Thursday, February 7th 2013 - 09:04 UTC

“There is no such thing as Falkland Islanders: they are British citizens in disputed islands”

There is no such thing as Falkland Islanders, the Argentine Foreign minister Hector Timerman insisted during a press conference in London on Wednesday, claiming they are British citizens living in disputed islands. He claimed the United Nations only acknowledges two parties in the territorial dispute: UK and Argentina.

The Argentine minister keeps making friends in the South Atlantic

“The Falkland Islanders do not exist. What exist is British citizens who live in the Islas Malvinas. ”The United Nations does not recognize a third party in the conflict. It says there are just two parts: the UK and Argentina.“

He added that ”everybody“ in Argentina still felt the ”effects of the 1833 invasion“ of the South Atlantic when colonial Britain “forcibly usurped the Islands” from Argentina and shipped the population away.

Timerman also lashed out as his British counterpart William Hague for scuppering a proposed meeting at the Foreign Office by insisting representatives of the Falklands Islands attend if the issue to address referred to the disputed Islands.

His latest comments come a day after he told MPs that Buenos Aires would not recognize the result of a referendum of the Islanders next month on whether they wish to remain part of the British overseas territories.

He also said that the Falklands would be under Argentine control within 20 years, while denouncing the British as ”fanatics” and comparing the British claim to Israel's occupation of the West Bank.

“I don’t think it will take another 20 years. I think that the world is going through a process of understanding more and more that this is a colonial issue, an issue of colonialism,” he said.

“We don’t support the occupation of foreign lands, and the Malvinas case is the occupation of a foreign land.”

Earlier in the day during the opening of a conference in the Argentine embassy with the 18 European Groups Pro-dialogue on the Malvinas question, Timerman assured that the Malvinas sovereignty debate “is not just another case of colonialism but a situation that tests the entire international justice system.”

“It is unacceptable to have States that ignore all United Nations resolutions just because of their military power and their membership to the club of the most powerful nations”.

Timerman underlined the “unbelievable burst of strength that one feels when so many people from around the world tells one to perfectly understand the Malvinas situation”, Timerman told reporters. Likewise he added that “there are 95 groups from 80 countries that have already expressed their solidarity to Argentina”.
 

90 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. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 Anglotino (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 09:38 am Report abuse
“The Falkland Islanders do not exist. What exist is British citizens”

No wonder so many Argentineans on here have problems differentiating between a NATION and a NATION STATE.

Of course the Islanders are British citizens. Who is claiming otherwise? Doesn't stop them being Falkland Islanders though.

Falkland Islands... a NATION.
United Kingdom.... a NATION STATE.

You would think a Foreign Minister would know the difference. What an ignoramus.

“there are 95 groups from 80 countries that have already expressed their solidarity to Argentina”.

So! There are nearly 3,000 Falkland Islanders who don't agree.

And it is their opinion that counts, not 95 groups. How many if these groups would give away their rights and freedoms to a neighbouring country because someone they don't know said they should? Ranks as one of the weakest Argentine Government arguments yet.
2 Gordo1 (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 09:41 am Report abuse
I am English and British - the islanders are Falklanders and British.

He's a weasly fool.
3 Zool (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 09:44 am Report abuse
“The Falkland Islanders do not exist”

Wow better tell the UN that because they say they do exist & are the legal owners of the islands. Poor Tim-merman his decaying government is spiraling down in a ball of flames & all he can do is make silly statements that have no grounding in reality.
4 reality check (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 09:53 am Report abuse
What disputed Islands? They may dispute them, we don't, they are British! and will continue to be so, until and if, the rightful occupants of them decide otherwise. At which time they will have my support and the support of all like minded people.
5 coldo (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 10:13 am Report abuse
Oh dear…

The air time this is getting is incredible.

I also note the easy ride he gets when holding press conferences. Typical British calm reserve in the face of clear stupidity!

Oh and please note I am Scottish and British. This is same Flatlander’s being British, the welsh being British, the English being British… need I go on?
6 Islander1 (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 11:09 am Report abuse
Wow- he has 95 little groups in 80 countries - well we know we have one group in HIS country that supports us as well!
Plonker! - Of coure there will be little groups of people in EVERY nation on the planet who will support one side or the other - or both!
So What Twitman - it,s called reality and life - and outside their little bubbles those little minority groups on either side have no power.
What counts in this issue are :

The Democratic Free Wishes of the Islands Population

. - full stop - punto final - END OF.
7 ElaineB (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 11:17 am Report abuse
The Argentine government should spend more time on domestic problems. Already there is food rationing and shortages due to CFKC's latest crazy price freeze idea.

When push comes to starvation, the people of Argentina will care far more about the increasing crime and lack of basic food than a mythical island.
8 reality check (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 11:27 am Report abuse
You would think so wouldn't you, but if what I have seen, up close for the first time, of this man, is typical of his people. I have to say I am not so sure!
9 Martin Woodhead (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 11:29 am Report abuse
The Falklander islanders exsist.
Even if they didnt and it was only British citizens who lived on the islands they would still desire the right to live there free from trouble.
argentina neither has the ability to force money to pay for the islands or abilty to make an attractive nation that the islanders might want to join.
Talks in the 70s fell through because a murderous tyranny is never attractive.
Now your an economic basket case
10 BritishLion (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 11:37 am Report abuse
Tinman you are getting boring, its the same old jokes, we are not laughing anymore, simply bemused by your rambling rubbish. There is one Nation that will want some answers for your foreign policy, your own. You can only say 'groups' from within 80 countries support you. You are so arrogant and dismissive and you will not learn. While your countrymen starve and fall further into poverty, while your International debt becomes worse and the Nation becomes bankruptunder your Governments tenure, you keep playing the 'Malvinas' card to keep the media focussed on another issue. It failed in 1982 and it will fail in 2013. Stop dreaming and become a statesman, not a fool.
11 Viva Las Falklands (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 12:04 pm Report abuse
Tinman is a bit late for pantomine season this year but just just to humour him.

