Thursday, February 14th 2013 - 01:02 UTC

Malvinas cause in another dead alley

By Vicente Palermo (*)

The international resolutions which Argentina appeals to support its claim over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands are not definitive on the sovereignty issue, and do not ignore the rights of the Falkland Islanders, argues an Argentine scientific researcher and member of the Argentine Political Club who published an opinion article in Buenos Aires daily Clarin.

Secretary General Ban KI-moon: Security Council members are not violating any relevant UN resolutions

Vicente Palermo under the heading of “Malvinas cause in another dead alley” points out that Argentina has overlooked some recent events and parts of the original UN legislation on decolonization, which suffer of an ‘incurable’ ambiguity.

In November last year UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he was hopeful the UK would accept his good offices and retake discussions with Argentina on the Malvinas question but also indicated that he did not believe permanent members of the Security Council were violating relevant UN resolutions.

Likewise “the impression is that people living under those conditions should have certain level of capacities to decide their own future, and this is the main criteria from the main UN bodies: achieving independence or having certain degree of self government in their territories. I don’t think it is an issue of abuse or violation of relevant UN resolutions”, said the UN chief.

But the Argentine rhetoric on Malvinas, repeated to exhaustion by Foreign minister Hector Timerman in London insists in two arguments relative to the UN.

First, the UN resolutions suggest more than affirm, that Argentina is right in the Malvinas core dispute: Malvinas are Argentine and the colonial power must sit and discuss with Argentina the terms of its withdrawal and restitution of the Islands.

Second: those resolutions are contrary to any Islanders participation in which they can express their wishes because it is an implanted population. Their interests must be considered but by the two exclusive parts of the negotiation.

However Ban Ki-moon direct statements show these arguments are false, and why following on them only helps Argentina get into a dead-end alley, as we are currently with the Malvinas question.

The first argument is false simply by reading UN Resolution 1514 from December 1960 referred to concession of independence to colonial peoples, which in Article II states that “All peoples have the right to self-determination and in virtue of that right can freely determine their political condition and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

Likewise Article V says that “Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom”.

Finally Article VI says that any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations

It is hard to find in all this something that looks like the acknowledgement of Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas. If there is a territorial dispute, which consensus is to determine if in the case under analysis national unity and territorial integrity are being broken up?

This determination is the core of the dispute, not something that can be taken for granted. The same can be said about the articles referred to self determination: it is the status of the Malvinas population that is the object of controversy.

Of course the strong argument of the Argentine Malvinas orthodoxy is the famous Resolution 2065, specifically referred to the Malvinas, which undoubtedly is more than favourable for Argentina’s aspirations. But again this does not mean at all recognition of sovereignty or exclusion of the wishes of the Islanders.

To start with the resolution takes notice of the existence of a dispute between the governments of Argentina and the UK…regarding the sovereignty of the Islands. This is a bit contradictory: a sovereignty dispute on the one side, and the consideration of the case as one of colonialism, thus gives sense to what follows: resume without delay negotiations and doing it taking into account resolution 1514, as well as the wishes of the population from the Islands.

The resolution undoubtedly suffers of an incurable ambiguity.

But there is no way to understand how it comes out in favour of Argentina in the core of the dispute. And of course regarding the Islanders it is useless to search for an indication that their wishes should or should not be considered.

It can be said that the parties involved in the negotiations are two, but nothing impedes those parts from calling a third party to make it a three-side discussion.

Finally we have resolution 31/49 approved December first 1976 that in article II calls on both sides “to abstain from adopting decisions which mean the introduction of unilateral modifications while the Islands are in the recommended process”, and which has been ignored in reiteration by both Argentina and the UK.

And the crassest of those examples is the 1982 military invasion. The British have found an argument to embark on a unilateral process, which is difficult to reverse.

