Thursday, January 3rd 2013 - 18:42 UTC

Brief history of the Falklands since first references in the 16th century to 1841

The Falkland Islands, lying about 560km off the mainland of South America, comprise two large islands, East and West Falkland, and a swarm of other islands ranging from substantial ones off the western edge of West Falkland to smaller islets and reefs scattered all along the coasts.

The presentation of the booklet of  “Our Islands, Our History”

John Davis, Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert and French nobleman Louis Antoine de Bougainville

Gaucho Antonio Rivero, Louis Vernet and Captain Onslow of HMS Clio

Who first discovered these Islands is a mystery. Parties of Patagonian Indians may have been blown across from the mainland and some stone tools have been found on Falklands shores. Two maps in the archives in Paris and Istanbul from the early sixteenth century which appear to represent the Islands have a Portuguese connection. But the first recorded sighting of the Falkland Islands was by the English explorer John Davis who in August 1592 was blown by a storm into ‘certaine Isles never before discovered’. Davis’ account was published in 1600 in London by Richard Hakluyt.

Davis was followed by the English seaman Sir Richard Hawkins in 1594 and the Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert who visited in January 1600. The first recorded landing on the uninhabited islands took place on West Falkland on 27 January 1690, when the English sea captain John Strong came ashore.

Strong named the passage between the two Islands ‘Falkland’s Sound’ and Lord Falkland’s name later became attached to the entire main Islands group. In the early eighteenth century French sailors from the port of St Malo gave their name to ‘Les Iles Malouines’.

More than half a century later, in the 1760s, two settlements were established in East and West Falkland almost simultaneously by two different countries.

The French nobleman Louis Antoine de Bougainville, in a brief chapter of his remarkable life, landed settlers who had left Nova Scotia after the British conquest of French Canada at Port Louis in East Falkland in 1764. In January 1765 Admiral Byron landed at Saunders Island north of West Falkland and claimed the isles for the crown of Great Britain.

A second British expedition in 1766 returned to Saunders and named their settlement Port Egmont. They built houses and a prefabricated blockhouse and planted gardens. Although British and French colonists became aware of each other’s activities relations were polite, helped no doubt by the distance between Port Louis and Saunders Island.

But in 1767 Bougainville was obliged to sell his settlement to the Spanish crown, which resented a foreign colony in what it considered its sphere of influence. The Spaniards took over Port Louis which they named Puerto de la Soledad. Keen to assert their authority, a Spanish fleet arrived at Saunders Island in 1770 and obliged the small British garrison to leave. An international crisis followed, which was only resolved in 1771 when Spain agreed that the British settlement should be restored and three ships sailed out to re-establish British authority in September 1771.

It was short lived because in 1774 the government in London decided to withdraw their settlement on grounds of economy. The garrison left in May of that year, leaving behind a lead plaque asserting British sovereignty.

The Spanish garrison remained on East Falkland until 1811 when, under pressure of French invasion at home and revolutions in its South American empire, Spain withdrew its force, also leaving a plaque asserting its sovereignty.

During the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century the Islands were the centre of a lucrative whaling and sealing trade undertaken by sailors from New England, Britain and France. The whalers camped on outlying islands, particularly New Island, slaughtering cattle and geese for provisions, repairing their ships and ‘trying’ (rendering down), seal, sea lion, whale and penguin carcasses for oil.

In 1820 a Buenos Aires privateering ship, under the command of David Jewett, who was from the United States but was commissioned as a colonel in the Buenos Aires navy, put into Port Louis.

Jewett, on his own initiative, for no instructions have ever been found, claimed the Islands for the United Provinces (of Buenos Aires). He then sailed away and it was not until November 1821 that news came to Buenos Aires, via foreign newspaper reports, that Jewett had made this claim.

In the mid-1820s Louis Vernet, from a French Huguenot family, born in Hamburg and living in Buenos Aires organised expeditions to the Islands. The first in 1824 was a disaster, but a second in 1826 was better organised and Vernet founded a successful settlement at Port Louis on the site of the Spanish colony.

In 1829 he was appointed commandant of the settlement by the government in Buenos Aires. However Vernet over-reached himself when he confiscated ships owned by United States sealers on the grounds that they were poaching. As Americans had been sealing and whaling in Falklands waters since the 1770s they were outraged and a naval frigate, the USS Lexington, sailed to Port Louis in December 1831, dismantled Vernet’s defences and took away most of the Europeans among his settlers.

Ten months later, in October 1832 the Argentine government sent a garrison to Port Louis who promptly mutinied and murdered their commander.

The British had been watching events closely as Vernet set up his colony and their diplomatic mission in Buenos Aires had protested at Vernet’s appointment and again when the new ill-fated garrison commander was appointed in 1832.

London was concerned that the Falklands would descend into anarchy and become a base for pirates. In 1832 Captain Onslow of HMS Clio was instructed to reassert British sovereignty over the Islands, but without expelling the civil population.

He arrived at Port Louis on 2 January 1833.

On the following morning in a firm but tactful manner, Onslow instructed the Argentine naval schooner whose captain had taken charge at Port Louis to leave. No shots were fired; there was no violence of any kind.

Four civilians chose to leave with the mutinous garrison in the schooner but the majority of Vernet’s two dozen settlers, mostly gauchos, remained under the British flag.

Onslow made no provision for the administration of the Islands beyond giving the Irish storekeeper a Union Jack and 25 fathoms of rope to fly it with. Charles Darwin, who visited with Captain Fitzroy in the Beagle in March 1833, described the storekeeper as the ‘English resident’.

Vernet, who was still administering his property from Buenos Aires, was the unwitting cause of shocking events in August 1833 when the gauchos, led by Antonio Rivero, turned on and killed his agents in Port Louis (including the storekeeper) in protest against Vernet’s refusal to pay them in hard currency.

A small British party led by a naval lieutenant, Henry Smith, was landed in January 1834, restored order and arrested the murderers. They were sent to England for trial; however as only British subjects could be tried in Britain for homicides committed outside the British Isles they were returned to Montevideo.

For the next eight years the Islands were administered by a succession of naval lieutenants who reported to the Admiralty, keeping a log of events as though they were on ship and always remembering to record the weather. The population of Port Louis slowly grew under British rule and a British ship conducted the first careful survey of the Falklands’ coasts.

In 1841 the government in London decided to regularise the situation and despatched a young engineer officer Richard Moody to the Islands as lieutenant-governor.

(From “Our Islands, Our History”, an official booklet from the Falkland Islands Museum and National Trust)

143 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.

1 Islas Malvinas (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 06:50 pm Report abuse
Brief Fairy Tails?
2 reality check (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 06:54 pm Report abuse
Truth hurt?
3 Lou Spoo (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:01 pm Report abuse
@1 And yet all more believable than any Argentine argument.
4 LightThink (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:07 pm Report abuse
be decent !

fairy tale
fairy tail.
5 Anglotino (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:10 pm Report abuse
And all provable with historical documentation, unlike the Argentinean claims.

6 reality check (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:12 pm Report abuse
For a non partisan readers:

It's all a matter of which version is likey to be the true version?
Who would you trust or even depend on the most. to be telling the truth. Who would you say is more reliable.

Try this scenario has a yard stick.
You lend Arentina a 100 million dollars.
You lend the UK a 100 million dollars.

Which of the two is most likely to pay you back on time and in full, not restructured, not 25c on the dollar, but in full?

There that help you decide.
7 LightThink (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:15 pm Report abuse
If you lend 100 millions to these both countries
the money ultimately will go to Carribean off shore accounts.
8 Pugol-H (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:25 pm Report abuse
The difference with this version of history as compared to the Argentinian one, is that this version is supported by the evidence.

The deciding factor outside of Argentina.

So it probably ends up in (technically) British territory then, off the coast of S. America.
9 axel arg (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:29 pm Report abuse
The summary is partially interesting. Actually both parts always tell only what is convenient for them. I have never believed in our official history, that's why i decided to investigate exhaustively about the veracity of the arguments of both parts of the conflict.
The u. k. argues often that it had a prior claim over the islands, before the spanish colonization in the soledad island, however it omits that the discovery just gives a precarious title, which must be improved with a permanent occupation, and the u. k. just occupied in a permanent way a small island called port egmont for just 8 years, while it is true that it left a sign which claimed for the british sovereignty, when it decided to abandon the island, which was an usuall practice in that time, however for the public int. right it is a very arguable argument in order to use it to claim for the sovereignty over a territory. Beside, it can't be ignored the permanent occupation exercised by spain, so, when our country declared it's independence in 1816, it had right to ocupy unless the soledad islands, it's rights were based on the sucession of states. If the u. k. had any claim, it should have negotiated a solution with the united provinces, instead of depriving it from the islands. The context of 1833 wasen't good for our country, it started it's claims since the day of the english usurpation, but it could never get any solution, because of the rejection of the u. k. The argentine claims were very irregular, beside between 1849-1884, and since 1888 untill 1945, the claims were more irregular, on the other hand, there were long periods with out any claim by arg. Anyway, what must be taken into account, is the huge economic dependence that arg. had for many years with the u. k., so, it wasn't in conditions for claiming. Beside in 1884 arg. suggested taking the case to an arbitration, which was rejected by the u. k.. Beside in 1968, 1974 and 1980, the u. k. tried to find a negotiated solution with arg.
10 Monkeymagic (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:30 pm Report abuse
@8 Indeed.

Just as there are French territories within South America, Danish Territories in North America, USA territories in the South Pacific and possibly Chinese territories near the Phillipines.

In fact there are probably 50 island groups around the world not administered by the large nation nearest to them. Of these the Falklands may well be the most advanced in their move towards full independence.

however, even on full independence, the spirit of brotherhood and friendship with the UK will last for centuries.
11 ChrisR (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:35 pm Report abuse
TMBOA is going to cwy and cwy and stamp her size 14 foot on the ground in temper over this!

So that's alright then.
12 LightThink (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:38 pm Report abuse

Brasilia is more appropriate place than Uruguay to live !
13 reality check (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:41 pm Report abuse
Any place is an appropriate place to live, as long as your bloody well left alone to live it the way you want to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14 LightThink (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:44 pm Report abuse
everywhere/everybody is bloody in the world !
15 Anglotino (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 07:48 pm Report abuse
@9 axel Arg

“Actually both parts always tell only what is convenient for them”
No every inconvenient truth you mentioned is accepted by the UK so they aren't telling what is convenient at all.

However you are wrong on:
“when our country declared it's independence in 1816, it had right to ocupy unless the soledad islands, it's rights were based on the sucession of states”
No it didn't, no one recognised the territory as Argentine, not even your new country did. Inconvenient that.

“ If the u. k. had any claim, it should have negotiated a solution with the united provinces, instead of depriving it from the islands”
If the islands were never Argentine then there was nothing to negotiate. Inconvenient.

“Beside in 1884 arg. suggested taking the case to an arbitration, which was rejected by the u. k..”
And yet Argentina was asked three times to submit this to the ICJ and wouldn't. Inconvenient.

“Beside in 1968, 1974 and 1980, the u. k. tried to find a negotiated solution with arg.”
And yet no agreement was made. Inconvenient. Previous negotiations are just that PREVIOUS-if only Argentina had been more compromising back then.

Also, put some space in your posts mate. It aides in readability. Look at the difference between our posts.
16 Islas Malvinas (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 08:03 pm Report abuse
@4 Ha ha ha you´re right.
17 reality check (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 08:08 pm Report abuse
You and him. Too Grimm for my liking!!!!!
18 Santa Fe (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 08:12 pm Report abuse
Truth hurts so bad, you can't re write history like the nazi's you know this is what really happened. lets take the evidence to the ICJ see what they think ????

You have just realised maybe the brainwashing you received at school may be wrong jajajajaja ..roll on the vote this year for the residents of the Falklands, even Mr Moon at the UN now supports their right to self determination.....loooooosers
19 Pugol-H (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 08:14 pm Report abuse
@9 axel arg
“when our country declared it's independence in 1816”

“it's rights were based on the succession of states.”

Your country broke away from Spain by force of arms, and can no more claim to have inherited Spanish rights or titles than you can claim to have inherited Gibraltar.

Spain maintained its own claim to the Islands until 1863, when it recognised the British claim (as did Argentina in the convention of settlement 1850).

Furthermore, the British never accepted the Spanish claim in the first place, even if it could have been “inherited” by Argentina.

The facts are that the Islands were undisputedly British territory long before Argentina ever existed, therefore the British do have the prior claim, fact.

Also the Islands have been undisputedly British for most of the time since Argentina came into existence, fact

Before we even start with the undeniable rights of the Islanders in the present (the most important issue now), you have no case, fact.
20 Pirate Love (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 08:17 pm Report abuse
“Our History, Our Islands”, quite right!

so please argentina tell us about your peaceful,prosperous and long history of life settled on these established islands? in your own time, no rush!
21 pgerman (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 08:26 pm Report abuse
@9 very good post. Some facts and argument ignored. But let tell you that, sadly, in this web site ussually two kind of people make comments:

On the one side, traditional “malvinistas” that are CFK fanatics. What can be said about them? Nothing. I simply try to ignore them.
On the other side, UK nacionalist people that want to express their rejection and hate against Argentine people.

There is no room for a rational based debate. There is no room for a respectfull and friendly environment. Racist expressions are common. Cruel jokes about war casualties are common too.

On top of everything some of these British people pretend that they know about Argentine history so they write nonsense things.

I'm sorry, but this might not be a site for your writings.
22 Steve-33-uk (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 08:54 pm Report abuse
@9 axel arg

Some bedtime reading for you...

Spanish or English, take your pick.

Let me know what you think?
23 Shed-time (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 09:09 pm Report abuse
The fact is ... Argentina is in no position to demand other people's land from under the noses of the current residents.

That's got all the morality of carjacking, but at significantly bigger scale.
24 ProRG_American (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 09:19 pm Report abuse
More hogwash and hot air from the Foreign Office and the imposed colonial occupation of foreign lands. The “wish of the Islanders” is the only tool they have to continue this 17th century adventure. They know that Argentina has them over a barrel.
A lot of heated reaction from Brit Turnips and Foreign Office after the Cold Water bucket wake up call they got from Argentina right in their own newspaper.
25 Pirate Love (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 09:22 pm Report abuse
@21 theres nothing wrong with nationalism, and i havent shown racial hate or racial rejection although i do reject argentinas claim, as a people i dont know any argentines to personally hate them or like them.
Unlike some of the racist,hateful discrimatory drivel that is unleashed daily by certain argentine posters, but i give allowances for such short comings as i know its not their fault, how they have been brought up.
26 Shed-time (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 09:24 pm Report abuse
@24 FYI. No one except jilted commies reads the Grauniad. This is different to the situation in Argentina where your newspapers are typically expected have to adopt some goebellian government position, through fear of clarination.

When your president's letter is full of refutable falsehoods, factually inaccurate, and completely unsources, how can you say the FO was speaking hogwash?