“Oh yes they do!!!!!”
12 LEPRecon (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 12:10 pm Report abuse
@10 - BritishLion

I agree with you post.

It's obvious to all except the completely deluded or brainwashed, that a 'group' within a country is not the spokesperson from that country.

Also, Mr Timerman. Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General has publicly stated that the Falkand Islanders exist, by stating that they have the right to self-determination. He also said that the UK had broken no UN resolutions.

You are a liar and a NAZI Mr Timerman. You father must be so proud of you.

Soon the people of Argentina will rise up, and hopefully you'll find justice at the end of a rope, although its more probable that you'll escape the country to live a life of luxury on all the money you have stolen from your people.

However, I believe Mossad might be calling on you one day...
13 GeoffWard2 (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 12:13 pm Report abuse
coldo (#5)
“Oh dear… The air time this is getting is incredible.”

I understand that this has received little or no air-time in the UK; it's just on Mercopress.
For the British government this is just diplomatic business-in-passing, and of little importance.
The Falkland Islands and their population remain protected and nothing changes on that front.

The 'Islands Issue' should not, and probably will not, damage EU-Mercosur negotiations - these are bogged down by other matters, not least protectionism.
And it will not stop bilateral trade arrangements between the UK and the full range of South and Central American countries.

Real politik and pragmatism comes way ahead of the Islands rhetoric coming out of Argentina.
14 Shed-time (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 12:21 pm Report abuse
Has anyone given Timmershylock an ASBO yet?
15 Conqueror (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 12:35 pm Report abuse
@13 I really hope that the “Islands Issue” DOES damage the EU-mercosur negotiations. The “EU” is, of course, a bunch of incompetent, meddling bureaucrats with delusions of grandeur. Quite similar to the argie “government” of crooks really. Unfortunately, Britain is currently “involved” with the EU. With current indications that the EU actually wants to take “ownership” of land, there have to be dangers that the EU would reach an “agreement” with mercosur members to the detriment of the Falkland Islanders.
16 Foxtrot Indigo (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 12:56 pm Report abuse
So Tinpotman is angry because the Falkland Islanders refuse to back down in the face of his agression? He's angry because we own the Islands and there is nothing he can do about it? Well all we have to say is:

No apologies (no apology)
We will not back down! (no apology)
We are not afraid! (no apology)
Not a drop of doubt! (no apology)
Hand in hand, across our land, our voices shout it out: NO APOLOGY!

Lyrics (c) Bon Jovi
17 Old Buzzard (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 01:06 pm Report abuse
Following the Timmerman argument there are no Argentinians, just a few indigenous indians who escaped slaughter and are now treated as second class citizens plus all the imigrants from Spain, Italy, Germany, (even the Ukraine I hear) etc etc who have moved to that part of South America which had been taken over by the early colonisers who were then exercising self determination before it got into the UN Charter and called it Argentina.
18 M_of_FI (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 01:13 pm Report abuse
“He added that ”everybody“ in Argentina still felt the ”effects of the 1833 invasion“ of the South Atlantic when colonial Britain “forcibly usurped the Islands” from Argentina and shipped the population away.”

Of all the occassions Argentine officials and their people have insulted my home and my fellow islanders, the exert that I have copied and pasted above, is the most crass, stupid, short sighted and insulting comment I have ever seen from an Argentina. That non-event occurred 180 years ago, They (Argentina) invaded the Falklands close to 31 years ago, leading to the deaths of over 900 people. How dare they hold some bullshit non-event over the Falklands and Britain, and completely ignore their despicable actions of 30 years ago, an event that people lived through and still have to endure the memories.

Scum. Timmerman, his fellow government officials and anyone who believes that nonsense, is scum.
19 expbrit (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 01:32 pm Report abuse
“The United Nations does not recognize a third party in the conflict. It says there are just two parts: the UK and Argentina.”

I would like to hear a rebutal of that statement from Ban-Ki-Moon. Perhaps Mr Ha
20 reality check (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 01:49 pm Report abuse
Why rebut a lie? A lie is a lie is a lie. People are not as stupid as this man thinks they are. Let him carry on, they will only see Timerman for what he is, an inept politician and an insult to their intelligence and people do not like to be insulted.
21 CaptainSilver (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 02:09 pm Report abuse
He came...

He whinged...

He whined...

He issued insults...

He threatened...

He stamped his foot...

He made rude gestures...

...and everyone laughed at him, and his country's reputation sank even lower..