(*) Chief researcher at Conicet and member of the Argentine Political Club
Conicet is the Argentine national council for scientific and technical research

 

226 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 14th, 2013 - 01:09 am Report abuse
The façade is crumbling!
2 golfcronie (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 01:13 am Report abuse
SELF DETERMINATION FOR THE FALKLANDERS
3 Britninja (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:15 am Report abuse
Ahh the bitter screams of the Malvinistas make for such sweet music.
4 andy65 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:20 am Report abuse
I can see the headlines tomorrow TRATOR
5 nigelpwsmith (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:21 am Report abuse
The logic is undeniable. Argentina's invasion in 1982 was a unilateral action that denied them any hope of obtaining sovereignty in perpetuity.

The United Kingdom is acting in accordance with UN Resolution 1514 in supporting the Falkland Islander's wishes to have Self Determination.

Article II states that

“All peoples have the right to self-determination and in virtue of that right can freely determine their political condition and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

Article V says that:

“Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom”.

So the United Kingdom has complied with Articles II and V in not only making the Falkland Islands self governing, but also giving them the right to determine their own future, something that Argentina would try to deny - CONTRARY TO THE UN RESOLUTIONS.

As for Article VI, the Falkland Islands has never been part of Argentina, so Argentina's territorial integrity was never disrupted.

Moreover, the Islands were only under control of the United Provinces for 2 months. Prior to that, Spain claimed them from 1767 to 1811, for 44 years, but lost their sovereignty claim when they left. The secession agreement with the French stipulated that Spain would never abandon the Islands, because the French feared that the British would gain full sovereignty .

The British claim started in 1765 & continued. Even though the Islands were not continuously occupied by the British, they were visited throughout 1774 to 1833 & were permanently in place from 1833 onwards.

No disruption in British territorial integrity - EXCEPT BY ARGENTINA IN '82!
6 Pirate Love (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:24 am Report abuse
well i guess its safe to say Argentinas ILLEGAL invasion and occupation in 1982 of The Falklands has made any pre-conflict UN resolutions in what argentina seems to believe are in its favor, somewhat obselete, denouncing its blatant aggressive act against the peaceful wishes of The Innocent Falklanders and The UN :)

and pro-argentine posters here have been told for many a full moon that they have no chance as SELF-DETERMINATION trumps all!
Its no wonder they fear The voices of THE FALKLANDERS, and their is “Nothing” Argentina can do except Cry!

SELF-DETERMINATION.......Still standing strong!
7 screenname (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:31 am Report abuse
I don't know if all this reasonableness is to lull the Falklanders into a false sense of security.

First, respected persons from SA countries say they will observe the vote, and now the Argentine media actually examines the UN position, instead of just attributing random statements to them.

Let us hope the observers give accurate accounts of the voting process.

This piece, while head and shoulders above some of the bizarre rants we have heard over the last year or so, still clearly hopes for an Argentine win over the islands (although it could be argued that Argentina would get much more of a win if it forgot about the Falklands and concentrated on managing the huge resources it has).

“regarding the Islanders it is useless to search for an indication that their wishes should or SHOULD NOT be considered”

and

“The British have found an argument to embark on a unilateral process, which is difficult to reverse.”

Both these lines hardly fill me with joy. Of course, maybe the bombshell was being toned down for the domestic market, but I can't help but feel this is nothing more than Clarin going to war with CFK and is not the first signs of reality sinking into Argentina's population.

Hope my pessimism is unfounded.
8 Liberato (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:59 am Report abuse
This article, more than biased, is even wrong in the description and ridiculous underestanding of a resolution made by who wrote the article:
Quote:

(((( Of course the strong argument of the Argentine Malvinas orthodoxy is the famous Resolution 2065, specifically referred to the Malvinas, which undoubtedly is more than favourable for Argentina’s aspirations. But again this does not mean at all recognition of sovereignty or exclusion of the wishes of the Islanders.
To start with the resolution takes notice of the existence of a dispute between the governments of Argentina and the UK…regarding the sovereignty of the Islands. This is a bit contradictory: a sovereignty dispute on the one side, and the consideration of the case as one of colonialism, thus gives sense to what follows: resume without delay negotiations and doing it taking into account resolution 1514, as well as the wishes of the population from the Islands.))))))