Can you please make sense and provide sources. Thanks.
27 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 09:33 pm Report abuse
@ axel arg

You might also want to review Roberto C Laver's (an Argentine) work on the sovereignty dispute:

'The Falklands/Malvinas Case Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine Sovereignty Dispute'

You see, he mentioned in his book (page 30) the following:

“France finally agreed, in mid 1765, to transfer the colony to Spain. As part of the final settlement, to be worked out with Bougainville, Spain would reimburse all expenses incurred by the French in making the settlement. France further insisted that Spain maintain the colony in Port Louis and thus prevent the British from claiming title to the islands. Spain agreed and instructed the governor of Buenos Aires to proceed at once in the establishment of a colony in the islands. Spain also agreed to allow French ships en route to China and the East Indies to use the islands as a stopover station. ”

You can check this online:

You see, the French were very concerned that if they gave up the Islands to Spain, when they knew the British were already there and the Spanish left, then a strategic asset would fall into 'enemy' hands, which would then threaten French shipping in the South Atlantic and on the way to the Pacific.

The French & Spanish diplomats agreed that the Spanish would never leave the Islands, thereby allowing the British to obtain full sovereignty.

Unfortunately for Vice-Royalty of United Provinces, the Spanish DID leave in 1811, citing the rebellion in South America and the war against France. At that point, they invalidated the treaty and the title to sovereignty fell back to the French. However, Napoleon was rather busy conquering Europe and even though Louis Antoine de Bougainville urged Napoleon to make a claim, he didn't. So the sovereignty title fell to Britain, the country which had never renounced sovereignty.
28 reality check (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 09:34 pm Report abuse
“A lot of heated reaction from Brit Turnips and Foreign Office after the Cold Water bucket wake up call they got from Argentina right in their own newspaper.”

Population of UK 59 million.
Circulation Guardian Newspaper 209, 354.
Circualtion Sun Newspaper 2,600,000.

Do the math yourself, but I think she picked the wrong paper!
29 Brasileiro (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 09:38 pm Report abuse
Good history. Knows the true, and true we will liberty.

The true to english point!

Maybe we knows the true for spanish and argentinian point.

Judgement for true. Congratulations and thanks.
30 Pete Bog (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 09:41 pm Report abuse
“u. k. just occupied in a permanent way a small island called port egmont for just 8 years, ”

As Argentina was not Argentina until 1853, I find it difficult to accept that the United Provinces of the River Plate were only, what was to become Argentina,and not including other South American countries, as there were people from what was to become Uruguay on the Islands in the 1830s.

It is often stated that The UPot RP were on the islands from 1820-1833.

However the total time the Islands had people on them from the South American mainland was not 13 years as there was not a continual presence. There was a more definate presence from 1828-1833. That is a maximum of 5 years which is shorter than the 8 years you rightly say the British settled the islands from 1766.
Vernet sought permission from the British as well to run his settlement but if this was recognised as territory belonging to the UPot RP why did he need British approval?

Also the Governor of the Buenos Aires Government who told Vernet the UP otRP granted him land on East Falkland had gained his position by murdering the previous Governor of Buenos Aires, so was his government actually legitimate?

Also if Argentina claims a right of succession from Spain (who did not inhabit West Falkland even when they had the chance to), why did the Spanish give up their claim in 1863 by visiting the Falklnd islands and recognising the Union Jack?

If the Spanish had not given up their claim to the Islands then how can the UP ot RP have inherited the claim.?
Surely if proto-Argentina had the right to claim former Spanish territory after 1810, why does Argentina not claim all land that was previously colonised by Spain? (ie Chile, Uruguay, etc etc ).

Why after the USA evicted the UK after independence did the USA not then claim Canada and other British territories in the regionas a right of succession'?
31 Shed-time (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 09:43 pm Report abuse
Given that KFC is a Peron-Blairite, and therefore 'speaks left wing, acts right wing' I'm struggling to see which paper would have had a favorable readership. Plenty has been written about which paper Cameron probably reads, however, I cannot see why on earth she picked the Grauniad other than she was short of cash.

Now pretty much everyone in the UK thinks she's an uneducated knob.
32 Brasileiro (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 09:46 pm Report abuse
Very agression in words of the comments. Anybody built institutions with agressions. Please........PEACE!
33 Anglotino (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 09:47 pm Report abuse
@21 pgerman

Considering you read Axel Arg's post and praised it and then said nothing about my reply which failed to include any “British nationalism”, “rejection or hate against Argentine people”, “racist expressions”, “cruel jokes about war casualties” or “write nonsense things” speaks volumes about your proclivities.

What you have done is attempt to shut down debate by debasing predominantly one side of the argument. While you may feel superior as you sit above such discourse, you shouldn't because you yourself don't actually add to it.
34 Shed-time (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 10:00 pm Report abuse
@30 I think your point is valid. For even their claim to be legal under the principle of 'Uti Possidetis Juris', like they insist, it would have to be very clear that their borders were inclusive of both East and West Falklands (and South Georgia, etc) prior to independence. This is not clear, and in fact facts suggest they did not. This is before you even consider the pre-eminent British claim.

This is why they never take their dreadful legal squad to the ICJ, because they'd lose.

Then people would laugh at them, and probably spit at them too.
35 yankeeboy (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 10:06 pm Report abuse
Axel is a part time geography teacher.
He makes less than U$500/mo.
He is been declared the stupidest RG poster on the board. (by me)
Don't pay any attention to his posts.
They're always some convoluted re-write of history based on “research” he has been doing for the last umpteen years.

I would pull my kids out of whatever school that hired him.

BTW Axel, remember I told you a long time ago that eventually your raises won't keep up with inflation? Remember how you told me I was wrong? Have yo looked at your pay recently? How does it look when you divide it by 7/1? It's gonna look even worse when its 14/1.
36 Brasileiro (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 10:17 pm Report abuse
They speak bad things about past, but forgiven to speak bad about your future. “Hipocresia”
37 Shed-time (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 10:26 pm Report abuse
They try to steal your future, but deny your past.
38 Brasileiro (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 10:30 pm Report abuse
I dont try. I and my brothers (not you) will built the future, not words from people than not belong from our history, desires and geography.
39 Britworker (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 10:30 pm Report abuse
What the hell are you going on about?
40 Shed-time (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 10:32 pm Report abuse
@38 So long as your brothers are building your future outside of the Falklands Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, then it's all good.
41 Brasileiro (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 10:38 pm Report abuse
I dont speak to devil, if you think......sorry
42 Shed-time (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 10:46 pm Report abuse
@41 That's good. Your local Catholic 'altar boys' priest will sell you some indulgences if you should happen to, accidentally.
43 Brasileiro (#) Jan 03rd, 2013 - 10:51 pm Report abuse
Shed-time, please, dont speak to me. I dont like you. And i dont like receiver your mensages. You to me, DEAD
44 War Monkey (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 12:13 am Report abuse
@18 Santa Fe (#)
Jan 03rd, 2013 - 08:12 pm

Argentina can't take it to the ICJ because the ICJ requires evidence. Argentina has nothing that will further their claim.

However. Lets argue that the ICJ were run by, I don't know, the UN C24. That bastion of democracy, fairness and the defenders of everybody's right to self determination. They would, quite predictably, accept the tiniest sliver of evidence that Argentina can muster as enough and rule in Argentinas' favour. They still have to get around the UN charter in order to hand the islands over.

Regardless of what happened 30 years ago, 100 years ago or 400 years ago, self determination trumps everything and you cannot decolonize somewhere that is not a colony. Especially when all you want to do it colonise it yourself.
45 José Malvinero (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 12:19 am Report abuse
“But the first recorded sighting of the Falkland Islands was by the English explorer John Davis who in August 1592”
And give that version! Although the discovery alone does not confer any rights, clarify once again that the Malvina Islands and Spanish maps included in nearly a century before 1592 because surely the same were sighted by the expedition of Hernando de Magallanes in 1520 (Esteban Gómez) and with possible sightings and in 1501-1502 by Américo Vespucio. It seems incredible to continue with that version when they deny that English may have been sighted by Davis (1592) and Hawkins (1594) as neither were recognized by British cartographers. For example Hawkins and residents reported seeing “many fires”! But the last straw is that Davis published a “discovery” recently in 1622! It's like I see a map after another, I do mine with the land and affirm that I discovered them.

“The Spaniards took over Port Louis which they named Puerto de la Soledad”
Spain took the islands belonged knowing that by owning the continent, which France accepted and recognized Spanish sovereignty.

“which was only resolved in 1771 when Spain agreed that the British settlement should be restored and three ships sailed out to re-establish British authority in September 1771.”
“which can not and should in no way affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands” Declaración de Masserano.

“It was short lived because in 1774 the government in London decided to withdraw their settlement on grounds of economy”
I do not know if for reasons of economy, the fact that they were voluntarily tacitly recognizing Spanish sovereignty and thereby ending only eight years spent only on the island of Trinidad and the presence of France first and Spain then from Puerto Soledad. Yes, eight years counting the expulsion of 1770.

Then nobody knows what authority back in 1833-almost 60 years later!!!! - To take “what belonged to them.”
46 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 01:50 am Report abuse
Lots of mistakes by José Malvinero.

The Falkland Islands were not discovered by Estêvão Gomes. After deserting Ferdinand Magellan in the Straits of Magellan, Gomes took the San Antonio back up the coast of South America. We know this because his ship carried historians & they mapped the coast line of South America as they went.

It is also unlikely that Américo Vespucio discovered the Islands, because the historians on his trip said that they didn't venture that far south & like Gomes he stayed close to the coast of the mainland.

What we do know is that an unrecorded Portuguese expedition saw the Islands during the 16th century. The evidence is found in two early maps, one made by the Portuguese cartographer Pedro Reinel in about 1522, the very first map to show the Falklands, the other a French copy of a Portuguese map bought in Lisbon by André Thévet (1516–1590), a Franciscan friar & prolific writer on many subjects. A copy of a large unpublished work by Thevet is held in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris.

The reason that we don't know the identity of the Portuguese explorers is due to the fact that exploration trips like this were closely guarded national secrets. To prevent hostile nations exploiting recently discovered assets.

Ironically, Bougainville first learned of the Falklands from the British because the British did not keep their discoveries so secret & because the British delayed establishing a settlement, Bougainville was able to get there first.

Both Davis and Hawkins made copious notes of their voyages which were published, so they get the credit for the first official sightings.

Spain did not own the Islands because they owned the continent. A big mistake which Argentina continues to make today. Just because Canada is on the same continent as the USA, does not mean that the USA can claim ownership of Canada.

Spain sought control of the Falklands under the Bourbon Compact & France was obliged to hand them over.
47 Lord Horatio (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 02:09 am Report abuse
As much as Jose tries to twist the truth, he cannot escape the facts.
48 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 02:29 am Report abuse
José also makes mistakes by suggesting that the British accepted that Spanish had prior rights of sovereignty

The treaty between Britain & Spain after the Falklands Crisis of 1770-1 agreed that neither side had prior sovereignty & that both countries had claims. It did not settle the matter one way or the other.

The British did leave in 1774, but they maintained their claim. There was no secret or tacit recognition of Spanish sovereignty. Far from it. The British continued to visit the Islands, to map them, to exploit the seals, whales and cattle in the decades after 1774, right up to and including 1833.

British ships were present in the Falkland Islands when Vernet attacked and captured the American whalers. Vernet did not attack the British ships, because he knew that they would report this to the British authorities, who would then revoke his permission to be on the islands & kick him off them, just as Captain Duncan of the USS Lexington attempted to do.

The British continued to visit the Islands:

1778 – a large number of ‘maruading‘ sealers, American and British, are noted by the Spanish force at Soledad.
1783 – Captain Frost in the General Knox, hunts seals at the Falklands.
1786 – Lt. Thomas Edgar in the whaler, Hope, surveys Falkland Sound.
1787 – the British whaling ship Amelia, under Captain James Shields, visits the Falkland Islands.
1788– British ships visiting the Falklands and South Georgia include the Lucas, under Captain William Aiken, the Intrepid, under Captain John Leard and the Quaker under Shadrick Kearn. Thomas Delano in the Lord Hawksworth leaves South Georgia with a full cargo of seal furs.
1790 – October 28th, Britain and Spain sign the Nootka Sound Convention
1791 – Captain Eckstein in the whaler, Sydenham, visits the Falkland Islands. South Georgia is visited by Captain Cook in the London, William Clark in the Sparrow and Christopher Horner in Astrea. Captain Eckstein in the whaler, Sydenham, hunts near the Falkland Islands.
49 Lord Horatio (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 02:30 am Report abuse
Looks like the evidence is overwhelming.
50 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 02:44 am Report abuse
There's more:

1794 – January 11th, Spain and Britain agree to a mutual abandonment of Nootka Sound. British sealing ships, Active, Ann, Fox, Kitty, Lively, Lord Hawksbury, Mary, Minerva and Sybil, visit South Georgia during the austral summer.
1796 – October 5th, Spain forms an alliance with France and declares war against Britain.
1797 – British forces blockade Spain to cut her off from the American dominions.
1802 – Captain McLean in the Anna Josepha, en-route from Sydney to Cape Town, stops at West Falkland with the crew suffering from scurvy. James Grant RN notes the presence of American sealers.
1805 – Spanish maps start to refer to the islands as the ‘Malvinas’.
1808 – In February, Napoleon Bonaparte turns on his Spanish allies and occupies Spain.
1813 – February 8th, the British ship Isabella is wrecked off the coast of Eagle Island. The Captain, George Higton, and 5 of the crew set out to get help in one of the ship’s boats leaving the rest of the crew behind. April 5th, the American sealer Nania finds the marooned British seamen who are unaware that the US and Britain are at war. On finding this out the British crew seize the Nania and maroon Captain Barnard and the American sailors.
1814 – British sealers and whalers, Admiral Colpoys, Diana and Recovery visit the Falkland Islands and South Georgia.
1817 – Captain Edes in the sealing ship, Pickering, visits the Falkland Islands.
1820 - 6 British ships, the ‘Eliza’, ‘George’, ‘Hetty’, ‘Indian’, ‘Jane’ and ‘Sprightly’ are moored around the Islands, together with 9 U.S. ships when Jewett arrives.
1822- September 17th, James Weddell departs England in the brig, Jane, bound for the south seas. The Jane is accompanied by the cutter, Beaufoy, captained by Matthew Brisbane. The sealer Adeona also stops off at the Falklands.
1823– in May James Weddell and the Jane, accompanied by the Beaufoy, arrive in the Falkland Islands and over-winters until October.
51 Lord Horatio (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 02:45 am Report abuse
Pretty overwhelming stuff wouldn't you agree?
52 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 02:59 am Report abuse
1824 – February 2nd, Pablo Areguati, with 25 gauchos, arrives on East Falkland. February 12th, Areguati writes, “We are without meat, without ship’s biscuits, and without gunpowder for hunting. We support ourselves by chance captures of rabbits, since there is no fat meat since we cannot go out to slaughter as there are no horses. I have resolved to tell you that we are perishing.”
March 31st, Woodbine Parish arrives in Buenos Aires.
April 8th, the Captain of the British ship Adeona, threatens to denounce Areguati’s party as ‘pirates.’
June 7th, Areguati abandons the settlement and returns to Buenos Aires. He leaves 8 gauchos behind.
July 24th, the remaining gauchos are taken off East Falkland by the British sealer, Susannah Anne.
1828- January 30th, aware of the British claim to sovereignty, Luis Vernet submits his land grant to the British Consul, requesting British approval. This is counter-signed by Vice Consul Charles Griffiths on the same day.
1831 - October 22nd, the British ship Thomas Lawrie arrives at Berkley Sound. The settlement is described by one of its passengers, who spends an evening with Luis Vernet and inspects the colony the following day.

