Britain steps up its claim to the Falkland Islands
By David Usborne - The following piece published by The Independent reveals the contents of a letter delivered by the British ambassador to the UN, Sir Mark Lyall Grant to UN Secretary General Ban-ki Moon rebutting Argentine historic arguments on which Buenos Aires supports its sovereignty claim over the Falkland Islands.
Britain has told Argentina to go back to its own history books to understand why it can have no claim over the Falkland Islands and why there will be no negotiations on sovereignty as it is demanding.
The details of the Britain's territorial embrace of the Islands going back to 1765 and the ejection of an Argentine garrison in January 1833 are laid out in a letter delivered by the British ambassador to the UN, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, and seen exclusively by The Independent.
The five-page rebuttal to a protest letter distributed by the Argentine government to all the members of the UN General Assembly early last month is more comprehensive than any in the past, diplomatic sources said. The exchange came as tensions between the two countries were escalating even before the arrival on the Islands on Thursday of Prince William on a six-week deployment for the Royal Air Force.
The impending 30th anniversary of the Falklands War, as well as the decision in London to deploy the HMS Dauntless, has also been a factor in the deepening diplomatic crisis. Late Thursday a Union Jack was burned outside the British Embassy by demonstrators and the Vice President, Amado Boudou, publicly suggested Britain was stoking the stand-off to distract its own population from domestic problems.
The British letter, dated 27 January, chastises Argentina for a series of recent Falklands-related measures, including cajoling neighbouring countries into turning away any ships flying the Falklands flag. “These disturbing developments call into question the commitment of the Republic of Argentina to peaceful cooperation in the South Atlantic,” it says.
It opens however with a history lesson not likely to be well-received in Buenos Aires. It notably highlights an alleged flaw in Argentina's position that the Islands are part of the territory of the Tierra del Fuego province. It was half a century after the 1833 incidents that Tierra del Fuego even became part of Argentina, the letter, asserts. British sovereignty on the islands goes back, by contrast, to 1765.
“In 1833 the territorial borders of the Republic of Argentina did not include the geographical southern half of its present form,” Sir Mark wrote. These facts demonstrate “that the Republic of Argentina's claim to the Islands which it bases on the principle of disruption to its territorial integrity is without foundation”.
The request repeatedly made by Buenos Aires for negotiations on the future of the Falklands is rejected by Sir Mark on the grounds that those living on the Islands are entitled to self-determination, which is enshrined in the UN Charter itself, and do not seek any change.
“There can and will be no negotiation on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until such time as the Falkland Islanders so wish,” Sir Mark insists. “The United Kingdom and the Republic of Argentina cannot negotiate away the right to self-determination. It is a principle that we are both legally bound to respect.”
The British Defence Secretary, Mr Philip Hammond, played down Prince William's deployment. “He's there as a search and rescue pilot, that's a humanitarian function and it's a routine deployment.”
In his letter, Sir Mark meanwhile turned back Argentine complaints about short-range missile exercises. “The United Kingdom undertakes routine military exercises... it has done so since they were deployed there in response to the Republic of Argentina's invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982.”
Suggested Stories
-
May 23rd 2012
Following the Falklands’ ad incident Britain/Argentina at the opening hockey match in London
-
May 23rd 2012
Ambassador Castro embroiled in controversy over Falklands and “possible constitutional reform”
-
May 25th 2012
Cameron pays tribute to Falklands’ conflict dead and reaffirms Islanders right to self determination
-
May 24th 2012
Spain now tells Argentina “YPF is no more than a bump” in a long shared history
41 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.
Darwin arrived on March 1st 1833 - somehow I don't think it was your flag that was flying :-)
A history lesson - falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-history5.pdf
1- Inherited the territory of the Spanish Crown.
2- Our people on the islands were expelled by british conquerors.
3- The islands are located in our continental shelf.
