Islanders’ flash-rally to express unhappiness with world media coverage of Falklands’ dispute
On a beautiful Wednesday evening, 130 vehicles and as many as 300 people from the Falklands Islands joined a flash-rally to express their feelings about the current political tensions with Argentina that have escalated over the last few months.
An inspiration of Norman Clarke, a local photographer, the rally was an opportunity for people to express their unhappiness about some of the statements printed in the world press about the Falkland Islands and Islanders themselves, mostly inspired on Argentine untruthful, sometimes insulting propaganda.
“People are not very happy at the moment with a lot of the things being said in the press” said Norman. “With all that’s been going on they don’t feel particularly happy about the number of Argentines in town these last couple of weeks and they’re unhappy that people like Sean Penn, who know nothing about the Falklands, is saying the things that he does. “
The idea came to Clarke only Tuesday afternoon and very quickly he mobilized friends, acquaintances, facebook and the local radio station to get the message out. It is likely that if there had been more than 24 hours notice, substantially more flag-bedecked vehicles and people would have joined in the good-humored and quite cheerful procession through the streets of Stanley.
Overall, Argentine visitors to Stanley who are aware that Falkland Islanders have no love for their country, are surprised at the generally affable stance Islanders take towards them.
But the constant pressure from the press -notwithstanding the many very positive stories being published about the Falklands- is beginning to fray nerves. Long used to insulting and frequently bizarre pronouncements made by Argentina, and largely undaunted by the escalation of threats being made against them, people are now feeling quite irritated by some of the flippant and ignorant misconceptions taken by journalists, commentators and recently, Hollywood superstars, who have offered the world the benefit of their often suspect wisdom.
The time was right, Norman Clarke said, “for people to show how they are feeling in a totally nice way, not showing their teeth, just proud of whom they are and showing everyone this is what they are.”
The total population of the Falklands is barely 3.000 and Stanley’s 1.800, so the rally, almost spontaneous (organized in less than 24 hours) means almost 20% of Stanley residents turned out to express their feelings.
By Janet Roberston -SeAledPR - Stanley
Suggested Stories
-
May 25th 2012
Cameron pays tribute to Falklands’ conflict dead and reaffirms Islanders right to self determination
-
May 24th 2012
Falklands’ service to honour British Forces who lost their lives when landing for the recovery of the Islands
-
May 23rd 2012
Falklands’ economy “booming” in spite of Argentina’s efforts of a blockade
-
May 23rd 2012
Following the Falklands’ ad incident Britain/Argentina at the opening hockey match in London
73 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.
About time Brits, go back where you belong in Europe.
Are you a fan of wife beater Sean Penn?
Lets face they go to the UN say they will accept mediation. Well it is not needed as before in the 90's they walked out of talks and bridge building. The problem is how can you have mediation on a subject like soveriegnty when both countries claimit for themselves. It would be a pointless waste of time “falklands are our islands” “no malvinas are ours” it would be back and forth. The only way round that is ICJ which Argentina does not want because of a great fear of losing. All I can say is, Argentina leave the islanders alone. Stop destabalising the south atlantic and focus all that time on effort on something else that is achievable.
Nor has anyone else's claim - probably due to the fact that they've never endorsed or voted on any such thing. If I recall correctly the UN hasn't endorsed the claim that the Falkland Islands aren't made of chocolate either - so maybe they are?
Every country has a right to say who comes in & who does not.
So what is your problem?
lf it was up to me l wouldn'tlet any of you in.
This is not & never has been your land. You can bleat as much as you like but it doesn't change a thing. lts NOT YOURS,
You have NO RIGHTS or Sovereignty here so we are not going to recognise anything that you say & there will be NO NEGOTIATIONS.
You say that its time to do business with the mainland.
Who tore up all the business agreements?---------Argentina!
You could have had a share in the oil, now you'll get nothing.
Can't you understand, we don't want anything to do with you.
Go and colonise someone else.