Soon, (after Harrods visit) he goes home scowling with his tail between his legs

Ta ta Gollum
22 Shed-time (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 02:41 pm Report abuse
“... at which point the man himself was so consumed by lies, that his physical form fell away leaving just the summation of his lies, which was essentially .... nothing.”, Geoff Baldwinkle, Timmerman and the Peso of Flesh (2014)
23 Vestige (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 02:45 pm Report abuse
Out of curiosity what do you people make of the happenings in Diego Garcia some years back.
2000 people, 180 year legacy. Expelled....by a nation that says you can't expel ...2000 people with a 180 year legacy.
Give it a quick wiki/youtube.
24 Monkeymagic (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 02:51 pm Report abuse
“He added that ”everybody“ in Argentina still felt the ”effects of the 1833 invasion“ of the South Atlantic when colonial Britain “forcibly usurped the Islands” from Argentina and shipped the population away.”

Yes, I can see that having 59 people removed from the islands (without a shot being fired), just 60 days after their arrival, where theyd already had time to mutiny, murder and rape...must sit badly in the history of Argentina.

The genocide of the conquistadors?
The genocidal march through Patagonia
The harbouring of nazi war criminals
The invasion of 1982

No, those effects dont sit with “everybody”...just the poor feckers who were the real victims.
25 Shed-time (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 03:15 pm Report abuse
”Parable of the Wailing Lady

In the year 2012 The Man of Timmer did pick the wailing lady up from the floor and ask'ed her 'what dost you wail for?' and she responded 'I dost feel the effects of the 1833 invasion still!!!! How can I remove these spirits that tell me about the British removing all 30'071 of my kin from the isles'.

The Man of Timmer did layeth on his hands and the effects of the 1833 invasion were dispelled from her, until the next time'

Clipping from Maximo Kirchner, 'get me another f*cking cream bun, now!' (1982)
26 lukophile (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 03:32 pm Report abuse
So Queen Christina, (aka Queen Evita II) sends her court jester to London to amuse the Europeans and to perform a pathetic dance for the sympathisers.
All is normal; relax and enjoy the show!
27 DJ56 (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 04:04 pm Report abuse
“There are no such things as Argentinians, only Spanish, Italian, German and assorted other European settlers on land that they have stolen from native Americans”

Now thats what Tinman would be saying if he was honest!
28 Captain Poppy (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 04:17 pm Report abuse
I would forget the Falklands and pay attention to Chile.....lol. Rgentina......who's military will you hire to defent Rgland from the Chilean Marines?

www.buenosairesherald.com/article/123641/puricelli-chilean-marines-xenophobic-chantings-unacceptable
29 Vestige (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 04:19 pm Report abuse
don't go talking about stealing foriegn land dj
30 Shed-time (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 04:20 pm Report abuse
@28 at least we know which side the Chileans would be on in a scrum.
31 DJ56 (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 04:34 pm Report abuse
#29

Why? Does the truth hurt? The so called Argentinians stole their land from native Americans through various genocidal wars, whilst the Falklands had NO native population.
32 axel arg (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 04:36 pm Report abuse
The falkland islanders exist, and they have right to express their opinions and wishes openly, and they must be respected by arg., the u. k., and the u. n. However, taking into account the wishes of the islanders, doesen't mean that just their opinions are what matter to solve this dispute, and reject the argentine claims, which is the u. k's purpose, and the purpose of the govt. from the islands.
While it is true that the u. n have never included the islanders as a third part of the conflict, and have never invoked the right to self determination for this dispute, like it did for others colonial situations, in fact, if any of us gets into the website of the u. n., we won't find any resolution which says: application of the right to self determination for the population fromthe malvinas-falkland islands, like there are for others populations who live in territories considered like non-self governing territories, it is also true that the u. n. have never asked the u. k. to return the islands to arg., so, in my opinion it means that in some way, the wishes of islanders must be taken into account for this dispute.
For all these reasons, i have always said that it's not imposible to find a solution that respects the wishes of the islanders, and our sovereign rights. One posible solution, could be the secret proposal treated between arg. and the u. k. of 1974 that c. f. k. read before the u. n in june 14th 2012, which refered to a shared administration. This posible proposal destroys the hipocrite argument of some politicians from the islands, who argue that for arg. there is just one outcome, due to they make a wrong interpretation of the article of our constitution that refers to our claim form the islands. Beside, at the same time that they accuse arg. of wanting just outcome, the manifest that they are disposed to discuss about different issues with arg., but not about the sovereignty, isn't it wanting just one outcome too?, HIPOCRITES.
33 Shed-time (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 04:47 pm Report abuse
@32 Axel. you're inconsistent.

The decolonisation process clearly refers to the administered territory and the administering power. How can they not refer to the islanders when they refer to the islanders? Make your mind up, imbecile.

1974 is not 2013. You started a war in 1982, lost it, and continuously celebrate the war handing out medals for the war. You ignore treaties and you tell lies.

If no one can trust you, how can there be any agreement?

You're an imbecile with dreadful arguments.
34 Captain Poppy (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 05:01 pm Report abuse
You and your RGs could not hold back the Chileans.
35 reality check (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 05:09 pm Report abuse
Axel
You have been consistently told since 1982, that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is non negotiable. You have been told again and again and again, over and over and over. It is not the fault of the UK that you are incapable of accepting that fact.

Please do not quote non existent UN resolutions “requiring” the UK to talk with you over the “Sovereignty” of the islands. There are none

No talks on sovereignty ok, now what's hypocritical about that?
36 Simon68 (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 05:14 pm Report abuse
32 axel arg (#)
Feb 07th, 2013 - 04:36 pm

I don't know if you can understand, Axel, but you have to seperate the decolonization of the Falkland Islands from the sovereignty dispute that we have with the UK.