4- The right to self determination is not applicable to kelpers because they were not colonized. They came with the conquest. Literally they were implanted by the british crown. By the way, is that true that you kelpers can't choose your polical athority en tha islands?
Mmm..can you smell it? Smells like Hong Kong.....smells like the end of territorial colonialism.....good luck with that Gibraltar thing, by the way..
On top of that, Spain did not recognise Argentina until 1863 and never once protested the British presence in the Falklands after 1833.
I will take the time to instruct you,
The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata claimed their independence from the Spanish Crown in 1816. Since then, all the territories belonging to the Crown, became part of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata (including las Malvinas). After some provinces take their own way (La Banda Oriental became Uruguay, Alto Peru became Peru and Bolivia, etc.), Argentina, which is the legal extension in the time of the United Provinces,is reaffirmed as the legitimate sovereign of the territory called Malvinas. As evidence of the legal extension is the Anglo-Argentine treaty, 1825 that remains in force.
The recognition of Spain that you name, was given at that time because just in 1854 our Constitution was enacted (República). Before that, the highest political body of Argentina was the Confederacy.
Argentina’s claims over the Islands are therefore immaterial for in 1765, Argentina did not exist as an independent, self governing or recognised state. Laying such a claim would be like someone claiming ownership rights over something despite having not even being born or even conceived at the time when it last changed hands. And Britain never relinquished sovereignty over the Islands despite the erroneous claims to the contrary by poorly read sabre rattlers from across the ditch.
Why are Uruguay, Paraguay, parts of Bolivia, Peru and Chile which previously formed part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate allowed to “take their own way”, but the Falklands are not?
Which legal instrument granted Argentina all of Spain's rights, titles and obligations over those parts of South America which had previously been the Viceroyalty of the River Plate.
By that logic you have sovereingty to SPAIN too ehh.
As for the Anglo-Argentine Treaty of friendship, , Commerce, and Navigation - Which officially recognized Argentina as a country, also forced Argentina to open its economy to British commercial interests. When Latin American countries reneged on their agreements, did not respond to British efforts to force open their economies, or could not pay back their loans, the British often resorted to military interventions. The British (along with the other major European powers) punished Latin American countries by blockading their major port cities, such as Buenos Aires during the 1840s, and Veracruz, Mexico in the 1860s. British forces left Veracruz only when Mexico agreed to resume payments. Their is nothing in that agreement about britian cededing any sovereignty it held on any part of any territory it had sovereignty over in south america, at all. Your simply mistaking britians recognition of your country being an independant sovereign country as being that we recgonized your sovereignty over the falklands when we did not and not only that at the time your countries borders were a good 900 miles from the islands, so it could not have been possible for you to have had any form of sovereignty over the islands at all. You also have the Treaty of friendship in 1851 where argentina clearly stated all disputes with britain are settled, that would have included the falklands dispute, and only once was that dispute brought up between the signing of the agreement and when peron reneged on the treaty of friendship in the 1930's which is where your modern day claim for the islands originate from. So your talking crap Ernvera, and haven't a clue about the treaty you quoted or history.
Except everything you just described is not true. When the United Providences declared independence, territory was not transferred to it, rather territory was captured in act of rebellion. Sovereignty could only be transferred by recognition by Spain.
As regards the 1825 Treaty, both the US and the UK when they recognised Argentina recognised the independence of the state but specifically did not recognise all of the territory claimed by that state.
Your statement is nothing more than a legal pretension that has no basis in International Law. Which explains why Argentina has never been too keen to test it in court.
NO NEGOTIATIONS ON SOVEREIGNTY.
None.
Pity Argentina cannot write such letters, the next time will be the first.
So to summarize:
no change in legal status of the Falklands (there are no Malvinas);
Islanders still have the only say about determining their future;
Argentina need to stop behaving like children (in diplomatic language of course).