So you see, British ships or British people (Matthew Brisbane with Vernet) were present on the Falkland Islands for far longer than just the 8 years that Jose describes.

Indeed, although the Spanish were permanently present from 1767 to 1811, they left the Islands and did not return & lost title to the islands by breaching the treaty with the French to maintain a colony.
53 expbrit (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 03:24 am Report abuse
This article is a good read.

My favourite bits are:

“... Vernet had the authority of the United Provinces of the River Plate. Argentina, as we know it today, did not yet exist; it came into being with the bloody conquest of Patagonia and the country assumed its present name in 1853.

”... It is, therefore, hard to take Argentina’s claims seriously. “Malvinas” is just a Spanish adaptation of the name the French gave the islands.
The Falklands, as the map shows, is an older name than “Malvinas,” and, apart from a brief and chaotic period in the 1820s when the mainland was also in turmoil following the collapse of Spain’s Latin American empire, no independent South American country ever tried to colonise the islands. Nor are there any known descendants of Vernet’s settlers living in Argentina today who can lay claims to some “ancestral homeland.”
Moreover, most Falkland families have lived on their islands longer than the vast majority of Argentine ones can claim to have been in their country. Argentina, too, is a country of settlers of mostly European descent.”
54 M's Bulldog (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 09:35 am Report abuse
@49, 51 Mr Nelson
i'd say that is pretty overwhelming stuff, wouldn't you? lol
55 War Monkey (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 09:45 am Report abuse
@54 M's Bulldog (#)
Jan 04th, 2013 - 09:35 am

It is. All of this information can be found in Argentine public archives, much of this evidence can be directly sourced from Argentine records but don't think for a second that it makes any difference to a Malvinista. When they decide that they want something, fact and entitlement is irrelevant. In their minds they want it and so it is theirs. No questions and don't get in the way.
56 andy65 (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 10:10 am Report abuse
@pgerman Sorry you feel we British are unfair in some of our comments perhaps what is hurtful to you is this
We do not twist history to suit our arguments we speak and talk as it is,perhaps what upsets you more is that people from outside Argentina know the truth but because you are brianwashed as children you find that hard to accept hers an example.
How come people in other countrys know what your inflation rate and GDP figures are yet poor sods like you don't??? because your governmant decides to lie and produce false figures,every President you have elected in the past 30 years have turned out to be corupt why is that??
57 Monkeymagic (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 10:52 am Report abuse

“Spain took the islands belonged knowing that by owning the continent, which France accepted and recognized Spanish sovereignty.”

So, Spain owned the continent did it??

According to whom?

The Portugese in Brazil, the British in Guyana, the French in Surinam, the Dutch in the Antilles? Or most important the indigenous Amerindians that were having their land stolen from them.

You can't have it both ways.

Your ancestors actually did steal land from someone, using genocide to achieve their aims.

The Falklanders didn't steal from anyone, and there is no displaced population.

Sadly, Spain and Argentina are guilty of the atrocities you accuse the Islanders of, but the Islanders aren't guilty at all.

You are the pirate, the thief, the genocidal conquistador colonialist.

The Islanders are peaceful settlers on uninhabited land.

Perhaps you should try teaching that to your schoolchildren.
58 Shed-time (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 11:06 am Report abuse
Telling facts to La Campora brown-shirts is as meaningful as playing a lute to a cow or throwing gems to swine.

It's quite clear that they have no historical basis for any of their claims and yet they still come with their brutish fallacies and lack of education.
59 ChrisR (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 11:10 am Report abuse
If the lies taught in AG schools about the Malvinas (where they?) were to stop right now it would take at tleast two or three generations for a discernible change in their collective attitude.

That would of course be conditional on having a president who also speaks the truth about their history: have they EVER had one?
60 Rosarino (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 12:29 pm Report abuse
perfect lies. You are preparing soil for the big lie.
Read this from
1) Unique culture: you are british, of course, all your administrative acts are in the mane of the QUEEn, so you culture is unique from UK.
2) You even can´t chose your own Governor, so you are not free...who choose for you? The QUEEN of course,,,,you are not different than british (because you are). But nothing say about this in the homepage...why?
3) this is great: “Geologically the Falklands were once a part of East Africa, and as such we have some interesting and unusual landscape features such as stone runs, ‘rivers’ of angular quartzite boulders that ‘flow’ from the hilltops. ”
61 Shed-time (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 12:37 pm Report abuse
@60 the big lie is that Argentina owns the islands. That's the big lie. So why do they need to prepare the soil for this?
62 José Malvinero (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 12:46 pm Report abuse
Following the summary analysis:
“the Islands were the centre of a lucrative whaling and sealing trade undertaken by sailors from New England, Britain and France”
Predators always. They did all that was shit.
“Jewett, on his own initiative, for no instructions have ever been found”
No pirates. This marine was commanded Confederate and acted strictly following their instructions and planting our flag in Soledad. His proclamation was published in European newspapers hesitate not deserving of the English.
“In 1829 he was appointed commandant of the settlement by the government in Buenos Aires”
Okay, that's accurate! Governor Martin Rodriguez created the Governor appointing Political Military Command based in Soledad Vernet.
“However Vernet over-reached himself when he confiscated ships owned by United States sealers on the grounds that they were poaching”
Ja, Ja! How is it going? Governor is unable to exercise the functions of his office? And you're saying it correctly: “poaching”.
“In 1832 Captain Onslow of HMS Clio was instructed to reassert British sovereignty”
You yourselves say pure piracy. They had never been Malvinas owners and 60 years after coming to “reaffirm its sovereignty.”
“London was concerned that the Falklands would descend into anarchy and become a base for pirates”
Ahhh! true! The English benefactors of mankind. However it became in pirate base.
Pirates well, with this story you have made we a major favor. Denude all his total lack of historical and legal title on the Malvinas Argentinas.
These English are ineffable. It's in their blood.
63 pgerman (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 12:54 pm Report abuse
Dear Anglotino

Fanaticism is the extremism of positive values ​​like an undestandable love to a country, culture or religion. Nationalism is bigotry and fanaticism is a mental illness and that prevents critical observation of reality. Prevents distinguish good and evil.

I have not mentioned or pointed out to you (and your comments) in particular but if you make the effort to read the posts of most of the participants on this site you will verify that I am right.

Your ironic and mocking comments about the writing of Mr. axel arg
is a sign of your lack of respect to him and preteds to minimize his arguments and reasoning.

Is the “purity” and grammatical correctness of the writing so important in this case?

Is it not more important be able to exchange ideas and try to understand?

Would you be able to write a text in Spanish the same level as “axel arg” writes in English?

Writting on this site is for boredom moments without any pretense of an interesting answer or to establish some positive dialogue. I guess it's partly the fault of the site administrators.
64 Shed-time (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 12:59 pm Report abuse
@63 why on earth would anyone want to write or speak anything in spanish? We're not poor people. Gosh.
65 Pete Bog (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 01:36 pm Report abuse
“60 years after coming to “reaffirm its sovereignty.””

And you claim sovereignty after 180 years.

That's 3 x 60, by the way.

Your problem is that the UK and Spain were on the Islands in the 1760s but the UK was there first.

UK ships continously visited the Islands after 1774 so the British presence did not dissapear after 1774.

The total presence of what you call Argentina and I call the United Provinces of the River Plate, was no more than the time the British occupied West Falkland from 1765-1774.

If the Briitsh occupancy from 1765-1774 was irrelevant so was Jewetts visit in 1820 (when British ships were in harbour), as he did not form a settlement -he was there to pirate ships. There was a failed settlement in 1823-when the last gauchos were removed by a British ship (yet you say the British were not there after 1774)-in 1826 Vernet got a settlement going but why if the Falklands are alledged to be owned by the United Provinces of the River Plate (Argentina, whether you like it or not, did not factually exist till 1853), did Vernet seek permission from the British for his settlement ?

How is Jewett planting a UPot Rp (?) flag in 1820 and forming no settlement more legitimate than the UK planting a flag in 1765 and forming an inhabited settlement ?

The current settlement on the Falkland Islands has had a British flag since 1833.
How is Jewett's flag planting more legimate than that?

His flag wasn't there for long and it cannot have been a legitimate vow of possession because if so, why did Vernet claim the islands for the United Provinces in 1828 , if Jewett had claimed it in 1820?

“ Governor Martin Rodriguez”

Was that the governor who murdered his predecessor?
66 Conqueror (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 02:32 pm Report abuse
@1 Brain-washed? No. No brain to wash!
@9 Still brainless. “Succession of states” does not apply to a colony in rebellion. Why would the UK negotiate with a state it didn't recognise? 1884? Arbitration by a country under threat by argieland? As I said. Brainless.
@14 Nowhere is more bloody than argieland. Just how many of the indigenous people did you slaughter?
@24 A “comment” from a slug. Is being “over a barrel” your favourite position?
@29 Learn English. All proper people speak English. Only faggots can't speak English!
@32 Muerte de Argentina. The only solution!
@35 Are you sure? I was convinced that “axel” used to be a kindergarten teacher until he lost his “mind”.
@38 No room in the real world for the retarded!
@43 Look in the mirror. See the telltale signs. You're a CORPSE!
@45 Poor child. So little brain. So little comprehension. So little intellect. The all-important question. Who landed? Not some porteno. Not some hispanic. Not some frog. The British. End of story.
@60 STFU. You don't have enough brain.
@62 Foolish toddler. Let's think of a new descriptive name for argieland. Rapeland? Thiefland? Murderland? Jewett. Pirate. Legally authorised to attack Spanish vessels. Seized a Portuguese vessel. Piracy. Can't appoint a “governor” of someone else's territory. Vernet was very lucky that he had fled to Montevideo. Otherwise he might have been shot! Or hanged! Pirates, i.e. argie crims, murderers, rapists, were expelled. Should have shot, or hanged, the lot! There's a really good method where you strap the crim to the mouth of a cannon and then fire it. Argie crim can watch its guts flying off into the distance. Fantastic. Suitable for current argies found on the Islands!
@63 “Lack of respect”? Why would anybody “respect” an infantile, uneducated paedophile? As Shed-time says “Why would anyone want to write or speak in Spanish? We're not poor.” “Spanish” is gibberish. Try Google Translate. It still can't be turned into a proper language!
67 axel arg (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 07:48 pm Report abuse
May be i can have a mature debate with you, unless you don't insult me like some others forists, i have decided that i won't answer the comments of people who just insult, or make miserable comparisons, i have already wasted so much time with those people, and i could never get any interesting interchange of opinions.
I respect your opinions and analysis but i dont agree mostly with what you expressed.
Respecting the prior claim that the u. k. had, according to some british writers, i think it is very arguable, because the country that discovered the islands is still a controversy, some english writers say that it was the u. k., but the islands appeared in the maps of some spanish navigators, before the soposed english discovery. Anyway, let's sopose that the u. k discovered the islands, the discovery just gives a precarioous title, which must be improved with a permanent occupation, just the permanent and effective occupation of a territory gives sovereign rights, it is not my opinion, it is actualy the acdemic knowledge of different professors of public international right, i read so much about the works of some of them for my investigations. I already explained in my comment 9 what territory the u. k. occupied for just 8 years, and what were it's decisions respecting the islands.
On the other hand, while it is true that spain had not renounced to the sovereignty of the islands, our country had right to occupy unless the soledad island, which had been occupied permanently by spain, beside, the crown had submitted it to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, although the u. k. haden't renounced to the sovereignty of the soledad islands, it had right to occupy it, because it's righst were based on the sucession of states, it's not my opinion either, it's also the academic knowlege of different profesors of public int. right.
68 Shed-time (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 08:26 pm Report abuse
@67 Seems you haven't read anything that has been posted on these boards, nor any of the links to the history of the Falklands islands. You just say something that is incorrect, and then say it's the knowledge of 'professors of public international right' without giving sources.

Just because an academic has an opinion doesn't make it a fact, quite the opposite.
69 Brit Bob (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 08:31 pm Report abuse
@66 Spot on.

The fact is that you cannot trust Argentina when it comes to facts and figures, especially the Argentine government. Let's look at INDEC. INDEC is the Argentine governmement's statitics office. The Argentine government was warned by the IMF 3-months ago for producing inaccurate information on growth and inflation. The IMF issued the Argentine government a 'yellow card' and are scheduled to come back with 'red card penalties' later this month. INDEC still shows Argentine inflation running at around 10% when independent analysts believe the figure is over 25%. If this is how the Argentine government produces facts on infation how on earth can anyone on the planet accept any version of history they produce.
70 Pete Bog (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 09:51 pm Report abuse
You want a mature debate, OK.

Let's take one of your points.
“because it's righst were based on the sucession of states,”

If there is an opinion that the Spanish claim for the Falklands passed to Argentina (which did not come into being until1853), why did the claim not pass to Uruguay as this country was also independent of Spain and had its people living on the Falkland Islands (part of the United Provinces of the River Plate) ?

The fact that there clearly was a Spanish claim does not eliminate the British claim, ie the British claim does not go away as the British settled the Islands before Spain, not after.

(Ie Spain is not the same country as France).

The Spanish dropped their claim to the Falkland Islands in 1863 on an official visit to the Falkland Islands where they saluted the British flag, so for the United Provinces of the River Plate (ie Argentina was formed in 1853) in 1811 or 1816?to inherit the Spanish claim for the Islands the Spanish would have had to drop their claim (which Spain did not do in 1811 when it left the Falkland Islands leaving a plaque of possession-in the name of Spain.

This is like saying that when the USA became independent, it had succession to other British owned territories , but I don't remember Canada becoming part of the USA.

OK Axel, over to you to develop your argument surrounding the Spanish claim to the Falkland Islands .

That mature enough for you?

If not, you will have to provide reasons.
71 Zethee (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 09:56 pm Report abuse
68 Shed-time

He never does. Just repeats the same thing over and over even if you prove him wrong. He e-mailed(a long time ago) me his glorious “servey” with all this proof he bangs on about.

My god what a load of rubbish. Enldess paragraphs on what are purely the opinion of various people around the world. No proof what so ever.

Two or so lines on the UN and human rights.

Two lines on what is the only law that matters in today's world. He can argue about the past all he bloody likes but the UN's law overrides all previous treaties.