We are the extra wheel in the decolonization of the FI, we have absolutely NO part to play in this, it is between the Islanders and the UK government.

We have a part to play in the sovereignty conflict which WE INVENTED, and only because we invented it. Our part in that is to take our proofs to the ICJ (International Courts of Justice) and ask for their arbitration in the matter, and if we win then we get sovereignty of the Islands, and if we lose the we would just have to STFU and get on with our lives, which basically would mean that our so-called “government” would have to find solutions to the disaster they have made out of our poor country in the ten years they have been mis-governing us!!!!!!!!!!!
37 HansNiesund (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 05:23 pm Report abuse
@23 Vestige

Out of curiosity ..

Ok, so supposing the Brits give in to Argentina's demands, and deport the Falklanders to Mauritius. Will you be happy then?

Supplementary questions:

A) if so, what does that make you?

B) if not, why not?
38 Monty69 (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 05:59 pm Report abuse
23 Vestige

Are you saying that Britain acted correctly in Diego Garcia? If not, what are you saying?

32 axel arg
Could you provide a link to a UN resolution that specifically applies the right to self determination to the case of St Helena? And another that specifically applies the right to self determination to Pitcairn Island?
You've said there are such resolutions. Well, where are they?
Thanks in advance.
39 Anbar (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 06:06 pm Report abuse
I foresee that within 20 years TImmerman & Kirchner will be up before an Argentine court for corruption, ruining their country's economy and lying to its population.

And the odds on that are much better than on the Falklands being Argentine within 20 years.

;-0
40 briton (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 07:25 pm Report abuse
There is no such thing as Falkland Islanders: they are British citizens

And there is no such thing as a Argentinean, they are all immigrants from Europe,

And the point is what.

Its all bullshit.
.
41 captain silver (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 07:33 pm Report abuse
@21
uuuuuuuuujajaja!
42 Conqueror (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 07:38 pm Report abuse
@23 It's easy. No indigenous people on Diego Garcia. Couldn't be. No fresh water. Occupants? The descendants of slaves taken there by the French and a few itinerant fishermen. Whose responsibility? Mauritius. But after the British government paid over money to the Mauritian government to re-settle and help, the Mauritians pocketed the money and did nothing. Britain paid out more. Some lawyer decided it was a moneypot. Until Britain said “No more”. And gave it the effect of law. The idea now is that argies and numpties keep pushing in the hope of raising an “outcry”. Fortunately, the intelligent and informed know better. Oh, sorry, I forgot to add one more group. The wankers!
@32 There is a solution. On behalf of the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands, I will make you a present of it. FUCK OFF! Before we have to come down there and halve your population. And you know we can do it, don't you? And I don't care if that upsets your “sensibilities”. You are a stupid, brainwashed, uneducated wanker that walks, every day, on the blood and bones of the people you murdered during your genocide. If there is religion, and justice, in this universe you, personally, will go to hell and burn for eternity!
43 ElaineB (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 08:06 pm Report abuse
Timerman quote of the day ” Once the UK decides to sit down and talk, it won’t take that long to find a final solution.”

Is he really talking about the final solution? Jeez.
44 golfcronie (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 08:42 pm Report abuse
Timerman is quite correct. And the answer is “NO YOU CAN'T HAVE THE FALKLANDS' I don't know how many times we have told you. ”NO YOU CAN'T HAVE THE FALKLANDS”
45 Shed-time (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 08:47 pm Report abuse
@42 Curiously however, should we have left the folks on Diego Garcia to die of thirst, then it would have also been the fault of the UK.

Typical.
46 slattzzz (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 08:53 pm Report abuse
“There is no such thing as Falkland Islanders: Says Tinman
”There is no such thing as an RG they are just Spaniards with there balls cut off: Says Slattzzz
47 briton (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 09:12 pm Report abuse
if they can, they will steal it.
48 kelperabout (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 09:24 pm Report abuse
Your Commentso Mr timerman you don't exist either because if by your reckoning we are British implants then that makes you a Spanish Implant succer. It is about time you and your corrupt government started to realise that whether you like it or not we are Falkland Islanders of British decent get used to it because we are going to be here for a very long time to come with or without your approval
49 Vestige (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 09:53 pm Report abuse
37 - No I wouldn't hope to have anybody forcibly moved from anywhere.
Now maybe YOU can answer my 1st question as to what you make of it.
50 lsolde (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 10:09 pm Report abuse
@42 Conqueror,
l don't always agree with you but your description of Axel was spot-on.!
lt seems that he needs to be told every half hour, “no, Axel, you can't have the Falklands.”
My goldfish has a longer attention span.
@ reality check & simon68,
Yes, have to agree. Axel has been told so many times but l don't think that his brain can absorb it.
@32 Axel,
Sorry mate, you're wrong again.
51 HansNiesund (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 10:15 pm Report abuse
@49

That's easy. I think it sucks. As does the apparent belief in the Argentine parallel universe that two wrongs make a right.
52 Vestige (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 10:24 pm Report abuse
So you'd have them returned home and compensated for being forcefully removed ?
Would that indicate the powers who removed them as being criminal ?
53 HansNiesund (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 10:33 pm Report abuse
Yes I would. It's a shameful episode. Immoral for sure, but only as criminal as any other piece of Cold War power politics. But it's no more relevant to the Falkands case than Spanish expulsion of the Moors.
54 screenname (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 10:56 pm Report abuse
@23 Vestige: I'm afraid you cannot really compare Diego Garcia with the Falklands for a couple of reasons.