So what's the problem? :o)
Let me tell you what it is.It's a political response to Argentina's position.It's not correct.Otherwise why was there a need to 'evict' the population of the islands.Of course evict is the wrong word because that would be illegal occupiers were removed.But that isn't what happened.The islands were occupied by a hostile country.And the republic of Eire did not exist at the time,did it.
@9 I will take the time to instruct YOU. The concept of 'inheriting' territories from the Spanish Empire only existed inside South America. Nor did Britain recognise Spain's claim to sovereignty. So argieland cannot claim something that had not been accepted as belonging to Spain. The principles of 'uti possidetis' and 'uti possidetis juris' were not international law at the time, simply 'principles' that were still a matter of discussion. Spain did not recognise argieland until 1859 and did not transfer or cede any territory when it did. You know and understand so little.
Now, since argieland clearly has no legitimate or valid claim, any action by argieland to interfere with the Falklands economy, trade, international links or international transport will be an act of war. As Britain, by the authority of the United Nations, is responsible for the Falklands foreign affairs and defence, I expect you will be able to understand what argieland is bringing upon itself.
As you have already seen, your supporters tend to change their position when arriving vessels fly the Red Ensign. Moving along, what happens when the British Ministry of Defence takes control of a British civilian airliner and uses it to replace the LAN Airlines flight between Chile and the Falklands, except that it never stops in argieland. Interfering with our aircraft is definitely illegal and an act of war!
What happens when your vessels, e.g. fishing boats, go to sea and never come back? You are playing with fire!
It's hard for us in the West to understand how some countries in the New World think. We must first understand that many of these new countries lack confidence, have no real identity and even after throwing off the trappings of colonialism, welcomed with open arms the hegemony of American power and corporate domination.
Such countries have not developed mature systems of democracy or diplomacy. They believe that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes true. If you rant often enough, others will listen and believe.
The Argentines are not a real nation, their country has only existed for about 175 years. Most Argentines trace their family history to Italy, Spain, Germany and the British Isles. The only real Argentines are the Amerindians and their nation is the entire continent of America.
The Argentines I know have Italian mothers, English father, Spanish grandfathers, German grandmothers, Welsh great great uncles. It's technically impossible to claim Argentines are a nation.
They also have the most comically fascist like government on the entire continent. Their entire policy agenda revolves around a group of islands they work 24/7 to alienate the population of. While spreading lies and peddling rants about “the British” that make Mugabe look normal by comparison.
Latin Americans find Argentina an alien culture, its a colonial relic, a piece of Europe transplanted onto a continent thousands of miles away. The culture is Latin European, with a touch of English and Welsh. It certainly bears no resemblance to its neighbors in Paraguay, Bolivia, Venezuela, or Peru.
Even the Argentine honour guards wear colonial uniforms copied from the British and Spanish Imperial era.
They are a throwback to another age. An age of fascism.
That seems fair, I believe Chile has a better claim to halve of Argentina
,
Yes Chile, get your claims books out, and demand your territory back .
I have been in Sea Cadets and Marine Detachment since I was 8. I plan to join the Defence Force as soon as I finish 6th form. Maybe to you I'm just a girl but I tell you now, come and see how straight I shoot. Come and find out!
There are hundreds more just like me, waiting. We've heard all the talk now come on!
Totally false. The specificity of the Malvinas question is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility is to apply the principle of self-determination, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. In this regard it should be noted that resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” in the sixth paragraph states that “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. ”In the Malvinas Question General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine - the principle of territorial integrity taking into account the interests and NOT the wishes of the people of the islands - in its resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12) , 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute and therefore not of atodeterminación. The islanders are oviamente can not judge and party at a time of conflict.
The fact remains that the islanders with to remain British and that is an end to it, sooner or later Argentina will except this,
if 1833 was allowed in any contexts of what Argentina wished, then the floodgates would open, and then where would we be,
Live for the future, remember their are other countries that have claims on Argentinean territory, you may well end up with less land than you started with.
An interesting thought is it not.
