Cristina blasts UK and UN Security Council for lack of progress in Falklands/Malvinas
Addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Friday, President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner criticized the British government for continuing to ignore Argentina's request for sovereignty talks over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands.
“Once again we have come to claim our sovereign rights over the Malvinas Islands. It’s not a historic claim but an absolutely present-time claim”, added Mrs Kirchner who blasted the UK for systematically refusing to comply with “the resolutions of this organism (General Assembly) which calls on all of us to begin sovereignty talks”.
“That country (UK) is making unilateral decisions on hydrocarbons exploitation which means the plundering of natural resources that do not belong to her”, emphasized Mrs. Kirchner. “The UK is responsible for any ecological catastrophe, just as it was for the British Petroleum oil spill” she warned.
The Malvinas' conflict served as the trigger for the Argentine President to heavily criticize the United Nations Security Council for ”it has lost its power and it is not working taking into account the jeopardy the world is currently facing.“ ”We are no longer in a bipolar world,“ she added.
”Situations and conflicts such as the Malvinas one are clear examples of the fact the Security Council is not working properly and is not preserving peace and security“ affirmed Mrs. Kirchner.
The Argentine president also renewed her claim for the extradition of two high-ranking Iranian officials accused by an Argentine court of being involved in the 1994 Buenos Aires AMIA Jewish Centre bombing, urging the Islamic Republic to jointly pick a neutral country in which they can be taken to trial.
”Even though my country leads in human rights defence and justice, our justice system cannot judge and sentence anyone who's not present. Therefore, we demand their extradition“.
Mrs. Kirchner blasted the Teheran regime saying that she was certain that even though this was her fourth public request for their extradition, this would not yield any results. ”I know it is an evident fact there will be no outcome,“ she assured.
”Therefore, if the Iranian authorities do not trust the Argentina legal system, I ask them to join us into finding a third party, a third country in which those officials would be tried in front of several UN delegates, in order to take those responsible for this horrible attack to court,“ she said.
She used this ”fourth public claim“ as a way of highlighting the ones that were performed on 2007, 2008 and 2009. ”I'm not after guilty people; I'm just looking for justice in the AMIA case investigation. If someone has committed a crime, he or she should be punished,“ she added.
”We should end with neutrality excuses“ Mrs Kirchner emphasized. ”We do not want an impartial trial, but a trial where we can try those who are accused for this horrible attack we suffered back in 1994,“ she concluded the matter.
At the start of her speech at the UN Mrs. Kirchner dealt with figures and statistics regarding her administration, which she highly praised for ”helping Argentina come out of the 2001 crisis.” Both her and her husbands (Nestor Kirchner) governments were the core of the words as soon as she began speaking, stating that “developing countries such as Argentina are currently receiving the impact of the world's economic crisis and are supporting the global economic crisis.”
“During the last eight years, Argentina achieved the greatest economy growth of its 200 years of history”, she said adding that ”we were able to service public debt in a way that had never been recorded before“.
As regards the debt Mrs. Kirchner stated that Argentina negotiated 93% of its debt and, “thanks to the implemented countercyclical measures that were drawn up in 2008 and 2009, the economy grew 9% during this past year”.
Mrs Kirchner assured that the country “managed the reserves with intelligence” when she decided to use them to service public debt. “It was irrational for the country to be in the red, and that is why I decided to use the Central Bank reserves.”
To conclude with figures and statistics, Mrs. Kirchner assured “multilateral credit bodies have to face the fact they need a strong reform, for they failed to maintain a stable economy at a global level.”
Later on the Argentine president tackled several issues that accounted for highly controversial topics. She entered deeply into the Middle East conflict by assuring “it was great news to see that dialogue between Israel and Palestine was resumed.” And added: “I believe we all wish for Palestine to be sitting in the following's United Nations General Assembly,” she stressed, showing her satisfaction on the matter.
Mrs. Kirchner finished her speech by underlining: “It is relevant to be assured that the notions of security and peace are no longer associated with military issues, but with politics, freedom, equity and equality.”
Suggested Stories
-
May 23rd 2013
Falkland Islands wish for normal neighborly relations with all South American neighbors
-
May 21st 2013
Falkland Islands: it’s a three-side debate; Argentina must recognize Islanders right to decide their future
-
May 21st 2013
Falklands: optimism about identification of the unknown Argentine soldiers
-
May 21st 2013
Falklands MPA has the minimum force necessary to prevent a repeat of 1982 invasion
169 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.
Still getting her facts wrong too, i.e. the C-24 is not the General assembly.
And who believes the economic figures when the IMF doubt them?
Usual crap from Cristina :-)
It'll make not an ounce of difference :-)
What?
Argentina will not get any help from the UN, many of whose members have similar 'situations - USA = Solomon Islands, Russia = Kuril Islands, France = Guiana, China = Tibet - and many more. Territorial disputes are the norm.
So why should the UN worry about the whinges of Argentina. Better to have the UK on board than Argentina. No?
The daft lass is wasting her breath, although with all that talk about economic success while refusing to allow in the one international body whose ability to check is respected, she's got a fine future as a stand up comedienne :-)
Fortunately, Argentina's opinion is also of little importance :-)
Talks on sovereignty ?
all the way with the ICJ
Ant oue?
”It’s not a historic claim but an absolutely present-time claim”, added Mrs Kirchner who blasted the UK for systematically refusing to comply with “the resolutions of this organism (General Assembly) which calls on all of us to begin sovereignty talks”. So it's no longer a historic claim but a claim in which the wishes of the inhabitants will be ignored. General Assembly resolutions are not binding.
“That country (UK) is making unilateral decisions on hydrocarbons exploitation which means the plundering of natural resources that do not belong to her”, emphasized Mrs. Kirchner. The country, the Falkland Islands, is making decisions about the resources that it owns.
“The UK is responsible for any ecological catastrophe, just as it was for the British Petroleum oil spill” she warned.” British Petroleum doesn't exist. The company is called BP. It is a joint U.S./U.K. company. The cause of the spill has not been finally determined, but operating staff of the American company Transocean have been found to have switched off the rig alarm system.
What situation?
What conflict?
Are the Falkland Islands not peaceful and secure?
What is she muttering about?
Ant - I forgot to answer one of your questions, I believe in FREEdom of Speech :-)
news.google.co.uk/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&ncl=dt-yxyenM898ctMkC72InphCsUWKM
7 articles, 2 from Mercopress. Might have been less if the Jerusalem Post hadn't covered it because of the extradition demsand. Watch them tumble weeds roll on by.
Think I'll take a nap.
Do you think it is because they are a close ally of Chavez or is it because Argentina is insignificant?
As the world you interioriza of the conflicts of Malvinas is very Ovio that the governments come with a lot of pleasure the I claim of the sovereignty of Argentina, today's solidarity of Uruguay when not receiving English ships and of Latin America always and from all over the world later, leave with clarity that the I claim it is very fair. It is evident that they attend the Argentina historical, geographical and economic arguments. A colony maintained to the force for more than 14.000 kilometers with a transplanted population is more than evident, and it doesn't resist the smallest analysis.
Did I miss a nip slip?
The lack of coverage is probably due to the fact that the record never changes. They denounce the Falklands as a colony but more and more people are seeing through that and recognising the Falklands as self-governing. They leap on just about every issue, like the fishing conference in Spain and turn it into a diatribe about the Falklands. More and more people just roll their eyes and get on with ignoring it.
What is also self-evident is the self-reinforcing delusion that anyone gives a monkeys about Argentina's claim. But its useful for getting what you want out of Argentine, in return for nothing but mouthing sympathetic platitudes.
What Colony maintained by force? Firstly we are not a Colony nor have been for a decade or two - we are a selfgoverning territory.
Where is the force thats keeping us here - against our will by the sound of you? Only forces I am aware af are some that we welcome here because they keep out a foreign force that wants to force Colonialism upon us!
Tiny Transplanted people/ who - we are no more nor less “transplanted” that 70% of Arentina,s population!
Latin America is NOT closed to British Ships! a naval ship was in Chile just recently, the biggest one UK has was in Brazil just recently. Uruguay,s position is well known - they do what the boss across the river tells them!