This guy is supposedly a teacher. Show him a link proving him wrong and he refuses to read it. This guy teaches children. It's laughable.
72 Shed-time (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 10:11 pm Report abuse
@71 I'm a bit worried about the fact he doesn't seem to understand the difference between simple things like subjective opinion and objective fact. He thinks that just because someone is a professor of something that they are making statements that aren't in any way biased or have reasons for taking one particular side (i.e. they're argentine). Furthermore none of it ever has a source, making the arguments easily refutable and unsubstantiated.

Doesn't say a lot about the quality of the teaching in Argentina, to be honest.
73 reality check (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 10:18 pm Report abuse
What the hell can you expect, from a nation that is the last to declare war on Germany and only does so, because it does not want to be left out of the new UN Club. Hardly suprising it likes to CHERRY PICK which rules of the club it follows.
74 ProRG_American (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 10:19 pm
Comment removed by the editor.
75 reality check (#) Jan 04th, 2013 - 10:23 pm Report abuse
Wow your a busy little paster.
76 Pirate Love (#) Jan 05th, 2013 - 12:43 am Report abuse
@75 yes it the new export leaving argentina they call it “spam paste” to replace the corned mad beef
77 briton (#) Jan 05th, 2013 - 12:58 am Report abuse
the past is the past,
lets look at the future,
you either have the guts to defend it,
or talk the white flag,

they will remain british, untill the islanders say otherwise,

if CFK objects to this, then all she has to do, is put away the white flag , stop talking, and come and get them.

this time next year, her indocrinoughts will still be talking,
and the islands will still be british.
78 Anbar (#) Jan 05th, 2013 - 01:24 am Report abuse
“”“@63 why on earth would anyone want to write or speak anything in spanish? We're not poor people. Gosh.”“”“

nice way to prove beyond any doubt that pgerman was correct.


amd dont try to fob it off as humour either.


”Is it not more important be able to exchange ideas and try to understand?”

wouldnt that be nice? we'd have to kick out all the malvnistas and their sock puppets, then the racist/xenophbe brits... which will leave just a few Islanders, 2 or 3 Argentines, a Chilean and an Uruguayan..and maybe a handful or more rational less jingoistic sun-reading brits (maybe).
79 Pugol-H (#) Jan 05th, 2013 - 03:19 am Report abuse
@67 axel arg
I respect your opinions (but like you, I do not always agree with what you say). Furthermore I do respect the fact that you make your arguments in English, clearly not your first language (no insult or offence intended), I must say you do far better in English than I can do in Spanish.

I agree that history is “arguable”, however I do believe that this is a matter of what is right and correct in today, not what may have happened yesterday.

After 180 years they have at least as much right to the Islands as your people have to most of what is today called Argentina.

In any situation you cannot deny other people’s rights without ultimately denying your own, in this situation given the history of Argentina (which I am sure you know better than I do) that applies double.

You cannot question their rights to the Islands, without calling into question your own present tenure of most of the land you now call Argentina.

They have the same rights in the S Atlantic, as you do in S America.

@74 ProRG_American
Don’t you have Mapuche in Argentina then, if so maybe better invest in some drones and Maverick missiles, you may need them?

@78 Anbar
We are not all that bad, some of us can even say something’s in Spanish (I’d be a lot richer if I could speak more, that much I will say.)

Understanding is the start, agreement is the real problem. However one does follow the other.
80 Shed-time (#) Jan 05th, 2013 - 09:51 pm Report abuse
@78 Don't get upset just because there is a clearly causative relationship between speaking spanish as a first language and abject poverty. I didn't make this happen, I just observed it. I guess where you're from people aren't allowed to discuss observed truths, hence you're blaming me for having eyes.

You're probably Italian and busy arresting scientists for not predicting earthquakes, while the all-seeing infallible pope sits drinking the finest of wines.

Well done you.
81 axel arg (#) Jan 05th, 2013 - 10:35 pm Report abuse
I must say that i didn't express my self correctly, in the last paragraph of my comment 67. What i wanted to say is that, although spain had not renounced to the sovereignty of the islands, our country had right to declare it's independence in 1816 or whenever, and occupy the territories that were under spanish government, like the islands, which had ben submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty. I repeat that this is not my personal opinion, it is actualy the academic knowledge of different professors of public int. right, those people know much more tha you and i, don't you think?.
On the countries, if neather uruguay, nor all the rest of the countries that joined the viceroalty have right to claim for the islands, it's because they decided to separate from our country in different moments, so, they have nothing to claim from arg.
If the u. k had any right over the islands, it was over port egmont, i already told you that it had occupied it between 1766 and 1774. I already told you also what is considered in the public int. right respecting the discovery of a territory. For all these reasons, i have always thought that the u. k should have discussed with our country about a negotiated solution in 1833, instead of depriving it from the islands.
On the other hand, when i say that i respect your opinions but i dnt' agree on most you say, it's because i don't consider i have the absolut truth, in fact nobody has it, if i were an arrogant or a houghty, like some people who publish comments here are, i woudn't investigate absolutly anything, and i would take into account just what is said in our official history in relation to this conflict. You already know what i think about our official history.
Respecting the actual moment, you know that i have always expressed that the wishes of the islanders, and the claims by our country must be taken into account, in order to find a fair solution.
82 Pete Bog (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 12:17 am Report abuse
“What i wanted to say is that, although spain had not renounced to the sovereignty of the islands, our country had right to declare it's independence in 1816 or whenever, and occupy the territories that were under spanish government, like the islands, which had ben submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty”

Ok, if the Falkland Islands were not contested by Great Britain,prior to 1816, I would accept that theUnited Provinces of the River Plate were entitled to colonise them
But the fact remains that the British agreed not to eject the Spanish from the Falklands after their agreement that avoided war, and The United Provinces of the River Plate were not Spain. The fact that Spain gave up its claim did not prevent Britain from exercising its previous claim, as the British were definately on the Falklands before the United Provinces of the River Plate.

And I am sure you will not as Argentina has done, ignore the fact that in 1833, Captain Onslow specifically persuaded Vernet's settlers to stay as the gauchos actually wanted to leave. As the 33 genuine settlers were not forced to leave, the 29 who stayed clearly wanted British rule otherwise they would have left.

Again. Most of the militaryforce on the Sarandi were British born sailors, (these were ejected)and some of the mutinous garrison sent back were charged with murder and executed by the Buenos Aires authorites.

The reason why the military of the UPotRP did not fight the British was simply, most of the force was British. Was not Pinedo's second in command British?
And how can it strengthen Argentina's claim that the majority of people who wanted British rule were the gauchos from what is now Argentina?

I cannot see how Argentina can claim sovereignty citing an overall occupation of little longer, than the British occupation from 1765-1774, and say that 180 years of occupation is irrelevent!

I recognise that you respect the wishes of the islanders and are at least prepared to put an argument.
83 Shed-time (#) Jan 06th, 2013 - 12:46 am Report abuse
@81 “it is actualy the academic knowledge of different professors of public int. right, those people know much more tha you and i, don't you think?”

Who precisely are these professors, what have they published, what is their funding source, and their nation of origin?

United Provinces of the River Plate 'broke up' into several countries, including bolivia, argentina and uruguay. They didn't 'gain independence' from your country, so you're misstating history. Uruguay and Bolivia have as much claim to Spanish territories under uti possidetis as Argentina.

You have given no sources, your assertions are invalid.
84 briton (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 12:07 am Report abuse
You Argies want nothing from the British,
You call them everything from pirates to thieves,

Yet your great queen thinks otherwise,
Whilst she banns her own aircraft industries from going to the Falklands,

The CFK now hires a British aircraft company to fly her around Asia, as to use her own, may result in confiscation,

How the mighty are now humiliated, shames and embarrassed,

The British always were the best,
Who says so,
The unsightly CFK now flying British
Ha ha ha .
85 MalvinasArgentinas (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 08:45 am Report abuse

-No mention of Francisco de Ribera’s landing & claiming the islands for Spain in 1540 (50+ yrs before Davis)

-Ignores Britain stated it had no rights to claim the islands nor intent to settle there in 1749

-Deceitfully states that in 1771 “Spain agreed” when in fact BOTH Spain and Britain agreed they’d mutually respect the status quo ante, as well as the sovereignty over their respective territories in the archipelago (note PARTIAL British control)

-Conveniently excludes mention of Samuel Johnson's post-crisis report commissioned by the Commons, in which he concludes British sovereignty, “was an assertion of more confidence than certainty”, that Britain ”could not defend the propriety of our expedition by arguments”, and that “no man, not authorized by the King of Spain, can trade there but by force or stealth.”

-Incorrectly states ‘Spanish government’ withdrew in 1811, when it was the revolutionary government of Buenos Aires that withdrew troops under its command and left a plaque.

-Incorrectly states Jewett’s declaration was on his own initiative, historians (Dolzer, Gustafson, Melford, Goebel) conclude he sailed with orders to re-establish Buenos Aires’ sovereignty

-Conveniently ignores following the London Times’ printing of Jewett’s declaration of sovereignty no objection was raised by the British government

-Makes no mention of Britain signing a treaty of perfect peace and commerce with Buenos Aires in 1825, 4+ years after Jewett’s declaration became known in London, 2+ years after Vernet was appointed by Buenos Aires, at a time there was an Argentine presence on the islands

When Britain left, it reserved its sovereignty over the PARTIAL territories it held. Britain returned 60 years later, reasserted its previous sovereignty AND unlawfully usurped territories it agreed to respect as administered by Buenos Aires in 1771.

British sovereignty arguments make perfect sense – when you cherrypick historical events to suit Britain’s conclusions!
86 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 09:59 am Report abuse
Yet more lies and misleading statements from Argentina.

1. Francisco de Ribera never landed on the Islands during the 16th century & there is no historical documents which validate such a claim.

2. Admiral Anson postponed the plan to colonise the islands in 1749 because Spain protested. Spain did not have sovereignty either, but as Britain was in the middle of treaty negotiations with Spain, the trip might have upset this & the mission was delayed. Bougainville found out about the plan from Britain & decided to claim them for France whilst Britain & Spain were waiting.

3. 1771 Spain & Britain agreed to respect position before 1770, but both sides claimed all the islands, not just part of them.

4. Samuel Johnson was referring to the belligerent actions of Spanish ships after 1771 exerting their claim over the Islands. Britain was not being so aggressive but still had a claim.

5. No, it was the Spanish authorities that left the plaque in 1811, not the United Provinces. By leaving, Spain invalidated the sovereignty transfer agreement with France.

6. Jewett had no orders to make a claim on the Islands. There is no documentary evidence of orders & the United Provinces were unaware of the claim until 1821. Furthermore, Jewett never even mentioned the claim in his letter to be relieved of command.

7. Jewett's claim was reprinted in various newspapers in Salem(USA), London(Times), Gibraltar, Cadiz & then reprinted as a foreign news story in Buenos Aires in 1821. Re-enforces the fact that United Provinces did not know of the claim.

8. The treaty of perfect peace only recognised the boundaries of the United Provinces which did not include the Falklands as they were unoccupied. Britain was not concerned over the claims of a pirate (Jewett was declared a pirate by the Portuguese) because it has no validity in international law. Vernet was not appointed military & civil commander until 1829 & Britain protested immediately.

9. Britain's claim was to ALL the islands.
87 Anglotino (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:57 am Report abuse
Was nice to finally read someone posting pro-Argentine facts and claims instead of just trolling. It is shame that all those facts and claims could be disproved.

Still nice though.
88 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 12:53 pm Report abuse
I'm all in favour of debate on historical documents in a friendly & non-abusive manner. Far too many of the Argentine supporters resort to abuse because they are unable to back up their claim with supportable historical documents, together with persuasive legal argument.

This has been Argentina's problem since 1833. If they had truly believed they were correct, then Argentina should have declared war on Great Britain. It was impossible for them to do so when HMS Clio arrived. The majority of the sailors manning the Sarandi were British & had no inclination to fire on their countrymen. It would have been a very one sided fight anyway.

It is reasonable to conclude that Argentina was reluctant to man a vessel with Argentine sailors & return to the Islands in 1833, because Great Britain was the world superpower at the time. If Argentina had declared war on Great Britain over the Falklands, then this might have improved their claims today.

However, they did not declare war. Although Argentina did have some success a decade later when the French & British blockaded the Argentin, the resultant treaty, the Arana-Southern Treaty ended any possibility of an Argentine claim over the Falklands. By accepting that Argentina & Britain were at peace, without mentioning the Falklands dispute, Argentina gave up any possibility of raising a valid claim through the International Court. This explains why Argentina gave up on any further diplomatic protests until 1888 and then again until 1941.

Although Great Britain has offered to take the matter to the International Court & even challenged Argentina to do so, they have not done so. Let's face it, the evidence is heavily against Argentina. Even Spain & France have better claims than Argentina & both of them recognise Great Britain as having full sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

The matter is now beyond any question because the UN will always rule in favour of the rights of the Islanders for Self Determination.
89 reality check (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 03:23 pm Report abuse
They of course will counter with, the Right to Self Determination does not apply to the Islanders.
90 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 05:08 pm Report abuse
Argentinian politicians long ago realised that the almost insurmountable problem with their claim was the fact that the Islanders have lived on the Islands peacefully for 180 years (except for the 82 war).

Peaceful prescription is the biggest claim to sovereignty. The continuous peaceful development of the Islands.

When enhanced with the inalienable right to self determination as laid out in clause 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, it becomes impossible for Argentina to make a valid claim to obtain sovereignty.

So what does Argentina do?

They pretend that these people are 'transplanted'.
They ignore the fact that the original Vernet settlers were not evicted.
They claim that the 'transplanted' people are all from Britain - when in truth they come from nations all over the world, including South American ones.
They foster the belief that these people were not the 'natives' and those 'natives' were the Argentinians that were kicked off in 1833.
They casually forget that even the UN Decolonisation Committee says that the wishes of the Islanders must be taken into account - as repeated by Bank Ki-moon very recently.

Argentina has a problem. They don't want to recognise the truth, because it invalidates their claim.

When the Sun recently printed their advert in the Buenos Aires Herald, many Argentines were surprised that the British were in the Falklands in 1765, before Argentina even existed and before the Spanish arrived.

The fundamental problem is that Argentine school children are not taught the full facts. Argentina is scared that if they did, then the school children would realise that Argentina's claim is a 'colonial land grab'

I believe the best thing the Falkland Islanders can do would be to follow up the Referendum, with a series of documentaries (in English & Spanish) to explain the history of the Islands. They could take the cameras to the sites & use CGI or actors to portray the events. Then the UN & other nations would know the background.
91 Anglotino (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 07:29 pm Report abuse

”I believe the best thing the Falkland Islanders can do would be to follow up the Referendum, with a series of documentaries (in English & Spanish) to explain the history of the Islands. They could take the cameras to the sites & use CGI or actors to portray the events. Then the UN & other nations would know the background.”