No extremist. Leave the hatred and all that Argentina is Latin America. The fact is that the islanders can not be Bibritánicos in Argentine territory. Today there are mayors, deputies and senators of English origin and are fully integrated into our society. Never will happen in 1982, our constitution says:
“La Nacion Argentina ratifies its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and island spaces, being an integral part of the country. The recovery of these territories and the full exercise of sovereignty , respecting the way of life for its inhabitants and according to the principles of international law are a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people. ”
CONSTITUTION ARGENTINA, First Transitional Provision
@ 11 J.A. Roberts
Uruguay, Bolivia etc. had constituted politically and they took their own path as a people. The population of Las Malvinas was made up of Argentina, until an invasion by the British expelled us.
@ 12 Teaboy2
I did not talk about recognition of sovereignty, but of recognition as a country. A usual excuse that usually give kelpers and British, is “Argentina is a country since 1854” and that's not true.
@ 13 JustinKuntz
All the Spanish colonial territory in South America, after our independence, became part of the United Provinces of Rio de La Plata. If your teachers told you another story, that's not my fault.
@ 17 Conqueror
In truth, it matters little British surveys on sovereignty that Spain had on the American territories, needless to say that we speak Spanish in most of the continent as proof that a whim is no more than reality.
Your whole bellicose rant is irrelevant, in the United Nations our claim is accepted as legitimate, why is that?
And I explained above that Argentina is the legal continuation in time of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata.
@ 18 AndyMac
Look what we have here. First, you should know (if you did not know, I tell you) that across the pond there is another world. Not only is another land, another way of thinking about the world and men. We do not have a racist view of what it means to be a nation. A national project is what puts unity in the cultural diversity we have in America (and by extension Argentina). Here, indigenous, native and immigrant children are an intercultural, live together under the same flag and destination. I know it will be very difficult to understand for you, since you practice racism and prejudice every day, but here we see things from another perspective. And if you call us “fascists” to be Peronist, you do not have the foggiest idea of revolution Peron hio on this earth. Obviously, the benefit of Argentine interests, not British.
the fact remains. in the 21st century, no country has a right to take anothers land,
thats the end to it,
is called democracy,
Well, if Old Smooth Neck aka Old Rubber Neck or the Queen of Plastic, really, really, believes this twaddle we all know what she should do and where she should go to get a LEGAL resolution to this 'claim'
ALL TOGETHER NOW: ICJ, ICJ, ICJ.! How many more times do we have to tell you. Anything less will not do, will not work. The Falklands (there are no Malvinas) belong to the Islanders.
They are insane.
we aint heared nothing yet,
its 22.17 in the UK,
dont know what time it is in the south atlantic,
Mmm...Can you smell it? Can you smell the fear? Smells like Hong Kong ... it seems you are alone in this one...
Volveremos Malvinas!!
Volveremos Malvinas!!
You are rigth ernvera,uk exit from Malvinas.....It is written in the walls.The one's not seeing this are the brits in this forum.Because the smart brits,who do not waste time in this almost usseless forum,thinks about the end of the brits in MAlvinas....
MALVINAS ARGENTINAS!
“ Without your retarded by effective attitude as SERVANT our family would not be able to exist in this century” mom-queen-saurio
Que?
You make no sense, but then again, malvinistas make no sense!
why you then
////////////////////////////////
you are not first ,,
lady bashing is what you do best, is it not,
please answer thequestion,
why you then
////////////////////////////////
you are not first ,,
lady bashing is what you do best, is it not,
please answer thequestion,
I just do nto waste time,when the Argentines,answered briliantly the Legal,historical aspects...That is the reason,uk is there by force.....NO proper titles.Taht is the reason uk never won anything at the UN ,OAS
That always picks of the poor chimps,
Perhaps he's Tarzan calls are falling on deaf ears .
But then, if grunting is all he can manage, who are we to take this simple pleasure from him.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!