Even if BP was entirely British, since when has a government been responsible for what a private company does abroad?
13 Raul (#)
“historical, geographical and economic arguments.”
Argentina has had very little historical involvement in the Falklands; geography is irrelevant in international law, and the Falklands have been self sufficient economically since 1881.
“it doesn't resist the smallest analysis.”
Argentina's claim that it inherited the islands from Spain is what doesn't resist the smallest analysis.
Second, Chile no only have received RN ships at it ports, even they participating trhe biggest naval parade of our 200 years as a republic.
Grow up from the bottom line you were soome years ago is too easy. Try to do the same from a good economic level and we can talk after that.
And, please developed coutry....as Aregentina? What a joke !!!
Transplanted people ??? With 9th generations being born and living in that country?? And what about us, the Latinamericans ?? I'm just the 3rd generation of my family here in Magallanes - Chile, so ....I'm transplanted too ?? What another joke !!!
Now I need a country to belong to....!!!
Please, think first, write after...!!!!
Besides that there are no southamerican comunity in a south american territory (only some chileans temporay workers); today stanley has the same population than in 1900. In 1900 patagonian cities population was +- 1k, today for example usuhaia is 60k. Kelper society situation is artificial; this only can happen under a colonial rule. You talk about selfdetermination but selfdetermination means freedom but never a foreing and extraregional power ruling.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_miseria
Completely irrelevant to the point Billy H adduced.
There are a growing number of historians in academia which look to the possible act of racial genocide on the part of the Argentine government.[8] Former Argentine President Domingo Sarmiento advocated forced population reductions of the black population in Argentina. While direct evidence of any such action is very limited, research into the unseemingly swift population reduction for blacks over a very short amount of time, lack of actualized census evidence of intermarriage between blacks and whites in Argentina, and investigations finding evidence of later commissions of genocide toward native populations, as well as executions by the Argentine government toward the nations small Native American population gives slight credence to the possibility of the subject.[9][10
As normal you are talking through your ar*e.
The Falkland Islanders choose to remain a part of Britain. When they decide to go it alone, they'll become their own nation. Nothing Argentina can do about it.
Domingo F. Sarmiento , who was president during the great yellow fever epidemic and the War of Paraguay, events to which is assigned the extermination of the Afro Argentine, had a strong racist position and argued the need to eliminate the black population. In 1848 he wrote all this in his diary during his trip to the United States.
“ Slavery in the United States today is without question a possible solution; 4 million are black, and within 20 years will be 8. Rescue, who pays 1,000 million pesos worth? Libertos - or Freedmen, what is done with such blacks hated by the white race? Slavery is a parasite that the vegetation of English colonization has left attached to leafy tree of freedom. Did it not dare to uproot the tree when it could, while leaving the dead, and the parasite has grown and threatens the whole tree gleaned?
¿por que me removieron el comentario - 2 Ant (#) - ?, estaba en acuerdo a las condiciones de Mercopress. .. comentaba: ..Hoytred, esta nervioso por declaraciones de la Presidenta en la ONU, respecto a la soberania de las islas
I am not nervous about anything, although your president does make me laugh! And we have no doubt about the sovereignty - they're British :-)
Have you ever been to the Falkland Islands or met a Falkland Islander?
Well they are a friendly people, immigration is controlled becuase of limited resources but they are open to interaction. Case in point, FIG proposed direct talks with the Argentine Government. the FIG and the islanders have always welcomed dialogue.
Contact is not forbidden, that is a bare faced lie.
And the response?
Well your demonisation of a peaceful and friendly island people is the response. It is only Argentina that has laws stopping contact with the Falklands, it is only Argentina that seeks to isolate the islands. If you look at the islanders through the billous haze of a racist attitude, that merely illustrates the mentality that perpetuates the dispute.
Incidentally, and I know it wasn't originally your comment, we should now be able to dispense with the “historical” argument completely. CFK has just said so “It’s not a historic claim”.
@19 Billy. Before you start using big words, you should find out what they mean. “Demography is the statistical study of human populations.” By contrast, “Demographics or demographic data are the characteristics of a human population as used in government, marketing or opinion research” Now let us consider the proposition that “southamerican societies are friendly and open to interaction and inmigration, developing themselves by freedom forces”. See the following references:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Argentina
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Chile
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Brazil
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Paraguay
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Bolivia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Peru
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Ecuador
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Colombia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Venezuela
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Guyana
Neither Suriname nor Uruguay have Wiki articles listing their wars. Yes, Britain's list would be much longer. Because Britain's history is at least 10 times longer than South America's. Your proposition is ludicrous.
Let's go on to your other words: “kelper society is from the begining an isolated & non interactive with the region society, where inmigration and contact is forbiden for political reason, an endogamic society to guarantee british presence.” If you have a large belligerent neighbour who constantly demands your country for itself, how do you react? By the way “endogamic” isn't a word I could find, what does it mean?
Justin, racism is at british side; isolation and the non contact situation for political reasons is a racist attitude. Creating an endogamic population as a tool of conquest is a racist and perverse attitude.
Looking the development of patagonian cities anyone can conclude that if 1833 events hadn´t happened, today there would be living in Malvinas beetwen 15k-25k pleople interacting with their enviroment and the region. The actual 2000 pure british pleople 21 century, the same quantity and quality as in 19 century is the confirmation of the transplanted definition for kelper society.
You write:
”The actual 2000 pure british people ….21 century, the same quantity and quality as in 19 century is the confirmation of the transplanted definition for kelper society”
I say:
There are only 1.339 pure blood Kelpers born in the Islands, not 2.000. (“Falkland” census 2006)
www.falklands.gov.fk//documents/Census%20Report%202006.pdf
The “Pure British” ancestry of those 1.339 would be very much in question if a proper DNA test was to be carried on such a small indigenous population….…
They tell us that they did not expulse the Vernet settlement……They stayed in the Islands….
So…………, unless they castrated them all, there is a genetic fact that the Kelper DNA pool is “seriously contaminated” by South American blood…..
Just look at them riding a horse…. Look at their tackle….. Pure Gaucho blood showing up there..., mate!
Wrong again Billious ... we're in a very legal position. If you doubt it persuade your government to take the British to the ICJ over the Falkland Islands.
But they won't go there will they ... because they know that they would lose.
And since when was DNA important for 'self determination'? The size of the present population is irrelevant as is the location of their birth. What's important is who is there ... and if that oil flows, there's going to be a lot more people on those islands, many of whom will settle :-)
You lot are just whistling in the wind. The islands are British, and you know your arguments to the contrary are fatuous.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders
For a small community, they have a surprisingly diverse genetic pool. Having always been a community that embraces outsiders.
Billy you can carry on with your racist diatribe if you wish, the more you try to defend it, the more foolish you look. You construct an argument based solely on your perception of a people you have never met and based on total ignorance of their situation, culture or tradition.
Very soon penguins(if any left) will be counted and passports will be issue to them in order to justify their ridiculous cliam.
Anyway, it´s important to say that british population living in Malvinas is transplanted not only because they expelled argentine settlement bringing british subjects from 14k miles away; the most important factor is what happened next; they keep that initial situation in the same way closing the gates, avoiding inmigration from continent and trying to exclude from malvinas any argentine or southamerican element to defend british colonial interest. That´s the reason why kelper society is different from any southamerican society and why they are transplanted and why actually there is no other transplanted society in the american continent.
The question is still open; is valid selfdetermination to a trasnplanted population if that selfdetermination is to legitimize the interests that caused the transplantation? I think no.
Palermo outlines the self-inflicted costs to Argentina of the Kirchners’ approach, or their “nastiness offensive”, in contrast to former foreign minister Guido di Tella’s “charm offensive”. The first and heavier cost, is the resulting antagonism of the inhabitants of the islands. Where Di Tella understood that the damage inflicted by the 1982 military occupation would require years to heal, the hostility of the Kirchners plays straight into the hands of the most curmudgeonly islanders, thus undoing all the trust-building and good-neighbourly approach of the 1990
The Kirchners thus continue to ignore the islanders, their views and their oft-repeated wish to remain British. In the process, they make the objective of “recovering the Malvinas” impossible to attain
A little difference between posters…………
When I (Mr. “Think”) post a link in here, it usually is from a respected “Anglo-Saxon adversary” source (like the Falklands Islands Government, the Financial Times, the Guardian and other British papers and even from the British FCO) or from fairly neutral Wikipedia entries.
