Falklands expose Argentine aggressiveness in the British press
The point of view of Falkland Islanders has been included in two leading newspapers in the UK this week, ensuring that British public opinion is aware of Islanders’ position.
On 8 March The Times (circulation 508,250) published a letter from the Hon. Jan Cheek, a Member of the Legislative Assembly, which argued that suggestions regarding the “leaseback” of the Falklands were “deeply disappointing” in response to an article by Matthew Parris (27 February).
A longer “Response” article appeared in The Guardian (circulation 302,285) on 10 March, reiterating the Islanders’ right to self-determination and correcting points made by Simon Jenkins in the newspaper on 25 February.
The letters submitted to the press can be viewed below:
The Editor,
The Times,
March 5.
As Matthew Parris knows because he interviewed me at the time, Falkland Islands representatives initiated, and were involved in, talks with the UK and Argentina in 1999 aimed at improving co-operation on a number of issues including conservation of fish stocks in the South Atlantic. Some years earlier a joint declaration on an area of Joint co-operation in oil exploration was agreed. We have worked hard to have a normal neighbourly relationship with a country 300 miles away.
The Kirchner government in Argentina renounced the declaration on the Joint co-operation area for oil exploration in 2007. They have also refused to allow charter flights from other South American countries to the Falklands. The Argentine government has also withdrawn from the Commission on fisheries management for the S W Atlantic. This had been set up to ensure that fishing in the area was sustainable, through joint experimental cruises and the exchange of scientific data. More recently the Argentine government had threatened to hinder shipping in the area. This is part of the attempt to prevent companies licensed by the Falkland Islands from exploratory drilling.
It is therefore deeply disappointing to see the suggestion of ‘leaseback’ of the Islands which never were part of Argentina. Such a move would, in effect be giving away the birthright of our grandchildren, some of whom are the eighth and ninth generations to live in the Falkland Islands. Self determination is a right recognised by the UN. Falkland Islanders did not displace an indigenous population, there was none.
Yours sincerely
The Honourable Jan Cheek
Member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly
8 March 2010
The Guardian Response column
Simon Jenkins’ article, “The Falklands can no longer remain as Britain’s expensive nuisance” (26 February), fails to acknowledge the fact that the Falklands have moved on, unlike Mr. Jenkins’ opinions. Argentina’s endeavours to force their colonial ambitions on a small country in direct denial of the freely expressed wishes of its people are not new and ignore our basic right to self determination.
The Argentine claim to the Islands is certainly not strong, as Mr. Jenkins believes; the claim to a territory 300 miles away is neither logical nor valid. Falklands inhabitants did not replace an indigenous population because there was none. The Islands were claimed by Britain in 1765, long before Argentina existed as a country and have been permanently settled since 1833. Some families like mine, can now boast eight and nine generations – my grandchildren are eighth generation Islanders. The Falkland Islands are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, with internal matters governed by a democratically elected Legislative Assembly, of which I am a Member.
Neither does the United Nations accept the legitimacy of the Argentine claim. As he made clear to President Kirchner last week, the most that the Secretary General is prepared to do is to mediate between Britain and Argentina should both sides agree to discuss sovereignty. That is a far cry from endorsing Argentina’s arguments. The annual vote in the UN Decolonisation Committee is a sham - the Falkland Islands are not a colony and the debate there is therefore an irrelevance. More relevant are the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, both of which endorse the principles of self-determination.
We have repeatedly attempted to work with Argentina and agreed a joint declaration on co-operation on oil exploration in 1995. This was renounced by Argentina in 2007. Co-operation on sustainable fisheries through a Joint Commission was a way for the Falklands and Argentina to conserve South Atlantic stocks through the exchange of scientific data, joint experimental cruises and the setting of sustainable catch levels. Argentina not only withdrew from the Commission but also sets unsustainably high quotas in some fish stocks. This is an abrogation of a responsibility to their own people, as well as the rest of the world.
Mr Jenkins states that “Argentina has not threatened military action over the Ocean Guardian” (the oil rig currently drilling in our waters). But it is clear that our large neighbour is attempting to achieve by economic warfare what it failed to achieve by military means. It has threatened sanctions against companies holding licenses to fish in Falklands’ waters and tried to exclude Falkland Islands representatives from participating at international conferences. It prevents charter flights from other countries in South America flying to the Islands and is now it is attempting to disrupt our oil exploration by threats to hinder shipping to the Islands. These are hardly the acts of a friendly and peaceful neighbour.
We remain eternally grateful to those who liberated us from the Argentine aggression in 1982, by referring to that time as “the silliest of wars” Mr. Jenkins not only insults their memory but also manages to diminish the incredible achievement of those who freed us.
Mr. Jenkins believes us to be an “expensive legacy of Empire”, he should be aware that the Islands are self financing, except for defence and the Falkland Islands Government has expressed the wish to contribute more to these costs, should oil be discovered in commercial quantities. Of course, it should be pointed out, that the reason that defence is needed is the continued Argentine claim to my country.
The Honourable Jan Cheek
Member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly
Suggested Stories
-
Feb 10th 2012
Antigua and Barbuda deny supporting bar on Falklands flagged vessels
-
Feb 10th 2012
Timerman on Friday formalizes at UN complaint against UK ‘militarization’ of Malvinas dispute
-
Feb 10th 2012
State Department ratifies Falklands’ dispute is a bilateral Argentina/UK issue
-
Feb 09th 2012
Chilean community in Falklands march in support of the air link with Santiago
176 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.
Unbelievable how these people keep the British public immersed in ignorance
Right to self-determination...you've got my vote!
I don't think the anger tone will help you.
When BA finaly gets its earthquake, you wont see many buckets on the streets of Stanley. But they may have a public holiday.
although I can understand your anger of nitro, I would urge you not to rise to the bait. I work and live in the islands, and if there is a serious earthquake in Argentina some day, I think I will give as generously as I do for Chile, Haiti, Indonesia or anywhere else. We will have to remind ourselves that some of the guys that respond on this site are seriously disturbed as well as misinformed, whereas most Argentine people are normal civilised folk. Humanitarian issues are above the political debates, and we should all leave these aspects aside. There is already enough tragedy as it is. Heavens forbid we never have to exprience such calamity. And by the way Nitro, oil has not been found yet, so it would be unwise to spend it yet...
Chileans aren't your brothers. Neither your other neighbors.
Never was and never will. Che idiots (argies) are a bunch of hypocrites. Call their neighbors “brothers” only when they need them, and after that you think as usual that you're above them. Argentines always thought about themself as higher or Europeans of/in South America, and gosh...look at their status now..down under and begging for help.
Yes we look at our status now, we are not begging help from any one, not even bankrupt uk!!
And what we think of ourselves is not of your bussines!!
As long as we do not bother the limeys in their sinking island, live us alone, and get out from the South Atlantic!!
Argentine idiots need to grow up, face facts and get on with their lives.
I know this will get a response like “Bankrupt UK, Pirates, etc etc” from The mad professor, but i really do not care. They have spoken the same trash over and over, time and time again. But what has it accomplished..........................Nothing.
The Argentines have enough problems within there own country, why oh why do they have to keep coming back for more?????
Take this argument for instance:
British/ Falklands “The islanders should be allowed their self determination because it is a logical legal right authorised by the UN, and seems the most humane and moral thing to do”
Argentine: “YOU ARE ALL PIRATES YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED SELF DETERMINATION BECAUSE YOU ARE PIRATES”
I'm failing to see how Argentine logic can claim the moral high ground here.
You call them chilean brothers. Remember the islands in Beagle Channel? Was that not piracy or.......
The Argentines have enough problems within there own country, why oh why do they have to keep coming back for more?????
gordito, you did not change a bit!!
Still is an illegal ocupation of our island!!
Certainly we have much less problem than you guys.
gordito, start working to pay the debt!!
globe, when I refer as the limeys, I refer to the ones that live in the sinking island in the north atlantic.
If they live here, they are our friends and citizens
“INCOMPREHENSIBLY is that THEY STILL KEEPING OUR ISLANDS AND HAVE PUT SINCE 1833 PEOPLE THERE”
Aloow me to render the incomprehensible comprehensible ...... we are still there because they are British islands, NOT Argentine islands.
Does that help?
Let's make it clear:<br />
In 1774 the English left the islands, for financial reasons, to the Spanish who were in charge of the archipelago until 1811 which was the beginning of the revolution of South America countries.<br />
At this agitated time Spain left the Isles which became then officially no man's land. In 1820 Argentina, no longer under Spanish domination set up a colony and a governor in the Falklands.<br />
In 1833 the English navy threw out the Argentinians and took sovereignty of the isles. <br />
MORAL: sovereignty IS an issue to be discussed.
jajajajaja so what!!!!!! Does a plaque give you rights????
You were not exercising sovereignty there before 1774. Spain allowed you to be there but sovereignty was under Spain. So shut the f*ck up!!!!!!
You left and did not return for many years, so that you didn't have ANY right there!!!!!
The 1833 acts were the most disgusting acts of piracy that remain till today.
Do you never leave your house empty? And yet if you did you would be very upset to find someone else had moved in whilst you were out. You would call them 'trespassers' or 'thieves' and you'd want your property back. Well the Britosh wanted their property back and they threw the trespassers out - and out you remain.
It is not their property!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Never was!
Islander,
Uk recognized Spain's possesions in South America and that include Malvinas. They invaded Malvinas and almost provoked a war with Spain when it destroy their settlement. Spain let the british to stablish there but never gave them sovereignty, so that your “plaque” does not prove anything. Malvinas was never yours! I know you are not to blame for that, but at least you could recognize our arguments. If UK had had legal claims around here, there would be surely english speaking countries in the south cone and that is not the case. Your status is the current proof of the most anachronistic colony in these years.