About this quote, resolution 2065 do not says the word “wishes” (at all) but interests. This shows an error commited on purpose to confuse the reader. Wishes is what the population wish (to be a PEOPLE) and interests is to take in mind there are people in the islands and who ever end administering the islands (the uk or Argentina) they have to take account those interests the inhabitants have.
Now i wonder, why is contradictory that exist a sovereignty dispute and a case of colonialism in the same territorie?. If Argentine invade South Africa, expelling its inhabitants and implanting our own. Wouldnt be that a colonial territorie and also a disputed territorie?.

About Ban Ki-moon. In what universe the opinion of Ban Ki-moon affect or validate the situation on the islands?. He can only give his opinion, which is in his right to express that.
The islands remain listed as a non self-governing territorie where the UN recognize the uk as the administering power of that colony.
The referendum is illegal. No UN observers will be sent there. fact.
9 andy65 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 03:18 am Report abuse
@Liberato, You people get so pissed everytime someone talks sense or the truth,problem is Argentines have been so brainwashed from an early age they would not know the truth if it hit them in the kisser
10 Nostrolldamus the 10th (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 03:49 am Report abuse
@1

Ahh lovely Anglosaxon “logic”.

When dissenting voices occur in the UK, it is a shining example “democracy”.
When dissenting voices occur in Argentina, it is 'a facade crumbling“.

When people in the country are united in the UK, it is ”resolute tenacity“
When people in the country are united in ARG, it is ”brainwashed lunacy”.

These people were dropped in masse head-to-the-floor at a couple months old. Only explanation.
11 nigelpwsmith (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 04:18 am Report abuse
@8

It appears you've completely missed the point.
Argentina misses the point deliberately, by trying to ignore the Falkland Islanders as a people, or even that they exist!

Resolution 1514 specifies in Article II:

“All peoples have the right to self-determination and in virtue of that right can freely determine their political condition and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

The Falkland Islanders are a people and have the right to Self Determination.

Ban Ki-moon recognises the rights of the Islanders, as does the United Kingdom.

Argentina tries to ignore the Islanders, because they know that if they acknowledge their existence, then they must also acknowledge that the Charter of the UN applies to them and that they have the right to Self Determination.

Argentina knows full well that Self Determination trumps any claim Argentina might make.

Argentina tries to suggest that the Falkland Islanders lose the right to Self Determination, because Argentina suggests they are 'implanted'. However, that it not true and the rest of the world knows that the Falkland Islands were colonised by exactly the method that Argentina was colonised - by natural migration over hundreds of years.

With one exception.

The Falkland Islanders did not commit genocide to steal the land from the natives. There were no Falkland Island natives.

Argentina did commit genocide - and everyone in the world knows this.

Argentina unilaterally started a war in 1982 - and everyone in the world knows this.

Argentina is a violent racist nation, who cheats and steals whatever they can and then expects the rest of the world to give them whatever they want or they will stamp their feet like a petulant child.

Your South American neighbours are laughing at you...

And everyone in the world knows this.
12 Nostrolldamus the 10th (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 04:23 am Report abuse
Then if the were no Falklands natives it is incumbent upon the UK to evict the islanders. If the land was untouched by humans it should be returned to that state, just like Antarctica.

I'd suggest you start the removal promptly.
13 Anglotino (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 05:23 am Report abuse
Nostils ignoring the blatantly dumb comment you made in post 12 (seems to becoming a more common occurrence), back to post 10.

”Ahh lovely Anglosaxon “logic”.

When dissenting voices occur in the UK, it is a shining example “democracy”.
When dissenting voices occur in Argentina, it is 'a facade crumbling“.