When (Mr. “JustinKuntz”) posts a link it is usually like the one below……….. A Wikipedia entry written mostly by…………Mr. “JustinKuntz” himself…. (What a surprise!)
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders&limit=500&action=history
Not wonder that he was kicked out of the Spanish Wikipedia after repeated vandalism against articles like the one below……….
es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consecuencias_de_la_Guerra_de_las_Malvinas&action=history
No use to address this troll directly….
Many well intentioned British, Spanish and Argentinean Wikipedians have give up on him………..
I rest my case
I did not write that article, it was written by Apcbg, I have merely repaired vandalism. Please do go and look at the history of that article, compare the article as originally written and what I've done. You can see the fraud that Think has perpetuated.
I am also not banned from the Spanish wikipedia. What he claims was vandalism was removing unsubstantiated allegations portrayed as fact. Some measure of the grip that Malvinistas have on Falklands articles may be judged from the fact they're still there, together with other nonsense I was able to show was nonsense. So that is simply a lie.
Funnily enough many well intentioned wikipedians of all nations approach me for help and advice; including Argentines. A lot sent messages of support both on my talk page and by email.
Like the spineless coward that you are, you hide behind an anonymous pseudonym, trying to dig up dirt and when you can't find any you simply make it up. What a sad, lonely, pathetic little man you are.
It is always somebody else’s fault……
Always somebody else’s fault……
Are you sure that you are not Argentinean??? :-)))
@40. And after months of being told, you still can't accept that United Provinces nationals weren't expelled from the Islands, only the military garrison. Closed “mind”. The inverted commas are because you don't really have one, do you?
“avoiding inmigration from continent and trying to exclude from malvinas any argentine or southamerican element”. If you're an example, I can see why Argentines would be excluded. Two reasons. First, there's no reason to import stupidity. Second, it would be unwise to import a fifth column.
Now, Argentina consists of an extremely large transplanted population. Therefore, by your argument, they have no right to self-determination. Argentina is, effectively, open land suitable for colonisation. The latest figures I can find suggest that only about 8-10% of the current population can be considered “indigenous”. I think we'll have to have you placed on the List of Non-Self Governing Territories.
Yeahhhh ….Please send the “Little Prince”… Handsome fella……Makes nice headlines………..
www.infobae.com/mundo/538469-101515-0-El-principe-William-piloto-las-fuerzas-britanicas-Malvinas
More Nice Headlines ……………Transocean, the rig operator at the centre of Brutish Petroleum’s Gulf of Mexico oil disaster could join the rush for black gold in the FALKLANDS.
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/3147274/337m-win-for-Betfair-share-pair.html
Seems that the Spanish Fishing Armada is feeling the heat:
www.farodevigo.es/economia/2010/09/26/flota-gallega-malvinas-denuncia-acoso-argentino/475986.html
Whistling Colonel Bogey.
One of my favorite tunes. LOL !!!!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB8F8g1-4Uw
Think bats for the other side then, the only Gay in Trelew
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4zx1ZX8GW4
Intimidation, eh? Typical Argentines.
Immigration FACT - there is noodifferential between someone with a UK passport or someone with a Chilean or even an Argentine passport entering the Islands to work and live. NONE AT ALL - all have to have a work permit and a job to come to - that is all. There ARE Argentine citizens living here perfectly happily, there are also many Chilean citizens living here.
Please explain yourself when you claim we are transplanted because of demography? Also our population is 3000 in 2010 with 2500 approx in Stanley - and growing.
With such a small population - and its increase of 60% in a mere 28 years from 1982 of course there will be more here whose place of birth was somewhere else. Its easy to play the distorted % game etc when you have such a small base figure. Also none can vote or make a claim about selfdetermination until they are at least on the eloctoral role - which takes a few years to qualify - not instant on arrival as Ale claims.
Think 34 - you are correct - hey I am agreeing with you!! There are plenty of things we do that show how much we have in common with Patagonia customs as well - they go back generations.
Yes we do have the right of selfdetermination - even the DeColonization Committee of 24 noted that in 2008. The IJC ruling a few weeks ago over Kosovo reinforced it - they stated very clearly there that the right to a people of SelfDetermination OVERRIDES claims of Territorial Integrity.
I did have a laugh when Mrs K lambasted the UN Security Council - I recall something called Resolution 502 passed with no vote against in 1982 - can you remind me of the name of the country that refused to accept it and ignored it?
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/city/3145751/3billion-Falkland-Islands-oil-boost.html
Read the line before last on this Sun's Article !!!
“SOURCES SAY THE UK WILL WANT HALF OF THE TAX TAKE”
So much for the “Falklanders Oil” :-)))
So much for the “Falklanders Self-Determination” :-)))
Kosovo is not your case, sorry, they are kosovars, you are british subjects as any british living in britain, the only difference is that you live abroad in foreing and disputed land.
Please tell me what happened in 1833; as I know britain invaded and expelled argentine authority, argentine garrison and most of the civilians. Perhaps if I´m wrong you can find some Gonzalez, Perez, Fernandez, etc living in Malvinas since 1833. Mrs.Roxa and some gauchos left behing are again the exception that confirms the rule.
Islander, the situation is more complex than you believe, selfdetermination is a quimera for you, you can discuss forever but it will be rather imposible the region accept your thesis about that because we understand selfdetermination as an anticolonial tool, and you want to use it to perpetuate this situation. Anyway, don´t worry, I still support that idea some day I told you, to exchange seldetermination for britain leaving south atlantic . Good night.
The Sun as a pieces of investigative journalism. Oh dear me, Thunk, scraping the barrel now aren't we. It'll be the National Enquirer next or the Sunday Sport.
sunheadlines.blogspot.com/2008/11/classics-freddie-starr-ate-my-hamster.html
It's established fact that only the garrison was removed from the islands in 1833 - established by the ships log of the Argentine Captain, established by the diary of Charles Darwin (although Think considers that he was perhaps the 1st CIA agent!).
So just the usual crap from Billious. Self determination is the inalienable right of all ... including the islanders. Argentina is just grasping at straws at the C-24.
No chance. No hope.
Argentina has British neighbours - get used to it :-)
Its only Argentina that is stopping us from achieving the withdrawl you wish to see.
Please tell what is this systematic banning of Argentine things and people you still insist on? Even today we eat some of your fresh produce! We are no longer a Colony - its your side who wish to impose a good old fashioned Colonial rule over us. We now have internal selg government and look after ourselves - its Argentina who is preventing us from completing the move to full autonomy and Independence- if our majority wish goes that way.
As for a British presence in the south Atlantic, well that's not going to change regardless of the future decisions of the islanders. As I've said before, Britain has stepping stones all the way down to the Antartic and there's no way we'll give them up. There are no valid arguments (from either Chile or Argentina) over our claims to the British territories in Antartica and one day the current Treay will become obsolete .... then watch the fireworks :-)
In our judicial power we have a say; if you confess I don´t have to prove nothing.
britain is in conquest mode in southatlantic.
islander you are a warmonger if you say britain cay stay in georgia, sandwich and antartica if there is no people to argue seldetermination. selfdeterminatiojn is a good argument, the only one. there is no argument in georgia, sandwich and antaritica. as you say about kosovo, kosovars seek independence from servia, in your case servia is britain; and argentina the anti-servian entity.
kelper must follow american continent path to say about selfedertermination. you must say to the world you exercise your selfedetermination; if not is a farse.
you like numbers. in 1920 there were 3500 people in stanley (mingone source); in usuhaia 1500 people.
They start their “Dirty Work” in the sewers……
Soon this story will flow out to the gutters ……….
Eventualy their “Sh**” will hit the fan………..