Recognize argentine claim and talk to our goverment about it before creating some kind of “kelperkistan”.
Cheers
If “kelperistan” is the only alternative to becoming an Argentine Colony - then maybe that is where we might end up! Talk openly to you one day we will - but we will never be bullied into it.I have always maintained that they key principle is not who did what to who hundreds of years ago - each side can make their own version of events there. The issue is - we have a dispute - so how do we resolve it in a fair way to all and a way that recognises and allows the people concerned their right of choice of their own future
- Yes, spanish returned their settlement, but they didn't give you any right over the land, that was just to save the honor of your king!
...............“The issue is - we have a dispute - so how do we resolve it in a fair way to all and a way that recognises and allows the people concerned their right of choice of their own future”....................
-You tell me something original about that, because until now you only proposed a tranfer of sovereignty to Argentina with the condition of Argentina transfering sovereignty to you overnight and without flags!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You must know, that's unacceptable, that's like an insult, what Argentina would gain from such a thing????? You have rights there, but we also have them and we are not gonna give them up no matter how long you resist to negotiate.
Recover sovereignty to give it up the next day is stupid, it is not worth to fight. We want a permanent solution.
Cheers
- It was just a face-saving solution. You were illegally there and Spain had its right to expell you.
You had never legal rights over those islands.
- What???????????????????????????????? Your status during 24 hs?????????
Are you kidding me???????????
.............“but for a better future for all of us in this part of the world both sides have to give.”.....................
- You are not giving anything with your proposal. The meaning of your proposal is the surrender of argentine right on sovereignty over Malvinas.
<br />
Pascoe and Pepper have made impressive research using primary sources to expose the flaw in the Argentine nationalist ideological version of history:<br />
www.falklandshistory.org/spanish4.pdf<br />
www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf<br />
<br />
Some key examples of propaganda Pascoe & Pepper expose are repeated below:<br />
<br />
Many Argentines are wrongly taught that simply because The United Provinces of the River Plate claimed all territories governed under the Viceroyalty of the River Plate (i.e. approx. modern day Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia & Argentina, excluding Patagonia & Tierra del Fuego). the Islands “rightfully” belong to Argentina. This is of course not true, Spain rejected these claims at the time and until Thus they are wrongly taught Spain “gave” their sovereign claim to the Islands to modern day Argentina. This is a deliberate, huge & shameful manipulation of the truth for political purposes. As is the false claim that the United Provinces claimed the Islands from Spain in 1820.<br />
<br />
It is not taught that David Jewett,the American Captain of the ship Heroina, had a letter of Marque from Argentina to attack & capture Spanish ships in March 1820. He failed to capture any Spanish ships but did pirate the Portuguese ship the Carlota & American ship the Rampart. Jewett's self-proclamed the Islands for United Provinces in Nov 1820, because he had failed to capture Spanish Prizes and had instead committed acts of Piracy, but the sealing & whaling community on the island ignored this American & lived on as normal. The authorities in the United Provinces of the River Plate had no idea about Jewett's claim because Jewett's official report Feb 1821 to Buenos Aires authorities his did not report his self-proclamation of the Islands for United Provinces in Nov 1820 & is only known today because his actions were published in The Times of London and other minor newspapers after Jewett wrote a letter to excuse his piracy against U.S. shipping and gave it to a fellow American captain to publish in the U.S.A. It appears this story was then used by the revisionist Argentine nationalist historians to infer a genuine public claim made by “Argentina” in 1820 (a country that did not exist at that time). It is a fabrication but is taught as absolute indisputable fact in Argentine schools and media.<br />
<br />
The list goes on: Vernet's 1820s expeditions to the Islands are taught as genuine national Argentine claims, whereas the truth is Vernet was undertaking a personal business venture and sought land grants from both the UK and United Provinces. Furthermore he sought protection of his investments by petitioning both states to formally colonise the Islands. Rather it is falsely taught that the British motive for asserting sovereignty is linked to “British revenge” for the Napoleonic Wars where Spain fought against the UK & the UK tried (& resoundingly failed) to defeat Spain in the River Plate due to the strong defence of the people of the River Plate. Britain's motives are then subversively to linked to taking advantage of the civil war between the Federalists & Unitarians over the “Argentine” constitution to build a deliberate Nationalist case of British wrong-doing.<br />
<br />
It is also deliberately taught to create outrage, that a large settled Argentine population was forceably expelled by the British in 1833, whereas the truth is all members of Vernet's tiny expedition were asked to stay and only four of twenty-six remaining settlers chose to go to Buenos Aires. The rest remained. This truth is inconvenient to the Argentine nationalist claim, therefore it is replaced with the claim of a large settled “Argentine” population, often stated to be as big as the current day population, being forcible expelled by the British. The number of people involved in this mythical expulsion is often purposely wrongly said to be similar in number to the current day population to create a sense of parity in the Argentine population mindset that it would be “natural justice ” to forcibly resettle the current day population, in an artificial quid pro quo for a mythical event of 1833. The mere mention of “1833” drives some Argentines to froth insults, so strong is the indoctrination. This also falsely serves to reinforce the Argentine claim to the UN that a significant disruption of Argentine national unity & territorial integrity occurred when Britain enforced its terms of the Nootka Sound Conventions with Spain in 1833. The reality is 4 people freely decided to travel to Buenos Aires on the ship Sarandi and 17 United Province soldiers and 9 of their prisoners (also members of the garrison) were deported. <br />
<br />
It is also not taught at the time there was a revolt by some of the tiny garrison and settlers against the Governor of only two months, Mestivier, and he was killed. This was largely because the population was being paid for their labour with worthless paper currency and they wanted payment in silver, leading the workers for Vernet to refuse to work for him and the lynching of his senior representatives of his business. Thus the settlers from the expedition of 3 years were deeply unhappy with the previous authorities and freely chose to stay under British rule and British employment.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, the accurate teaching of these events are studiously avoided in Argentina and the rest of South America, and the revisionist history is preferred because it suits their particular political ideology. The whole truth does not matter, only manipulations of historical facts to support their territorial claims.<br />
<br />
The same goes for the Argentine misuse of claims that Spanish-British treaties support their claims, and the Papal Bull of Tordesillas, the Treaty of Utrecht & Nootka Sound Conventions are all wilfully misrepresented in an attempt bolster the nationalist case.<br />
<br />
Their nationalist fervour is now so deeply entrenched their is little hope that a more truthful account will ever be taught in Argentina to correct the indoctrination of the Junta. The damage is done and done well.<br />
Precisely the intention of those nationalists who planted these ugly seeds of hate 67 years ago.<br />
<br />
Sadly it is only the inability of Argentina to regain the islands by force that leads them to use regional and global political means to further their ambitions, including long-standing petty harassment of the islanders day-to-day lives.<br />
<br />
There is little doubt Argentina would abandon its undertaking to resolve this dispute peacefully under UN Resolutions 1514 & 2045 and ignore the fundamental UN Charter right of the islanders after 177 years of continuous establishment on the islands to self-determination. If Argentina had the means and could get away with it , its government would happily invade, kill and expel the islanders, without regard for any human rights whatsoever.<br />
<br />
The only thing that protects the Islanders from naked Argentine nationalist aggression is the British undertaking to defend their freedom as they did in 1982.<br />
Indoctrination.....one of the principal reasons why the population continues to live in a virtual world, continues to be easily led, misinformed and manipulated. It will take systematic and fundametal changes within the country before we can achieve anything close to a concensus on the falklands / Malvinas. Change must come from within but, look at the political party options......it's gonna take a long time.
Lets remember that most of this Debt is to the USA, as the UK borrowed huge amounts of monies with high intrest rates during WWII, We needed this money to build weapons and planes to fight off the Nazi invasion and free Europe from the Germans/Italians/and lets not forget the helpful Spanish.
Mind if i ask what Argentina was doing during WWII?? oops, silly me, i remember now, they were re-vamping a falsified claim to the Falklands while our backs were turned fighting off the biggest threat to the world at that time.
So, please please do come back here again, and sprout off the same old drivvel, I will always be able to retort with something new, that will make your comments ohh so very childish.
Hahahahahahaha, Good one, guess this just goes to show what Argentine History books really teach, more and more brain washing drivvel.
Seriously, Argentine people, you have the internet, use it please, educate yourselves properly on History, then come back and say sorry.
On another note, Domingo, that was very well put together. very informative and factual.
Cue ad hominem counter-arguments. I predict either “you are an ignorant” or “pirat”. It amuses me greatly every time the “pirat” accusation is made, since that's exactly what Jewett was!
Facts:<br />
1) The Islands are inhabited by 2000-3000 persons who want to be British and seek self-determination.<br /><br /><br />
2) We Argies are 40 million persons who think (rightly or wrongly) that we were deprived of our own land and seek “territorial integrity”<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Only a compromise can defuse the situation: Condominium.<br /><br />
the vote shall concist of four questions:
A) Union with Argentina
B) Status Quo
C)Union with the UK
D)Full independence.
Outside observers from the EU and South America should be employed to maintain it is a free and fair election.
all parties must sign to an agreement that the result shall not be disputed.
Let the islanders vote.
Then either side who loses should concede defeat, and can start normal relations again.
This in my opinion is as good a compromise as any.