When people in the country are united in the UK, it is ”resolute tenacity“
When people in the country are united in ARG, it is ”brainwashed lunacy”.

I wasn't talking about democracy... where did you get that idea? This person is not an elected member of parliament.

For someone so pedantic with a misplaced superiority complex regarding his intellect, you miss the boat so many times it is quite farcical.

'The façade is crumbling!' was a pointed reference to the façade of Argentine and Latin American unity for the Argentinean sovereignty claim.

This article comes hot on the heels of parliamentarians in two neighbouring countries that have voiced opinions in contradiction of this façade of unity.

And you know something else? Not even you are that stupid to be able to ignore the use of tax authorities to silence dissidents. Or the draconian consequences of reporting or compiling inflation figures that contradict the government's figures. So much so, it takes parliamentarians to publish an alternate under the privileges of parliamentary immunity.

All along people have being saying that the much vaunted Latin American unity regarding this cause was just a lip service – in other words a façade!

It would seem that façade is now crumbling. First the UN changed tact, now the neighbours and now even prominent Argentineans.

“These people were dropped in masse head-to-the-floor at a couple months old. Only explanation”

Wow your language skills really decline when you don’t have the thesaurus open:

“These people were dropped EN masse HEAD FIRST WHEN a couple OF months old. THE only explanation.”
14 Britworker (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 05:29 am Report abuse
12
I wonder what a day in your world must be like, wandering around in a delusional state. No, you better start acknowledging the settled inhabitants on the Islands, they are going nowhere.
The sad truth is that all you have are demands, words, insults, yet lurking in the waters off your shores we have the ability to completely destroy Buenos Aires - should you do anything silly again!
15 Anglotino (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 05:33 am Report abuse
Britworker

I know it might seem farcical but supposedly this juvenile troll actually SUPPORTS self-determination.

Teenage brains with all those hormones. So difficult to keep them on one track.
16 Nostrolldamus the 10th (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 05:34 am Report abuse
@14

You have no such ability... you have enough sense of self-preservation. Far more likely London will be destroyed because you have made far more enemies (enemies with thousands of bombs vs your hundreds), and enemies who gladly will strap themselves if it means farking you.
17 Anglotino (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 05:53 am Report abuse
Anyway back to the topic at hand.... a prominent Argentine voicing an alternate view to the government's....

There are going to be dozens of trolls trying to change the topic to ANYTHING but this!
18 LEPRecon (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 06:06 am Report abuse
@10 - Tobias

Only yesterday you were saying how you supported the Falkland Islanders and that you don't post on 90% of threads regarding the Falklands...

And yet here you are spouting more crap, including the fact that you want the Falklanders removed from their ancestral homes.

I suppose its difficult to keep all those 'thoughts' straight in your head. Perhaps you need to keep taking the medication and go have a nice lie down.

Oh, by the way, Tobias, here you are again supporting terrorists.

But what can we expect. You follow your governments example. They support the very country who murdered 85 Argentine citizens, and you support suicide bombers, many of whom are funded by the country that murdered 85 Argentine citizens.

Where sensible people would be crying out for justice, you just applaud the murderers of your fellow citizens.

As to the article.

It's about time that the media in Argentina stopped printing the governments delusional propaganda.

It's nice to see it finally happen, and its nice to see that Argentina actually has some very well educated people, who can actually read, digest, interpret and understand UN resolutions, instead of just cherry picking the bits that they think supports their ludicrous claims.

Well done, Mr Palermo.
19 Nostrolldamus the 10th (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 06:15 am Report abuse
@18

You do realize making yourself look so mentally stupid and crass just to score a debate point is basically an own-goal right?

You know very well that my statement @12 was on the premise of using nigelpswsmith's “logic”. If he is so keen about pristine land untouched by humans, then he should be in favor of what I wrote.

I'm not in favor of that, which is why I would never espouse such an idiotic position as his.