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/city/3145751/3billion-Falkland-Islands-oil-boost.html
“SOURCES SAY THE UK WILL WANT HALF OF THE TAX TAKE”
So much for the “Falklanders Oil”
So much for their ”Self-determination”
:-)))
As for South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the remainder of our territories that currently fall within the Treaty area, well those are undisputably ours. No-one else claimed them before us, no-one lived on any of them and there is no reason on earth why they cannot be a part of British territory.
The south Atlantic DOES NOT belong to Argentina ... or indeed South America. It is your country that is attempting to conquer and colonise the south Atlantic ... and you are not strong enough!
And why should a people HAVE to comply with the norms of their neighbours to qualify for self determination. Idiocy!
You know how I like to help a lost cause,some more research material for you,dont think they cater for the only Gay in Trelew mind
www.sundaysport.com/
tinyurl.com/2u3cwuk
When I (Mr. “Think”) post a link in here, it usually is from a respected “Anglo-Saxon adversary” source (like the Falklands Islands Government, the Financial Times, the Guardian and other British papers
And the Sun :-)
Gotcha
As for Twinky, he's clearly on here far too much. He only ever attempts to undermine serious discussion, when anyone from the South American quarter capable of such appears. Any reason to respond to him either?
Also BTW is “The Scum” a respected academic resource as well these days?
The Sun has launched a scathing personal attack on Labour MP Clare Short, branding her a “killjoy” and “fat and jealous” of its Page 3 girls.
It hit out at the maverick Labour MP after she renewed her attack on Page 3 girls, branding pictures of topless models “degrading pornography”.
Using a montage of Ms Short’s face superimposed on a topless model, it likened her to the back of a bus and and “jokes” that making her into a Page 3 girl would be “mission impossible”.
So why does the whole basis of Argentina's anachronism rest upon a historical self declared right of inheritance to the former possesions of a 19th century Imperial power?
Oilcha!
Stick it up your ”Rockhopper!
Cameron ate my hamster!
Desire the Oil!
Manuel & Isolde :-)
They agreed on the ban impossed by UK over argentine people who wanted to travel to the islands during almost 20 years!!!!!!
They've never wanted the natural migration of people because if it had happened, Malvinas people would have been most argentines descendents, and we know UK never wanted that to happen. If natural migration had been allowed, then the “self-determination” argument wouldn't have never been raised by UK since it wouldn't fit to their interests in the South Atlantic.
That's the real question here! UK doesn't give a **** about islanders, now and then!
They only want to be here and exploit our resources like they do with their companies all around the world.
Neither you, nor I, can just 'migrate' to the United States, or Russia, or China, or anywhere. So why would Argentines migrating to the Falkland Islands be in any way 'natural'.
Another fatuous argument based on the spurious premise that Argentina has some right over the Falkland Islands ........ in the face of 177 years of evidence to the contary.
Wake up Argentina ........ you are getting nowhere :-)
That's because you staged an armed invasion Jorgebobo! Idiot!
The resolutions of the u.n call both sides to find a negotiated and pacefull solution to the conflict, that should be respected by the u.k. and the falkland islanders, i know that the islanders argue that they have right to self determination, i have planty of arguments to hold that the self determination is not applicable to the them.
Firstly it's very arguable asking for self detemination, and at the same time, wanting to remain as british citizens.
Beside,the resolution A/64/106, from december 10th of 2009 holds that self determination is for people under colonial domination, it does not difuse that right to every people under any circunstance, beside the general assembly, and the speciall comitee, argue that self determination is not aplicable to the population from the malvinas-falklands.
Regarding the islands, they are not under any colonial domination, they are something like a british protectorate, they have a british governor, and a strong militar defence, but in the rest of the aspects, the islands are absolutly autonomous.
Maybe i am wrong with my assertion, and i hope that some one refutes what i say, but with or with our self determination, my country has legitimate rights that some day will have to be recognized, this is why i will always invoke that my country and the islanders must sit and find a solution that respects the autonomy that the islanders dont want to loss, it has to respect too the rights of y country.
However, my government ignores the islanders, and the islanders never wanted to recognize and find a solution that satisfys both sides.
This is why i hold that both sides are responsable for the actual scenario, on the other hand, it's really shamefull to see how both only victimize their self.
Can you think of a solution where both sides would be happy when they both want the complete opposite? What would talking about it even do when nomatter what the outcome there is no way to please both sides?
“i have planty of arguments to hold that the self determination is not applicable to the them”
Not any real ones, there is no occasion where human rights are not applicable to a human.
“The General Assembly
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”
“The right to self-determination of peoples is a fundamental principle of international law. It is enshrined in article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations”
You obviously don't understand what self determination is, it is simply the right to choose ones own government, You and everyone in Argentina are right at this moment using your own right of self determination. As am i in England, and the people on the island. Aswell as the majority of the world at the moment.
You have NO right to deny them this right.
I observe that no matter what, you seek to construct arguments that seek to deny the Islanders the right to self-determination. The fact is the UN has declared it as the one principle that is above all others.
I suggest you read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, noting that it is UNIVERSAL.
Appointment of members of the Joint Inspection Unit: note by the Secretary-General (A/64/106)
ICJ and tell it to the Judge
keep on dreaming about to drop our claim.
Beside dont take in 100% what the government says, because if we are talking about negotiations, it means necesarilly that both sides must to cede on their pretentions, on the other hand, i never in my 29 years, rode unless one time that the f.i.g was prepared to negotiate, this is why i suspect about what you say, not even when i read the statements of all the cuncellors, they say that in the past they were prepared to negotiate.
Beside i agree absolutly that both governments should take the malvinas cause to the international arbitration, if the u.k., and the f.i.g. are so sure that my country does not have any sovereign right on the malvinas, then i hope that they propose very soon, to take the cause to the international court, let me remind you that in the past, argentina had offered that posibility, but the u.k. rejected that proposal.
Regarding the resolutions of the u.n., it was not me the one who sanctioned that role, i only take what the assembly, and the decolonization comitee say, all the rest is irrelevant, beside dont forget also about territorial integrity, like it or not, that's relevant too. Anyway i know what you think regarding that article, but we can believe whatever we want to be happy, the only one aspect that matters, are the roles, i only will keep on taking into account what those organizations say, what we believe is just interesting to debate.
If i made a survey, was because i started to have serious doubts about our rights, after i rode the pepper pascoe documen, but after all these long monthes of investigation, i see that not only our side makes omitions.
The malvinas cause has always been important to me, and it's not in absolut a waste of time if i investigate, like some idiots hold, my ideologys are not a waste of time.
You say that you have never read - in Argentina - statements made by the Falkland Islands Government, therefore you insinuate we're lying. Do some research outside of Argentina.
You are also completely and utterly wrong.
The Argentine Government has never made any suggestion to take the issue to the ICJ. Please don't be so fatuous as to claim that in 1885 it offered arbitration - the ICJ did not exist then. The issue over the claim to the Falkland Islands Dependencies has been referred to the ICJ unilaterally by the UK, Argentina indicated it would refuse to accept the judgement.
In addition, the C24 has not stated any position of the UN on self-determination and territorial integrity. When the C24 reports Argentina's claims, that is all it does, it does mean the C24 is adopting Argentina's position or endorsing it. I know Argentina likes to misrepresent this on a regular basis.
Nor has the General Assembly, GA resolutions are non-binding. And a call for negotiations is not a call to capitulate to Argentine demands. In any talks Argentine has always sought to impose a pre-determined outcome, you demand negotiations but have n0 intention to negotiate.
I would suggest you also read the latest ICJ judgement on Kosovo, which Argentina opposed vehemently. Argentina's grounds were that Kosovo couldn't declare independence without Serbian permission. somewhat hypocritical as Argentina would never have achieved independence on that basis.
You also claim that not only Argentina makes omissions yet I have yet to see you claim an omission on the British side.
What I continually find disappointing is that you claim to be objective, yet time and again you find excuses to ignore contrary material.
You made your self sound irrelevant when you even tried to state that the islanders have some how forfeited there human rights.
I have no illusions of Argentina dropping it's claim ever, i just hope that this oil does go through and they go for independance, then i'd LOVE to see argentina to try take a newly independant state to the demomission committee and try to colonise the islands, that'll go down well.