<br />
By the way, did you know that Argentina is, outside of the commonwealth of nations and the US, the country with the biggest number of British descendants (the fifth in the world of irish descendants, after US, AUS, NZ, CAN) ? Just look at their heritage in Patagonia, their yellow pages full of British last names or the names of little towns across the country. I visited a little town called James Craik in Cordoba, and there are cities like Banfield, Glew, Hurlingham (great Polo), Temperley, just outside BA. Or the fact the the Buenos Aires Herald is one of the biggest newspapers in town.<br />
<br />
I myself, am a frenchman who regularly visits this webpage because I am very interested in everything sorrounding the Malvinas/Falklands conflict. My father worked at the Exocet program in late 70's and I since then (i'm in my 40's) have developed a passion on investigating everything around this topic.<br />
I see the whole issue from a third party point of view and i must admit i don't have a final opinion on who is right there anyway.<br />
<br />
I thank the well educated opinions such as islander's, domingo's, and i can understand the point that people like jorge make, all of this help me form some kind of opinion of my own, along with the pile of books I've read so far (both military and history books).<br />
<br />
Anyway, just wanted to introduce my point stated above, because i sometimes feel as if the people of the UK or in the islands don't know how close to Argentina people really are. I really would like to know any islander's opinion on this. I think ARgentina is not only the kirchners or Maradone or the poor soldiers that died there (led by, among others, a general called Moore...), but something bigger, and I'm not being biased here, just stating facts. <br />
<br />
Peace!<br />
Luis.
La realidad es que la ONU, dictamino que si es un enclave colonial, y es por ese tema que por Resolucion de la ONU, tanto Inglaterra y Argentina Deben Mantener Conversaciones con El objeto que se devuelvan a la Soberanía Argentina Las Islas Malvinas. <Br / >
¿Inglaterra desconoce a la ONU? <br />
No hay más argumentos que las Resoluciones de la ONU. <br />
Inglaterra es Ilegal, en las Malvinas. <br />
Los habitantes de las Islas Malvinas OPTAR por la doble nacionalidad. <br />
1.bp.blogspot.com/_MHGezw-WACg/RtX2WQHgJ4I/AAAAAAAAAQU/rTFREoixeiU/S220/PATRIOTISMO+ARGENTINO.jpg
<br />
Please read - www.falklandshistory.org/spanish4.pdf<br />
<br />
As for the UN resolutions, the UK believes it has complied fully and that there is no longer any matter worthy of discussion. Sovereignty is NOT an issue. The islanders have it!
Referiremos a ellos como “los panfletos argentinos del 2007”. . . Panfleto es sinónimo de escritos sin valor, sin considerarlos, denigrarlos.
En consecuencia el resto del escrito debe ser subjetivo a los Intereses ingleses, para mi no vale la pena leerlos.
La posición de Inglaterra en la ONU, es caprichosa, obtusa Todas las Naciones del mundo le dicen que es un tema que debe tratar con la Argentina, pero se Niega a hacerlo.
¿Todo el mundo esta equivocado, Inglaterra no?
La actitud de Inglaterra es la que da la razón a la Argentina sobre la Soberanía. Inglaterra sin argumentos validos, solo la razón de la fuerza, ¿cuánto dura esto en un mundo civilizado
<br />
The UN has never ruled that the Falklands are a colonial enclave, there is also not a single UN resolution which says the Falklands have to be “returned” to Argentina. Please show us where you get this new information. Perhaps a link to the UN resolution you mention?<br />
<br />
There are UN resolutions calling for the UK and Argentina to resolve their differences with regard to sovereignty, but not one of them says a transfer to Argentina should be the outcome. In fact, every one of these resolutions references the Falkland islanders right to self determination.<br />
<br />
Giving up on the Pascoe and Pepper paper, simply because it is in response to an Argentine pamphlet - yes, you have just trashed an ARGENTINE pamphlet - seems a little strange. Perhaps you would like to read the paper again and comment on the specific points made in it. Or are you simply avoiding the paper because it makes uncomfortable reading?
acuerdo con la opinión sobre el significado de los hechos.<br />
<br />
Hi Antonio. I read Pascoe & Pepper. Their paper is interesting. They use primary historical sources. The full story of the 1820s is particularly thought-provoking. The data appears genuine. I cannot see what is false. You should real the whole text. The research provides more facts. There is no compulsion to agree with the opinion on the meaning of the facts.<br />
<br />
He leído la resolución de Naciones Unidas 1514 (XV) en su totalidad:<br />
<br />
daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/156/42/IMG/NR015642.pdf?OpenElement<br />
<br />
Se trata de una declaración sobre la concesión de la independencia a los países y pueblos coloniales.<br />
<br />
I read the United Nations resolution 1514 (XV)in full:<br />
<br />
daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/152/88/IMG/NR015288.pdf?OpenElement<br />
<br />
It is a declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples.<br />
<br />
Simplemente reconoce Las Malvinas como colonia británica en 1960. Se dice que la población actual debe tener la libre determinación. La resolución de la Naciones Unidas para las direcciones de los derechos de las personas que viven en las colonias a la libre determinación. La resolución 1514 no se ocupa de las disputas territoriales.<br />
<br />
It simply recognises Las Malvinas as a British colony in 1960. It says the present day population should have self-determination. The United Nation's resolution addresses the rights of the people living on colonies to self-determination. Resolution 1514 does not address territorial disputes.<br />
<br />
Parece que Gran Bretaña ha concedido la auto-determinación de los isleños y respeta sus deseos de plena conformidad con la resolución de las Naciones Unidas 1514 (XV). Las Malvinas son descolonizado por el Reino Unido. Parece Hoytred es correcto. El Reino Unido ha cumplido con sus obligaciones correctamente de acuerdo a la Resolución 1514 (XV).<br />
<br />
It seems that Britain has granted the Islanders self-determination and respects their wishes fully in accordance with the UN resolution 1514(XV). las Malvinas are decolonised by the United Kingdom. It seems Hoytred is right. The United Kingdom has fulfilled its obligations <br />
correctly according to Resolution 1514(XV).<br />
<br />
También he leído la resolución 2065 (XX) en su totalidad:<br />
<br />
daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/222/03/IMG/NR022203.pdf?OpenElement<br />
<br />
El título dice: “Cuestión de las Islas Mavinas ”<br />
<br />
I have read resolution 2065 (XX) in full:<br />
<br />
daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/218/28/IMG/NR021828.pdf?OpenElement<br />
<br />
The title reads: ”The question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)”<br />
<br />
Este reconoce que existe una disputa territorial entre la Argentina y el Reino Unido. Se dice que la Argentina también tiene que descolonizar las Malvinas, de acuerdo con la resolución 1514 (XV). También requiere que este proceso debe ser pacífica.<br />
<br />
This recognises there is a territorial dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. It says Argentina must also decolonise las Malvinas according to resolution 1514(XV). It also requires this process must be peaceful. <br />
<br />
<br />
Parece que Argentina está en falta respecto a sus obligaciones con las Naciones Unidas. Lamentablemente, parece que es la Argentina que ha roto compromisos vinculantes de las Naciones Unidas. En primer lugar, la Resolución 1514 (XV) de forma conjunta descolonizar las <br />
Islas. En segundo lugar, por atacar a un compañero de la<br />
De las Naciones Unidas en 1982.<br />
<br />
It seems Argentina is at fault regarding its obligations to the United Nations. Sadly, it appears it is Argentina who has broken binding UN Commitments. Firstly, Resolution 1514(XV) to jointly decolonise the Islands. Secondly, by attacking a fellow member of the United <br />
Nations in 1982.
A comment on the definition of decolonization: decolonization is the liquidation of the colonial system in the world and the creation of independent states. Decolonization is the process by which a colony gains its independence from colonial power, it is an opposite process of colonialism. Decolonization is produced by independence or by setting a status of free association. The United Nations Organization has determined that in the process of decolonization there was no alternative to self-determination principle. Resolution 2065 (XX) requires the decolonization of the Falkland Islands by Argentina too!
Addendum: Un comentario sobre Pascoe & Pepper. Pascoe & Pepper uso fuentes historicas primarias!
Addendum: A Commentary on Pascoe & Pepper. Pascoe & Pepper use primary historical sources!
<br />
El derecho de libre determinación de los pueblos o derecho de autodeterminación es el derecho de un pueblo a decidir sus propias formas de gobierno, perseguir su desarrollo económico, social y cultural y estructurarse libremente, sin injerencias externas y de acuerdo con el principio de igualdad. La libre determinación está recogida en algunos de los documentos internacionales más importantes, como la Carta de las Naciones Unidas o los Pactos Internacionales de Derechos Humanos. También numerosas resoluciones de la Asamblea General de la ONU hacen referencia a este principio y lo desarrollan: por ejemplo, las resoluciones 1514 (XV), 1541 (XV), ó 2625 (XXV). Es un principio fundamental del Derecho internacional público y un derecho de los pueblos, que tiene carácter inalienable y genera obligaciones erga omnes (significa que aquél se aplica a todos los sujetos) los Estados. Incluso, de acuerdo con muchos autores, la libre determinación ha devenido norma de jus cogens. (De acuerdo con la Convención de Viena sobre el Derecho de los Tratados, son aquellas normas aceptadas y reconocidas por la comunidad internacional de Estados en su conjunto como norma que no admite acuerdo en contrario).<br />
<br />
A partir de 1960, la definición de los pueblos coloniales como sujetos de la libre determinación supuso un impulso esencial para la descolonización y colaboró en una auténtica universalización de la sociedad internacional.<br />
<br />
Right of self determination<br />
<br />
The right to self determination of peoples right to self determination or the right of a people to decide their own forms of government, pursue their economic, social and cultural and structured freely, without external interference and in accordance with the principle of equality. Self-determination is reflected in some of the most important international documents like the Charter of the United Nations or the International Covenants on Human Rights. Also numerous resolutions of the UN General Assembly refer to this principle and carried: for example, resolutions 1514 (XV), 1541 (XV), or 2625 (XXV). It is a fundamental principle of international law and a right of peoples, which is an inalienable and rise to obligations erga omnes (meaning that one applies to all subjects) states. Even, according to many authors, self-determination has become jus cogens norm. (According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, those standards are accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted).<br />
<br />
Since 1960, the definition of the colonial peoples as subjects of self-determination was a key impetus for decolonization and collaborated on a truly universal international society.
