses to spite faces is compelling.
You often mention that the Britain took the Islands in 1833 because it was powerful and Argentina was weak, yet there were times when Argentina did exactly the same thing. Forcing Chile out of Patagonia when Chile was weakened by the Pacific War against Bolivia and Peru for example. This argument does not strengthen Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands today. Whatever happened 150 years ago is history. Today it is the Falkland Islanders' self determination which is paramount and that is all.
You ask for me to be removed, ahhh that's the democracy you always talked about. Hypocrite!
..........“Forcing Chile out of Patagonia when Chile was weakened by the Pacific War against Bolivia and Peru for example.”.......
chile had no possesions on patagonia at the time. Julio A. Roca killed mapuches, not chileans and Chile agreed with argentine actions on patagonia as long as not getting involved in Pacific War.
The point I was making still stands. Argentina took advantage of her relative strength to keep Chile out of Patagonia.
Nice one Mr Roberts.
About vernet., if he asked bretain to set up a settlement, that was because surelly it was convenient for hes economic interests that the islands are under british goverment, in fact i rode in the pepper pascoe document that bretain paid him so much for hes economic losts, as you can see he was just a traitor speculator, but hes economic ambitions dont give any sovereign right to bretain, if the islands were so british, they never should have retired it's garrison from port egmont.<br />
I repeat two that i have allready rode about the conflict from the british perspective, and i tell you again that i dont know who to believe in, this is evident that one of the two parts is lieing.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, i have to verifficate if what you say about that argentina forced chile out of the patagonia, because for being honest, i dont remember, anyway if this is true, they never claimed neather, so, they lost their right, and it does not strengthen neather the british posture on the islands.
About the right to self determination, it's very hipocrite to say that bretain is prepared to discuss the sovereignty with argentina, if it recognize the right to self determination of the population, because the islanders will allways prefer to cut their balls before having an argentine passport in their hands, the feel british, so, we will allway loss all our rights in that way, this is evident that most you wont never recognize that we must find a fair solution for both sides, both will have to cede in our pretentions, you dont realise that avoiding to discuss the dispute with argentina, wont never give you the chance of becoming into independent, with people who think like most you, the conflict will never finish, and i repeat too thta mi goverment must change in some aspects it's policy for the malvinas-falklands cause.
The British are there and have been for a number of years but because there isn't a “garrison” it doesn't count. But a commercial settlement formed by an Argentine businessman with British permission does?
And because the British withdrew their garrison they lose their rights, when the Spanish withdrew the garrison in 1807 did they lose their rights as well, and so Argentina can't inherit any Spanish rights. Or is that somehow different.
If the islands were Spanish, then they shouldn't have withdrawn their garrison as they lost their sovereign rights and by implication the Argentine rights you claim derived from the Spanish.
So many contradictions. Are you aware of the Orwellian concept of Doublethink ?
I'll think you'll find once you have done some research that Argentina did force Chile to give up her claims to Patagonia during the War of the Pacific. It's a bit cheap to plead weakness as a reason for not securing the Falklands for yourselves when in that era Argentina was just as capable of bullying someone else out of their territory. <br />
<br />
I think you misunderstand. The UK cannot talk about sovereignty without permission of the Islanders. The UK has always been prepared to talk about resolving the dispute Argentina has and has engaged in talks before, even to the point of trying to ignore the Islanders rights to self determination (the leaseback proposal). Nothing hypocritical there, in fact in the past the UK has bent over backwards to please Argentina. But 1982 changed everything. The UK will never get away with ignoring the Islanders' self determination again. The UK is obliged to respect that self determination under international law anyway - and so is Argentina.
I was perfectly clear of what i think about vernet's settlement, dont make me repeat it, or reed one more time my comment.<br />
Beside spain retired it's garrison in 1811, after the may revolution started, not in 1807, we declared independent from spain in 1816, 9 years later, may be that's not enough time to loss it's right on the islands, the u.k. retired it's garrison in 1774 , 59 years before 1833, maybe that's enough time to loss it's rights.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, if is it true finally that bretain didnt lost it's rights on the islands, what bretain should have done, was to share the sovereignty with the provincias unidas, because during many years there was also an spanish garrison , and the islands were submited to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, when we got the independence (by our own), remember that spain didn't cede us anthing, we had plain right to exercise our sovereignty on the malvinas, those islands were just one more part of the provincias unidas territory like any other.<br />
However onslow had orders to remove the argentine garrison, despoiling the rights of the provincias unidas, we had much less capacity of fire to make front to them, and finally the dispute for the mavinas-falklands territory started, if is not an abuse of power, i dont know how to call it.<br />
Anyway , i know perfectly that the islands wont never be argentine again, celebrate all you want, i only have one hope, when the convemar expeds it's self about the amplification of the miles of our cost, i think that both parts will have to sit and arrive to an agreement about the resorcies of that area, it does not mean that sovereignty is going to be on discution, i think it wont, but unless we will have to discuss about the resorcies.