I wonder, axel. How would Argentina spin that?
The day WILL come when the islanders opt for independence. Argentina's claim then just becomes a sick joke as the islanders will be an independent nation supported by the UN and the Security Council.
Argentina is impotent!
It has to be some kind of joke for Axel to suggest that Argentina has, at any time, been willing to take the Falklands Islands to the ICJ. Even Argentine newspapers have previously questioned why their Government would not do so. The reason is simple, they would lose!
Indoctrinating a population is on e thing, trying to convince the ICJ with a perverted version of history is quite another. And history apart, the UN's founding Charters support the islanders right to make up their own minds as to what they wish to be. The ICJ would be obliged to support that and put the lie to Argentina's C-24 claim that the islands are a 'special' case.
The UK tried to force a case over South Georgia and the South sandwich islands by submitting a case to the ICJ but Argentina refused to participate and as such the ICJ could not progress. Cowardice in the face of justice ... sums Argentina up really!
If the icj didn't exist in 1885, is irrelevant, the point is that the u.k. rejected the international arbitration, ask your self why.
Beside, like i said before, if the u.k. is so sure that my country does not have any right on the malvinas, then i hope that i heard very soon, from the honorable mlc, or from the prime minister brown, to propose my government to take the case to the international court, or to any other international arbitration, i think it's the only one way to finish once and for all with this dispute.
Regarding the soposed future independence of the islands, dont you wonder why, in spite that the malvinas are a rich place, with a hight standart of life, they are still under the protectorate of the u.k., answer me please.
Beside, i dont ignore contrary material, maybe i am wrong with what i said about the right to self determination, i am not an expert in international right, i only toke what i rode from a book of foreign policy.
I respect human rights, and right to self determination, maybe the islanders truly have that right, this is why i say once and again that we should find a solution that can keep the autonomy of the islands, and at the same time, we can exercise our right on the malvinas, it's not a utopy, it's a matter of will.
Beside, ¿what is wrong if i made a survey that can help me in my carrear?, my profesion is important for me, and i'm not interested on teaching any sweat version of the history.
If any of you takes as serious what newspapers say, specially ours, that shows how pathetic are some of you.
Finally, i hope that some of you answer me why the u.k. still didn't propose my country to take the malvinas's case to the icj, like it did with georgia and sandwich islands.
In 1885 who were to be the international arbitrators ?
As to your question, the main reason that the Falkland Islanders are not inclined to opt for independence, is that they fear an invasion by their bullying neighbour!
And independence will be the only acceptable final solution ... autonomy is not enough. Argentina has NO rights to exercise.
The UK proposed that the Argentine claims regarding South Georgia and the South Sandwich islands went to the ICJ. I do not know of any specific request to take the Falklands Islands to the ICJ although I believe that at the time South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were listed as dependencies of the Falkland Islands.
Perhaps Argentina should now suggest it :-)
Cameron.
“in spite that the malvinas are a rich place, with a hight standart of life, they are still under the protectorate of the u.k”
Because they CHOOSE to be with the UK, that is what self determination is Axel, it's the choise. Many other ex colonys choose to also stay an overseas territory rather than to go independant.
People have the right to vote for which government they want. That is there right as humans.
I don't personally know but i'd take a guess as to that they have to reason to leave the UK, and if they did they would be vunrable to an attack from Argentina.
“i say once and again that we should find a solution that can keep the autonomy of the islands, and at the same time, we can exercise our right on the malvinas,”
This is the problem axel, and i said to you earlier. Tell me of a solution where everyone will be happy. There is no way to both please the islanders and argentina.
“u.k. still didn't propose my country to take the malvinas's case to the icj, like it did with georgia and sandwich islands.”
Two reasons:
1. You've already refused once.
2. We have no problem with the current situation.
It's Argentina that is not happy with the situation and if Argentina wants it to change you can take it to the ICJ we have no doubt that we will win.
The Falklands are still under British protection because of Argentine aggression. That is also self evident. There was a tiny garrison of Marines before 1982, but you Argentines changed that.
How can the islanders exercise a right to self determination and Argentina also have sovereignty? That's a contradiction. It can only be one or the other.
Why doesn't the UK unilaterally refer the case to the ICJ? Well we tried that in 1955 over the Falkland Islands Dependencies and Argentina refused to accept any outcome. We also note Argentina's behaviour over the Beagle Channel dispute and how after losing twice it still refused to accept the outcome. At the end of the day why should we, Argentina disputes sovereignty, we have no doubts whatsoever.
You also assert the islands are under UK control. I would have thought by now you might have become more educated about that. No they are not under UK control, they have devolved Government and depend upon the UK only for foreign relations and defence matters. They are under UK protection because 28 years ago a bellicose and aggressive neighbour sought to impose control through violent aggression, that it has never renounced or expressed the slightest regret for, and continues to exploit every opportunity to try and attack the islanders by economic or political means.
I also note yet again the British have responded to your questions, so again Axel, without waffling or avoiding the question. If the Argentine case is so strong why does Argentina not unilaterally submit its case to the ICJ for an opinion.
Secondly Axel, the last noted Argentine academic to challenge the orthodoxy was Carlos Escude, his reward for doing so was to be pilloried and fired. I seriously doubt that you would follow his example.
Another “convenient little lie” from Mr. Justin Kuntz………
”” The last noted Argentine academic to challenge the orthodoxy was Carlos Escude, his reward for doing so was to be pilloried and fired.””
Dr. Escude is as respected as ever and occupies leading public and private posts in today’s Argentina..............
www.argentina-rree.com/cv02.htm
Please note than in 2010 he spoke in favor of the Cristina Fernandez administration's foreign policy as quoted in the following Wikipedia link…..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Escud%C3%A9
Lies have short legs Mr. Kuntz very short legs………………..
en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Future_of_the_Falkland_Islands_and_Its_People#The_Falklands_Will_Never_Be_Argentine
Quoting your friend Jorge “Carlos Escudé is an asshole. He is no taken seriously here. He is a racist who is against inmigration of other latam countries and he is also a fascist who supports invations of Irak and Afghanistán, so f*ck him!”
The page you quoted www.argentina-rree.com/cv02.htm was copyrighted in 2000 and hasn't been updated since 2004. It comes from the same wikipedia page you quoted does it not?
His faculty CV is at:
www.ucema.edu.ar/u/ce/
So if the information I was given, which was that he was fired and took up a position at Harvard is incorrect, then indeed I am happy to be corrected and I will happily withdraw the remark.
Knowing also your predilection for pedantry and picking up people on spelling, its Dr Carlos Escudé by the way. Please get the name correct in future.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtSqw-QKAwQ
It is sufficient to talk to any Buenos Aires cabdriver to understand
that the Argentine people know that the Falkland Islands will not be
“recovered” by Argentina. The only locals who appear not to
understand this basic fact of life are a group of war veterans, a small
bunch of nationalist fundamentalists, and practically the entire lot of
Argentine politicians.
www.stockopedia.co.uk/content/rockhopper-sea-lion-valuation-analysis-48506/
Needless to say, however, in so doing the politicians are cheating and
lying. The great majority of these politicians know that the Falklands
will not be Argentine again, but they choose not to acknowledge this
for fear of losing votes.
I f my country didn't accept the competence of the icj regarding the south georgia, and sandwich, i think it was a big mistake.
Beside, in order to take the malvinas-falklands to the icj, both countrys must agree on giving that step, it can't be done unilaterally, read about international right.
The convention signed in 1850, can't be used as an excuse to reject international arbitration in 1885, in my survey, i have planty of information to argue what i say, it's very long to explain it here.
I already said that maybe the self determination is applicable to the islanders, but i have serious doubst about it.
Beside, it's not a contradiction to find a solution that respects the self determination, and our sovereign rights.
I argued in february of this year, a proposal that i rode from a couple of students from oxford, they proposed the islands to became into an argentine-british protectorate, arg and the u.k. only would give defence to the islands, and the islanders will keep on being as autonomous as now, i think it's the best solution i ever rode.