Las Naciones Unidas se aplica la resolución 1514 (XV) de las Islas Malvinas. Las Naciones Unidas se aplica la resolución 2065 (XX) a la Argentina y el Reino Unido. Los isleños elegir la libre determinación y optó por la autonomía (Falklands Islands Government). Este es su derecho jurídico internacional y su elección es vinculante para todas las naciones por orden de las Naciones Unidas, entre ellos la Argentina y el Reino Unido
According to what I have read: The united nations have decided Argentina has no rights to las Malvinas, territorial or otherwise. The united nations have decided the united kingdom have no rights to the Falklands Islands, territorial or otherwise. The united nations says the only people with rights, territorial and all others, are the people living there now.
The united nations applies resolution 1514(XV) to the Malvinas. The united nations applies resolution 2065(XX) to Argentina and the United Kingdom. The islanders choose self-determination and chose autonomy (Falkland Islands Government). This is their international legal right and their choice is binding on all nations by order of the United Nations including Argentina and the United Kingdom.
So, UN resolutions have stated that neither county owns claim to the Falklands. The Falklands belong to the inhabitants of the Islands, and have done since 1960.
There has been no historical fact stating otherwise.
Additional, looks like Argentina are the bad players here, having attacked a fellow UN country, and also refusal to decolonise the Falklands and giving them the right to self-determination. Something which the UK has whole heartedly done.
Think that this discussion is well and truely won, well done the Islanders..........xD
Now for the retort by the Argentinians, i predict.............
1. Pay off the debt.
2. Get to work.
3. Get out of the south.
4. Limeys
5. That means nothing, Britian payed off the UN.
6. Any other childish remark..............
Once again Domingo, you are a fountain of knowledge, well done to you, and thank you for spending your time researching this indepth.
<br />
I see that you are still peddling lies but let us just say, for arguments sake only, that your version of 1833 was correct. How would it be anywhere near what Argentina did in its genocidal Conquest of the Desert in the 1870's? <br />
It is sad that Argentina and other South American states deny auto determination under United Nation's Charter and resolution 1514(XV) to the Islanders. The same auto determination, which Argentina and the other South American states enjoy.
Es una lástima que la Argentina ideología política nacionalista utiliza erróneamente la excusa de la integridad territorial. Normalmente, el objetivo de la integridad territorial es dejar de ser un Estado dividido por otro Estado. El objetivo de la integridad territorial es el garantizar el acceso al mar o vías fluviales. No se utiliza para reclamar la tierra fuera de las aguas territoriales o en aguas internacionales.
It is a pity the Argentine nationalist political ideology wrongly uses the excuse of territorial integrity. Normally the purpose of territorial integrity is stop a state being partitioned by another state. The purpose of territorial integrity is the ensure access to the sea or waterways. It is not used to claim land outside territorial waters or in international waters.
Los argentinos deben su libertad y las tierras hoy en día, debido al principio de la autodeterminación. Se debe permitir que felizmente los isleños a decidir su futuro en sus tierras, como los argentinos ejercieron su derecho de autodeterminación en 1811, 1816, 1826 y 1853, 1860, 1866, 1949, 1958, 1972 y 1994 en su Constitución.
Argentines owe their freedom and lands today due to the principle of auto determination. They should happily allow the Islanders to decide their futures on their land, as Argentines exercised their right to auto determination in 1811, 1816 ,1826 and 1853, 1860, 1866, 1949, 1958, 1972 & 1994 in their Constitution.
As for Argentina's aggressive behaviour being a “real headache”, that is nothing new and very much overstated. The Falklands are a remote territory whether they have direct communication with Argentina or not. And what's more, the Islanders have lived with Argentine aggression for generations and have not been pushed any closer to a “compromise” today than ever before and combine that with Argentine economic and military in relative decline your prediction doesn't look very likely, even for the next 100 years.
Leo lo que me ofrecen, pero interpreto lo contrario a uds. y creo no ser idiota.
Para Uds. estaría bien el siguiente ejemplo:
. . . . . . .Inglaterra ocupa las Isla de los Estados (Argentina), tienen como hacerlo por el enclave militar en las Malvinas, la ocupan con civiles ingleses y de otras nacionalidades, explotan los recurso y las ganancias las envía a su graciosa majestad (Sin ofender para nosotros no es graciosa je je), luego de que pase una generación 30 ó 40 años, en vez de devolverla a la Argentina dicen . . . ¡no!, autodeterminación de los Isleños.
¡Que dicen esta bien o no?
Esto es lo que pasa con Las Malvinas. Fueron ocupadas por Inglaterra y en vez de devolverlas, como corresponde, argumentan lo de autodeterminación para mantener una influencia imperial en Atlántico Sur y Sudamérica.
Los países que integran la OEA Y la mayoría de las naciones ONU lo interpretan de esta forma.
Los isleños pueden elegir, mantener sus costumbres ejercer forma de autonomía de gobierno (Ej. Ciudad autónoma de Bs As), pero no soberanía.
I think all sides including the United Nations need to put aside all historical claims and seek a just and fair outcome for all. Easier said than done! In practice almost impossible.
I must also say, it is not accurate to describe modern day U.K. as an imperial power. Britain decolonised. There is no such entity as the British Empire. It is as historical as the Spanish Empire and as ridiculous to accuse modern day Spain of Imperialism today. I think people need to stop using pseudo insults like pirates, imperialists and colonists. The Islanders see modern Argentina as imperialists and would-be colonists too.
I personally find it unfair that some people describe the Islanders as an implanted population after 177 years, when of course the entire history of South American states is dominated by the Spanish & Portuguese Empires and mass implantation of population from Europe. It seems some contemporary peoples are willing to deprive the Islanders of the right to self-determination whilst demand that same unlimited right for themselves. But sadly that is the split of opinions today.
I also think that the three parties of A.R., U.K. and the F.I.G are unable to agree a consensus opinion on the history nor on possible solutions. Personally I think one way to be to make the Islands a Free State administered through the United Nations with no beneficiary.
But this is likely to be rejected by all parties. Given the Islanders chose the status quo and Argentina demands their effective annexation.
I also think it's important to learn from the 1982 war. To learn not to fight again. To resolve disputes peaceful through friendship & cooperation. The people of our Argentina & U.K. cannot change the past, but they can influence their leaders in power more than ever before to be reasonable, fair & accountable.
Sadly some treat war as a nationalist competition. Wrong. War is not glorious, it is dirty, disgusting & disgraceful. Good people are forced to make enormous self-sacrifices & suffer horrific consequences. War is an absolute last & most grave stupidity when diplomacy & reason fail. Nothing glorious in sailors burning & drowning, soldiers & airmen being torn apart. Pride in oneself & country is good used for good, goading one another to kill in future wars is daft & evil.
If mankind progresses to a happy world government, then problem solved. As John Lennon sung:
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Perhaps Utopia will become a reality on Earth one day. The world starting with these Islands would be a good inspiration to all!
Realpolitik suggests Argentina wants all territories in the South Atlantic to enrich itself and lay claim to more natural resources. Britain historically the same, plus sealing, whaling commerce and a naval base and naval choke point all colour the issues. The lofty principle of self-determination is inconvenient for Realpolitik. As the saying goes: “Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests. ” Perhaps friendship and goodwill can overcome these obstacles in the 21st. C. I live in hope.
Argentina, Britain & the Falkland Islands Goverment could put aside national pride & ask the UN International Court of Justice to offer its non-binding advisory opinion on the rights & wrongs of each country's claim in history & the rights of the Islanders today?
An independent opinion should help to form the basis of a shared way forward.
If Argentines, Islanders & Britons keep arguing the way they do,
they are unlikely to make any progress for Islanders, Argentines & British. If they find ways to cooperate, there is hope for a good future.
Fingers crossed. Let's hope 2010 sees common progress to better relations.
Peace & goodwill to all!
The Falklands have the UK to look after them. I don't see that changing until Argentina changes her attitude, so her aggression is not really going to make a difference, and don't forget. The Irish republic dropped the long standing clause in their constitution claiming the entire island of Ireland. There's no reason to believe that Argentina might see sense in the next 100 year and drop her claim (and remove that recent and odious clause from her constitution).
Understandably often people get emotional and say harsh things. Then tempers flare. These make things worse not better. Damn fool pride, machismo and stubborness prevails. This is the nightmare scenario we should all work to avoid.
It is good that both Argentines and Britons and Islanders generally do not see future wars as good solutions. It is good that some Argentines can still remind the British of the close economic and industrial ties of the 20th. Century and of the large British & Irish immigrant population in Argentina that Britain should be mindful of (they are not) and that historically, culturally and in shared values we are very similar people living very similar lives with similar aspirations, hopes & dreams.
I do find the comments on atavistic imperialism/piratism! a modern day
anachronism. Ceuta is an interesting example and has parallels and differences of course. I am glad you think these imperialistic issues residual! The Islanders & the U.K., like modern Spain has the same aspirations as modern Argentina, Brazil and all the other good peoples of South America and Europe. We share more about a common future than we disagree. But we choose to concentrate on our disagreements at the moment.
I think all have a choice to be reasonable and seek a fair compromise in the long term. Inflexibility will lead to a “Mexican stand-off” (if Mexicans can excuse the expression in the context of a South American dispute).