1. It was a different era. And the government pretty much thought it could do what it wanted with people. It has been well documented that around the same time, the British government seemed quite happy to get rid of the Falklands no matter what the people that lived there actually thought. Also, I suggest you look up a thing called the deptford clearances: again the British government didn't listen to the people and just did as it pleased. One thing this evidence does show is that the Diego Garcia incident was not racially motivated.

2.Diego Garcia is being rented out to the US military. It has not been handed over forever. This means it is fair to assume that at some point, when it is no longer a US base, the civilian population will return. As evidence of this I would give WWII Gibraltar, where the civilian population was removed and then returned later. Granted, the US have an extra 50 year option when the current lease runs out in 2016, and I don't think they will have the good grace to forgo it, but one day they will leave.

As an interesting point:

Mauritius, after accepting a pile of money from the UK to look after the Chargasians (and treating them like crap) are now trying to claim the Islands once the US lease is over because of potential energy resources around the archipelago. Meanwhile MODERN UK has now offered the Chargasians UK citizenship (half of them now live in London) and have had the area designated a protected zone, so there can be no drilling and it will not be a cash cow for Mauritius, if they could somehow claim the islands over the Chargasians.

Just does not fit with the British being hungry for oil somehow...
55 CaptainSilver (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 11:05 pm Report abuse
As far as I know KFC and Gollum have never visited the islands. Why not invite them over to the islands for a chat? Then, Rg war memorial visit, minefield tour, pint, pork scratchings, shopping at supermarket etc. Show them what they are missing?
56 Vestige (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 11:27 pm Report abuse
So where were the Chargasians rights to self determination?
This new-fangled “self determination” thingy seems to appear at convenient times for Westminster.
57 HansNiesund (#) Feb 07th, 2013 - 11:37 pm Report abuse
@56

Hardly. What do you think happened the British Empire?

That said, it's no secret that there were elements in various post-war British governments who would have been perfectly happy to turn the islands over to Argentina. The main thing that prevented this happening was the catastrophic ineptitude of Argentine governments, who have now gone on to engineer a situation where no British government could possibly give you anything even if one wanted to.

And now your Foreign Minister has just spent a week in London ensuring that remains true.
58 Vestige (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 12:04 am Report abuse
Umm rebellion, non compliance, ww2, inability to maintain rule, strategic reductions, negative returns.
.
You don't know my nationality.
You're right about 82 cementing Britains place on the islands though, once reputation is involved the games different.
Neither British nor Argentine governments now or in the near future will be capable, even if willing, to drop claim.
Unless they can both save face by sitting down together.
Difficult to do without recognizing/not recognizing the (ahem) “falklanders”.
Anyway, I digress, where was I ?
Ah yes, the Argies are fascists and scumbags who want to deny self-determination to 2000 follks with a 180 year legacy, who live on isolated islands.
But its ok to kick those funny little black fellows off Diego Garcia, only 'bout 2000 of them anyway and they've only been there 180 years.
Not like we're being fascists.
59 HansNiesund (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 12:14 am Report abuse
@58

Diego Garcia is not OK.

Diego Garcia not being OK does not make Argentina's attitude to the Falklands OK.

Is that simple enough for you?
60 Shed-time (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 12:36 am Report abuse
@56 self-determination is a new fangled thing that is convenient to westminster???? It's in the UN charter, right at the beginning, that your country fraudulently signed up to.

@58 Diego Garcia is a straw man fallacy, and an anachronism It's not relevant because we learned our lessons from it and moved on. So should you.

The argentines will never drop their claim because they're imbeciles who follow peronism-hilterism. The key to them not dropping their claim is to make the cost of war so high that they'll never have to drop their claim, because they'll never have the islands.

Make some sense please.
61 Vestige (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 02:15 am Report abuse
re: 56. Le sigh...its called sarcasm.

re: 58. Its not a straw-man in any way, it has direct parallels. Its not an anachronism, cases are still in the international courts of human rights.
It is relevant, it's part of very recent British history, Britain in relevant in the Malvinas conflict.

Some news for you, they're not planning a war so cost of war will not be key to them dropping their claim.

Would you like to know the REAL key to Argentina dropping their claim of owning the islands outright ???
... its a secret so dont tell anyone ok ..shhh.. joint administration with Britain/Falkland islands govt. A bit like Andorra, with agreed control terms. No more tensions, better trade/travel, signed sealed UN national recognition, economic growth, improved S.A relations, improved international reputation, increased national population, probably some Arg govt investment munay fund. etc etc many more probable benefits.

Anyway, I'll probably be met with the whole N.Ireland style 'no surrender' jig for suggesting that.

HIT ME.
62 slattzzz (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 02:56 am Report abuse
@61 some argy govt money, now I know your taking the piss
63 DanyBerger (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 06:33 am Report abuse
@Anglotino

If I go and stay in Britain or Australia I’m British or Aussie?
Nope should be a legal recognition of that.

So you don’t get rights in international affairs by occupying a place.

Otherwise any illegal immigrant by staying for some time will be able to claim any portion of territory for his/her mother country.

