The 33-nation CELAC grants full support to Argentina in the Falklands’ dispute
The members of the newly former CELAC (Community of Latinamerican and Caribbean States) unanimously approved on Saturday a document in support of Argentina’s claim over the Falklands/Malvinas and anticipated they would request the intervention of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
According to the text, CELAC instructed the pro-tempore presidency, now in the hands of Chile’s Sebastian Piñera to petition UN Bank Ki-moon to renew his efforts for the resumption of negotiations between Argentina and the UK referred to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute.
The so called Special Communiqué Project on the Malvinas Islands, states that the members of CELAC support “Argentina’s legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas, Georgia del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands, as well as its surrounding maritime spaces.
The document reiterates the standing interest of Latinamerica and the Caribbean that the UK accepts to hold sovereignty talks with Argentina so as to find “on the shortest time possible” a peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute.
The request is presented in conformity with statements from the United Nations, the Organization of American States, UNASUR and Mercosur as well as expressed in previous resolutions by the Group of Rio and the Latin America and Caribbean integration and development summit, which as of now are integrated into CELAC.
The 33-nation CELAC for the next twelve months under Chilean President Piñera also condemned the US embargo on Cuba and demanded an end to this ‘coercion’ measure.
“We demand an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade” imposed on Havana since 1962 because it is contrary to International law and to abidance of successive UN General Assembly resolutions.
The blockade causes “huge and unjustified damages to the well being of the Cuban people and affects peace and neighbourly relations among American nations. The coercion and unilateral measures are applied because of “political motives”
Allegedly the blockade is intended “to prevent Cubans from exercising their right to decide their own will, their political, economic and social system”.
However the two statements don’t seem to be strictly aligned to the spirit of Article 23 from the CELAC declaration which “acknowledges the right of each nation to build in peace and in freedom its own political and economic system, as well as from the institutional framework according to the sovereign mandate of its people, the dialogue, exchange and political negotiation process which activated from CELAC must take place in accordance with the following common values and principles: respect for International Law, peaceful solution of controversies; ban on the use and threat of the use of force; respect for self-determination; respect for sovereignty; respect for territorial integrity, the non interference in the internal affairs of each country; protection and promotion of all human rights and democracy”.
Suggested Stories
-
May 18th 2013
Maduro admits to knowing “the IDs and all” of the 900.000 Chavistas who did not vote for him
-
May 18th 2013
Argentina forces cancellation of all Lan flights by suspending ground services
-
May 17th 2013
Colombian president Santos announces he will seek second term
-
May 17th 2013
Argentina’s ‘autarkic project’ worsens bilateral relations and multiplies problems
39 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.
End result will be the usual total ZERO - nope- not bothered!
The day Arg starts producing statements saying“we wish to sit down and talk with the UK and Islands representatives about the future with an Open Agenda and NO prestated result” - only THEN we will have something to worry about!!
Please!!Stop with that stupid speech that repeats all the time .. The Gordito of cameron say of what the population of the Islands may wish - and their wishes and rights, ha,ha, It is the ending that stupid, we all know that our islands has a population implanted by the brits and they only wants to take non-recoverable natural resources of our islands, fear enough, mates! right now bring the little prince!! ha, ha
When they say“peacefull”-they mean that they hope that we will just give up without a fight.
Fat chance.
Now which way is it, as you can not pick and choose when to respect self determination, as it applies to all regardless of who claims the land that is subject to dispute.
As for going to Bank KI-Moon at the UN, well there is this little thing called the UN charter which is the core in which the UN was founded on and ratified by all members, that clearly states that all people have the right to self determination, which would mean there is sod all the UN or Bank Ki Moon can do. I suppose the best thing the UK can do right now is to ask the falklanders to hold a referendum on whether they which to remain british, become argentine or become an independant nation. Hell even if the choose independance they would likely be a defence treaty in place where the UK can station troops there to defend the independant state of the Falklands, south georgia and sout sandwitch islands, from agressive military actions latin american states. So the status que won't change but the political position of argentina and their claim will be weakened significantly along with any chance they think they have of getting sovereingty as the islanders will have spoken.
”What makes me laugh at their pathetic show of support is, first they are demanding the UK enter negotations over the sovereignty of the falkalnds islands, south georgia islands and south sandwitch island (love to know on what ground argentina believe the georgia and sandwich islands belong to them, surely not the contenital shalf argument lol)”.
-I have researched this and I cannot find a good reason why Argentina claims South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands. Can anyone expalin?
So it makes CELAC annoucement worthless, and clearly shows that not all CELAC nations will have been in support and only a majority were, though given the majority are Latin American and Cuba, then thats not surprise really.
Like i said you can not pick and choose as to when you respect self determination, you either respect it 100% in all cases or you don't respect it at all. And clearly Celac is acting in contradiction to its own acknowlegment of respecting self determination.
It's not only Cameron who supports British sovereignty- it is British policy through successive governments of any colour.
At least half the population of the Falklands is native going back as far as nine generations, which is more than most Argentinians can claim for their country. The other half are a diverse mixture of Brits, Chileans and others who have moved their of their own free will - not part of some dastardly masterplan to colonise the islands with a particular race.
It is worrying (British understatement!) that several Argy posters here seem to promote a sort of ethnic cleansing - Brits out, change lingua franca to Spanish, drive on the right, etc. Do they honestly think that this is a way to go about getting world support for their case?