Ceuta is an interesting example and has parallels and differences of course. I am glad you think these issues residual!
I think South America is wrong to stereotype Britain acting as a 19th. C. Imperial power. It is not. It is simply antagonistic and counter-productive. I would not like to think of an 19th. C. imperialist power with modern 21st C. military capacity. I think South Americans need to spend more effort determining fair proposals for compromise and an equitable resolution; otherwise the status quo shall prevail.
I believe sincere cooperation will lead to sincere friendship and sincere friendship to genuine concessions from all sides. I think we need 10, 20 or 3 0even 40, 50, 60 years of genuine cooperation and friendship to embed this way of life in our mutual relations so firmly that selfish and uncharitable acts become unthinkable.
As friends and partners we can agree to agree and less and less agree to disagree as today.
That is the way forward for all us on this planet. It is hard to do, but we should all endeavour to this ideal and never give up. Hence the importance of the ideals expressed in the UN Charter.
Firstly i have been reading an interview, in an argentine magazine called newsweek, there is an article made to an argentine proffesor who lives in oxford, hes name is, Esteban Cihello Hubner, he asked hes piupirls of the university from oxford, to find a solution to the conflict between both countrys, finally most them proposed that the solution would be, to create an argentine-british protectorate from the autonomous malvinas-falkland islands, the territory would be autonomous, the u.k. and argentina would give defence to the islands, the islanders would have two passports, and in the islands would flame three flags, the most important is that the islands will keep on being as autonomous as now, i think it's a very good idea, it's even better than what i propose, what's your opinion?.<br />
About my survey, what you say about a soposed claim by chile, i think you are wrong, firstly, the patagonia has never been under the sovereignty of chile, it has allways been ours, the chileans who were in the patagonia during the 18 centenary, were not even residents, those people crossed the border, because they were interested on the traffic of cattle, beside notwithstanding those people were residents, it doesen't give any sovereign right to chile, in fact in many of our borders, we have planty of comunitys from neightbooring countrys, and it doesen't mean that we must transfer the sovereignty of part of our territory to bolivia, paraguay, chile, or brasil., beside, if argentina forced the chilean people to live the territory, i think it was an abuse.<br />
About the campain of the desert, julio roca stole the most productive lands that were belonging to the indigenous poulations, and gave them to the reachest familys from buenos aires, it was another abuse, i agree with you, anyway these facts dont fortify any claim from bretain, beside we didn't invade another country, it was all made inside of our territory, on the other hand, the u.k. doesent have any moral authority to criticise the abuses of power from others nations, because it has based all it's power, invading and subduing weaker populations during centenarys.<br />
Beside the history of every country are full of events based on abuses of power, in fact what happened in this country on march 24th of 1976, was an abuse of power, the dicatorship threw away current president isabel peron, and it started the most bloody part of our history, so jason, some times your arguments are really obvious and weak.<br />
About the viceroalty, notwithstanding the nations that joined virreynato del rio de la plata, and after they joined the provincias unidas, if they decide to separate part from the provincias unidas, it was because they didn't want any sovereign link with it, beside if some day they had any right on the islands, they lost it when they decided to sopport our claim, it's not so difficult to understand it, the argument that the sovereignty would be in question, is just your idea, or maybe your wish, in order to reject the argentine claim.<br />
On the other hand i know that our claim wasen't continuous, but argentina never recognize the legitimity of the british ocupation on the islands, beside you know perfectly that my country had a very big economic dependence with the u.k., they managed our economy for more than 100 years, so, we were not in conditions to claim anything to bretain, it's not a romantic excuse like you say, like it or not, it was the truth, you can accep it, or reject it.<br />
About the bankarrupty of argentina, it didn't started in 1940, it started in 1975 with the rodrigazo devaluation, during many years , since 1945 untill 1975, my country had a great social justice, much more than 100 years ago, as you can see we have so much to debate.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I see that you are still peddling lies but let us just say, for arguments sake only, that your version of 1833 was correct. How would it be anywhere near what Argentina did in its genocidal Conquest of the Desert in the 1870's? <br />”.......................
- Hi idiot guy, did you find the site whre I insulted you yet????????
<br />
66 domingo = argentina is a free country because they fought for it and won in 1810's.<br />
<br />
72 martin = ceuta has nothing to do with the falklands/malvinas case. Ceuta was spanish way before Morocco even existed.<br />
<br />
However I think the argentinian case has a flaw: <br />
Ok, let's suppose the UK leaves and decides to hand soverignity over to Argentina. What happens with the kelpers? They want to remain British. And you can't just expell them from the islands. So they stay. How do you match an occupying power having to rule a population totally oposite to it? that won't last. <br />
<br />
I think the whole issue lays in the hands of islanders. They want to remain British. That's hard to fight against. As much as Argentina could have a historical case claiming those islands. <br />
Had Argentina been successful claiming them back in the 19th century (after 1833 occupation by the UK), maybe there wouldn't have been enough time for a local community to build up and there sense of belonging to the UK wouldn't be so strong, and the whole thing wouldn't be a case right now. But, the UK held their position and now it's hard to turn things around.<br />
<br />
Again, as I posted earlier, is hard to believe both nations are so much against each other (or maybe Argentina more against Uk than the other way around, my opinion is that the average Briton doesn't care much about this and does not sense much threat from Argentina), having had such a close relationship in the past (19th and early 20th century) and Argentina having been such an anglophile country in their earlier times with such a strong british presence in their population.<br />
<br />
Cheers!
p.s.: jorge, please, no insults! this is a great thread for exchanging views and learn from each other, but with arguments not harsh words!
What do I think of shared sovereignty? I think it is up to the Falkland Islanders to choose how they want to live and not a bunch of Oxford students or anyone else for that matter. If the Falkland Islanders choose shared sovereignty then so be it!
I never said Patagonia was under the sovereignty of Chile, I said Chile had a claim, which Argentina forced it to drop, well most of it. See the 1881 Boundary Treaty. This happened when Chile was in a relatively weak position because of the War of the Pacific. Do you remember, you said it was an abuse that Britain had pushed Buenos Aires out of the Falklands in 1833 because Britain was stronger. Well, Argentina did exactly the same thing to Chile in Patagonia. Also, Patagonia did not “always” belong to you. It first belonged to you when you took it by force during the 1870s and 1880s, before that it belonged to the indigenous people who lived there. I find it highly amusing that you see no problems with Argentina using its relative strength to gain territory and yet you complain that Britain kicking the Buenos Aires garrison out of the Falklands in 1833 was an abuse? Those were the standards of the time. The right of conquest existed then. It doesn't now, so it makes no sense to apply the standards of the UN age to the 19th century.
How can the Conquest of the Desert have happened inside your own country? I have never seen such twisted logic in my life!!! It was not your country until you conquered it. The clue is in the word “CONQUEST”! Of course the UK does not have the moral authority to criticize the use of conquest in the past. Everyone was doing it, including you!!! You keep referring to British conquest in the past, yet you choose to ignore the very important FACT that the British empire has been dismantled, mostly more than 40 years ago. Every ex-colony or territory which has asked for it has been granted independence. Like you say, every country has instances of abuse in its HISTORY.
Once again you try to argue Argentina “inherited” the Falklands from Spain. This is nothing more than a non sequitur, a logical fallacy. Even if it was true, then Buenos Aires could not claim the inheritance because the Viceroyalty was last governed out of Montevideo.
By the way, Argentina did recognise the legitimate British occupation of the Falklands: in the 1850 Convention of Settlement and as for British interests in your economy those did not become important until the late 19th century, large-scale British investment did not really start until the mid 1870s.
And yes, I continue to date the mid 1940s as the beginning of Argentina's relative economic decline, starting with the nationalisation of the railways. I never used the word bankrupt. I think you'll find most countries have improved social conditions compared to those 100 years ago.
- If that guy respected me, I would respect him. Very simple.
..............“you are living in your country, in your house, and possibly a family home of 177 years, can you imagine having any other country trying to force you out? ”..................
- Argentina is not trying to force them out. That's your british propaganda.
We just want to exercise sovereignty in our terretorie. Nothing else!
...............“Sadly with just about every aldea, town and city in Argentina with at the very least an avenida, escuela, colegio or centro deportivo “Malvinas Argentinas” it looks like your national obsession is going to get in the way of flexibility for some time to come...”..............
- That means we don't forget. We moved on, but Malvinas is always present, its a national cause beyond politicians!.
.................“Do you remember, you said it was an abuse that Britain had pushed Buenos Aires out of the Falklands in 1833 because Britain was stronger. Well, Argentina did exactly the same thing to Chile in Patagonia.”...............
Argentina did not push out Chile from Patagonia. they weren't there.
You contradict yourself saying...“”Patagonia did not “always” belong to you. It first belonged to you when you took it by force during the 1870s and 1880s, before that it belonged to the indigenous people who lived there“”.
- Patagonia was ownwed by indigenous people, not chileans, How could Argentina push chileans out???????????
CONTRADICTIONS!!!!!!!
Oh, and you say you have “moved on” regarding the Falklands. Well there's a contradiction! You are stuck in the same rut you carved out for yourselves in the 1940s...
So exercise it ....but the Falkl;amd islands are NOT in your territory ... NEVER have been, maybe NEVER will be !!
Please everybody: Cool down, don't respond to the insulting provocations of irrational beings, don't let yourself become one, be generous and think about solutions that are not prima facie self-serving but could benefit both parties.