Yes I so,writes wonder why Britain is not more on the offensive on this matter. The only logical answer I can think of, is that Argentina's continually harping is not really gaining any traction and not affecting Britain to any real extent. It may indeed be up to the Islanders and their government to do something such as this.
92 axel arg (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 08:30 pm Report abuse
The agreement that avoided the war, implicated that spain restituted port egmont to the british crown, but there was not any british reserve in relation to it's soposed rights over the soledad island, (actual east falkland). I told you in another comment that allthough the u. k would have discovered the islands, the discocery just gives a precarious title, which must be improved by a permanent occupation, and the u. k. just occupied permanently port egmont for 8 years, that's the reason why i think it had right to claim for it's sovereignty over that territory.
Respecting the sucession of states, that is applied to all the emancipated colonial territories, allthough spain have never ceaded absolutly anything to the united provinces, our country had right to declare it's independence, and occupy the territories that were under spanish govt. What the u. k. did in 1833, when it decided to deprive the u. p. from the islands, instead of negotiating a peaceful solution respecting it's rights over port egmont, was to take advantage of a moment of profound weakness that the u. p. suffered in that historic moment.
Respecting the people who were expealed from the islands when john onslow usurped the archipelago, and asked the argentine authority, jose maria pinedo to leave the island, i want to express that i know that not all the population was expealed, in fact just all those peole who wanted to leave the archipelago could go back in the sarandi, but all those people who wanted t stay, could do it too.
On the other hand, the books that i read, belong to professors of one of our public universities.
Regarding the countries that joined the viceroalty, if they decided to separate part form the u. p., they have absolutly nothing to claim, over the islands, in fact they have never done it.
93 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:39 pm Report abuse

The 51 Degrees South videos was very good at showing a few of the current Falkland Islanders. What we need is documentaries that counter the teaching /brain washing carried out in Argentine schools. We've all seen the videos on You Tube where they get Argentine students to put the names of Argentine heros on a map, coloured in the Argentine national colours. What they don't show are the lessons where they tell the students that all the Argentines were expelled, or that Britain was a group of pirates who 'usurped' Argentine territory. No mention is made of any of the peace treaties or what they mean to the sovereignty dispute.

A proper documentary in English & Spanish with actors to show the relevant events would help explain the truth. There are plenty of tall ships which could be used to show the story. The BBC might be interested. The FCO might consider it money well spent in explaining the Falkland Islanders case to the United Nations.

The documentary could gain access to the copious documents held in the national archives in both London, Buenos Aires, Paris & Madrid to document all the facts, right from the first sighting of the islands by some unknown Portuguese explorer, to the first settlement under Bougainville (an incredible person who had a massive impact on world events - especially the Independence of America), then to the Falklands Crisis, the revolutions in America & the Napoleonic wars, the independence of South American states, the attempt by Argentina to become part of the British empire after the split from Spain & then Britain backing Spain's position, Jewett & his piracy, the Vernet venture, the Lexington incident, the re-establishment of British sovereignty, the peaceful development & the move to Stanley, the First World War battle, the Battle of the River Plate, 1982 and then today.

There's so much to say & show, could be a major series. Could even rebuild the settlements. Egmont & Port Louis. Would be very interesting.
94 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:43 pm Report abuse
Historical fallacy #1: “Francisco de Ribera never landed on the Islands during the 16th century & there is no historical documents which validate such a claim.”

Ribera’s expedition, commissioned and funded by Gutierre de Vargas y Carvajal, Bishop of Pasencia, is very well documented. Having received royal assent, the four-vessel expedition landed and took possession of the archipelago for the Spanish Crown on 4 February 1540, wintering in the islands and returning to Spain in December.

Historical fallacy #2: “Admiral Anson postponed the plan to colonise the islands in 1749 because Spain protested.”

That’s as may be, but in communications to the British Crown on 24 April 1749 the Duke of Bedford stated in no uncertain terms, ”There is no intention of making settlement in either of those islands, and as His Majesty's Sloops will neither touch upon, or even make any part of the Spanish Coast, the (Spanish) King can in no shape apprehend that this Design can give any Umbrage at Madrid, …”

This, of course, yet another example of the countless instances of duplicitous and deceitful British behavior in regards to its sovereignty claims.

Historical fallacy #3: “Samuel Johnson was referring to the belligerent actions of Spanish ships”

Samuel Johnson was not speaking of Spanish ships when he said British sovereignty was “an assertion of more confidence than certainty” and that ““When once we had disowned all purpose of settling, it is apparent, that we could not defend the propriety of our expedition by arguments”.

Historical fallacy #4: “it was the Spanish authorities that left the plaque in 1811”

Quite wrong, it was the revolutionary government in Buenos Aires which commanded the military contingent present on the islands in 1810, passing bills authorizing their assignments, payment, and ultimately ordering their withdrawal – NOT the Spanish regency, but Buenos Aires. This is well documented with plenty of contemporary primary source material.
95 MalvinasArgentinas (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:46 pm Report abuse
Not to mention the sheer hypocrisy of believing that a plaque left on the orders of Buenos Aires does not reserve sovereignty, while a plaque left by the British not only reserves sovereignty but can also be used to usurp territories not under British control at the time the British plaque was left.

“Our plaque has value, your does not” LAUGHABLE!! Only the British can demonstrate such hypocritical hubris with a straight face and expect the world to swallow that.

If the British departure plaque reserved sovereignty, it was a PARTIAL sovereignty, one that did not extent beyond that which the Spanish Crown restored: Egmont. When it returned in 1833, they claimed to re-establish sovereignty over the entire archipelago, not just those territories they controlled when they departed.

herein lies the act of usurpation, and only a self-righteous fool would argue against this self-evident fact.
96 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 10:49 pm Report abuse
No wait there's more! Seriously, what are they smoking?

Historical fallacy #5: “1771 Spain & Britain agreed to respect position before 1770, but both sides claimed all the islands, not just part of them.”

Yes, prior to the 1771 treaty. Thereafter, Spain agrees to restore British sovereignty to only Egmont, and nothing more. Read the treaty. Only Spain, not both parties, stipulates the condition that ”the engagement of his said Catholick Majesty, to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior (Spanish) right of sovereignty”.

The text of that agreement clearly states Spain only allows Britain to return to its settlement, while reserving sovereignty of the islands unto itself, with Britain making no such competing statement of its own sovereignty. Further, in the two subsequent declarations made by Spain and Britain advising their respective officers, Britain again fails to assert any notion of sovereignty beyond Egmont. Signing such a bilateral agreement, then issuing such a declaration, without asserting British sovereignty over “all the islands”, amounts to acquiescence of limitation to the British territories on the archipelago.

Historical fallacy #6: “The treaty of perfect peace only recognised the boundaries of the United Provinces… Jewett was declared a pirate”.

Wrong again, the treaty made no mention of boundaries, it was a treaty of peace and commerce signed between Britain and Buenos Aires, as such it is an act of British recognition of the independence of the former territories of the Viceroyalty, including its several islands, of which the Malvinas was one. Britain inserted no clause nor made any protest reserving any sort of sovereignty over the archipelago, despite the fact an Argentine settlement was still present on the islands at the time of Britain’s signature. Jewett wasn't convicted.

Put down the needle, and read some history books.
97 Pete Bog (#) Jan 07th, 2013 - 11:21 pm Report abuse
”prior (Spanish) right of sovereignty”

Debatable- Britain settled the Islands before Spain, in 1766 and claimed the Islands in 1690.

A point of interest Alejandro, after the British left their settlement in 1774, and until the Spanish withdrew (for good) in 1811, did the Spanish colonise anywhere outside of Port Louis/Port Soledad?

In the 1850 agreement between Great Britain and the soon-to-be Argentina, the Argentines made no mention of Great Britain 's occupation of the Falkland Islands. As such, that was an act of recognition of Britain's sovereignty.
98 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 12:31 am Report abuse
AlejandroArgerich = MalvinasArgentinas = same person.

Obviously lives in fantasy land because he is making this stuff up as he goes along.

There is no documentary proof of Francisco de Ribera. If there was, it would have been cited by Spain, not to mention the more intelligent Argentine historians who've never referred to him in any of their histories of the Islands.

Duke of Bedford may have made statements to Spain, but Governments can & do change policy. Sometimes even over night. Samuel Johnson was not in the Government. He was a social commentator & his view is no more valid than the next person.

The Spanish Government still laid claim to the islands. Although Britain & Spain both claimed sovereignty to the ENTIRE archipelago, the 1770-1 Crisis did not resolve either claim. Neither did the treaties limit the claims. Indeed, when Britain became an ally of Spain, Britain supported Spain's claim to restore their rule in their South American colonies, but not to the Falkland Islands, as that was still disputed territory. The British claim to the Islands was far stronger, because France & Spain withdrew.

Your statements about the plaques shows how hypocritical you are. You suggest that the Spanish plaque claims all the Archipelago, but the British one is only a PARTIAL claim to Port Egmont. Quite wrong. Both plaques claimed the ENTIRE Archipelago, only the British claim superceded the Spanish one because the British arrived in 1765, but the Spanish only arrived in 1767.

Furthermore, the Spanish claim was compromised by the fact that they withdrew, when the French made it a condition of the cessation that Spain maintain a colony to prevent Britain gaining full title. However, when Spain withdrew, Britain did indeed gain full sovereignty.

Ironically, Vernet's colony & the UP garrison also allowed Britain to take full ownership of the Islands under Article 6 & the secret article of the Nootka Convention. The UP was an 'other power' as the article refers.
99 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 12:32 am Report abuse
I don't see how it's debatable when it's right there in the treaty text. The 1766 British settlement was expelled by Spain, the islands having been claimed for Spain in 1540 well before 1690. The treaty re-established the British settlement on Egmont only.

Again, the text is clear. It is the Spanish crown, not Britain, which declares the restoration of Egmont shall not affect the prior sovereignty. Britain then agrees, making no such reservation or declaration of sovereignty for its own part.

As far as the Spanish and British crowns were concerned, both nations held and claimed territories on the islands prior to the 1771 treaty, while afterward Britain only held Egmont and agreed to text which recognized Spain's prior right of sovereignty.

As for the 1850 agreement between Britain and an unlawful government in Buenos Aires, the acts of any illegitimate government - including treaties - carry no force of law. The same applies to the Protectorate following Restoration in England, so the concept should not be alien to you.

The 1850 treaty is null because Rosas had no authority to sign anything, thus the treaty in force in 1850 and thereafter is the 1825 treaty, signed between Britain and a lawful Buenos Aires government 5 years after BA resumed sovereignty, and at a time when there were Argentines living on the islands.

(Coincidentally, after his defeat, Rosas fled to Britain - a clearer case of political puppetry is hard to imagine.)
100 MalvinasArgentinas (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 01:21 am Report abuse
@98...more fantasy! Let's see:

“There is no documentary proof of Francisco de Ribera. “

Nigel would have us believe the Spanish, well in the 20th century, concocted this story of Ribera only to defend a former colony’s claim to a territory it no longer had dominion over and had recognized as independent in 1866. Ridiculous!

Reputable, non-Argentine historians like Goebel demonstrate Ribera's expedition, claim, and wintering were REAL. As a result of the expedition, maps were published in 1541 showing the existence of the archipelago, at approximately seven leagues’ distance to the east and parallel to the Straits of Magellan, “to the orient of port San Julian…at fifty and one degrees in elevation.

Ribera’s expedition is well documented by historians. Simply repeating the same lie that it never happened doesn’t make it so.

“Samuel Johnson was not in the Government. He was a social commentator & his view is no more valid than the next person.”

Samuel Johnson was commissioned by the Government. He was acting in the name of His Majesty’s Government, giving his report the weight of officiality with which is it properly characterized, to the eternal chagrin of folks like Nigel who would much prefer to stick their head in the sand in the face of those pesky “facts” that keep getting in the way of (baseless) British sovereignty arguments.

“1770-1 Crisis did not resolve either claim. Neither did the treaties limit the claims.”

The fact is, the treaty clearly did resolve both claims. The Spanish restored Egmont to Britain with the specific stipulation that the restoration would not affect the prior right of Spanish sovereignty. Britain agreed under those terms, making no protest or reservation to them nor affirming its own sovereignty in Britain’s subsequent declaration. Britain thus acquiesced, keeping Egmont – the only property which any British plaque could reserve sovereignty over.

“when Britain became an ally of Spain”

Said no historian. Ever.
101 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 01:25 am Report abuse
“The British claim to the Islands was far stronger, because France & Spain withdrew.”

More self-righteous hubris. Somehow, France and Spain’s withdrawal invalidates their sovereignty claims, while British withdrawal not only reserves claims but facilitates annexation of territories Britain had no control over when it withdrew. The capacity for British self-deception never ceases to amaze!

(Incidentally, France did not withdraw – it transferred its territories to the Spanish crown, which administered them from Buenos Aires. And Spain did not withdraw in 1811, the revolutionary Buenos Aires government did, as they were the administrative authority at the time.)

“Your statements about the plaques shows how hypocritical you are. You suggest that the Spanish plaque claims all the Archipelago,”

You’ve misread. I stated there after the 1771 treaty there were two territories, two sovereignties, two jurisdictions if you will. The plaques make no specific mention as to whole or part of the archipelago, their respective texts reserving sovereignty over only those territories in the actual control of the respective governments of Britain and Buenos Aires at the time of their withdrawals.

For Britain, that means Egmont.

“Both plaques claimed the ENTIRE Archipelago”

Before 1771, not afterward.

“the British claim superceded the Spanish one because the British arrived in 1765, but the Spanish only arrived in 1767.”

No mate, the Spanish arrived in 1540. You must work for a Murdoch publication, because you seem to think that repeating a lie often enough will inevitably make it true.

You not wishing it so, or choosing to ignore this historical event, cannot change the fact that it happened. Spain claimed the islands in 1540, fully 225 years before the British arrived in 1765, and that is an undisputed historical fact.
102 MalvinasArgentinas (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 01:30 am Report abuse
“Furthermore, the Spanish claim was compromised by the fact that they withdrew, when the French made it a condition of the cessation that Spain maintain a colony”

For the entire time during which Spain asserted control over its territories on the islands, it never withdrew, such that it could be considered to have abandoned its territory. Again, it was the revolutionary government of Buenos Aires which withdrew. A distinction which proponents of British sovereignty disdain, but which is nonetheless factual and which carries significant implications. Clearly, the actions of the Buenos Aires revolutionary government were not bound by any bipartite treaties between Spain and France.

Lastly, even if it had happened under Spanish control, abandonment of territory does not automatically constitute cessation of territory to Britain! Or any other foreign power for that matter. Only such a cessation would have allowed Britain to take full ownership, and such a cessation never took place. Not from Spain. Not from Buenos Aires. The only cessation was Port Louis, from France, to Spain.

Lastly...the Nootka conventions don’t bolster in any way Britain’s claim of sovereignty - if anything they undermine it severely. In Nootka, Britain gave up sovereignty of any territories south of any territories already claimed by Spain, or the islands adjacent thereto, of which the Falklands are clearly one.