Resolution 3485 (XXX) on Timor:“Calls upon all States to respect the inalienable right of the people of Portuguese Timor to self-determination, freedom and independence and to determine their future political status in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration of the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”. Resolution 3160(XXVIII) on Falkland Islands (Malvinas): ”Recalling also its resolution 2065 (XX) of 16 December 1965, in which it invited the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),
Gravely concerned at the fact that eight years have elapsed since the adoption of resolution 2065 (XX) without any substantial progress having been made in the negotiations,
Mindful that resolution 2065 (XX) indicates that the way to put an end to this colonial situation is the peaceful solution of the conflict of sovereignty between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom with regard to the aforementioned islands”.
Please notice Kohen where is says “bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations” (e.g. Self-Determination). Also, notice...“the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands”. It is a bit unfortunate that your point completely goes against what you are trying to achieve Kohen.
The Falkland Islanders have every right to self-determination. If you do not believe in self-determination and just think Argentina have a claim on the island no matter what, then you are very much wrong.
@12 “...and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands” as mentioned. Does this mean that Argentina can do what the hell they like? No. The interests and views of the Falkland Islanders are far more imporant!
If you want to keep your own money (in resources) ...that is possible.
If you want to keep your way of life...i´ts possible too, making a good agreement-
300.000 british people live in Argentina.... and we can´t say to them how they need to live-
You are living there for 8 generations....why? because your ancestors send back to my country OUR ANCESTORS....I understand, 180 years after, you (today) possibly feel no responsability...but UK is UK even today, and we claim to them, not to you- OK?
Your interest and whisses will be a part of the negoctiation ONLY when UK recognize our sovereignity- That´s all my friend-
Regards...and...try to make new piquetes ....... maybe we can help you whit that !
I want to see ISOLDE in General Paz and Eva Peron whit one cartel claim AUTODETERMINATION for Malvinas...nice shoot!!!
Long Live the Falklands.
You argies really really need to understand that before 1982 it was like the old testament, and the fulfilment of the old testament was when you decided to go against international law, and the UN and just invade someone's property. Quoting ”resolution 2065 (XX) of 16 December 1965” is just fallacious, given huge amounts of popular support were behind the militaristic invasion and we were happily negotiating oil and flights to the mutual benefits of all with you until 2003 when you unilaterally decided you didn't want to talk any more.
In historical objective fact you never ever owned the islands, you simply squatted on them and were ejected. This includes an attempt to illegally claim they were yours by buenes aires. The UN is built upon the concept of self determination, so you fail there.
Given that the Spanish Crown agreed the islands were british, the only thing left for you is 'geographic proximity' and 'historical revisionism'. If you choose to claim the islands based upon either of those, then you're basically the Empire of Japan version 2.0.
If you think there is something to negotiate based upon these objective facts, then please can you enlighten us as to what it is?
And who exactly are you to tell British people what they can or cannot do?
So “my friend” tell me the name and occupation of your ancestor who you say was evicted from the British Falkland islands and explain how you are related.
@12 Tell us, Marcel Wave, do you ever read or learn ANYTHING? Let me try to help you, jelly head. United Nations General Assembly resolutions are NOT BINDING. Do you understand what NOT BINDING means? It means no-one has to pay any attention to them unless they want to. Therefore the Falkland Islands and the United Kingdom pay no attention to them. Let me put it another way in case you have difficulty with polite English. You can take your UN resolutions and shove them up your a*se!
@15 Your presence here wouldn't be so bad if you had the intelligence not to raise points that have been raised and destroyed so many times. Unless YOUR ANCESTORS were members of the illegal garrison in place in 1832/3 or, alternatively, were marmosets, tamarins, capuchins, squirrel monkeys, night monkeys, titis or something similar, they were not sent back to your country. The majority of the human settlers on the Falkland Islands in 1833 were persuaded to remain and continue the project with the feral cattle to make fresh meat available to passing ships. Incidentally, Britain was on the Falkland Islands from 1690 and has NEVER renounced sovereignty. As Britain was prepared to go to war with Spain over sovereignty of the Islands, you can imagine how we feel about a bunch of self-important, egoistical rebel COLONISTS with delusions of grandeur. See if you can understand this. The majority of the British people are quite happy to see argieland turned into nuclear wasteland rather than have you impose your will on the Falkland Islanders. And you know we can do it, don't you? Here's another statistic you can mull over. The Trident D5 missile can carry up to twelve 475 kiloton warheads. If you have a problem with the math, that's 5,700 kilotons. The bomb the US dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. And the UK can do that 58 times. That's an objective FACT!