<br />
“66 domingo = argentina is a free country because they fought for it and won in 1810's.”<br />
<br />
Agreed. My point is that moral and ethical justification of the patriots ' rebellion against the royalists for control of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate was the patriots' certain belief that they and all other dependent colonial peoples had the inalienable right to self-determination, i.e. complete freedom.<br />
<br />
The United Nations debated, voted and carried Resolution 1514 (XV) which declares that:<br />
<br />
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.<br />
<br />
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.<br />
<br />
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.<br />
<br />
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.<br />
<br />
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.<br />
<br />
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.<br />
<br />
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non- interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.<br />
<br />
As far as I can tell, in the case of the Islanders, Argentine seeks to overturn all of the rights conferred on the Islanders in points 1-7 by arguing that a partial disruption to Argentine territorial integrity, i.e. the political, economic and military security of its nation today would be seriously destabilised if the Islanders exercised their legal right to self-determination under point 6. This is despite the fact that the United Nations debated, voted and decided in Resolution 2065(XX) that resolution 1514(XV) applies to the question of the Falklands/Malvinas and that Argentine due to its sovereignty dispute with the U.K. must agree to decolonise the Islands with the U.K. and must decolonise the island bearing in mind the UN Charter, resolution 1514(XV) and the interests of the Islanders living there now. Meaning these principles should be applied at all times in coming to an agreement.<br />
<br />
Instead, under point 6 Argentina has a policy of presenting its arguments to the U.N. Decolonisation Committee. Fundamentally Argentina argues against the principles of the U.N. Charter and resolutions 1514(XV) and 2065(XX) Argentina in the instance of the Islanders and Argentina argues for its annexation of the Falkland Islands contrary to points 1-7 for the Islanders on the grounds that the current Argentine government desires sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and argues a historical claim. In addition Argentina wants the South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands to increase its territorial possessions in the South Atlantic most probably to enhance its geographic domination of Antartica.<br />
<br />
Of course, the U.N. resolutions require Argentina to formally address their proposal for solution of annexation of the Falkland Islands and its people to the U.K. and Islanders. The U.K. who have repeatedly asked the Islanders for their opinions and the Islanders have refused Argentina's annexation, preferring to exercise their right to self-determination, a right which the Islanders have decided they have, to be self-governing, i.e. the status quo. <br />
<br />
Thus the current state of negotiations is the the Islanders have said no to both Argentina and the U.K. and the Islanders have said the negotiations are concluded. However, Realpolitik being what it is, the issue is kept on the Decolonisation Committee's agenda so far by Argentina and its politically allies, who have similar domestic disputes or regional and geopolitical interests which coincide with Argentine national interests.<br />
<br />
When the United Nations was formed it guaranteed the territorial integrity of member as their borders stood in 1945 and in 1960 emended this fundamental principal to resolve that dependent territories of member states should be self-determining by free association.<br />
<br />
I for one would be interested to know if the ICJ legal opinion if the Islanders make their own fee choice is this sufficient to fulfil resolutions 1514(XV) and 2065(XX)? Does the self-determination of a dependent territory over-rule objections by non-administrating powers who seek sovereignty or may the process of self-determination of a dependent territory be legally frustrated by a non-administrating power seeking sovereignty?<br />
<br />
What constitutes a genuine partial disruption of territorial integrity under 1514(XV)? E.g. if the territory in question has been de facto independent for a number years, does that limit the claim to disruption or can a claim legally be perpetual? <br />
<br />
Does the ICJ believe the U.N. has authority and/or practical capacity to try to decide upon historical border disputes long before 1945 or does a international statute of limitation apply, providing a cut-off time limit based on practicality, de facto and historical and modern day de jur sovereignty and does the 1945 territorial integrity of its members take precedence? <br />
<br />
As a separate question it would be interesting to obtain an ICJ opinion of the U.K.'s sovereignty, i.e. similarity and differences, merits and demerits compared to the other nations and territories of the world, including Argentina's national claim to Argentine lands. <br />
<br />
As far as I can tell the advocate for the U.K. case would argue the U.K. conformed to the international norms at the time, i.e. proclamation of possession, establishment of rights under treaty and the use of the most common international law of the time, i.e. the right of kings (coercion and force) and finally settlement of the sovereignty dispute by peace treaty with Argentina. Then sovereignty by prescription, international recognition and then de facto and de jur sovereignty of the times. What is the ICJ opinion on the legal soundness of the U.K. and Islanders claim to sovereignty?<br />
<br />
I would be interested to hear the case for Argentine claims for sovereignty and the ICJ opinion on its legal soundness or lack of it today?<br />
<br />
I would like to hear Argentina's argument why application of post 1945 present day international legal norms to long past sovereignty disputes does not create a huge territorial integrity issue for all modern day states? I would also like to hear the ICJs legal opinion.<br />
<br />
I would also be interested to why a historical sovereignty dispute should frustrate resolution 1514(XV) and why immediately and self-determination cannot be granted to the dependency now and sovereignty issues resolved thereafter through the U.N. ICJ?<br />
<br />
Personally I think the Dependent Islanders have no case to answer based on their fundamental inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including self-determination of their own future I support the Islanders unequivocally.
<br />
I think the Argentine State's case is based on a deliberate irredentist and revanchist political ideology to gain territorial possessions and the Argentine State justifies this policy on the merits of an incomplete, misleading and revisionist history and a level of compulsory nationalist political indoctrination in state education system to achieve mass support. However, I also believe that a lot of Argentine's support their government's policy and their voice should be heard.<br />
<br />
There are many questions and claims to legal rights no doubt from all parties.<br />
I would like to hear all arguments, for and against, each party's position. <br />
I would like to hear all advisory opinions from the ICJ.<br />
<br />
If all parties freely consented, I would like them to take their case to the ICJ for non-binding advisory judgement.<br />
<br />
I would then like proposals for just and legal settlement based on the ICJ advice, whatever they may be, for all parties to agree and for that to be the end of the matter. This could be the status quo or radical change. I don't know what the international legal position would be.<br />
<br />
And everyone lives happily ever after together in peace and harmony... well, it's a nice thought and one we should faithfully pursue as the proper outcome.
<br />
Therefore I propose a new Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between all parties, i.e. Islanders, Argentina, U.K., UNASUR & EU. Followed by a sustained period of lasting friendship and good deeds to create excellent relations. ;-D<br />
“Everyone has his own truth”
About the patagonia, it has been under the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, and when the united provinces declared it's independence, it started to be under it's jurisdiction, but the whole territorys of the patagonia were in the hands of the indigenous, search the map of the viceroalty, and the map from the united provinces.
The word conquest, is used to explain that julio roca appropiated for the argentine state, the reechest lands from that place, i recognize that it was an abuse, but roca didn't invade another country, the patagonia was under our jurisdiction.
About the decline of my country, you are wrong, the decade of 1940 was great for argentina, for what you say, this is evident that you dont like peron, i recognize that he was demagogue and autoritarian, but no one made as much as him for the workers, he didn't share only shoes and candys like some idiots say, argentina was reech in that time, and since 1945 untill 1975 there was a great social justice, the workers represented the 50% of the national rent, it was an equal nation, there was only a 10% of low middle class, there were no indigents, and the 75% of our population was belonging to the middle class.
I dont care in absolute, if my country was the 5th reechest nation in the world, or if is it the 23th nation like now, the most important for me, is the social justice, i want DIGNITY for my people, i want an equal society, like the one that we had during many years, it's not an stupid utopy, the decline of our social progress started in 1975, and specially when the dictatorship started, but our social retrogretion was consolidated during menem's goverment, he sold our country, he decimated our education sistem, and diminished drasticly the budget for the science and tecnology, that's why thousands of our scientist imigrated to the foreign.
In recent times, i recognize many achievements of the k's administration, but they are not what i want for argentina, anyway when i see what's around them, i want they to stay untill 2040.
<br />
To me, the claim that a dependent “implanted population” does not have the same universal human rights as any other individual or group of human beings in unacceptable. These rights are universal. I can understand there being territorial integrity disruption issues if an essential economic and social part of a modern state (as declared in 1945 seeks succession) and I thought this was the purpose of declaration 6 in 1514(XV) was to address this specific issue.<br />
<br />
For me, the British and American govts. conduct over the forcible removal of the Diego Garcians was wrong and is wrong. Clearly the purpose of the purchase of Diego Garcia a matter of national and international security for N.A.T.O. at the time. The British High Courts have repeatedly ruled against the British government but stubbornly it recently managed to lobby the House of Lords to overturn the High Court ruling because of the strategic importance of the military base. I don't think the U.K. people agree with the U.K. government., even though on this matter the U.K. government is persuaded that it's forced depopulation and poor manner of compensation (without obvious proper duty of care) was permissible at the time. I can't agree by today's standards and according to Article 7(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), “deportation or forcible transfer of population” constitutes a crime against humanity if it is “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack”. The only thing that stops the Diego Garcians bringing their case against the U.K. is that the ICC cannot make retroactive judgements before 2002, others it seems obvious to me this instance could be heard on these grounds. I would expect the ICC to rule the U.K. governments had acted unlawfully (now) and would have to permit resettlement, allow the Islanders to exercise their right to self-determination and pay significant compensation. The issue of the important military base would remain, presumably a lease would need to be made.<br />
<br />
In the same vein, I don't seem how either Argentina or the U.K. can now depopulate the Falkland Islands or forcibly remove them or do so by intimidation or economic pressure, no matter how pressing the matter of national security, without breaching international law. I.e. The right to self-determination is considered universal in international law and supercedes national laws and authority.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the main reason such sovereignty disputes are not active for modern Island nations (e.g. Jamaica, Dominica) which originate from implanted dependent peoples, is because the administrating powers and <br />
powers which historically disputed sovereignty have renounced their claims.<br />
<br />
Argentine is interesting in that it appears to have renounced its claim via peace treaty early on after the dispute and then re-established its claim thereafter. I can't see that the Argentine governments claim has been contiguous, except after 1945 when it first renewed its claims internationally.<br />
<br />
All very difficult. Fingers crossed these matters can be resolved happily for all parties through friendship and cooperation.