On the other hand, i was wrong when i said that the u.k. was never prepared to negotiate, i have been locking for information in my survey, and i could remember that in 1966 there were negotiations.
Resolution A/64/106 from dicember of 2009, affirmed that self determination is only applicable to people under colonial domination, and it entails juridically to the resolutions of the u.n. on decolonization.
It holds that there is not any diffuse right to self determination, wich recognizes that right, to people under any circunstance.
Now i ask you, ¿are the malvinas under any colonial situation?, even chancellour norma edwards affirmed that the islands are not a colony, this is why i think that self determination is not applicable to the islanders, maybe i am wrong, and this is why i hold that it's so important to take the case to the int. arbitration.
Not an excuse Axel, a reason. The matter was done, and Argentina could not raise it again. Theref're they were ignored.
As to the 'colonial' status of the Falkland Islanders ... well it's Argentina that shouts the loudest about the islands being a British colony. You can't have it both ways!
I will say again, because for some reason you don't understand the simple fact that >everyone< is entitled to human rights and self determination is one of them. If you can't understand this then you clearly are an idiot. There is no maybe.
“proposed the islands to became into an argentine-british”
The islanders don't want that, they would not be happy. Next idea please. You need to find a solution which pleases everyone.
“affirmed that self determination is only applicable to people under colonial domination, and it entails juridically to the resolutions of the u.n. on decolonization.
It holds that there is not any diffuse right to self determination, wich recognizes that right, to people under any circunstance.”
Axel, i don't want to insult you because you aren't a complete idiot. Please go and read up what self determination is and the United nations human rights.
Self-determination is the principle in international law, that nations have the right to freely decide on their sovereignty and international political status without external compulsion or outside interference
It is a human right. Human rights are “rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled to”.
“ ... self-determination is the principle in international law, that nations have the right to freely decide on their sovereignty and international political status without external compulsion or outside interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, be it independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation. Neither does it state what ... constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination...”
Complicated stuff
The first is practical - it already has possession of the Falkland Islands. The UK needs do nothing and the status quo will be maintained, which is acceptable to the UK and the Falkland Islands, but not to Argentina.
The second is legal (but is linked to the first) - there is, usually, a more onerous burden of proof on the applicant in cases before the ICJ. The UK has possession of the Islands, so why should it have to prove that the Islands belong to them when they already do? Argentina wants possession of the Islands, therefore it is up to them to prove that the Islands are theirs.
This is why it is up to Argentina, not the UK, to take the case to the ICJ if it wants to change the status quo.
“Beside, in order to take the malvinas-falklands to the icj, both countrys must agree on giving that step, it can't be done unilaterally, read about international right.”
Britain has already given Argentina three opportunities. In two instances, Argentina refused to go and in the third said it would not accept any determination. Between 1841 and 1985, the Falkland Islands were a colony. They are no longer a colony. Therefore, arbitration requires the agreement of the Falklanders.
“The convention signed in 1850, can't be used as an excuse to reject international arbitration in 1885”
Of course it can. The Convention agreed the evacuation of Martin Garcia and the return of vessels of war of the Argentine Confederation (Art.1). If the Confederation had any claim to the Falklands, it was the perfect opportunity. Wasn't mentioned. Wasn't an issue.
“Beside, it's not a contradiction to find a solution that respects the self determination, and our sovereign rights.”
Ridiculous. Sovereignty over a territory by one authority and self-determination by its inhabitants are mutually incompatible.
“Resolution A/64/106 from dicember of 2009, affirmed that self determination is only applicable to people under colonial domination, and it entails juridically to the resolutions of the u.n. on decolonization.”
I wonder axel continues with this codswallop. A/64/106 isn't a resolution. It's a document relating to the “Appointment of members of the Joint Inspection Unit”
But, provided the Falklanders agree, arbitration by all means. At the ICJ. Especially since, the Falklands being self-governing and not a UN member, they are under no obligation to accept any ICJ determination that they don't like.
All my posts are being deleted, posts without any foul language. Editor? Are we having a bad day?
I know this Axel, and I'm 100% certain that if Argentina ever did take it's Falklands claim to the ICJ the UK would be more than happy for the case to be heard.
This is clearly a british site link probably with their fish industry in the islands.
fislatino.com/fis/companies/details.asp?l=s&filterby=activities&activity_id=1676&page=1&company_id=23106&country_id=
Edificio Acapulco - Juan B. Blanco 1265 Of. 102(11300) ok.. we'll see
That's probably why the Spanish version is dead, they don't want exposure in South America. They don't need exposure either, the adds on this site are mostly for shipping companies on the islands. Like Sulivan Shipping
No one likes the truth when it's a dirty one.
Saludos
Like is aid before, , maybe self determination is really applicable to the islanders, but it's a very complicated issue, wich must be analized by an international arbitration, only that kind of institution has the true competence to determinate if that right is or not applicable to the malvinas-falklands cause.
You and i can believe whatever we want, but as long as both country dont agree eachother on taking the cause to the int. arbitration , not only the dispute will keep on existing, we wont know neather if self determination is or not applicable to our cause.
Regarding the convention of 1850, when you read my survey, you will know why i hold what i say, it's very log to explain it here, it's a very complicated and controverted issue too.
In the past, the u.k. had rejected the arbitration regarding the malvinas-falklands cause, and my country did the same, but regarding the south georgia and sandwich islands, this is why i think it's the right moment to take the cause to the int. arbitration, even in the conversations that i had with an expert in international right from our university, she told me she agree absolutly on giving that step.
On the other hand, in 2 of the books that i used for my survey, one of the most prestigious experts in international right from my country , he argued about taking the cause to the icj, or to another court, i really hope it happens soon, i think it's the only one way to finish with this sovereign dispute.
Regarding the posibility of becoming the islands into an argentine-british protectorate, if you dont like that proposal, then you propose your own solution, i am not the only one who has to propose solutions, you are also part of the conflict, and you must to propose too a solution that respects the rights of both populations, if you still avoid on taking the cause to the int. arbitration.
JASON, i have a comment for you in an article of yesterday, it's about msr kirchner.
Human rights - Humans. Everyone - applicable.
“Regarding the posibility of becoming the islands into an argentine-british protectorate, if you dont like that proposal, then you propose your own solution”
We are happy with the current situation. If Argentina can come up with a solution that EVERYONE will be happy with then we can talk, untill then you will have to deal with it.
But you can't please everyone.
Argentina recently put great effort into supporting Serbia's case against Kosovo, as it saw a judgement in favour of self-determination would hurt its “cause”.
You're swimming against the tide, as time and time again, in the ICJ, in the Security Council and in the General Assembly again and again the primacy of self-determination has been re-inforced. Argentina and Spain even sought to have a resolution nullified Self-determination in cases where there is a territorial dispute; that was overwhelmingly rejected.
News to me. When was that Axel?
35 years after the Convention of Settlement, Argentina proposed to reopen the dispute, kindly offering to take it to arbitration. This is used to excuse the refusal to go to the ICJ.
No point going to the ICJ if one side has nothing to argue!
So, simple question - “ What are the grounds for Argentina's claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands”?
I think that some of you dont have any idea about what a negotiations is.
When two ot three sides negotiate, all of them will have to cede unless a 30% on their pretentions, if some of you reject the idea of your compatriots from the oxford university, then i hope to read very soon a good idea that respects the rights of all the parts, i am sure that you are smart guys, and you'll propose sustainable and fair ideas.
On the other hand, the u.k. rejected in 1885 the proposal of taking the cause to the international arbitration, it's true that since 1850 untill 1885, argentina remained on silence on it's claim, but what you omit is that my country never recognized the legitimity of the u.k.on the islands, beside in 1849, minister moreno sent a letter to the britsih gov, where he said that my country wont insist on it's claims on the malvnas, because it felt humilliated due the rejection of the u.k, to find a solution to the dispute, however he affirmed in hes letter that the silence of the country didn't have to be considered as a renounce of our claim.
Beside the stoppel, and the adquisitive prescription are two very controverted issues that can't be applicable to our cause, when you read my survey you will know why.