Now, everyone knows what they already knew (that post was a rhetorical indirect question), and you made yourself look like a noetic featherweight.
20 LEPRecon (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 06:21 am Report abuse
@19 - Tobias

“Furious 'back-pedalling' ensues.”

You don't post on 90% on the articles relating to the Falklands, and yet here you always are.

I smell 'bull-sh!t' in the air!
21 Nostrolldamus the 10th (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 06:28 am Report abuse
@20

Stop sidetracking the topic and lay off that donkey lasagne you European adore so much.
22 toooldtodieyoung (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 07:32 am Report abuse
21 Tito The Clown Troll

“Stop sidetracking the topic” Hello??? Pot, kettle, black!!!

Face it Tito, your quest to steal the Falklands from their rightful owners is now f**ked. The UN knows it, The world knows it....... We are just wondering when KFC's government is going to catch on to the idea as well.......

I suspect that it will take a few years 'cos everyone in your country is brainwashed into believing lies and propaganda but if we shout loud enough and long enough, evenually the message might get through those thick skulls of yours.
23 Redrow (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 07:45 am Report abuse
@8 Liberator

You have misread the article. It is saying that just because the resolution says “interests”, this does not automatically exclude “wishes”. It is the Argentine government who insist that “interests” exclude “wishes” but if the resolution had intended to breach the UNs own charter and deny self-determination to the islanders then it would have had to explicitly state “interests BUT NOT wishes” in which case I cannot see how it could have passed in the first place. In any case 2 significant things have happened since that resolution - firstly the UK have ceded effective control of the islands to the FIG (taking them to the brink of decolonisation) and secondly Argentina illegally invaded and then refused to withdraw in breach of the UNSC. What the Clarin writer is trying to prepare you for (and what your government is trying to hide from you) is that after the vote in March, it will be impossible to claim that the wishes of the islanders don't matter.
24 Santa Fe (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:10 am Report abuse
we await Nosrils to flood the forum with bile about the scots and welsh.

The cracks are starting to show Argentina, desperate trolling, but the vote is not far away.
25 Boovis (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:16 am Report abuse
I think Nostie is forgetting that we consider Argies brainwashed because they spout what they think are facts without any supporting evidence at all, where as everyone else provides links, quotes, hard evidence. That's the difference between judging a subject by what's in front of your face, and judging it by the clamps holding your eyes open and the propaganda films your school teacher is showing you on repeat while dropping in eye drops until you vomit.
26 Shed-time (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:28 am Report abuse
peo·ple
/ˈpipəl/ plural peo·ples, verb, peo·pled, peo·pling.
noun
1.persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think?
2.persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
3.human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
4.the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people.
5.the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople.

So, playing on 'legal' semantics like the Argentines seem to try. Under which definition are the Falkland islanders NOT a people? They look like a 'people' to me. The document doesn't refer to 'indigenous peoples' as we all know the islands had none.

So from [1] we look to the UN and find that “Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body”.

so they use the working definition of 'indigenous peoples'
• Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources • Distinct social, economic or political systems • Distinct language, culture and beliefs
• Form non-dominant groups of society • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and
communities.

but no one is talking about them being 'indigenous'? so the outcome is the dictionary definition... no?

[1] dictionary.reference.com/browse/people
[2] www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf
27 Orbit (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:37 am Report abuse
@23 - agreed, and even taking a very narrow view of the word 'interests', nothing Argentina has done or can offer is in the Islanders interests. If this is how the salesman behaves before the sale, Christ knows how bad the after sales support would be.
28 Redrow (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:55 am Report abuse
@27

Exactly!
“Yes excuse me, I bought this Malvinas but it appears to be broken. I was forced to trade in my old Falkland model that had worked perfectly well for 180 years but this new Malvinas fell apart as soon as I got it out of the box.”
Customer Care Assistant: “**** off”.
29 Shed-time (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:03 am Report abuse
[1] in·ter·est
/ˈɪntərɪst, -trɪst/
noun
1. the feeling of a person whose attention, concern, or curiosity is particularly engaged by something: She has a great interest in the poetry of Donne.
2. something that concerns, involves, draws the attention of, or arouses the curiosity of a person: His interests are philosophy and chess.
3. power of exciting such concern, involvement, etc.; quality of being interesting: political issues of great interest.
4. concern; importance: a matter of primary interest.
5. a business, cause, or the like in which a person has a share, concern, responsibility, etc.