<br />
The wider public tends to agree with the public necessity and supports the government and offers sympathy for the affected individuals whilst the affected individuals usual remain incensed. Some are happy with compensation. Generally, the day-to-day life is affected less, because they can remain in their own local community. I think the U.K. argument in the intance of Diego Garcia was that having removed all local industry and sources of income, the responsible thing to do was to relocate the Diego Garcians and the U.K. government argues the relocation is morally and ethically no different to the building of a dam etc. I think the Diego Garcians argue it was far more stressful and disruptive for them than that especially since compensation was paid indirectly and the Marautian and British governments made their nationhood status weaker, which I think was improper, even though it did not make them stateless, it made it harder for them to protest.
You agree with me that Argentina inherited nothing from Spain and then in the same paragraph you say I am wrong? Which one is it Axel. Either you agree or you think I'm wrong, it can't be both...
I think the facts show that Patagonia was never under the sovereignty of the Viceroyalty. Apart from some small exceptions, like Carmen de Patagones,
Patagonia was controlled by the indigenous people. The Spanish might have claimed all of Patagonia and sometimes even shown it as theirs on their maps (a bit like you show the Falklands on your maps as Argentine), but they never had sovereignty or control. A lot of the Spanish maps I have seen put “dominios indigenas” or “pueblos originarios” starting just south of Buenos Aires. Also, why was the Zanja de Alsina built only near Bahia Blanca? Who builds a barrier like that in the middle of their territory? The fact is all the land south of the zanja was not under Buenos Aires control or sovereignty. The fact is control and sovereignty over Patagonia as a whole were not gained until the conquest by Roca. Oh, and there's a clue in the word “conquest”. The Chileno claim, which you forced them to drop in 1881, and the fact that most of the provinces which make up Patagonia did not even officially form part of Argentina until the late 19th century are more evidence that Argentina did not gain sovereignty until after the conquest. I'm sorry, but Patagonia was not Argentine territory before then.
Whatever you say about equality etc Axel the fact is Argentina went from having the 5th largest GDP in the world to now about the 30th and there are a whole lot more people in Argentina now that they were then. Your per capita GDP is only just above the world average. So, yes, you might all be more equal now but you are all equally poorer than you used to be...
I agree with you when you say that the provincias unidas didn't inherate anything from spain, but i dont agree when you say that the sovereignty of the islands would be in question, i told you, (and this is the last time i repeat it), if the nations that joined the provincias unidas decided to separate, that was because they were not interested on having any sovereign link with it, so, they they were not going to claim the malvinas or any other part of the provincias unidas, in fact they didn't do it, beside if some day they had any claim on the islands, they lost it when started to support our claim, i know that the islands were governed from montevideo, but it that time uruguay was part of the provincias unidas, the islands wer submited to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, like all the rest of the territory, anyway i respect your opinion, but i dont agree with you.
About the decline of my country, everyone agree that argentina was equaler in that decade than now, i told you what i think about it, i only recognize that my country is equaler now, than what it was during the crisis of 2001, and equaler than last decade, but the best social progress happened since 1946, untill 1975, i told you why.
How can you say the sovereignty of the islands is not in question and at the same time say the United Provinces did not inherit anything from Spain? If the UP did not inherit anything from Spain that means they did not inherit the Falkland Islands. Don't you see how inconsistent your argument is?
I never bought up the subject of equality. You did. From the start of this conversation I have dated the beginning of Argentina's relative decline to the 1940s. You might be more equal now, and that is arguable, but you are ALL a lot poorer than you used to be and that's a fact! When did that process start? With Juan Peron in the 1940s.
- Archibald,
you are talking crap!. Chile had no claim, if they thought Patagonia was theirs, the same thing happened here. The reality is, Patagonia was controlled by Mapuches. Argentina didn't force Chile to drop any claim, that's ridiculous. It's like saying Chile forced Argentina not to get involved in The Pacific War. The reality is (again) that Chile feared Argentina backed Peru, so they asked Argentina not to get involved in it and Argentina asked Chile not to get involved in the desert campaign. This is recognized by chileans.
..............“Oh, and you say you have “moved on” regarding the Falklands. Well there's a contradiction! You are stuck in the same rut you carved out for yourselves in the 1940s...”.................
- Pure crap!
We are like any other country, with good and bad things. We don't wake every morning thinking about Malvinas. We moved on, we think and do a lot of things here that have nothing to do with Malvinas.
Of course, we don't forget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.................“Jorge “ ... We just want to exercise sovereignty in our terretorie. Nothing else!... ”
So exercise it ....but the Falkl;amd islands are NOT in your territory ... NEVER have been, maybe NEVER will be !!”..............
- STFU asshole!!!. Malvinas WAS, IS and will ALWAYS BE part of our terretorie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.............“no solution is required, because there is no problem. The islands are British beacuse the islander's wish them so. That is NOT a problem!”...........
- Only a retard could deny we have a problem here and you are that retard. If you don't have a problem, what are you doing here every day answering our comments?
- Hi stupid guy, how are you today?
The day you recognize I didn't insult you in another site I will change my behaviour towards you. DO IT and see we can talk peacefully.
Congratulations! you fixed that f*cking problem by making us register to comment!!!!!!!
Jorge I am confused by this somewhat bizarre statement, how can you possess something at present, yet will posses it in the future? That doesn’t make sense, you either have it or you don’t! I’m going with the latter.
“Only a retard could deny we have a problem here and you are that retard. If you don't have a problem, what are you doing here every day answering our comments?”
-In British and Falklanders eyes there is no probelem, the only probelem is that you seek to create a probelem, the whole issue is an artificial manufacturing that sadly has got itself imbedded in the Argentine National ego like a very deep splinter,
don’t worry Jorge, in time the splinter will come out, and the puss that represents the corrupt and malicious interpretation of history by the Argentine will come bubbling out….we’ll just help you work it out for you.
“UK get out of here and tell the truth to your squaters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Oh do grow up, If by Squatters you mean colonialists, then I hear the collective Mapuche nation would like you to start paying rent on the land you are currently under your logic “Squatting” on.
The trouble is our “squatters” already know the truth, Argentina is a corrupt regional bully, who suddenly finds herself in a position of waning power and influence, can’t bully her neighbours like she used to so instead goes for the political grand standing against the islands, pretty easy eh? But cries foul when their friends slap you down, like all bullies deserve.
But they also know of a greater truth that of decent human morality, human rights and international Justice, and the universal application of self determination…..
The Union Jack flies over the Falklands - FACT
The Union Jack has been flying over the Falkland Islands, uninterrupted, for the last 177 years - FACT
The Islanders wish to remain British - FACT
The British are prepared to fight to support the Islander's wishes - FACT
The only alternative to being British that the Islanders are likely to accept is full independance - FACT
UN Resolutions support the Islander's right to self determination - FACT
Dream on Argentina .............. you have a snowball's chance in hell !
At least you appear to agree that Patagonia was taken by conquest by Argentina. Yet you cry about the British pushing out the Buenos Aires garrison from the Falklands. Double standards methinks...
“All conquests are bad, but some conquests are badderer than others”
Now thats funny, I could sell them some of there own weapons, never fired & only droped once. some still have pop out white flags!!
$5 each
- You are the only one who does not understand that phrase. What is wrong with you?
....“-In British and Falklanders eyes there is no probelem, the only probelem is that you seek to create a probelem”....
- lol. you contradict yourself saying “”there is no problem“” and at the same time “”the only problem is.....“”.
We don't seek to create a problem. we have a problem UK created in 1833 that remains till today. Again, only a retard could deny that. Even Islanders, who don't like it, recognize we have a problem here.
....“don’t worry Jorge, in time the splinter will come out, and the puss that represents the corrupt and malicious interpretation of history by the Argentine will come bubbling out….we’ll just help you work it out for you.”....
- yeah, whatever.
....“Oh do grow up, If by Squatters you mean colonialists, then I hear the collective Mapuche nation would like you to start paying rent on the land you are currently under your logic “Squatting” on.”....
- You like and enjoy so much to talk about mapuches, but none of you, I think, has ever talk to one of them!
....“The trouble is our “squatters” already know the truth, Argentina is a corrupt regional bully.... can’t bully her neighbours like she used to so instead goes for the political grand standing against the islands, pretty easy eh? But cries foul when their friends slap you down, like all bullies deserve.”....
- The only bully here is you and corruption is everywhere, even in your country. If the world punished you for what you did in the past, you would be kicked out from earth!
...“But they also know of a greater truth that of decent human morality, human rights and international Justice”...
- Talking about human rights, how many countries in the wolrd have put in jail its dictators for violating human rights? The world recognize argentine Nuremberg.
- Excuse me, only academics are allowed to comments, you stupid retard????
The Union Jack has been flying over the Falkland Islands, uninterrupted, for the last 177 years - FACT
The Islanders wish to remain British - FACT
The British are prepared to fight to support the Islander's wishes - FACT
The only alternative to being British that the Islanders are likely to accept is full independance - FACT
UN Resolutions support the Islander's right to self determination - FACT”............
- So what? You stole those islands - FACT
I don't think you are prepared for anything pussy!
- Argie veterens are threatening to invade the Falkland Islands?????
Where did you get that, asshole???
The day you recognize I didn't insult you in another site I will change my behaviour towards you. DO IT and see we can talk peacefully.”
And yet again you resorted to insults - and I didn't say that you had insulted me in another site. I said that you had done so, and repeatedly, on THIS site. As ever you try to change things when they do not suit you and when you get caught out.