On the other hand, i can't talk so much about the arguments of our claim on the south georgia and the sandwich islands, i know so little about it.
Regarding what happened in kosovo, i think we can't compare it with our cause, because they are very diferent, like i said before, only an international arbitration can argue if self determination is not or not applicable to our cause, we can speculate all that we want, but we are very ignorant on that issue, because we are not experts in international right, there are planty of questions that we dont know.
Furthermore, why should Argentina be involved in any sovereignty “negotiations”, when it has never had sovereignty over the Islands? Argentina wants something for nothing; it wants something that it has never owned.
The negotiations over the status of the Islands will take place when the Islanders want them to. And the negotiations will be between the Falkland Islanders and the UK. No one else.
As for South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the other British sub-Antartic islands, Argentina's claim is relatively recent and has no basis in international law whatsoever - it never discovered them, claimed them, settled them, conquered them, whatever. The concept of territorial integrity, flimsy enough when applied by Argentina to the Falklands, is simply laughable when Argentina tries to apply it these territories, some of which are nearly 1,000 kms away from Argentina.
Parts of Africa are closer to Argentina than some of these sub-Antarctic islands are!
Finally, the Islanders do have the right of self-determination. Whilst I'm not an expert in these areas, I am a lawyer and I do have some experience in constitutional and human rights law. The statements by Argentine commentators that somehow self-determination does not apply to the Islanders is rubbish and, like many other issues that Argentina comments on, simply repeating it again and again and again, does not make it any truer.
Are you also aware that the Falklands was somewhat of a bete noir to Moreno. In 1833, when the British returned, Rosas did not wish to bother protesting, he had to be persuaded by Moreno to do so. The annual protests and debates in Congress were the result of his urgings, the protests stopped largely because he played no active part after 1853.
Settling existing differences is renouncing your claim Axel, however which way you wany to cut it. You cannot decide to go back on your word.
A simple question, how can two nations settle their differences, yet leave a matter like the Falklands unresolved? Can we expect a reasonsed response?
Also for a claim not to fail by acquiesence it must be pursued regularly, silence does mean you lose any right to climb and by your own account the Argentines were silent for 35 years. The matter was not raised in the Argentine Congress between 1850 and 1941, that 91 years.
And Axel, you seem determined not to listen. Arbitration will not decide whether self-determination is applicable, it is fundamental human right guaranteed under the UN Charter. It fundamentally cannot be set aside.
In any event, the Botox Queen has categorically stated that the claim is NOT a historical one. So axel's mythical survey is pointless as well as non-existent. So, since his mythical survey was the only thing he really used to justify any attempt to debate with him, there is no need to respond to him anymore.
I understand Axel ... as far as I can tell, no-one has any idea what Argentina is basing it's claim on in respect of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands ..... It take the term 'spurious' to new limits.
How a country that wishes to be taken seriously can make a claim and then fail to put any argument at all in favour of that claim is quite beyond me, and makes Argentina look plain stupid!
Some of you are very misinformed, firtstly, accept it or not, before 1833, the islands were no body's colony, they were one more part of our country, our rights were absolutly legitimate, and the u.k. had no right to force our authoritys to leave the islands, low our flag, and deprive us of our legitimate rights.
I know perfectly that you wont never accept this fact, specially if all of you like to praise that pepper pascoe document, when you read my survey, you will know about all our legal bases of our rights on the malvinas-falklands.
The fact that any of you could not read it yet, it does not mean it does not exist, i hope i can publish it before the end of this year.
Anyway i understand that meantime i will keep on reading about many stupid speculations of some of you who use no more than 2 neurons.
On the other hand, the fact that i dont know about the arguments of our claim on the sandwich and the georgias islands, it does not mean that we dont have any, i must recognize that i was never so much interested about that question, but i will find out, because i must to know it, so please, think before you type.
Regarding self determination, maybe it is applicable, but it does not mean that we can't recur to the int. arbitration, even one expert in international right told me that, i dont think you know more than her.
It's evident that negotiations are not working, in some aspects i dont agree on the policy that our government has for the dispute. This is why it's so important that the u.k.propose my country to take the case to the icj, if the u.k. is so sure about it's rights, should consider very soon that posibility.
Regarding the stoppel, and the convention 1850, you are very misinformed about that, it's very long to explain it here, but all my arguments are based on legal facts.
Argentina's claim is based on claiming that it “inherited” the Islands from Spain after it unilaterally declared its independence from Spain. Rather importantly, Spain's claim was based on it inheriting the Islands from France, which disputed the UK's sovereignty of the Islands. The fact of the matter is that Spain did not inherit the Islands from France, but, at best, inherited a sovereignty dispute with the UK over the Islands.
Argentina then comes into the picture by claiming that it inherited the Islands from Spain after its independence, citing that the Islands were part of the Spanish-administered South Americas. The doctrine of “uti possidetis juris”, so loved by Argentine commentators, is, in fact, only applicable where a newly-established state (Argentina in this case) takes over the control of territory formerly-owned by the colonial power when that territory would otherwise have no ownership.
This was not the case with the Falklands. By the time that Argentina declared its independence, the Falklands had been settled and administered by Britain for many years. The fact that the settlement was subsequently vacated is of no matter, as Britain maintained its sovereignty over the Islands.
And that's without even getting into the treaties that may or may not have involved the Islands, as there are a number of commentators here who know far more about it than I do.
And please leave the issue of self-determination alone. You clearly know nothing about it. Whilst it was not called that back then, without the principle, Argentina, Brazil and the USA would not have been able to declare independence. These countries were peopled by immigrants and their “colonial masters” disagreed!
I know perfectly that you wont never accept this fact, specially if all of you like to praise that pepper pascoe document, when you read my survey, you will know about all our legal bases of our rights on the malvinas-falklands. [No survey. No rights]
The fact that any of you could not read it yet, it does not mean it does not exist, i hope i can publish it before the end of this year. [2050]
Anyway i understand that meantime i will keep on reading about many stupid speculations of some of you who use no more than 2 neurons. [3 times as many as you]
On the other hand, the fact that i dont know about the arguments of our claim on the sandwich and the georgias islands, it does not mean that we dont have any, i must recognize that i was never so much interested about that question, but i will find out, because i must to know it, so please, think before you type. [We thought, we investigated, we're satisfied]
Regarding self determination, maybe it is applicable, but it does not mean that we can't recur to the int. arbitration, [At the ICJ] even one expert in international right told me that, i dont think you know more than her. [Anyone does]
It's evident that negotiations are not working, in some aspects i dont agree on the policy that our government has for the dispute. This is why it's so important that the u.k.propose my country to take the case to the icj, if the u.k. is so sure about it's rights, should consider very soon that posibility. [No need]
Regarding the stoppel, and the convention 1850, you are very misinformed about that, it's very long to explain it here, but all my arguments are based on legal facts.”
On what possible basis Axel?
JASON: Pominoz explained very well the reasons why we inherited the islands, you can accep them or not, that's your choice, beside, i have an answer for you in the article of september 29th, the link is, mrs kirchner and multilateralism etc etc.
POMINOZ: You are very wrong, when we declared unilaterally our independence, in the islands there was no any administration, the rights of my country were absolutly legal, because it's the sucessor of spain, beside, i want you to tell me, ¿what right had the u.k.to force our authoritys to leave the islands, and deprive us of our rights on the malvinas?.
If the u.k. had any right on the islands, it was only on the gran malvina (west falkland), there was a garrison during 8 years in port egmont.
Regarding self determination, you can't compare the situation of my country, brasil's, and usa's, with the situation of the malvinas,that's a total meaningless and ignorant comparison.
When we decided to declare our independence, there was no any other country wich claimed for our territory since many years before,we were just under the a true colonial domination, much more than the malvinas now.
The case of the islands, is that we claim them since 1833, we had legitimate rights, like it or not, and this is why that both sides should sit and discuss to find a solution wich respects the rights of both populations, the islanders are not guilty for what happened in 1833, they live there since even 8 generations, but the can't ignore our rights, some they will have to understand that our rights are as legitimate as theirs.
“It inherited the islands from Spain on independence.”
A number of problems on this front.