Beside, maybe it's true that argentina forced chile to give up it's claim on the patagonia, i will find out about it, but i repeat that they could have claim too, however they didn't do it, so, they lost their rights, on the other hand it does not make neather stronger the british rights on the islands, nor makes weaker our rights on the mavinas-falklands.<br />
If bretain was really prepared many times to resolve the dispute with argentina, they would have made an agreement with my country about it, however it didn't happen, i know that the islanders were manipulated to accept the argentine sovereignty, but they rejected it, i dont know what kind of solution the u.k. wanted to find, if it asked the islanders about the transference of sovereignty to my country, it was absolutly obvious that they were not going to accep it, so, it's very hipocryte to say that the u.k. was prepared to find a solution to the dispute, bretain was totally sure about the result of that soposed solution.<br />
Beside, i want you to answer me something, i saw an interview made in the islands in 2007, called, malvinas so far so close, there was an islander called john fawler, he said that nicholas readly gave three options to the islanders , to find a solution the sonflict, but he didn't explain everything, can you explain me about those three options please, you can find that interview in you tube.
<br />
You make the point that the history of the conflict would be different if Argentina had been powerful in 1833. You imply that Argentina did not have a chance because it was weak. That is true, and that's how things worked in that era, but it also worked FOR Argentina and a good example of Argentina forcing Chile to drop it's claims to Patagonia during the War of the Pacific. Just because Chile no longer claims those bits of Patagonia, does not make your claim to the Falklands any more valid.<br />
<br />
What kind of solution? Well one has been suggested in these forums: A formula where the UK transfers sovereignty to Argentina and in the same act Argentina grants full independence to the Falklands. It could be a workable solution. Argentina “recovers” the Islands and the Falklanders have their self determination respected. The only problem is the UK government cannot negotiate something like that if Argentina is only prepared to negotiate the transfer of sovereignty and nothing else.<br />
<br />
I can't find the youtube video you mention. Perhaps you can provide a link?<br />
About what argentina made to chile, i told you what i think about it, dont make repeat it, or reed again my comment.<br />
This is evident that you dont have not even one line of objetivity, like most your compatriots, and like some people from side too.<br />
Most you wont never understand that the solution to the conflict must benefits both sides, the solution that you suggest, is a real joke, we can't recover what we consider as our islands for only 5 minutes, because in the same act, you suggest that we have to grant full independence to the islanders, that measure only benefits your side, and we are going to reamain with our empty hands as usuall.<br />
I think that the best solution would be to share the sovereignty with the u.k., in that way it would be respected the wish of the islanders of being british, and we can excercise too our sovereign rights, or unless we should make an agreement with f.i.g. to explote part of the resorcies of the islands.<br />
About the video, you must writte, malvinas so far so close, or malvinas tan lejos tan cerca, in youtube, and please dont forget to explain me about those three options that readly gave to the islanders to find a solution to the conflict, do you still speek spanish?, because most that interview is spoken in spanish.
<br />
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is the “Argentina was weak” argument is no basis for legitimising your current claim. Those were the standards of that era. They are not the standards of today. We do things differently and in the UN age self determination comes above anything else. I say “current claim” because don't forget, Argentina made no official mention of the claim from 1850 until 1941, so when you talk about the Argentine claim, it is a modern revival. Argentina has not continuously claimed the Falklands since 1833. <br />
<br />
What do you think Argentina would you do if Chile revived their claim to Patagonia, on the basis that the loss was not fair because Argentina forced them out 150 years ago, when they were weak? I know what Argentina's answer will be...<br />
<br />
You say the suggested solution is a joke. If you think that then you obviously don't believe international law, international treaties and self determination are very important. This is a problem, because there is no way of getting around the Islanders' right to self determination. That is something Argentina will eventually have to accept. The Islanders are entitled to their total independence if they want it. Are you going to deny them that? At least with the solution I write about it gets the UK out of the Falklands, but I guess you are too short-sighted to get that.<br />
<br />
How do two countries share sovereignty by the way? Who is responsible for what? And how could you exercise your sovereign rights if you only had half of the sovereignty? I think in practical and logical terms your solution looks more like a joke than mine.<br />
<br />
Why can't you just copy a link to the video in here?
I've found it eventually, perhaps next time you could include a link? From minute 6:26
www.youtube.com/watch?v=winDy_Yje-M
The three options he is speaking about were: Sovereignty freeze, condominium and leaseback.