“So! There are nearly 3,000 Falkland Islanders who don't agree.”

Doesn’t matter because the legal figure is 1000 Britons among 62 millions Britons who says that this part belongs to UK.

Are you going to count the militaries too?

So doesn’t matter how you would like to see this is clear a colonial enclave.

Otherwise tell us where you live and will go with 1000 friends and claim your house for Bolivia, ha ha
64 HansNiesund (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 09:01 am Report abuse
@61

So in addition to your astounding discovery of Cold War power politics, you've also discovered the deal that was under negotiation throughout the post war period, and which made Argentina so happy they launched the 1982 War of Aggression.

But even if with that, and despite the unfounded character of the Argentine claim, it's a deal that could probably be struck in time by smart people, given the consent of the islanders. To make this work of course, the Argentines would have to show some respect by, for example, talking to them, and implementing some basic confidence building measures on matters of mutual interest, such as for example agreements on fisheries

Unfortunately for this thesis, and to take up your Northern Ireland analogy, Argentina is apparently so wedded to outraged machismo and populist manipulation, that it is unable to muster the negotiation skills the terrorist groups on both sides of the NI divide were able to bring to bear.

Or maybe, of course, it's just that they don't want to.
65 lsolde (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 09:27 am Report abuse
@61 Vestige,
No “joint sovereignty”, no concessions to Argentina at all.
We don't need Argentina.
You look after your mess & we'll plod along here, thank you very much.
66 GeoffWard2 (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 10:13 am Report abuse
Vestige,
I like your iconoclastic style and open thinking but you and others here are right that the situation wrt TFI is forever changed by the '82 aggression. Everything is a question of honour now.

Whoever you are, especially if you are a regular poster under another nom-de-plume, keep this name going with wit and iconoclastic questioning. Don't degenerate into vitriolic hate.
Isolde will battle with you on TFI but might respect you for it. She is the only one (?) on this site whose heart-felt postings really matter because I believe her to be, first and foremost, a Falkland Islander.
People fought for the Islands on one side or the other, and they and their friends and relative have a valid point of view but the Island populace - and its case - is encapsulated in Isolde's site-persona.

Bring a bit of Think's questioning to the debate. Provoke and tease gently without hurt or vitriol.
67 Vestige (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 03:04 pm Report abuse
Yes 66, I hear you, vitriolic hate posting online is a pointless pursuit. Only serves to put bitterness in your day. I hope the idiots on here realize that :) although a bit of teasing on occasion is satisfying.

61 you don't know my nationality, you costly 3000 can 'plod along' and dig into your 12,000 sq km patch.

64 I have to disagree when you say “unfounded character of the Argentine claim”, however the rest of that paragraph seems about right.

Auf Weidersehn. ;)
68 axel arg (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 03:53 pm Report abuse
SHED TIME. REALITY CHECK. SIMON68.
SHED and REALITY: As i said in planty of comments, i understand that for many of you, the invasion of 1982, ordered by the criminal junta that roled arg. in that moment, is your best excuse to reject the negotiations. However, you should understand like it or not that despite those terrible events, the u. n has always continued calling both nations to resume the negotiations and find a peaceful solution. If you have no enough intellectaul honesty in order to realise that the sovereignty is the main problem, which could be solved with the posible proposal that i told in my comment 32, or with others that respect the wishes of the islanders, and our sovereign rights, then you can't discuss about something so complicated like politic issues are, sorry.
SIMON: The conflict that we invented?, don't worry, i understand perfectly what you try to say. If you think that only our politicians, or our official history omits information respecting the historic aspects of this conflict, then it means that you have been perfectly indoctrinated by your so loved british empire.
If i decided to investigate, it's because i have never believed in our official history.
I agree with you when you say that it would be a good idea to take the case to the i. c. j., however, you should know that between 1885 and 1888, arg. suggested taking the case to the arbitration, which was rejected by the u. k., and in 1947, that country manifested arg. that it would be disposed to take the question of the south georgia and sandwich to the i. c. j., but it didn't include the malvinas in the proposal.
This case is much more complicated than the tipical mediocre analyis that you and planty of others people often express. That's why it's necesary to have intellectual honesty, in order to discuss about politic issues, which is something that neather you, nor many others people have.
69 Karl101 (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 04:33 pm Report abuse
Please support this page honouring all those who helped liberate the Falklands in 1982 and dedicated to keeping the islands liberated and free of Argentine colonialism.

www.facebook.com/HonourRestored
70 Simon68 (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 04:41 pm Report abuse
68 axel arg (#)
Feb 08th, 2013 - 03:53 pm

Now let's talk about your “intellectual honesty” and my “typical mediocre analysis” WRT the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) case.

Your intellectual honesty seems to be that you disagree with some parts of our government's approach to the FI(M) problem , but over all you agree that our claim is valid. Is that a fair rendering of the true situation?

My typical mediocre analysis of the FI(M) problem is that if we are covinced that our proofs of sovereignty are so strong we should take them to he ICJ. Is that a fair rendering of my “typical mediocre analysis”?