[2] wish
/wɪʃ/
verb (used with object)
1.to want; desire; long for (usually followed by an infinitive or a clause): I wish to travel. I wish that it were morning.
2.to desire (a person or thing) to be (as specified): to wish the problem settled.
3.to entertain wishes, favorably or otherwise, for: to wish someone well; to wish someone ill.
4.to bid, as in greeting or leave-taking: to wish someone a good morning.
5.to request or charge: I wish him to come.

So... the in this context we are talking about interests - primary concerns and wishes - their desires. So Argentina is claiming that if they get the chance to colonise the falklands, they if their primary concern is to make the Falklands an independent state outside of the control of the oppressive alien regime, they will take that into account. They also claim that they will take their desire to be free of argentine oppression into account.

Semantically they are the same thing.
30 LEPRecon (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:09 am Report abuse
@24 - Santa Fe

Don't forget that he'll also bring up the Chagos Islands. Iraq, Afghanistan, lots of stuff that happened centuries ago etc...

He'll also mention how he supports the suicide bombers and other terrorist types who are fighting against the 'evil west', despite the fact that these terrorists murdered 85 of his countrymen.

But Tobias, being a racist, won't care how many 'Jewish' Argentines died. In his view, they probably deserved it.

However, the more dissenting voices are heard the closer CFK and her posse of pratts are to being kicked out of power.

If that happens, I wonder if Argentina will be suspended from Mercosur for not following the Constitution? :D
31 kelperabout (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:30 am Report abuse
8 Liberato (#) What will your response be should it turn out that a UN member did attend the refferendum .
Seems like some Argentines resent our bieng a people and just like their forefathers did they want to ethnically cleanse the Islands of it,s people. But that is what we expect from Argentina because that is all they know.
Then - 12 Nostrolldamus the 10th (#) says
“ Then if the were no Falklands natives it is incumbent upon the UK to evict the islanders. If the land was untouched by humans it should be returned to that state, just like Antarctica.

I'd suggest you start the removal promptly. ”

Dito my friend when are you going to remove the invaders from Argentina and return it back to the indigenous people. REMEMBER arguments work both ways.
32 Huntsman Extraordinaire (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:36 am Report abuse
I was wondering, what is the exact date of the referendum? I know it's March obviously but out of all the articles I've read no one has ever said the specific date (that or baby has kept me up to late the previous night and I've missed it!).

I think that the referendum will provide KFC with maybe 1 or 2 months of public properganda max - I can see protests on the streets and British flags burning (this enfuriates me - as more of a nationalist than a religious person this personally is like the equivelant of burning a Bible or a Koran, its beyond disrespectful - much like the poppy burning on Rememberance day. No matter how much Argentina annoys me - I would not burn their flag because I understand to them what it stands for and how it makes them feel; much like I would not burn a religious book - sorry, rant over), but after the buzz has died down what next?