Those that read this forum can see that you insult many posters who show you up as wrong. Look at the number of times that you have insulted people on this page alone!!!!
Now do yourself a favour and grow up. It is clear why you did not answer the question and that is because it puts your case, such as it is, in a bad light.
'We have sworn to defend our nation and that oath is always with us.
'Malvinas is a national cause.'
Cesar Gonzalez Trejo, spokesman for the Malvinas Combatants' Civil Association in Buenos Aires, also called for a national boycott of British products.”
AND we didn't steal the islands so it can't be a fact! You keep going on about 1833 but all that happened in 1833 was that some army squatters were ejected .... no big deal !
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1258952/Argentine-Falklands-veterans-threaten-invade-islands-Britains-pirate-oil-exploration.html#ixzz0idO6Hml9
- Again, if Chile thought Patagonia as theirs (they were not here), the same thing happened here. Just mapuches were the owners of this land where I live now. And YES, chileans accepted. I talk to them all the time. My mother is chilean and I have relatives there. They do not make a big deal about it. Moreover, they regret (in a funny way) to have accepted argentine campaign here when oil was found in my city Comodoro Rivadavia (the oil's national capital) in 1908. Until that year, many people of both countries thought Patagonia was worth for nothing.
..........“At least you appear to agree that Patagonia was taken by conquest by Argentina. Yet you cry about the British pushing out the Buenos Aires garrison from the Falklands. Double standards methinks...”..........
- I don't have problems to accept the truth, but the thing is, there is no claim of sovereignty against argentina. Mapuches are integrated within argentines, they have their colourful flag, but they accept without problems living under our flag and they are the most organized indigenous community in Argentina. Mapuches in Chile are a completly different story. They reject chilean nationality.
On the other hand, we have a claim against the british recognized by UN and even UK, although you don't like it.
May be, if you had killed all of us in 1806, 1807 or 1833, there wouldn't have been any claim today. I bet many of you regret no to have killed us at the time!
I don't think you are prepared for anything pussy!”
In the same way that the Spanish stole most of South America you mean. You are sitting on stolen ground Jorge. So do not attempt to claim the moral high ground here. I note that you also resorted to insulting the poster as per usual.
- Hi stupid guy, are you ready to recognize you were wrong??? You didn't proove I insulted you.
...........Now do yourself a favour and grow up. It is clear why you did not answer the question and that is because it puts your case, such as it is, in a bad light.”.........
- I grew up, you asshole. What question, what, what ,what!!!
I am not wrong and you continue to offer up further proof by resorting to further insults. Are insults ALL you have?
Jorge wrote - “- I grew up, you asshole. What question, what, what ,what!!!”
The question that I asked you in post number 65. The one where you responded with insults - again.
- Yes, you did PIRATES!!!!! You are not gonna change what in 1833 happened.
I read your link and if waht that article says is true (wich I think its not), that would be just an anger man's words. Pretty understandable in his case.
I agree. All the lies and propaganda that Argentina peddles about the events of 1833 will not change what actually happended. For once you and I agree.
Jorge wrote ”if waht that article says is true (wich I think its not), that would be just an anger man's words. Pretty understandable in his case.”
Oh the irony!!!!!!
- lol. Hi stupid guy, I'm 27. Are you gonna make an strategy to desqualify me now?
ohh your #65 comment. Don't you see I talked a lot about desert conquest????
Does desert conquest give you the right to do what you did???
Do all your insults, rants and lies really compensate for the fact that Argentina has no rights to the Falklands?
And you start with an insult!!! No I am not making a case to disqualify you at all. You have just corrected an assumption that I had of you. From your posts I thought that you were MUCH younger - I was going to cut you some slack based upon that assumption. No that I know that you should know better........
Jorge wrote “Does desert conquest give you the right to do what you did???”
What did we do? We took back what was rightfully ours. In the conquest of the Desert you took what wasn't yours and you attempted to commit an act of genocide.
Really???? You really do not know the history of Spanish and Portuguese colonialism if that is the case. And you do NOT have ANY rights over the Falklands - end of story. Get over it.
You just cannot take the truth sonny.;-)))
You are very funny. First you say the Chilenos were OK about losing Patagonia (they didn't really have a choice at the time) and then you say they regret it. Argentina and Chile did not settle their border until the early 1980s and you still try to tell us everything was sorted out in 1881? Yea, right!
Oh and the bit about the Mapuches just accepting Argentine rule is hilarious. If that's true, then why was it called the “CONQUEST of the Desert”, and why did Roca's men need to use rifles to help the Mapuche “accept” that they were Argentines?
—Julio Argentino Roca
- Comment very predictable.
.......“What did we do? We took back what was rightfully ours. In the conquest of the Desert you took what wasn't yours and you attempted to commit an act of genocide.”..............
- No, it wasn't yours and if I were you, I wouldn't say the word “genocide” so much, specially after what th brits did around the whole world.
........“And you do NOT have ANY rights over the Falklands - end of story. Get over it.”.........
- I don't know many thing, but you apear to ignore the history of your own country.
Malvinas Argentinas for ever!!!!!
Again - the irony.... stop my aching sides.
Jorge wrote “ I don't know many thing”
First truthful post you have ever made? ;-)))
Yeah - how is that going for you?
- I prefer to be silly you know! You are a liar! that's worse.
..........”Our self-respect as a virile people obliges us to put down as soon as possible, by reason or by force, this handful of savages who destroy our wealth and prevent us from definitely occupying, in the name of law, progress and our own security, the richest and most fertile lands of the Republic.
—Julio Argentino Roca”.........
- where did he learn that from???? I think of the british. They historically treated us as savages.
- Archibald, they regreted to have accepted the argentine campaign. That's it!!!
..........”Argentina and Chile did not settle their border until the early 1980s and you still try to tell us everything was sorted out in 1881? Yea, right!“........
- The border problems were not about the whole Patagonia, don't be ridiculous!
..........”Oh and the bit about the Mapuches just accepting Argentine rule is hilarious. If that's true, then why was it called the “CONQUEST of the Desert”, and why did Roca's men need to use rifles to help the Mapuche “accept” that they were Argentines?..........“
- I'm talking about today's mapuches.
........”Jorge wrote “ I don't know many thing”
First truthful post you have ever made? ;-)))“...........
- All my posts are truthful, you idiot! Could you say the same, idiot????
.........”Port Desire British forever!!!”.........
- lol. You have to share that pot Archibald!
Where have I lied?
Jorge wrote “- where did he learn that from???? I think of the british. They historically treated us as savages.”
Erh Jorge. Look to history, Why first started European colonialism? Yep that would be the Spanish and the Portuguese in South America. Where you are sat now. Here they taught the world how to exterminate indeginous peoples. Perhaps, given that history shows that you started it before us, it would be more truthful to say that, sadly and not to our credit, you actually taught us.
Jorge - you really do walk right into traps of your own making;-)))i
Saying that 1833 were not acts of piracy, you are confirming you are a liar.
How old are you christopher BTW?????
Enjoy the truth!
So you admit you were wrong - OK.
Jorge wrote “Saying that 1833 were not acts of piracy, you are confirming you are a liar.”
Not at all - I am stating a fact. You on the other hand....
Jorge wrote “How old are you christopher BTW?????”
As old as my eyes but a little bit older than my teeth;-))
None there - just silly propaganda that ignores Spanish colonialism. Sorry Jorgieboy - you will have to do better than that. What you say, you can't...
........”As old as my eyes but a little bit older than my teeth;-))”......
- give me a break! Are you too old??????
And christine, let me tell you that yours the only propaganda.
- No Roberts, defenitly not!!!!
Again - enough with the irony!!! You are only in Patagonia because of force!!!!! In fact, you are only in Argentina because of force. Jeez - you really do not have a grip on logic;-)
Jorgina wrote “And christine, let me tell you that yours the only propaganda.”
LOL. Oh dear. Jorgina - you do make me laugh dear girl.
How do you know I'm here by force? I'm not a white blue-eyed man like the 95 % of islanders wich BTW live in a region of non-white people.
Actually - georgina - jorgina. But if you wish to be known as jorgelina then that is fine by me.
jorgelina wrote “How do you know I'm here by force? I'm not a white blue-eyed man like the 95 % of islanders wich BTW live in a region of non-white people.”
LOL - you just couldn't make it up. Think through what it is you have just written. jorgelina - please don't go trying to change just to please me.
Look, you cuckold, better say something interesting, or your little brain is too stonned?
So, you have finally accepted that you post unmitigated drivel.
How true!!!!
The important voice here is latinamerican voice. You better get out of here!!!!
Malvinas are part of Argentina, no matter what crap a brit cucky says!!!!!!!
Keep trying convince yourself of that sonny. We all know the truth.
Jorge wrote “Malvinas are part of Argentina, no matter what crap a brit cucky says!!!!!!!”
Oh dear. Yet more delusions from a sad little Argie;-)
Jorge admits to his day job. Sewerage collector - who would have thought that he would have been qualified to do even that;-).
So we can add homophobia to your list of bigotry I see. But then it is said that those who resort to homophobia are often repressed homosexuals. Perhaps you might feel better in yourself if you just came out.;-)
LOL - well if you are an example of the best that Argentina can produce it shouldn't come as a surprise that your country is doing so badly;-)
I hate the fascist church and the rightest goverments.
You gíl de goma!!!!!
Then why resort to homophobic comments?
Jorge wrote “I hate the fascist church and the rightest goverments.”
Damn - now there is something that you an I actually agree upon.
a) resort to insults
b) Lose all arguments
c) make us all laugh at your expense
d) .............
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!