With CFK cosying up to lose cannons like Chavez and Ahmedinajad, she is appearing more crazy by the day (comparisons with a certain Austrian or Libyan come to mind).
If I were Argentinian, I would want to distance myself from these ill-informed and irrational ravings, irrespective of my opinions about the Islands which, by the way, will ALWAYS be British unless the locals decide otherwise.
@14 I think you will find the right to self determination applies to all people regardless of any sovereingty disputes, as its the people that live on the land being disputed that have the final say as to who governs them and no other state has the right to make that decision for them. So it is not a question of if it applies as it will and does apply 100% in all cases whether the sovereingty is disputed or not. Plus Argenina nor yourself or any other country has the power to say that no it does not apply, only the ICJ can do that and we all know Argentina refuse to goto the ICJ because they know they will lose.
A map here on Wiki shows the Territories claimed by each state claiming sovereingty over antartic territories. You will see how argentinas claim terrotory is smack back in the middle and takes up a huge majority of British Antartic territory. It would seem Argentina are hell bent on claiming anything that belongs to britian in the south atlantic. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Antarctic_Region.png
So how argentina or chile for that matter can claim antartic territory that is part of the british antartic territory a good 35 years after britian claim it is beyond me.
Resolution 1514 establishes two fundamental principles that should guide the process of decolonization: the self-determination and territorial integrity.
Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. This restriction on the principle of self implies that it gives way to respect the territorial integrity of States.
Malvinas were occupied by the United Kingdom by force in 1833, expelling the established population there and not allowing their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.
Admiting the self-determination principle of the present inhabitants, of British citizenship, would allow group of people of one colonial power decide the fate of a territory which is claimed by a State to which that power stripped by an act force for almost two hundred years.
The principle of self determination cannot be applied, as its exercise by the Islanders would cause the “breach of national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina.
intervention of England occurs, and 2. On the theory of continuity,
by which the Malvinas, South Georgia (San Pedro) and Sandwich
South, are part of the geological unit of the Republic.
[Argentinas leaders awaiting for a reply.
Britain replies,
UP YOURS .
I hope is clear enough for London and their illegal colony in Argentina.
You are not welcome in South America anymore.
The argument that Argentina has under General Assembly resolution 1514(XV) rights does not follow; Argentina claims rights under resolution 1514(XV) but has none because it a third party with a dispute
Spain had no territorial claim of South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands; thus Argentina gained no lawful rights from Spain, but did invent bogus claims which Argentina refuses to be subject to the evidential standards required by the UN International Court of Justice, which is the proper court for Argentina to take its claim against Great Britain. However, Argentina fears high standards of evidence and avoids the ICJ.
Resolution 2065(XX) invited the Argentine Republic and Great Britain to settle Argentina's dispute over sovereignty by negotiation. Negotiation of sovereignty is only a separate Argentine demand
Argentina settled all differences with Great Britain in 1850 when the Argentine Congress ratified the Convention of Settlement
Argentina is obligated in international law to obey the UN Security Council and the UN Charter but it does not and instead represses the Falkland Islanders development by use of systematic political and economic persecution against them with its supporters
Shame on Argentina
www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?mmsi=308243000¢erx=-47.24927¢ery=56.16461&zoom=10&type_color=8
Let us see how much difficulty this vessel comes across as is passes by Argentina's so called South American “supporters”.
I wonder if any of the Argentines have actually bothered to read 1514?
Article 2. All peoples of the right to self-determination.
Article 7. Is a sub-ordinate clause. It is intended to stop colonial powers breaking up a territory, it doesn't exist to deny the right to self-determination if a 3rd party decides to invent a sovereignty claim. Its there to protect the rights of the people of non-self-governing territories not deny them.
Or is basic written comprehension not part of the curriculum?
en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514
UNGA resolutions, as well as being non-binding, are also non retroactive
www.ejil.org/pdfs/16/5/329.pdf
Summed up in two words, Utter Crap.
You delude yourself. Be thankful for what you have & stop trying to steal what doesn't belong to you.
The safety valve is blowing , and Argentina is sitting on top.
.
NO. 1 United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 502, adopted on 3 April 1982, demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities and a complete withdrawal by all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands. Thus, the United Nations Organisation highest body IMPLICITLY RECOGNISED UK SOVEREIGNTY over the Falkland Islands.
No. 2 United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 2065 of 16 December 1965, like all GA resolutions, it is not mandatory. Therefore, it is just a blah, blah
“chiffon de papier.”
Honi soit qui mal y pense,
Philippe
After nearly 30 odd years, you would have thought she would have stopped hostilities by now,
Perhaps someone would like to refresh their memories.
Perhaps she has forgotten.
Just a Dementing thought .
'The 33-nation CELAC for the next twelve months under Chilean President Piñera also condemned the US embargo on Cuba and demanded an end to this ‘coercion’ measure.
“We demand an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade” imposed on Havana since 1962 because it is contrary to International law and to abidance of successive UN General Assembly resolutions.
The blockade causes “huge and unjustified damages to the well being of the Cuban people and affects peace and neighbourly relations among American nations. The coercion and unilateral measures are applied because of “political motives”
Allegedly the blockade is intended “to prevent Cubans from exercising their right to decide their own will, their political, economic and social system”.'
The US is quite within its rights to impose an economic blockade on Cuba as they gained control over Cuba by right of conquest after the Spanish / American war......
Unless of course it was inherited from Spain by Argentina...........
condem the embargo on the falklands by argentina,
or is as we thought,
Argentina is above the law,?
They think that they are!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!