Since the process would probably take years, I personally can see out of desperation KFC taking this to the ICJ, so that she can use the minor victories despite an enevitable and embarrassing defeat (ultimately killing any international hope in the future of a 'legal' prospect for the islands) to fuel domestic properganda; even if she is cutting off her nose to spite her face. If it keeps the populus distracted enough from all the countries problems she may get that constitution amended and her precious third term (I am of course trying to put myself in the mindset of a nutter). There aren't many other avenues to go down... other than either continuing the relentless whinning, which even the RG populus will soon get the picture of, or to stage another invasion, which of course is pretty much impossible since her popularist and also self serving approach has truely seen the destruction of Argentina's armed forces...
33 reality check (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:42 am Report abuse
Huntsman.
I believe, because of the geography of the Islands, the vote takes place over two days. 10th & 11th of March, with the result on the night of the second day. Maybe one of our island friends can confirm that.
34 Falkland Islands (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 10:25 am Report abuse
@33 correct, can't wait to vote.
35 GFace (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 10:40 am Report abuse
@30 Look all you ever have to know about Toby's moral compass is that he equates Saddam Hussein's Iraq (yes THAT Saddam Hussein's Iraq) with Poland in WW2 (yes THAT Poland in WW2) at the end of last year. Irredeemable. Worthless. Little. Twerp.
36 golfcronie (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 10:41 am Report abuse
@34
Amen to that
37 Crackpot (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:11 am Report abuse
The whole discussion over the “wishes” versus the “interests” of Falkland Islanders is completely bogus. Those who focus on the term “interests” as an excuse to ignore the Islanders' views seem to assume that it is Argentina that gets to decide what those interests are. They are the last group of people qualified to do that, as their connection with both the Falklands Islands community and land itself is virtually nonexistent, apart from a few weeks in 1833 and 1982. Only the Falkland Islanders themselves can decide what is in their own interests.
38 CaptainSilver (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:12 am Report abuse
Letter from the Trolley Dolly in The Times this morning complaining about Matthew Paris's observations on Argentinas 'disappeared' Indians. She doesn't seem to understand that it was them calling the British colonialists, and Paris responding by pointing out that Argentineans are no different, that they are colonialists of the worst kind too. At least in Britain where the British live, we didn't wipe out an indiginous population like they did. Like most Argentinean politicians and stooges she appears to suffer from selective myopia. As for the Falkland Islanders, they displaced no one. They are made up of many nationalities and they live in an atmosphere of calm, quiet and peace much like you would find in any rural English village, and its what they want. The Argentineans remain unable to see that the only possible way of getting the Falklands is to make their proposition more attractive to the Islanders. This is a bit difficult when you invaded with thousands of ill trained alien troops. Shot some of the population, carried out a Nazi style oppression on them and sewed undocumented minefields all over the place.

Roll on the Idea of March, Argentina is totally stuffed!
39 ChrisR (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:21 am Report abuse
So there is at least one person in The Dark Country who can think for himself and come to a reasoned view, despite his indoctrination at school.
40 GFace (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:26 am Report abuse
@37. The Junta certainly took care of the “interests” of the people they murdered, saving them from their inauthentic dissenting views. They were wanting to look after the same interests on behalf of the islanders in 82. CFK's bunch either haven't learned from the Junta or have learned too well. I'm betting on curtain number 2.
41 HansNiesund (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:31 am Report abuse
Good news for Argentine isolationists: UK to vote against lending them money:

”Rebecca Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on voting financial support to Argentina in (a) the Inter-American Development Bank, (b) the World Bank and (c) other multilateral development banks of which the UK is a shareholder. [142909]

Justine Greening: I have instructed the UK’s representatives at the Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank to vote against all new proposals for financial support to the Government of the Republic of Argentina presented by these institutions, while reserving the right to support proposals that can demonstrate exceptional benefits to the poorest people of Argentina. These are the only Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), in which the UK is a shareholder, from which the Government of Argentina borrows.