Nigel also fails to note the Nootka conventions were terminated in 1795 due to war, and then renewed by Spain and Britain in 1814, four years after the revolution in Buenos Aires, rendering it irrelevant to the question of Malvinas / Falklands territorial sovereignty which is a dispute between governments, not between peoples.
103 dab14763 (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 02:44 am Report abuse
1540 Treaty of Münster 1648, Spain accepts its territories are those it holds. Spain did not hold the Falklands in 1648.

1749 Britain's reply:
His Majesty could in no respect agree to the reasoning of the Spanish ministry as to his right to send out ships for the discovery of the unknown and unsettled parts of the world, as this was a right indubitably open to all; yet, as his Britannic Majesty was desirous of showing his Catholic Majesty his great complacency in matters where the rights and advantages of his own subjects were not immediately and intimately concerned, he had consented to lay aside for the present every scheme that might possibly give umbrage to the court of Madrid

1771 No prior Spanish rights. Spain had established no sovereignty over the Falklands when it complained to France that it had prior sovereignty. It's claim was totally baseless. Between 1648 and 1767 no Spanish occupation had taken place. And France did not cede sovereignty to Spain. If it had been a cession, it would’ve meant Spain recognising France had prior sovereignty. What happened was that France caved into Spain's baseless claim of prior sovereignty and declared its occupation illegitimate, thereby losing any rights as first occupants. Rights which by default passed to the British.
The Masserano agreement was a status quo ante agreement which did not affect prior rights. Spain had no prior rights.

1790 The Falklands aren’t adjacent to South America, so Britain didn’t give up anything.
104 dab14763+ (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 02:44 am Report abuse
1811 The Spanish garrison wasn’t under rebel authority. It was loyal to Spain. It was withdrawn to help defend Viceroy De Elio in Montevideo, who was under attack by rebels.

1825 Not a peace treaty. No conflict between the UK and the UP that needed one. No Argentine settlement, Areguati's fully withdrawn in

1824. Recognition of a state doesn’t imply recognition of all that state's claims.

1850 Doesn’t apply to international treaties

Basic points: The UP achieved its independence in rebellion against Spain. Spain did not begin to relinquish its claims in the Americas until 1836 and never ceded its claim to the Falklands to UP/Argentina, so no succession between Spain and the UP. The UP’s claim was totally new, not a continuation of Spain’s. It stands solely on its own merits, not on the merits of Spain’s. A claim over a territory still claimed by Spain over which the UP never established effective control.
105 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 04:45 am Report abuse
As usual, the discussion plunges forward into new, deeper, ever-amusing levels of fantasy and ridiculousness.

“Treaty of Münster 1648, Spain accepts its territories are those it holds.”

Spain recognized Dutch independence. Dab’s interpretation is that if the territory was not specifically listed in a Spanish treaty recognising Dutch independence then this amounts to Spain’s acquiescence.

Here again the facts are twisted so an obscure and unrelated treaty is irrationally correlated to the Falklands sovereignty issue by inferring bizarre language not actually present in the cited treaty’s text: that Spain has no, or forswears, sovereignty over all its territories not specifically listed. Munster, of course, contains no such exclusionary language – it lists some, it does not list all specifically and by name, but regionally, of which the coasts of America are one. Irrelevant in any case, as this being a treaty to end war and recognize Dutch independence, it arguably can hold no bearing whatsoever as to Spain’s sovereignty status in the south atlantic.

But please, Dab – don’t let me discourage you from stipulating any other completely unrelated and irrelevant treaties are relevant! Go on, now, tell us your next one. The Treaty of Meaux, perhaps? The Peace of Zsitvatorok? Oh wait, I’ve got it! Please, do tell us your theory on how the 3rd treaty of peace between Rome and Carthage eradicate Argentine rights of sovereignty in the south atlantic.

This should be fun.
106 MalvinasArgentinas (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 05:00 am Report abuse

How the mind of a pro-British sovereignty proponent works:

“1771 No prior Spanish rights”

Prior Spanish discovery and claim? No Spanish rights.
Transfer of French property in defense of such claim? No Spanish rights, baseless claim.


“The Masserano agreement was a status quo ante agreement”

No, it was a status quo ante agreement with regard to settlements, with a Spanish stipulation that restoration of a British settlement would not alter the preeminent Spanish sovereignty rights, to which Britain agreed of its own volition.

You present only half of the facts to make your position look stronger. Obviously, when confronted by the treaty text itself, none of what you say makes any sense at all.

Which is the way it goes for British sovereignty arguments in general, based solely on cherrypicking the historical events they like, discarding or mirepresenting the rest, adding complexity by citing irrelevant treaties such as Munster, and pretty soon you have yourselves a fantasy so twisted that you can’t even tell you’re lying to yourselves.

Argentina’s claims, on the other hand, are simple: we just go back in British history and provide you with your own quotes, the ones you’re blind to by the web of lies and deceit you’ve built over the centuries.

The British historical narrative: “They're ours! No wait, we don't want them. We never wanted them. Actually we'll just put that on hold. Ok we're back. What, we have to leave now? We'll tell on your king! Ha! We're back, and your king says it's ok! Even though we only get a piece. Ok we'll leave now. It's cold. But we might come back. Ok we're back? Hey who are you? Get out it's all ours!”

blah blah blah
107 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 05:18 am Report abuse

“1811 The Spanish garrison wasn’t under rebel authority.”

Oh right – just paid by it, staffed by it, and ordered by it.

“It was withdrawn to help defend Viceroy De Elio in Montevideo”

And yet they arrived in Buenos Aires by means of a vessel dispatched from Buenos Aires with orders from Buenos Aires. Imagine that!

“1825 Not a peace treaty.”

Amity: From the Latin “amicus” - FRIENDSHIP, especially : friendly relations between nations; synonyms: benevolence, goodwill, brotherhood, cordiality, peace, fellowship, kindliness, neighborliness.

'Oh no, facts be damned – even if we have to scrap the whole English language, can’t let the Argies get a single point across'…right?

“1824. Recognition of a state doesn’t imply recognition of all that state's claims.”

Failure to protest the presence of foreign inhabitants of another state in what one considers one’s territory, or of protesting such state’s declaration of sovereignty over such; further, signing a treaty of Amity and Commerce with such a state, without any reservation, despite being well aware of such declarations and presence, amounts to acquiescence.

Post facto, it demonstrates a contemporary British attitude of no sovereignty over the Falklands, or at the very least of a sovereignty in reservation over Egmont, as the 8 gauchos in 1825 were in the vicinity of Port Louis = your position was a later fabrication.

“ Spain never ceded its claim to the Falklands to UP/Argentina”

The Malvinas were a dependency of Buenos Aires, a territory of the Viceroyalty. Spain recognized independence of the Viceroyalty, in doing so it recognized the independence of Buenos Aires and its numerous island territories.

Were your assertion true, the same question would apply to all the other islands administered by Buenos Aires, universally. BUT, you’re only complaining about sovereignty-inheritance succession of ONE of many Spanish Buenos Aires’ archipelagos, not all - thus your position is arbitrary and ridiculous.
108 dab14763 (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 05:26 am Report abuse
No, it sets the same criterion for sovereignty for Spanish territories as it does for Dutch territories. That is, actual possession. The Spanish did not possess the Falklands in 1648.
Article V:
… And each one, that is to say, the said Lords the King and States, respectively, shall remain in possession of and enjoy such lordships, towns, castles, fortresses, commerce and countries of the East and West Indies, as well as of Brazil, and on the coasts of Asia, Africa, and America, respectively, which the said Lords the King and States, respectively, hold and possess, in this being specially comprised the spots and places which the Portuguese since the year 1641 have taken from the said Lords the States and occupied, comprising also the spots and places which the said Lords the States hereafter without infraction of the present treaty shall come to conquer and possess. …

I suggest you read the Island of Palmas arbitration case on this.
And then work out what rights Spain could have preserved in the Falklands in the 227 years between 1540 and 1767, with no presence there whatsoever.
109 dab14763+ (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 05:58 am Report abuse
“cannot nor ought any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands”

Pretty clear it leaves the question of sovereignty as it was before.

The 8 Gauchos were rescued on July 24 1824th, by British sealer Susannah Anne, and taken back to Buenos Aires. So no. No Argentine presence in 1825. Which in any case means government presence, not the presence of a few civilians.

And no, a friendship treaty is not a peace treaty.

Spain in 1863 was in no position to cede the Falklands to Argentina.
110 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 07:16 am Report abuse
“… ‘cannot nor ought any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands…Pretty clear it leaves the question of sovereignty as it was before.”

Yes, FOR SPAIN, because was the party that Spain stipulated that condition! This is not a “we agree” treaty. This is a “Spain proposes” followed by “Britain Agrees” treaty. Thus, only Spain's prior right of sovereignty is reserved in the treaty to which Britain agreed. You are misrepresenting Spain’s text as if it were a joint text that equally applied to both parties. And you are failing.

Spain said the restoration of Egmont won’t affect ITS prior right of sovereignty. Maserano presented this; Britain agreed to restoration of Egmont under those terms. Both crowns then issued independent declarations to inform their officers and instruct their actions to conform. The British declaration said nothing about a reservation of sovereignty either. Read the text.

(Incidentally, members of Commons were outraged at this curtailment of the British sovereignty claim, which proves this is not a new notion that following 1771 Britain only had Egmont, but rather a contemporary interpretation of the treaty.)

“work out what rights Spain could have preserved in the Falklands in the 227 years between 1540 and 1767, with no presence there whatsoever.”

I could likewise ask you to work out what rights Britain could have preserved in the Malvinas in the 60 years between 1833 and 1773, with no presence there whatsoever. That line of argumentation is what you’d call a double-edged sword.
111 MalvinasArgentinas (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 07:28 am Report abuse
“I suggest you read the Island of Palmas arbitration case on this. ”

I am familiar with it, and would remind you the Palmas case was a 20th century ruling of a 19th century event based on 16th century Spanish annexation, by pre-UN international judicial body subject to voluntary jurisdiction, under the framework of the league of nations. This court and its ruling has little relevance in modern international jurisprudence.

Its judgment is moot in any case to falklands/malvinas as in 1833 the islands were not terra nullius, there was an Argentine settlement and Argentine official presence, and Spain's 1540 claim was made within the context of Tordesillas. Thus any comparison to a Spanish possession in the Pacific is irrational, as the two acts of claim were unrelated - one of exploration under treaty, the other of simple annexation of terra nullius.
112 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 07:36 am Report abuse
“No, it sets the same criterion for sovereignty for Spanish territories as it does for Dutch territories. That is, actual possession.”

You are misrepresenting the text, as if there was a clause present that the parties agreed “the Lords the King and states shall henceforth have sovereign right to only those territories they possess at the present moment, to the exclusion of any other.


The text simply states the Kings shall continue to remain in possession of what they already possess, making absolutely no mention of, or infringement upon, their right to sovereignty of claimed territories not in their active possession. So, unless you're reading part of the Munster treaty written in invisible ink...what you claim simply isn't there.

Additionally, you are the one making the distinction between an active and passive possession, for at the time, sovereignty and posession were interchangeable terms not descriptive of presence or active administration.

To 1648 Spain, the Malvinas as claimed in 1540 for the Spanish crown were considered a Spanish possession irrespective of whether or not there was an actual Spanish presence in 1648. This would indicate, as an archipelago “on the coasts of…America”, that even by your standard of reasoning Spanish Malvinas conforms to Munster.

Not that any of this is consequential because, again, Munster was a treaty to end a war and recognize Dutch independence, among many MANY other things, none of which have one fraction of one iota of relation to Spanish Malvinas by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you bring up Munster again, I shall be forced to assume I am holding a discussion with Karl Pilkington, and desist for the sake of my own sanity.
113 Pugol-H (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 08:17 pm Report abuse
@ 102 MalvinasArgentinas
“Buenos Aires revolutionary government were not bound by any bipartite treaties between Spain and France.”

Yet it is on the basis of that treaty that you claim the “succession of states” gives you the right to inherit the territories.

So neither are the British bound by any bipartite treaties between say Spain and Portugal, like the treaty of Tordesillas for example.

Under which Argentina can’t claim S Georgia/S. Sandwich islands of course as they belong to Portugal, but you do claim the Falklands on the basis they are the Spanish side of the line.

“Or the islands adjacent thereto”.

1. Lying near, close, or contiguous; adjoining; neighbouring: a motel adjacent to the highway.
2. just before, after, or facing: a map on an adjacent page.

“Of which the Falklands are clearly one”

Simply cannot argue that interpretation in English now or then, and as the original (referee version) of the treaty was in Latin.

1400–50; late Middle English < Latin adjacent- (stem of adjacēns, present participle of adjacēre to adjoin),

You simply cannot argue that interpretation at all.

The island of Terra del fuego could be said to be “adjacent” to S America, but the Falklands 400 miles away in the S Atlantic, you’re having a bird bath Mate.

And talking complete bollox into the bargin.
114 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 08th, 2013 - 10:17 pm Report abuse
>102 More absolute rubbish.

The Nootka Convention does not in any way say that Britain gave up sovereignty. The word is not even in the treaty. The convention actually restores land in North America taken illegally by Spain. The clauses are clearly an agreement to allow trading on the continent, so long as it does not take place within a certain distance of Spanish settlements.

The secret clause was placed in the convention to allow either side to back out of the agreement if any other party started claiming any of the territory for themselves. If that was to happen, then either Spain or Britain would be free to establish settlements to protect their trade. Nootka was an agreement to allow Spain & Britain to trade in the Americas, both North & South.


As I said before, there is no documentary proof of Francisco de Ribera being on the Falkland Islands.

If there is, show us where on the internet there is evidence of his visit. Not some fabricated discussion, but actual historical documentation.

There was a Captain Francisco de Ribera that explored the River Plate and met the South American Indians, but as for any claim that he visited the Falklands, that is as false as the claims that Antonio Rivero was a patriot fighting the British, when in fact he and the other gauchos murdered Vernet's representatives in a dispute over pay. Ironic that those representatives included an Argentine & the bulk of the management of the colony.

“when Britain became an ally of Spain”
“Said no historian. Ever”

Actually, you are wrong. Spain was an ally of Britain during the Peninsular War.

The Peninsular War was a military conflict between France and the allied powers of Spain, the United Kingdom, and Portugal for control of the Iberian Peninsula.

115 Pugol-H (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 01:22 am Report abuse
Wellington, Generalissimo of all the Armies of Spain.

Probably never shown “Sharp” in Argentina. Thru Flanders , Portugal and Spain, ower the hills and far away.

Then of course we helped their empire in S. America to break away, sweet revenge for N. America against both France and Spain in one (slightly long) war.

What the Alejandro Argentinas completely miss is that events in the S Atlantic/S America were not happening in a vacuum. But were frequently influenced more by events the other side of the world than anything local.

Seven years war anyone.
116 MalvinasArgentinas (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 03:49 am Report abuse
“As I said before, there is no documentary proof of Francisco de Ribera being on the Falkland Islands. If there is, show us where…”

Read Dolzer, Gustafson, Melford,Goebel. I’m not here to do your research for you. If you have a problem with historians' conclusions and research, I suggest take it up with them.