Now whatever happened in 1885, 1888, and 1947 has absolutely nothing to do with 2013, so I repeat my “typical mediocre analysis”, if our proofs of sovereignty over the FI(M) are so convincing we should take them to the ICJ and then there are two (2) possibilities:

1) The ICJ decides that we are right and we get sovereignty over the Islands, or

2) The ICJ decides against us and we have to STFU!!!!!!!
71 D_45 (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 05:17 pm Report abuse
@65
If you don't “need” Argentina...your UK should stop diplomatic relations the sooner the better
72 lsolde (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 08:09 pm Report abuse
@71 D_45,
That would suit me perfectly, D.
Problem is, l do not make foreign policy.
We certainly do not need Argentina & can exist quite happily without you.
Even more so when OUR black gold starts flowing.
@68 Axel,
You will NEVER get sovereignty over OUR lslands, so your ramblings are merely academic.
73 albert_again (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 09:48 pm Report abuse
@72
Argentina don't need a shit from the UK!
“black gold starts flowing” ....
189 years and still hoping to find “black gold”
(petroleum).....mmmm .....slow minds!
74 lost1 (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 10:06 pm Report abuse
Please support Falkland Islands Desire the Right - dedicated to Falkland Islands current affairs, keeping the islands free and poking fun at the lunacy of the Argentine government and their various claims and winding up their Internet trolls - www.facebook.com/Britain1592

Please support our other page - Falkland Islands Desire The Right - dedicated to Falkland Islands current affairs -

www.facebook.com/truthfk
75 St.John (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 11:11 pm Report abuse
“It is unacceptable to have States that ignore all United Nations resolutions just because of their military power ...”.

Is it possible that Timerman really is so extremely stupid that he doesn't understand, that any and all UN resolutions from before the war in 1982 were annulled by the Argentine attack?

- or is he just playing for the gallery?
76 golfcronie (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 11:33 pm Report abuse
Why does Argentina want sovereignty over the FALKLANDS ?
I would appreciate a sensible answer as I have not heard one yet.
What would they do with it if they did get sovereigny over it ?
Do you think they have thought this through?
77 redpoll (#) Feb 08th, 2013 - 11:56 pm Report abuse
@72 Yseult
The Island overseas territories of Argentina, ie Tierra del Fuego. These were administered directly from BA until the Gobernacion Maritima de Tierra del Fuego was established in 1943 under the direct rule of Buenos Aires. It became a province of Argentina in 1990. Were the inhabitants consulted over the change in status? I doubt it. The first governor (note the word) was not appointed till 1992. Ushuia was of course founder by English missionaries- Stirling I think- from his base in the Falklands. So perhaps the whole island could be claimed by the FI on the same basis as RA claims your islands today
78 Terence Hill (#) Feb 09th, 2013 - 04:45 pm Report abuse
63 DanyBerger

“So you don’t get rights in international affairs by occupying a place.”
Oh yes! you do,

Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig Professor of Law, Australian National University

This view is in keeping with the views expressed by Wheaton in 1836 i.e.
contemporaneously with the re-establishment of the British settlement on the
Falklands)74
“The exclusive right of every independent state to its territory and other
property is founded upon the title originally acquired by occupancy,
conquest or cession and subsequently confirmed by the presumption
arising from the lapse of time, or by treaties and other compacts with
foreign States.”

10. Whether or not Britain's acquisition of the Falklands could be justified
in this way, the settlement of the Islands, and the continuous and peaceful
exercise of sovereignty with respect thereto over a period of a century and a half, were sufficient to cure any original defect in title.

THE SPIRIT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, David J. Bederman

The cause célèbre of this subject remains the Isle of Palmas case, an international arbitration decided in 1928...The arbitrator for this case (Swiss publicist Max Huber)... should he apply what was universally recognized as the new rule, the principle of effective occupation?... By 1898 the new customary
international law of effective occupation was recognized, so that was
the rule to be applied....
79 axel arg (#) Feb 09th, 2013 - 08:35 pm Report abuse
SIMON68.
My references to 1885-1888 and 1947 are to explain that the case is much more complicated than what we think. I have always thought that if none of the two nations decided to take the case to the i. c. j., is because perhaps, neather the u. k. nor arg. are sure of getting a good outcome.
If we discuss about this conflict, we can't omit what happened in the past, don't you think?.
In 2010 i had a metting with a professor of public international right, and i asked her if she agreeded with the idea of taking the case to an arbitration, and she answered me she agreeded with it.
In my opinion, our rights have always been legitimate since 1833, however, i don't omit that our claim had some intervalls along XIX century. Anyway, what must be taken into account, every time we debate about history, is the context. Since XIX century, and for more than 100 years, arg. had a very big economic dependence with the u. k., so, it was obvious that it wasn't in conditions to claim the british empire.
Beside, the signed agreement between both nations in 1850, which is invoked by some academics, briths politicians, and by some people in this forum, to argue that with that treaty, and due to the intervalls in our claim, arg. lost it's rights over the islands, seem to forget that the treaty signed in 1850 didn't have anything to do with the conflict for the islands, on the other hand, despite these two facts, the u. k. tried to find a solution with arg. in 3 oportunities, in 1968, 1974 and 1980, so, if the u. k. negotiated with arg., it's very arguable to manifest that arg. lost it's rights over the islands, when it signed that treaty, and due to the intervalls in our claims.
For all these reasons, and for having been investigating since 3 years ago, i have the conclution that t case has strong and weak aspects for both nations, that's why i support the idea of a shared sovereignty that c. f. k. read before the u. n. last year, anyway, there is a lot more to say about it.
80 Terence Hill (#) Feb 09th, 2013 - 09:14 pm Report abuse
Argentina has lost the right to take the issue to the ICJ.