1. At the point where Spain unilaterally abandoned the islands, they were administered from Montevideo. Under the Utis Possidetis Juris principle this would grant a claim to Uruguay not Argentina.
2. Utis Possidetis Juris as a legal principle was developed at the Conference of Lima in 1848, it was evolved as a means to settle territorial disputes between former Spanish colonies. Treaties cannot bind nations that were not a party to negotiations, so the Utis Possidetis Juris principle cannot and does not apply to the UK. Some African nations have agreed to adopt the principle to settle border disputes, this does not mean as Argentina claims it is a general principle of International Law.
“It sent David Jewett to the Falklands to ”claim the islands“.”
1. Jewett wasn't sent, his mission was totally different.
2. He wasn't a naval officer but a privateer employed by a consortium of BA businessmen.
3. He never intended to put into the Falklands, he was forced there by a storm.
4. BA were never told, they found out 2nd hand from foreign newspapers.
5. A fundamental flaw in this claim, is that others were already there.
“Argentina maintained a settlement from 1820.”
1. Totally false, the first attempt in 1824 by Vernet failed almost immediately.
2. As did the second in 1826.
3. Successfully established in 1828, were it solely an Argentine venture it might have given Argentina a claim. But it wasn't, Vernet played both sides claiming to act for Britain and Argentina simultaneously.
4. After the Lexington raid, most of the population abandoned the islands.
5. All Argentine proclamations were challenged by the UK and the US.
6. Argentina's attempt to establish a garrison failed and was disputed by the UK.
In 1833, Argentina's title to the islands was none existent. Vernet's duplicity explains the dispute but doesn't give Argentina a claim.
Axel, I suggest you read what PominOz wrote, because he explained exactly the opposite - why you did NOT inherit the islands.
In fact, in order for Argentina to have any claim over the Falklands, it would have to take Spain to the ICJ before it could even think about taking the UK to the ICJ! And then it would have to join in France as a Respondent! Britain, of the countries - France, UK, Spain - who had a claim on the Islands, has by far the best claim - reliant as it is on conquest - most recently in 1982! Where is Argentina in this claim? Reliant on Spain...who were reliant on France...who were in a dispute with the UK...who had their butts spanked by the UK.! Napoleanic Wars! Argentina then agreed with the UK that the Islands belong to the UK - for nearly 100 years - no disagreement; UK administration - until 1941, when the UK was in the middle of defeating the most dreadful criminals on the world's surface - and that's when the Argentines raised their claim again - to take advantage of British weakness - you Argentines should be ashamed of yourselves...and did we let you get away with it...?!!
As plenty of the British posters here say: NEVER! The Falklands are British...as long as they want then to be...!!!!!
They still let the families visit though didn't they.
Jorge, so dim he can't see what a superb argument against Argentina he is.
David Colville
Expelled by Argentina.
When that proved embarassing anyone else they didn't like was interned at Fox Bay.
Fact not opinion.
255 British service men were killed liberating the Falkland Islands
3 Falkland Islanders
649 Argentines died defending a corrupt military junta's attempt to exploit Argentines myths about the Falklands to prop up their corrupt regime.
The deaths of nearly a 1000 young men in the prime of life should be on your conscience for your country's unprovoked act of aggression. Sadly it probably won't be.
Fact not opinion
Again as someone who has campaigned for the last 15 years to achieve justice for Chagossians, spare me the feigned sympathy. What the British and American Governments did in the Chagos Islands was utterly wrong, which is why they've lost in court. However, you would do the same to the Falkland Islanders in a heart beat.
What the British Government's maltreatment of the Chagossians has to do with the Falkland Islanders, other than the FCO also actively worked against their interests to collude with the Argentine Government beats me. You don't give a shit about the Chagossians, its just crap to bad mouth the British with to you. You have zero compassion for their situation.
My opinion
“It inherited the islands from Spain on independence.”
Add number 3, which trumps the other two:
Spain did not begin to relinquish sovereignty over any of its territories in the Americas until December 1836, so it is legally impossible for Argentina to have inherited anything from Spain “on independence”, not even any of the territory it is in possession of now.
Nothing to stop you visiting the UK either but do carry on with that ridiculous line, you're doing a fine job on behalf of the Falkland Islanders.
#159 Yes, I forgot, Argentine independence was recognised in 1859. About 26 years too late and at the time Spain recognised the Falklands as British.
“POMINOZ: You are very wrong, when we declared unilaterally our independence, in the islands there was no any administration, the rights of my country were absolutly legal, because it's the sucessor of spain,”
Axel,
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that if they do something unilaterally, ie without the other party's agreement, they are not the successor to anything.
“beside, i want you to tell me, ¿what right had the u.k.to force our authoritys to leave the islands, and deprive us of our rights on the malvinas?.”
You had none at the time; You had not established any rights that were superior to either the British or Spanish rights
”If the u.k. had any right on the islands, it was only on the gran malvina (west falkland), there was a garrison during 8 years in port egmont.“
And Spain, not Argentina, had rights on East Falkland. But Spain never complained about the UK's actions.
”Regarding self determination, you can't compare the situation of my country, brasil's, and usa's, with the situation of the malvinas,that's a total meaningless and ignorant comparison.”
On your part. When these countries declared their independence, there was no such thing as a right to self determination in international law. Self determination as a right did not come into being until after 1945.
“When we decided to declare our independence, there was no any other country wich claimed for our territory since many years before,we were just under the a true colonial domination, much more than the malvinas now.”
Yes, there was. Spain still claimed your territory.
A unilateral declaration of independence does not by itself establish sovereignty over any territory. It must be accompanied by the establishment of effective control over territory and recognition by other states. And recognition will only apply to that territory over which the seceding entity has established effective control. And Argentina never established effective control over the Falk
The British :-)
Some of you are very misinformed, the utti possidettis was not a fancy right, maybe i didnt interpret conrrectly what pominoz said, but whatever he said, he is very misinformed regarding our rights, and as a lawyer, he does not have any objetivity, i recognize the mistakes that my country made, but you dont want to recognize that the u.k. had no right to force our authoritys to leave the islands, and deprive us of our rights, all my arguments are based on the conversations that i hdd with diferent experts in inernational right, beside, i included also in my survey, the words of diferent british experts, who dont coincid with your ignorant assertions, i dont think you know much more than them, meantime we can keep on speculating whatever we want, but i prefer to take as valid the words of those people who knows much more than you and i, i hope i can publish my investigation before the end of this year.
JASON, i answered you again the article about mrs kirchner.
Axel, you may get a promotion, but your survey is already discredited by your words on here! The Islands are British. Not for Sale ... one careful owner since 1690 ....... US !
No idea what you mean by 'fancy' right, but the misinformed person is you. Uti possidetis juris simply did not exist in international law at the time.
“that the u.k. had no right to force our authoritys to leave the islands, and deprive us of our rights”
You had no rights. You were a seceding entity that had not established any sovereignty in the Falklands.
If i made a survey, was not convence ignorant people like you about our rights on the malvinas, i dont give a shit if you agree or not with i say, if a decided to investigate, was because i started to have serious doubts of our rights, after i rode that pathetic and mendacious document from pepper and pascoe, however after all these monthes of investigations, i could realise that not only our side makes omitions.
On the other hand, you have no idea about what you are saying, like i said before, i prefer to take as valid the words of diferent experts in international right, because like it or not, those people knows much more than you and i, not even your compatriots (the britsih experts), coincid with your ignorant assertions.
So you dismiss the work of two academics in favour of other, as yet un-named, experts?
Hardly a credible approach to what you claim is a serious work?
You have failed utterly to show why the UK had no right to force the illegal Buenos Aires garrison to leave and you have failed utterly to show what rights Buenos Aires had in the Falkland Islands in 1833, before then, or since.
“all my arguments are based on the conversations that i hdd with diferent experts in inernational right”
As yet unnamed experts, so not credible as a source in a slightest. For the time being, your unnamed experts are right royally trumped by Pepper and Pascoe, academics who back up their assertions with facts based on original sources (ironically mostly documents held at the Argentine Archivo General de la Nación).
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!