Academically speaking, Goebel is widely considered internationally as the greatest Falklands/Malvinas historian - bar none. No researcher has ever refuted his findings on the Ribera expedition. His work is SOLID GOLD. Your choice to ignore them is your own.

And for your information, not all 15th century Spanish documents have yet been digitized and uploaded (there's about, oh, a few million or so extremely fragile documents, and Spain is not exactly swimming in cash right now). So, no, I will not be providing a link, other than to Goebel’s work if you like. His conclusions are good enough for me.

“as false as the claims that Antonio Rivero was a patriot fighting the British, when in fact he and the other gauchos murdered Vernet's representatives in a dispute over pay”

Did you ever think failure to pay him might have been the straw that broke the camels’ back?

What might be the breaking point of any man, after being forced to give allegiance to a foreign government? Oh, I know, the Brits didn’t kick out any civilians – they just brought them milk and cookies and nicely compelled them to accept a foreign military government, expelling their political leaders, and essentially leaving a ruthless double-dealing profiteer in charge of their lives. Why they simply showed up one day said 'Hello Argie civilians! You must understand we are in charge and you are welcome to stay!' Funny how us Argies always distort that peaceful event into an aggressive act...

...except I can’t recall if when the military junta had did the same to them in 1982 the British-descended islanders would described that same experience with such joyful and carefree euphemism.
117 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 03:54 am Report abuse
“Spain was an ally of Britain during the Peninsular War.”

That’s a hell of an exaggeration! Apparently you’re never heard the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Britain and Russia’s interests aligned against Napoleon as well, that doesn’t mean they were “allies”. Once again you are mischaracterizing historical events to suit your conclusions.


What a perfect example of British double-standard in relation to the Falklands / Malvinas dispute!

“The island of Terra del fuego could be said to be “adjacent” to S America, but the Falklands 400 miles away in the S Atlantic, you’re having a bird bath Mate.”

followed immediately by

“The secret clause was placed in the convention to allow either side to back out of the agreement if any other party started claiming any of the territory for themselves. If that was to happen, then either Spain or Britain would be free to establish settlements to protect their trade.”


So let me see if I've got it straight. Your argument is that the islands aren’t “adjacent” to South America so Nootka doesn’t apply to the Falklands. But that Nootka really does apply to the Falklands, just only in regards to the secret clause that gave Britain the right to return if another power set up shop. But Nootka doesn’t apply! Other than the secret clause.

It's not good to skip doses like that, you know. People might get the impression that none of what you're saying makes any sense. But please, do go on telling me about how I’m talking complete bollox…
118 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 04:59 pm Report abuse
I happen to believe that Nootka did apply to all of the Americas, both North and South. Even though the Islands are hardly close to the mainland, they can be considered within the confines of the treaty.

Nevertheless, it still doesn't help UP because they were not a party to the treaty & under the secret clause, UP falls under the definition of an “Other Power” which allows Britain to re-assert sovereignty over the Islands. A sovereignty gained before Spain arrived on the Islands.

The straw that broke Antonio Rivero's back was the failure of Vernet's representatives to pay him in silver. When Captain Onslow arrived, Rivero was very pleased that Onslow insisted that the gauchos were paid in hard currency. Onslow re-provisioned his ship before departure & the beef he purchased was paid for in silver. Onslow made sure that the silver went to the gauchos. I'm sure they appreciated that he also extracted a promise from Jean Simon that he continued to pay the gauchos in silver. However, after Onslow left, Vernet's representatives went back to using the worthless paper from Vernet & that was the reason Rivero & the Gauchos rebelled against Vernet, killed his men, one of whom was an Argentine.

Or are you suggesting that this Argentine was somehow a traitor working for the British?! He was working for Vernet & Vernet's colony is the sole reason that Argentina has any claim (however small) to the Islands. The 5 people killed were: Mathew Brisbane, William Dickson, Anton Vaihinger (a German labourer), Jean Simon, and Ventura Pasos from Buenos Aires. All these were employees of Louis Vernet, not as some mythmakers have tried to suggest representatives of Britain. They were representatives of Vernet.

Considering that the colony consisted of only 29 people at the time, Rivero murdered 17% of the population. When Rivero & his accomplices were arrested, the population went down to 16 people. Barely enough to carry on.
119 dab14763 (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 05:23 pm Report abuse
There were 24 and it reduced to 11.
120 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 06:11 pm Report abuse
Are you sure? because according to my data, there were 22 left after the Clio, 7 more arrived on the Rapid, bringing it to 29. Three were British, two
were German, one French, and the remaining 23 were Spanish-speaking (18 of them from Buenos Aires).

5 murdered by Rivero & 8 Gauchos, who were then removed. So it's 15, not 16.

I've been looking over the sources for the Francisco de Ribera claim and it's not looking good for the Argentines, because Professor Rudolph Dolzer is one of the discredited historians who backed the official claims disproved by Pascoe & Pepper.

Dolzer believed that Jewett was sent to the Falklands by the UP government, even though there is no documentation to back this up & the first the UP knew of Jewett's flag raising was in 1821 through the newspapers.

A browse through google books revealed the argument of one Lowell S. Gustafson with his The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands (New York : Oxford University Press, 1988). He cites J.C.J. Metford ( in Goebel when he says that Jewett was “sent”, which is debatable, but then goes on to say that Jewett found fifty ships of various nationalities and told them he was claiming the islands in the name of the Republic of Argentina.

Even the historians who you say support the Francisco de Ribera claim, dont support each other.
121 dab14763 (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 06:26 pm Report abuse
See Helsby's report on the murders, and Fitzroy's report on his visit to the islands. 5 had left in march though Fitzroy tried to convince them to stay. The Rivero gang killed one of their own, so 6 murdered 7 removed.

I think you are confusing me with Alejandro.
122 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 06:56 pm Report abuse
Sorry, Alejandro gets so confused. Especially when he quotes discredited historians.
123 Pugol-H (#) Jan 09th, 2013 - 07:37 pm Report abuse
@117 AlejandroArgerich
Secret clauses or not, the use of the word “adjacent” excludes the Falklands from any articles in this treaty, not complicated mate. I did post the meaning of the word for you, would you like to read that bit again.

Nigel clearly has his own views on the subject, fair play to him.

Not that it even matters as we are talking about an Anglo Spanish treaty, under which Argentina can claim nothing, whatever the treaty does or doesn’t say or mean. Argentina didn’t even exist then.

Same applies to Sr Francisco de Ribera, whatever he did or didn’t do, he was not Argentine or acting for Argentina.

You broke away from Spain by force of arms, and as such can no more claim Spanish rights or title than you can claim Gibraltar. This is the bottom line here.

One again, “Wellington, Generalissimo of all the Armies of Spain”, only foreigner ever to hold the title. Wasn’t just a courtesy title either.

And they didn’t even ask for Gibraltar back.

By the way I’m still waiting for an answer about the treaty of Tordesillas and Argentina’s claim to S. Georgia/S. Sandwich islands.
124 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 06:01 am Report abuse
And here we have another wonderful example of British-sovereignty misinformation.

Above, one proponent of British sovereignty claims the Nootka treaty applies to the Malvinas / Falklands, while another says not at all. Above, I am challenged to explain Argentina's claim to S. Georgia & Sandwich by someone who knows full well the claim is based on Argentine economic activity, yet further up another pro-British contributor suggested invalidation of the Argentine claim based a judgment for the Island of Palmas which - you guessed it - granted Dutch sovereignty of an island on the basis of economic activity.

To any fair-minded and neutral reader, the British strategy is clear: introduce doubt into the minds of readers by adding countless layers of complexity to their arguments against rightful Argentine sovereignty.

In their defense of the indefensible, every unfavorable British quote is magically excused; every historian becomes immediately discredited despite the highest international academic credentials; every historical event that could possible give a shred of doubt regarding the (nonexistent) strength of the claim for British sovereignty over the Falklands is immediately attacked, mischaracterized, or altogether ignored.

Thus, a treaty in which Britain gives up sovereignty becomes a treaty which ensures it. A garrison from Buenos Aires becomes a unit under direct Spanish control. A Spanish treaty that recognizes Dutch independence magically applies to the South Atlantic hundreds of years later.

And thus, a newly-independent nation composed of former Spanish territories is recognized as such by Britain, islands and all, except when they change their mind about an archipelago later.

Equal parts hipocrisy, ignorance, hubris and baseless self-righteousness, mixed in with a dash of bellicose intimidation, whilst blaming your victim of everything you yourself are doing - THAT is what the British sovereignty claim is all about: a lie, told at gunpoint.
125 axel arg (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 02:30 pm Report abuse
I have an answer for you in my coment 92. On the other hand, in that comment i forgat telling you that when spain and the u. k. singed the nootka sound convention in 1790, it was included in that agreement a secret article which expressed that the u. k. could stablish settlements if a third power stablishes settlements over the archipelago too.
In 182o, the united provinces stablished it's first settlement, which was published in the times in 1821, and in newspapers from the u. s. a., however there was not any protest by the govt. of her majesty.
After that first settlement, there were also others settlements. Anyway, the point is that perhaps the u. k. had right to stablish settlemenst in the islands, in virtue of that secret article, however it didn't implicate that it had right to deprive the united provinces from the archipelago.
On the other hand, respecting the lack of claims by arg. between 1850 and 1884, which is considered by you like a recognition of british sovereignty over the islands by argentina. Let me tell you that you should take into account also the big economic dependence that arg. had with the u. k. for many years, so, it's obvious that arg. wasen't in conditions for claiming.
It's true that the argentine claims weren't regular during some periods, however between 1884 and 1888, argentina proposed the u. k. to take the question to the artbitration, which was rejected by the u. k. Beside, despite the irregular claims by our country, in 1968, 1974, and in 1980, both nations tried to find a negotiated solution for this conflict, so, if the u. k. tried to negotiate with arg., in order to find a solution for this dispute, it's hightly arguable to express that there was a recognition of british sovereignty over the islands by arg.
I always say that if we want to debate about history, we must have enough intellectual honesty, because respecting this cause, the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations, not just for arg.
126 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 03:42 pm Report abuse
Sorry Axel, but the UP did not establish a settlement on the Falklands in 1820.

The only presence on the Islands was dozens of sealing ships which visited for a few months at a time. When Jewett arrived, Weddell counted 50 ships.

The UP did not learn about Jewett's claims until 1822. They certainly did not send him to the Islands for that purpose, because;

1) There is no documentation proving that the UP government gave any such orders to Jewett before he left;

2) If UP had supposedly already 'inherited' the Islands, why would they need to give orders to assert sovereignty by making such a declaration?;

3) Besides, any NEED for Jewett to make a declaration actually shows that UP knew they had not inherited the Islands, because Spain still claimed them, which they did.

3) Jewett spent months in the Atlantic looking for Spanish vessels to capture. He only captured a Portuguese vessel (Carlota) & as UP was not at war with Portugal, this made Jewett a pirate. He only went to the Falklands because his ship was badly damaged in a storm in which he lost the Carlota & suffered a mutiny.

No-one would take the claims of a pirate as serious. Jewett & his replacement Mason were both accused as pirates, Mason convicted.

Areguati did not arrive until 2 February 1824. Within 10 days, he sent a request to leave. Not only did they arrive during the late autumn & start of the winter so it was difficult to grow vegetables, but they lacked the equipment to capture cattle for food & were starving. They left in small numbers on any of the sealing ships heading to BA & all of them departed by August 1824.

For the two years from mid-1824 until June 1826 there was no one at all from UP in the Falklands & reports that Argentina had a ”governor” in the Falklands when Britain signed a Friendship & Navigation treaty with UP in 1825 are untrue. In any case, the 1825 treaty said nothing about the extent of UP territory & the navigation it referred to was in the River Plate.
127 Lord Horatio (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 05:03 pm Report abuse
@125 I think you put two 3)s in there :)

I understand what you are getting at though. If Jewett was sent on a mission to the Islands to make the declaration of sovereignty, why did he spend 6 months in the Atlantic? He left Buenos Aires in March, but only arrived there in October. That's a hell of a long time at sea. Extremely long if you consider he was supposed to go to the Falklands right away which is only 2 weeks by sailing ship at best.

My view is that the British and Spanish governments ignored Jewett, not only because he was accused of being a pirate by the Portuguese, but mainly because the United Provinces did not repeat his declaration and claim the lands for themselves. If they had done so, then the British would have protested immediately.

I suspect that the United Provinces did not want to make the declaration because they knew that the British and Spanish would object and send warships to maintain their claim.

Also, as axel suggests, the United Provinces did not want to upset their major trading partner, Britain. I believe that as much as 25% of the foreign trade was with Britain, because the Spanish markets were no longer available. If the United Provinces had upset Britain, they would suffer from lost trade.

My theory is that the United Provinces kept quiet about Jewett's declaration when they heard about it, not only to prevent Britain and Spain objecting, but also to acquire the Islands by quiet colonisation. By the time Britain and Spain found out, it would be too late to do anything about it.

That's why they made no declaration when Vernet went there in 1826. It was only Vernet's insistence that the United Provinces send troops to kick out the American sealers which prompted the declaration that Vernet was Military & Civil Commander, allowing him to take action with his own men, with the authority of the United Provinces Government.

When Britain learned that BA were appointing 'Governors' on British land, they objected immediately.
128 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 06:30 pm Report abuse
Sorry, my numbering was mixed up.

Yes I agree with you. It does appear that Buenos Aires didn't want to make any statement declaring the Islands as theirs, because the previous owners would step in and evict the colonisers from UP.

Vernet spoiled it all by demanding that the UP send troops to stop the American sealers, but Buenos Aires was reluctant to do anything which could lead to war & therefore appointed Vernet as Military & Civil Commander, so that BA could blame him if the Americans went to war.

>125 Axel

Getting back to what you were discussing, I'm sure that as you & Lord Horatio mentioned Argentina was not going to do anything about the Falklands because it would upset a major trading partner.

However, you would think that if the events of 1833 were that damaging to UP's integrity & honour, that they would take action to go back to the Islands shortly after 1833 with ships & troops, to remove the British. They didn't.

That speaks volumes about the nature of the UP claim. That it was so tenuous (based as it was on Vernet & Spanish inheritance) because Vernet preferred British sovereignty & asked for permission from the British to be on the Islands, whilst the Spanish had never given up their claim & still believed that the Islands were theirs from the plaque left in 1811.

After the Convention of Settlement, the Arana-Southern Treaty of 1850, the UP was unable to make a valid claim, because they neglected to include the Falklands sovereignty dispute in the treaty.

Any suggestion that the treaty was made by an illegal government is plain silly. Argentina had plenty of opportunity to object between 1850 and 1884 and from 1884 to 1941 but didn't.

Then there's the maps. Argentina commissioned maps of their own country which declared the Falklands to be British. So even in the 19th Century, Argentina accepted that the British had sovereignty & declared this to the world in the maps distributed or sold. They acquiesced.
129 dab14763 (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 06:35 pm Report abuse
No inheritance, so doesn’t matter if Nootka applied or not.
Nobody’s said Nootka gave UK sovereignty. Just that it doesn’t give Argentine sovereignty.