“claims between Argentina and Great Britain. To avoid losing her
claim by extinctive prescription, Argentina should have submitted
her claim to the League of Nations, the Permanent Court of Interna-
tional Justice or the International Court of Justice. Argentina did
not. ...For over 50 years prior to the

31

armed conflict of April 2, 1982, Argentina failed to submit the
dispute to a body capable of adjudicating the competing claims.
There is no evidence that Argentina was in any way impeded from
taking the issue of sovereignty over the Islands before these courts.
One must conclude that Argentina failed to do so through neglect.
Argentina's failure to use available world courts greatly enhances
Great Britain's claim to sovereignty through extinctive prescription.
It is reasonable to assume that Great Britain acquired definitive title
to the Islands at this time.176
However, in any case, there is little reasonable doubt that Great Britain acquired definitive title to the Islands by prescription before 1982.

The purpose of the mode of prescription supports this conclusion.
Prescription assists in maintaining minimum world order and protecting inclusive values. 177 The intent is to preserve world order even if a nation fulfills some exclusive values by committing wrongful acts. To foster the minimum world order system, the claims of a deposed country are assumed to be extinguished after a period of time. Applying the purpose of prescription to this case compels the conclusion that Argentina's claim was extinguished long before 1982. World order was disrupted by Argentina's invasion of the Islands. The disruption potentially could have been much greater if other nations had become involved.”

MILITARY LAW REVIEW CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES
Volume 107 Winter 1985

Pamphlet NO. 27-100-107 HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Washington, D.C.
81 DanyBerger (#) Feb 10th, 2013 - 04:08 am Report abuse
@Terence Hill

Doesn't matter what you pro brits professor says.

Argentina has to invade the island again and keep it by force until she cans make a referendum.

That's it who care about IL what are you gonna do?
82 Anglotino (#) Feb 10th, 2013 - 10:36 am Report abuse
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Invade with what?

Oh wow thanks for the laugh!

And thanks for admitting that a referendum legitimises the Falkland Islands' sovereignty.
83 lsolde (#) Feb 10th, 2013 - 10:36 am Report abuse
Anytime you feel good enough, Dany, we'll be waiting.
84 briton (#) Feb 10th, 2013 - 07:06 pm Report abuse
You Argies are just running scared,
That’s why you are all throwing mud to the wind,

You are nothing but international bullies,
You know your country is finished,
And are just using the islanders as an excuse,

And as you will not get the Falklands, this will be your undoing, and prove to your people that
CFK and tinman are nothing but liars and con merchants,

They promise you everything, but give you nothing,

Soon they will be gone,
Soon you will be gone,
And the world will not even notice you have departed.

Bye bye ..

.
85 DanyBerger (#) Feb 10th, 2013 - 09:29 pm Report abuse
@boys

There is not such thing as FIs sorry but I've to plan an invasion ASAP syl
86 Captain Poppy (#) Feb 11th, 2013 - 12:30 am Report abuse
Only SA calls them the Malvinas, the UN refers to them as the “Falklands” with Malvinas in parenthesis'.......lol. You pollo poco's still recognize the UN....for now right? You will eventual call them a vulture organization.....that's a given.
An invasion.....with what military?......invade them with clap?
87 Anglotino (#) Feb 11th, 2013 - 12:50 am Report abuse
DanyBerger

“There is not such thing as FIs sorry but I've to plan an invasion ASAP syl”

Correct there are no islands. There is nothing there. It's all in your imagination.

These are not the droids you are looking for!
88 axel arg (#) Feb 11th, 2013 - 03:57 pm Report abuse
TERENCE HILL.
I have investigated deeply about the institution of the acquisitive prescription, and it's necesary to say that one of the conditions to invoke it, is that the occupation of the territory had to peaceful, that's something that didn't happen in the case of the islands, when arg. was deprived by the u. k. of exercising it's sovereign rights over the islands in 1833.
Although there was not any war, when john onslow took over the islands for the british crown, he forced our authorities to leave the archipelago. This fact doesen't let the u. k. invoke the institution of the acquisitive prescription, because it wasn't a peaceful occupation.
If the british occupation of 1833 were peaceful, and if arg. consented that fact, it woud never clame great britain, for having been deprived by it from the islands.
What onslow did in that moment, was to take advantage of the vulnerable situation of the u. p. That's why i have always said that it was coward act, the same cowardice, which was used by the criminal junta, when it ordered to invade the islands, and take advantage of the vulnerable situation of the islanders in 1982.
Beside, our country started with it's claim since the first moment, and the u. k. has never let it exercise it's rights over the islands.
On the other hand, read my comment 68, where i tell about the proposals of arbitrations by both nations.
89 briton (#) Feb 11th, 2013 - 05:53 pm Report abuse
How can you invade something that does not exist,

Do you then just sit in the middle of the Atlantic waiting for a sign lol.
90 lsolde (#) Feb 11th, 2013 - 07:59 pm Report abuse
@88 Axel,
You have NO RIGHTS here, Axel.
You have been told this many, many times.
Still you persist with these Argentine lies.
Are you sure you're not a computer? lol.
Or an LP record?
Try to have a good evening, anyway.
Oh,just in case you forgot, Axel,
There will be NO NEGOTIATIONS ON SOVEREIGNTY.
Gracias

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

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!

Advertisement