The ex- british member of Parliament: George Galloway has jumped on the bandwagon now and he has expressed considerable opposition to britain and its support for the Islanders.
He does a radio talk show now on Britain's most popular station: Radio Talk Sport - which you can hear on-line.
He has the Friday night spot which runs from 10pm - 1am (GMT) and I believe will be broadcasting this coming Friday.
I will be interested to your reactions to what Mr. Galloway has to say about this debate.
I don't bother to post links to much of the other stuff I see in the regional media but generally, the smaller regional media outlets are generally more supportive of the Islanders. It is the attitude of the mainstream media that surprises me and even the BBC has shifted to the left on this issue.
He talks bullshit just like Dreyfoss.
As for Galloway, he revels in being contrary and no one takes any notice of him. He has aligned himself to too many crackpot ideas and people to be taken remotely seriously. His politics is just slightly to the left of Fidel Castro and to be honest it might be as well for him to leave the UK as he seems depply unhappy with anything and everything the UK does, a bit like the RG's really. Maybe he should set up a squat in BA as the RG's know all about squatting on oother people's land.
British Acceptance: “his said Britannick Majesty, in order to show the same friendly disposition on his part, has authorised me to declare, that he will look upon the said declaration of the Prince de Masserano, together with the full performance of the said engagement on the part of his Catholick Majesty, as a satisfaction for the injury done to the crown of Great Britain.” If someone acknowledged the sovereignty of the other, this was the British government, not Spain.
Then, you left Port Egmont in 1774 living a plate that was taken by the Spaniards and sent to Buenos Aires. The Spaniards destroyed your fort. 27 governors continued the Spanish presence in the Islands until 1811. What did the British do? Absolutely nothing. 1820: Argentine taking of possession. What did the british government do? Absolutely nothing. Performance of differentsovereign acts by Buenos Aires during the 1820: what did the British do? Nothing. The British had even forgotten the islands. First reaction in half a century: 1829 protest. If someone squats, who is it?
“Is that caravan headed to the airport?
About time Brits, go back where you belong in Europe.”
Are you serious? Pretty sure that Marcos Alejandro isn't native South American name, your family is from Europe as well mate. My family moved to the Falklands in 1840 to an Island with no indigenous population where as the Spanish turned up to an already populated land and took it from them creating Argentina. You took their land and now you are trying to take ours.
Mike Bingham is it. Fcuk Argentina and the bus she rode in on.
Bark all you want , you are not geting the Falklands, Dick heads!!
The USA backs Britain over NO MILITARIZATION of the Falklands (there are no Malvinas) or the South Altlantic.
Read 'em and weep you bunch of losers.
As for your supporters, they to will drop you like a hot brick when the time comes,
Just like sheep, you are being herded, but just cant see it,
The British Falklands are not yours, and never will be,
All you are doing is pushing to the point of no return,
Basically you overestimate yourselves,
And vastly underestimate the British resolve for democracy,
Because this is what the goal will be, not Argentina against the UK, but democracy against dictatorship, and you are not only going to lose,
But lose very badly,
But then what do we brits know, eh,
.
You are absolutely right: The resolutions of the Assembly and the Committee on Decolonization United Nations exists to be met. United Kingdom does not comply with international law. They are totally binding to ensure world peace. 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. No self-determination. 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 Charter of the United Nations. ”decolonization committee is very important and irreplaceable because the International Court of Justice in its judgments are based on the decolonization committee. England is afraid of the committee because that shows that you have no basis to hold the Falkland Islands and clearly show their colonialist and imperialist stance. Of the 16 cases of colonialism that is the United Nations, 10 are in England, including Gibraltar, Falkland and others. Further evidence of colonialism and imperialism of England is impossible.
interesting flag...
www.flickr.com/photos/ontheglobe/1747142418/in/set-72157603277780450/
Talking about “unhappiness”, Did you know MercoPress that there were a lot of chileans in Chile and Argentina that disliked a lot that some of their countrymen had used their flag (chilean) to protest against Argentina?