More information here:
www.falklands.info/history/history6.html
On the other hand, i couldnot survey yet, if argentina didn't claim during 91 years, if is it true, then i will recognize that my country lost it's right on the islands, i am not idiot neather nor injudicious, that's why i need the soonest posible to find an expert in international law, i told it to many times, and i will know finally if argentina's claim is still legitimate, i am not even a lowyer, i'm a profesor of geography, i believe in international law, that's why i need an expert in that area, those people knows much more tham you and i.<br />
Beside jason, i think you have a problem, some times you understand just what you want, i told you more than once that i will recognize if my country lost it's rights on the islands, so , dont prejudgme about what i would say, if chile reavives it's soposed claims on the patagonia, they never claim, so, they lost their rights, y punto.<br />
About a posible solution, maybe sharing the sovereignty is not the best way, i heart that people suggested it many times, even different argentine ministers from our embassy of foreign affears, if this proposal doesent satisfied your ambitions, you have right to reject it, what i will allway hold is that the solution to the conflict must benefits both sides, not only you, or only us, it should be beneficial for both.<br />
About the video, it's simple, go to: www.youtube.com, and writte in the small space, malvinas so far so close, or malvinas tan lejos tan cerca, i think there are 8 parts for that documental, on the other hand, answer me some thing please, do you live in the islands, or in the u.k. are you a falkland islander, or you have allways been just british?.
Do you know what “hypocrisy” means? It means you say something you don't believe in. I'm not sure how that could apply to my assertion that weakness at some point in your history does not justify your current claim. I am simply stating the obvious, but you don't seem to get it.
I gave an example of where the tables had been turned just to show how flawed your argument is: The conquest of Patagonia. You forced Chile to drop her claim when you were strong, and you subdued the native people by force, when you were strong. Patagonia became part of Argentina. In the same way, Britain was stronger than Argentina in the Falklands. The Falklands became British. Just like Chile lost its rights in Patagonia, you lost yours in the Falklands y punto!
One possible solution is to “park” the sovereignty issue and work together in the region. That was starting to happen but then fell apart when the Kirchners came to power. That way you and the Falkland Islanders get to know each other better and maybe you could convince them to join Argentina. Why could that not be a medium term solution?
I'm surprised you missed my comment above #77, re video and the three options you wanted to know about.
About what happened to chile, maybe it's true what you say, and my country forced chile to leave the patagonia, they could have claim for their territorys, and they didn't do it, so they lost them y punto.<br />
About the rights of argentina, i told you many times, that i will recognize if my country lost it's rights on the islands, but firstly i must survey, what i want it's the truth, i am not going to spend my life as a profesor, telling false arguments to my piupirls, if our claim is not legitimate any more, i will recognize it to you, y punto.<br />
About a posible solution, what you propose could be usefull, anyway i dont think the islanders chosoe if argentina, not even if argentina becomes into the first power, it was the 5th reachest nation in the world 100 years ago, and however they didn't want to join our country, the islands wont never be argentine again, i only have one hope, when the convemar expeds it's self about the amplification of the miles of our cost, i think both sides will have to sit and arrive to an agreement about the resorcies of the islands, because both have pretentions, that's why i think that both will have to dialogue once and for all.<br />
About the video, i allready got into that page you suggested me, and rode the three options of readly.<br />
You still didn't answer me if you are a falkland islander, or if you were born in the u.k., i am 100% argentine, and live in buenos aires, but in side of the province.
Why don't you get on and survey then. Many times myself and others have pointed out exactly where Argentina's claim goes dead, yet you keep repeating that you “need to find an expert or professor in international law” and that you need to survey or whatever. Get on with it!
When Argentina was the 5th richest nation on earth it was not claiming the Falklands. The claim was reactivated officially in 1941 when Argentina was heading downhill. The Islands won't be Argentine because the Falkland Islanders don't want to be Argentine. It's as simple as that. With your history since the 1940s it's not exactly surprising.
Both sides have already sat down and arrived at agreements over resources, the fisheries and hydrocarbons agreements. Argentina tore them up!
I'm not sure why it is relevant where I come from but for what it's worth I was born in Zimbabwe, I lived for 5 years in Argentina when I was young and now I live in Spain.
About the soposed downhill of argentina in 1941, this is evident that you so ignorant, i wish that argentina in some aspects, i would like to debate deeply about it.
Those agreements that you deffend, are just a joke, the british said firstly that they would explore 450 miles with argentina, and saddenly they decided they would explore with my country only 21 miles, so, they allways do whatever they want, anyway in some aspects i dont agree with the policys of both sides.
About where you come from, of course it's absolutly irrelevant, i just want to know a little about the people who i use to talk with, dont worry, i wont ask you anything else, i will debate again since on monday.
When you get some time perhaps you can go to the Archivo General de la Nación. You might find some interesting information there.
OK, so if I'm evidently so ignorant, perhaps you could let me know when Argentina started sinking from the 5th largest economy in the world. When did that start happening?
I don't think the Fisheries and Hydrocarbons agreements were a joke? Why exactly do you say that? It's not really clear what point you are trying to make. The irony is that the current drilling by Desire was all confirmed with Argentina years ago under the agreement. Why do Argentina protest now? Why did they no protest then. Why did they not protest when the rig left Scotland to make its way to the South Atlantic? Perhaps you have the answers?
Que tengas un buen finde!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!