Las Palmas wasn’t awarded on the basis of economic activity. This shows you’ve never read the award.
The judge’s words:
“The Netherlands title of sovereignty, acquired by continuous and peaceful display of State authority during a long period of time going probably back beyond the year 1700, therefore holds good.”
The UK has been exercising state authority over SG&SS since at least the 1840s.

Münster invalidates the prior Spanish claim.
Let’s compare:
The US says Spain’s discovery of Las Palmas in the 16th C. gave sovereignty
You say Spain’s discovery of the Falklands in the 16th C. gave sovereignty
Judge says international law of the time already accepted that discovery by itself not enough to confer sovereignty.
And no, the UK’s never claimed sovereignty based on discovery alone.
US says the Netherlands recognised Spain’s sovereignty through Article V of the Treaty of Münster
Judge says:
“This article prescribes no frontiers and appoints no definite regions as belonging to one Power or the other. On the other hand, it establishes as a criterion the principle of possession”
Spain didn’t hold Las Palmas in 1648, or the Falklands in 1648 or 100 years later. Any Spanish rights were acquired after 1766, not before.

The opinions of backbench or opposition MPs or of civil servants don’t have more legal weight than the government’s.

Historians don’t deal properly with whether Spain’s claim had passed to Argentina by 1833. It hadn’t.

The garrison was sent from BA when BA was under Spanish control. It was withdrawn by order of the Viceroy to protect him in Montevideo, so yes it was under Spanish control.

The hypocrisy lies in Argentina complaining about stolen territory when more than half its territory was stolen, not by Spain, but by Argentina itself after independence, mostly after 1833.
130 Pugol-H (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 08:06 pm Report abuse
@124 AlejandroArgerich
“any fair-minded and neutral reader”.

Will quickly realise that the British case is actually quite straight forward, and supported by a lot of evidence that can be cross referenced in both Spanish and French historical archives.

Argentina’s case is largely based on events long before Argentina ever existed. On agreements and treaties which it never signed and had no part in, and which were never intended for the purposes to which Argentina now tries to apply them.

Events since Argentina existed are either completely miss-represented or completely ignored.

Do not for one moment kid yourself that “any fair-minded and neutral reader” is going to be fooled by the rubbish you post here, it’s too easy to check.

Many people in Argentina have only just found out the British were in the Islands in 1765 (must have been a shock), even though its admitted in the observatorio parlamentario – cuestion malvinas (that’s a good read if ever you’re in need of a good laugh, as in hysterical).

I can only assume that the subtle details of your infallible argument are too tiresome to bother the general population with. Much easier just to tell them the Pirates first arrived in 1833 and stole the islands

Never mind the human rights issue here, you just look for a way to strip people of their rights, which historically is the prelude to removing the people themselves.

Like I said talking bollox, not just to us but to your own people as well.
131 Anglotino (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 08:56 pm Report abuse

Try finding anything on Francisco de Ribera.

Seems all supporting material hasn't been “digitised” yet because Spain is broke, totally ignoring the fact that there was a world before the Internet and that there have been nearly 500 years for people to view and discuss these documents and incorporate them into historical accounts.
132 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 10th, 2013 - 10:12 pm Report abuse
The total lack of any corroborating information or documentation on Francisco de Ribera can only lead to one conclusion.

He's fabricated.

It's a lie designed to validate, or authenticate the Spanish claim to the Islands. I'm certain that there was a Captain Francisco de Ribera & that he explored the River Plate & met the native indians, but he certainly never went near the Falklands, or Spanish historians would have mentioned him.

You have to be pretty desperate to even consider telling such open lies to back up the Argentine claims.

Of course, the major point is that even if Francisco de Ribera went to the Islands (when I'm saying he didn't), it only assists Spain's claim, not Argentina's. Of course it would be an obvious lie to suggest that an Argentine went to the Islands in the 16th century.

It's been suggested that Rudolph Dolzer stated he existed. However, we have seen that Dolzer credibility as a historian was severely damaged by the fact that he supported points about the Argentine claim that were conclusively disproved as fake, fabricated, misleading information or downright lies.

For 500 years, people have used books carrying references to documents in archives to verify the historical truth. Yet strangely, there is no mention of Ribera as an explorer of the Falklands by Spain. No mention of him in any of the discussions between the Spanish & French courts over the sovereignty issue. The Treaty of Tordesillas & the Papal Bull combined with the Bourbon Compact were the only reasons given by the Spanish as to why the Islands should be theirs.

The only logical reason for Spain omitting Ribera must be that the Spain had no record or documentation showing he went there. Because any claim that he did was made up in modern 20th century Argentina to back their false claims to the Falklands through inheritance from Spain.
133 Anglotino (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 12:49 am Report abuse
132 Nigel

You said everything I wanted to but didn't have the background.

For some people it is hard to imagine a world without everything instantly available on the Internet. But the Internet, as we know it, is only 20 years old and research was slow, labourious and time cosuming. But still done. Digitising doesn't create a document, just makes it easier to view.

Francisco de Ribera is not part of the Falkland's history.

Where's the next myth to demolish?
134 MalvinasArgentinas (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 05:11 am Report abuse
You know, I’d like to see the same amount of scrutiny placed on Onslow’s orders as you’re placing on Jewett and Ribera. Where are Onslow’s orders? How do we know he wasn’t acting of his own volition? Somehow it seems the British arguments fall apart when the same standard of evidence is applied to the British record as they wish to apply to the Argentine one or the Spanish one.

You say Ribera is a fiction because I can’t produce any internet scans of primary documents related to his voyage. Very well, I say Onslow acted without orders and on his own volition as you can’t provide a scan of his! I have no reason to trust your historians when you won’t even trust an AMERICAN historian like Julius Goebel (let alone an Argentine one).
135 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 05:12 am Report abuse
I only say that if you wish to challenge Goebel’s conclusions regarding the historical veracity of the Ribera expedition and claim, going against the established international academic consensus establishing the veracity of his conclusions, then the onus of proof is on YOU, and we need provide you with nothing.

The fact is that the British narrative needs…DEMANDS…that you mischaracterize Jewett as much as possible. You HAVE to deny he had orders. You HAVE to drag him through the mud, discredit him, as much as possible while ignoring the fact that after he made his declaration there was NO BRITISH PROTEST of Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas.

Same applies to the concept of inheritance, which you recognize for every independent Viceroyalty territory and all its islands, with the obviously arbitrary exception of these.

And the same applies with to Ribera. You must see to it that Francisco de Ribera’s claim for Spain predating the British is altogether erased from history, because it undermines the British claim of prior discovery like no other fact can. It matters not one whit that you cannot present one single historian who concludes the Ribera expedition never took place. Ribera constitutes the single most significant threat to the British argument for sovereignty, because everything is based on 1690 and if that is false, everything falls apart. So in order for you to make any sense at all, you have to deny it ever happened, deny his conclusions, deny any historian’s conclusions regarding him no matter how well respected he is in the academic community.

Which of course to proponents of Argentine sovereignty is quite amusing and very well received, because it makes you look like complete fools.
136 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 10:05 am Report abuse
>135 Alejandro

You have it the wrong way around. The ONUS of proof is reliant on people who make claims that cannot be backed up by credible documentation.

Claims have been made that Ribera went to the Islands. Historians such as Dolzer & Goebel have stated that he did. Yet there is no documentation to back up their claims. The ONUS is on them to validate their claim.

You've repeated their claims that Ribera was on the Falklands in the 16th century, so the ONUS is on you to prove that he was.

If you cannot prove this, then your claim is invalid and your credibility is challenged, as is the entire Argentine claim.

History is the accumulation of knowledge & interpretation of events from the documents stored in archives, which are accessible by historians & the public.

There are no documents to support the Ribera claim. It's a lie designed to suggest that Spain landed on the Islands before Captain John Strong did in 1690.

As many people on here have pointed out, mere discovery of the Islands is insufficient to acquire sovereignty. You have to land & build a settlement & administer the land for years to acquire ownership of it.

Strong's logs & diaries (as well as Onslow's orders) are held by the National Maritime Museum & the National Archives in the UK. Anyone can view these documents so they are a credible documents of his voyage.

As for Jewett, despite exhaustive research, no-one in Argentina has managed to produce a verifiable authentic document which supports that Jewett was given orders to go to the Islands & make a claim.

As I also pointed out, if he had been given orders to do such a thing, it would challenge Argentina's claim that they had inherited the Islands from Spain. If you have ALREADY inherited something, why do you need to go there & make a declaration claiming the land?!

In his later years, Jewett aided Captain Silas Duncan before he went to the Falklands and it's suggested that he even fought with the Brazilian Navy against Argentina.
137 dab14763 (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 03:42 pm Report abuse
“Same applies to the concept of inheritance, which you recognize for every independent Viceroyalty territory and all its islands, with the obviously arbitrary exception of these.”

Who said we did? They all achieved independence by rebellion against Spain, not inheritance from Spain.
138 Pugol-H (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 05:10 pm Report abuse
@135 AlejandroArgerich
There was no supporting deceleration from the UP gov, no diplomatic credentials of any kind. No reason to believe this was anything other than an individual acting alone.

Of course with the British not yet having established diplomatic relations with the fledgling Argentine state, there was no way to make any diplomatic protest or verify the declaration.

Worth remembering that back then Argentina was still a 1000 or so miles away from British territory in the S. Atlantic/Antarctic, and still had to conquer and colonise Patagonia to get to be our neighbours in that region.

The British always rejected the Spanish claim in the first place, even if you could have inherited the Islands from the Spanish the only thing to inherit was the dispute.

You do know the Spanish continued to claim the islands until 1868, don’t you?

Not really possible to “erase” Sr Francisco de Ribera from history, as he doesn’t seem to yet exist in history. If he ever does it will be as a Spaniard not an Argy.

1690 is simply part of the British history of the islands supporting the British claim. Makes no difference to the British claim what Spanish Ribbo did or didn’t do prior to that. It could only matter in the event of any current Spanish claim. The British claim is entirely based on documented British events.

And oh yes claims do have to be proved, otherwise fairy tales have to be accepted as fact until they are disproved.
139 nigelpwsmith (#) Jan 11th, 2013 - 08:29 pm Report abuse
>138 Pugol

Sarcasm may be lost on some of the Argentine readers. They may actually believe what you say that all 'fairy tales' have to be accepted as fact!

The truth is that only history which can be verified by copious documentation & cross-referenced can be accepted as fact.

There is no documentation on Ribera on the internet. Therefore his 'visit' to the Falklands cannot be accepted as true. If Dolzer or Goebel or any of the other historians can provide documentation, we'd be happy to look it over. If these documents are located in a Spanish archive or museum, all the better. If nothing can be provided, then those people who made claims about Ribera lose credibility.

Worse than that. If it is shown that the Ribera story is a lie, a deliberate fabrication to back the Argentine claim, then the Falkland Islands Government (along with British historians) will use this Ribera claim as yet more proof that Argentina is deliberately misleading or lying to back their poor claim to sovereignty.

Many amateur historians have studied the Falklands Islands history and uncovered untruths originating from Argentina. The Pascoe & Pepper documents show some of the bigger Argentine lies. One of the most repeated lies is that all the Argentines were expelled from the Falklands in 1833. What makes this lie all the worse is that the records of the troops that returned document that the majority of the people still on the Islands were Argentines.

So every time that CFK repeats that lie, she is attempting to deceive. What makes it worse is that she is deceiving the United Nations.

The Falkland Islands Government can certainly commission a documentary to expose Argentina's lies. Will be difficult for CFK to explain why she repeats her lies so often.

It was amusing that so many Argentine people were surprised at the advertisement in the Buenos Aires Herald which pointed out that the British arrived on the Falklands in 1765. Wonder what they will say when they learn more?!
140 British_Kirchnerist (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 08:52 pm Report abuse
#28 Or maybe she didn't want anything to do with Britain's own criminal version of Clarin...

#31 Cristina is hardly a Blairite! Menem was more like Blair, which makes her and Nestor equivalent to Tony Benn or George Galloway in power =)
141 Hermes1967 (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 10:33 pm Report abuse

This is what your reasoning amounts to,

“The truth is that only history which can be verified by copious documentation & cross-referenced can be accepted as fact. There is no documentation on Ribera on the internet. Therefore his 'visit' to the Falklands cannot be accepted as true.”,

which is to say a fact cannot be copiously documented & cross-referenced unless it is on the internet. Your words speak for themselves, I'll let a neutral and objective reader determine their implications.
142 MalvinasArgentinas (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 10:34 pm Report abuse
@Dab- The act of recognising the independence of a territory formerly held by another power is the very act of recognizing the inheritance of sovereignty from that former power to the new independent entity. You cannot do the one without simultaneously doing the other, it is analogous to the acts of breathing and inhaling.
@Pugol- The British did indeed establish diplomatic relations beginning in 1825, 5 years after Jewett’s declaration, after which they had plenty of time and avenue to make protest or verification thereof.

The British did not always reject the Spanish claim, as the British signed a treaty with Spain which established a framework of dual jurisdiction, by which none could claim the whole of the archipelago for itself. The pre-existing dispute was settled. I would counter the only thing to inherit, or re-establish sovereignty over, by EITHER side, would be the respective jurisdictions as accorded to in 1771.
143 AlejandroArgerich (#) Jan 12th, 2013 - 10:38 pm Report abuse
@Nigel- It is you, not I, who are making claims to discredit Ribera. Claims made by Dozer and Goebel have been studied for DECADES, have gone through rigorous academic peer review, and most importantly have not been found wanting by the academic community based on primary documents and cartographical evidence.

**YOU are challenging the validity of an established and accepted historical event, therefore YOU must provide evidence.**

Simply because you do no happen to like Goebel's conclusions does not mean they are not ACCEPTED HISTORICAL FACTS.

Plus, the fact that you cannot find one single historian (not even Pascoe & Pepper) who has successfully challenged the account of Ribera’s expedition speaks poorly of your credibility, not mine.

You might as well deny Magellan.

The fact is that simply because you and others like you wish to portray Ribera’s expedition, landing, claim for Spain, and wintering as a “lie” does not make it so. You compound this with other lies.

For example, regarding specific requisite actions in the acquisition of sovereignty, specifically proscription, which is a modern concept of international law non-existent (and thus non-applicable) in the 16th century.

Or another lie, claiming no Argentines were expelled in 1833 by differentiating between the expulsion of a civilian community (of no legal importance in the 19th century) and the expulsion of a garrison (of legal importance in the 19th century). You therefore seek to mischaracterize British actions as benign, or less aggressive, by presenting the situation from a 21st century moral standard. If the pursuit of truth was your objective, you would judge the event from its contemporary 19th-century perspective, which does judges only an expulsion of government and military presence and is moot on that of the accompanying civilians.

These of course are just more of those little pesky facts that cause the British case for Falklands sovereignty to fall apart under close scrutiny.

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!