They say “You went there by your own personal decision, now handle it”.
If you try militarily, it will end up like last time - utterly, utterly humiliating.
@33 Firstly, The UK has had no engagement with the UN Colonisation Committee for ages. The rantings of the third world countries that sit on it are not binding.
Secondly, one of the cornerstones of the UN is the principle of self determination, it's not something you can turn on and off at will, based on the ejection of people illegally squatting on your property.
Thirdly, “The specificity of the Malvinas question is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833” >> They were our islands since we originally stepped on them them in 1690, and then spent most of our time getting rid of the french and spanish.
“expelled the original population and did not allow their return” >> That has no basis in fact, as the people on the island chose to remain, except for a few well cited examples. Eviction of squatters is normal practice under law.
“thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.” >> This has no basis in fact. It's just a fallacy, your territory has never included the Falklands, nor any of the other islands associated with it.
“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. ” >> It was never a part of your nation nor territory. Pure Fallacy.
John Vyvyan, second secretary at the Foreign Office, internal minute, July 24th, 1935
Thing about opinions is that they aren't fact.
In 1849 Argentina signed the convention of settlement declaring that “perfect friendship” was restored between Argentina and Britain and ending all “existing differences”. And what did the Argentinians do for the following 90 years - NOTHING.
In fact in 1869 in his Messasge to congress your president Sarmiento said “The state of our foreign re lations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by
other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their
sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its
progress and its spirit of fairness”
You gave up any claim to our islands in 1849 - learn to live with that
Interesting how these thieves tell the world abt granting of Independence to Colonial Countries
but interestingly, Argentina and its clever little bloggers forget to tell them WHY they want it,
1, why does Argentina want them independent
2, why is Argentina so interested
3, why should they care
4, because what you bloggers don’t want to know is the facts,
The only reason why you want and insist on their independence,
Is because you know bloody well that no sooner were they granted these rights
Argentina would invade them, am I right,
So resolution 1514 (XV, isn’t in the Falklands interest,
It’s in argentines interest,
Talk about hypocrisy,
Dictatorship alive and well then ?/
.
There are none so blind who will not hear, there are none so deaf that will not listen
The committee of the UN decolonization does not lie.
England will never accept the International Court of Justice because doing so will automatically recognize that there is a sovereignty dispute with Argentina.
The International Court of Justice shall immediately forward the proceedings of the Committee on decolonization conflict the United Nations, which is the most appropriate body for interpreting and understanding the concepts of colonialism and imperialism, such as Gibraltar, Falklands, Belize and other similar cases , their historical contexts and social processes, and has already extensively studied and reviewed and compared the arguments both Argentineans as the United Kingdom and finally failed for Argentina because his arguments are true, and it is a conflict of sovereignty. NO self-determination. Just note that 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 population 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 as resolution 2065 (XX) Parties (Argentina and the United Kingdom).
In addition, every year, the Committee finds UN decolonization resolution using the criteria of Resolution 2065 of 1965, clearly states that the sovereignty dispute. NO self-determination
The International Court of Justice is based on their judgments of the committee of the UN decolonization. Remember that the international court of justice and decolonization committee of United Nations is supranational. Both have a lot of international prestige and complement each other.
There's a key point here that Argentina are missing.......
and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
Say no more.....
Marcos Alejandro good comment, you made a premonition of what will happen soon.
Do you lie to the world press Kelpers?, To cry to Merco Press or Penguin News.
“ The committee of the UN decolonization does not lie”. >> *laughing so much my sides hurt*
Seriously everyone knows it's a committee that has absolutely no remit other than to let greedy third world countries like your own to wring their hands over some territory that you want to annex. Even its name is in complete contradiction to its apparent purpose which is to colonise countries or let them be annexed by the aforementioned greedy fox-holes. If they actually performed their remit, which is highly unlikely, then their aim would be to make the Falklands an independent state. However, Argentina would immediately invade and annex the Falklands. Ban Ki-moon doesn't know this because he has problems remembering what WWII was about.
Herein endeth the lesson on why no one listens to the UN Committee on Annexation.
IF KFC found herself in possesion of the islands tomorrow she would be stuffed well and truly as she would then have to address all the out of control domestic issues in 'the land of not quite right'
Say no more .....
Do not lie and keep quiet, I must say the truth ........
On 16 December 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2065 (XX). The resolution was approved by 94 votes in favor, none against and 14 abstentions
Argentina achieved with the statement that the United Nations should interfere in the Malvinas Islands Question, recognize the existence of a sovereignty dispute, the solution of the problem supeditasen to negotiations between the two countries taking into account the interests of the islanders, leaving aside the principle of self-determination required by Resolution 1514 (XV), because not asked the United Kingdom which would grant independence to the Falkland or take into account the wishes of the islanders.
On March 18, 1966 an information circular of the General Secretariat of the United Nations informed the UN members that from that date, the name of the islands in the official records of the agency would ”Falkland (Malvinas)“ documents in English and ”Falkland (Malvinas)” for documents in castellano.41
The resolution was ratified in 1973 by Resolution 3160, XXVIII, with 116 votes in favor, 14 abstentions and none against, 42 in 1976 Resolution 31/49 confirmed the above and said: 43
(...) Urges both parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are undergoing a process recommended in the aforementioned resolutions (...)
Added that motivated the United Kingdom voted against, was approved by 102 votes, with 32 abstentions.
Other similar resolutions were: 37/9 of the General Assembly, dated November 4, 1982 (37/9) adopted by 90 countries, 12 votes against and 52 abstentions, the resolution recognized that the war ended five months ago did not alter the duration and nature of the dispute. Annually, the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization, continued acting in the same sentido.
I think you accidentally left all of these gems out. You should do your best to leave them all in next time.
1850 Convention Argentina-UK: this seems to be the last “discovery” of our British friends. It concerned the end of the blockade in the River Plate and has nothing to do with the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). By the way, in 1850 Lord Russell enumerated the colonial acquisitions of Britain between 1600 and 1815. No reference whatsoever of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). That President Sarmiento made a general statement telling we don't have any problem with anybody and you believe that thanks to this you can prove that Argentina abandoned its sovereignty is simply a demonstration of the poor legal argument you have.
“The difficulty of the position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits”.
John Troutbeck, Head of American Department, Foreign Office, October 1936
Indeed, but even judged with the ideology at that time: in 1833 there were peace between the two countries.
Given the amount of doublespeak that seems to be coming out of the UN and Argentina (decolonising = colonising=annexing; militarising=unmilitarising), I think the UN is going to need to produce a glossary of terms, because I'm not sure any of them actually hold their meaning in English.
I guess that leaves the UK to take the common sense path and simply wait for Argentina to implode into hyperinflation, and then send their war-dead back.
He will accept nothing but Argentinean control
He will get nothing,
Not even an egg sandwich.
“interests of the population” is not tantamount to “wishes of the people”.
Yes it is. No-one is better placed to decide what is in our best interests than we are. Therefore our wishes and interests are the same thing.
You appear to be forgetting that you are not in a position to recognise anything in respect of our rights. You are not the administering power and you do not have sovereignty. All you have is a spurious claim.
If Britain chooses to recognise our right to self determination, then it can. Sorry.
“Monty69”: Argentina and UK were diplomatically fighting about the word “interests” and “wishes”. They are not the same. That's why the UK abstained when 2065 was adopted. Your case is not the first in which the interests of the inhabitants but not their wishes as to sovereignty are distinguished. In my view, you can decide everything, but sovereignty. Nobody is asking you to loss your British nationality. What you call a “spurious claim” (I know that you have been bombarding with these words since long ago) is recognised by more countries in the world that your purported British sovereignty. It is also acknowledged by many scholars of different nationalities. Do you know what Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice wrote before becoming judge at the ICJ, when he worked at the Foreign Office: ”Our case has certain weaknesses. But we have been in effective (though as the Argentines alleged wrongful) occupation for over a century; and for strategical reasons we could never give up the islands. So it seems best to take a strong line. We can not be forced to arbitrate because the matter is covered by our reservations of the optional clause” (FO 371/19763, (A 1245, 889/2), folio 282). So much for “spurious claim”.
For the UK to discuss sovereignty is against the UN Resolutions because it is not leading to independence. Discussing annexation of a dependent territory not only goes against the UN Resolution, but is also an aggressive act against a state seeking independence.
The Argentinians are operating completely outside of the resolutions, through their demands for annexation. The British are complying with them, by explicitly not discussing proposed annexation.
What Argentina is suggesting is neither declaring, nor granting independence to colonial countries and peoples. It's up to Argentina to decide why it doesn't see fit to align with the remit of the Special Committee. It's up to the committee to decide why it doesn't align with it's own remit.
Discussion of sovereignty isn't discussion of independence, all within the framework of the UN charter. The UK can happily sit back under the full knowledge that it's doing everything it needs to do. It might even grant them independence, and you cannot do anything.
''Up to you to decide whether negotiations on sovereignty are requested, rejected, prevented, authorised, prohibited, allowed, ignored, by UN resolutions. ''
No- you said quite clearly that it was not up to us. You said that Falkland Islanders had no right to self determination, so how can it be up to us to decide?
In fact why are you bothering to talk to Falkland Islanders at all? This clearly has nothing to do with us.
''We need to open our minds!'' ??
You first, pal.
@59 if we look at definitions for 'colony' we get:
Definition 1 - “a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.”
Definition 2 - “a number of people coming from the same country, or speaking the same language, residing in a foreign country or city, or a particular section of it.”
So, if sovereignty is transferred to Argentina it would technically be creating definition 2, which is expressly against the UN Charter, resolutions and the remit of the “Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”. By even discussing sovereignty of the islands they are potentially discussing illegal and immoral colonisation, rather than decolonisation. Argentina in forcing a discussing on change of sovereignty, ultimately creating a definition 2 colony, is going against all of those things.
Outcome: British government should not enter into any talks on sovereignty, as it would be against the UN Charter, Resolutions and Special Committee remit.
“Argentina doesn't want to steal any land to you”
Yes you do, you want to steal our country.
“Argentina will respect your vested rights”
No you won't. lts our right to be here, you have no rights.
Your whole attitude is wrong.
Argentina has no rights & is not wanted here, so you can't “give” us anything.
Get lost.
It's just how they're taught to think in school... and is more than enough reason to keep a size-able distance between yourself and them.
lt would be IF you had owned these lslands, but you did not,
Despite all the lies that you were taught in school.
You have NEVER owned these lslands.
You do NOT own them now.
You NEVER will own them.
There will be NO NEGOTIATIONS on SOVEREIGNTY.
“You go to the garden of someone else IN 1982 and SQUAT ON THEM STEALING THEIR SIGN TELLING YOU IT'S THEIRS. Then, you prevent him/her to enter that area. START ABUSING THE PEOPLE IN THE GARDEN. The garden's owner protests TO THE UN. You say: “I don't discuss with you OR UN. Its mine.” Then THE REAL OWNER COMES BACK AND FORCEFULLY REPATRIATES THE SQUATTERS FROM WHENCE THEY CAME AND BURNS THEIR BELGRANO-BRAND CAR.”
The UK rightly says, “no discussion, the matter is closed” because if they were foolish enough to discuss exchange of sovereignty with Argentina, that would undermine the Charter of the United Nation and the remit and resolutions of the Special Committee on Decolonisation.
Now you can get back to polishing your ex-SS uniform.
Do they not .
Excellent answer. The islanders are not British in Argentine territory.
69 GreekYoghurt
No discussion. In the modern world there are people living on islands have the right to self-determination, enshrined in the UN Charter. The United Kingdom rightly says, “no discussion, the matter is closed”
Totally false. Read UN Resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by subsequent 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. No self-determination. The specificity of the Malvinas issue 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.
face1354@hotmail.com
Article 73 “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories”
The UK accepts that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories (Falklands) are paramount. Argentina does not accept that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount.
The UK fulfils everything asked the Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations. By the nature of its own constitution, Argentina rejects Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations, by its demands that it annex a non-self governing territory of another country.
Shame on you Argentina. You should be ejected from the UN for that.
put it to the vote .
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!