The UK must ensure that the scarce resources of the MDBs are used as effectively as possible to foster development and economic growth. In light of recent actions by the Argentine Government I am no longer confident that further investments in Argentina would be consistent with these objectives. The actions include the failure to comply with the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes rulings; failure to agree to standard IMF Article IV surveillance since 2006; and the recent IMF censure, the first of its kind, as a result of continued failure to remedy breach of data obligations under the IMF Articles of Agreement, seriously undermining our ability to properly assess proposed future loans by the MDBs. This position will be kept under review, subject to the future actions of the Government of the Republic of Argentina and its compliance with its international obligations.”
42 LEPRecon (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:40 am Report abuse
@41 - HansNiesund

At least Tobias/TTT/Nostril can die happy, in his own little world:D

But this will have serious consequences for Argentina. Everyone has been telling them that soon the international community would stop giving them money.

Now all of Argentine governments policies have led to it. During their last default, they still had access to certain funds, but CFK and her ilk and ensuring that Argentina will get no help, once she has completed her plan for the total destruction of Argentina.

But never mind, the La Campora trolls, can keep applauding her.

What happens to a populist government when they can no longer fool the people?

Riots, revolution, lawlessness, hunger, despair and disaster are the children of CFKs economic miracle.

Maybe all the decent people in Argentina will get together an form a stable, government, that does what's right for the people, and not what is right for themselves.
43 Anbar (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:42 am Report abuse
“”“”I'd suggest you start the removal promptly.“”“””

empty out Patagonia and all the other lands of Argentina of anybody not of pure-blood native then.

idiot.
44 XAVIERV (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:43 am Report abuse
@39
Good Day. What's New?
I see that as usual, as always, 3000 Islanders lit, superhuman, who understand things so clear, that only they understand.
Oh yeah, the rest live in the dark, especially the 40 million who are their neighbors, with brainwashed, all ignorant who can not think for themselves ..
A kind of lineage belong these settlers do everything right while all their neighbors do wrong .. I think they should be studied to know where it comes from such quality, although I have a hypothesis .. They have been playing each other for 180 years, are all related and no genetic diversity, creating a new “gen” superior race .. Nietzsche would fall back to learn that in some distant islands his dream came true ..
45 Be serious (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:49 am Report abuse
44
Its true that the Islanders understand everything much better about the Islands where they live and work, than a bunch of foreign aggressors and would be invaders, residing in stolen Argentina.
46 XAVIERV (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:53 am Report abuse
@45
A confession by, relay testing .. Confirmation that are considered superior .. It seems every day but the KKK ..
47 HansNiesund (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:55 am Report abuse
@44

Come, come Xavier, it's quite possible to maintain a national delusion for many years, so long as you put the apparatus of the state firmly behind it. Ask the pre-war fascists or the post-war communists.
48 Anbar (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:59 am Report abuse
“”“”I see that as usual, as always, 3000 Islanders lit, superhuman, who understand things so clear, that only they understand.“”“”

its not just the Islander Xav old bean, its a few billion others also: those who have not been indoctrinated in their schools and society on a history that is untrue and a land-claim that is invalid.

Glad to see that you are using the opportunity now though to educate yourself.

keep it up.
49 LEPRecon (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:59 am Report abuse
@46 - Xavierv

Oh look, a troll! Spouting nonsense and trying to divert the thread!

Of course, the trolls have been ordered by the Nazi Son of the fuhrer to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with the Nazi party line.

No doubt Mr Palmero will be getting a visit off the tax inspectors, and CFK tries to brow beat another free thinking Argentine citizen into submission.

But it won't work. Argentina's economy is about to implode. Now in most dictatorships the dictator can rely on the military. But CFK can't rely on Argentina's military, can she? She doesn't trust them, and they don't trust her.

So when the economy finally implodes, the masses will rise up, and your beloved CFK will be on the 1st helicopter out, with bags stuff full of dollars, that belong to the people of Argentina.

Hopefully the pilot will refuse to take off, and CFK can face the ire of her people.
50 XAVIERV (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:01 pm Report abuse
The Argentines have committed many mistakes, I admit .. You never wrong always done everything right .. Because I never read in this forum that some of you admit that maybe even Argentina has a point .. Thus, no? Then? That's because they have something more than other mortals ..
51 Shed-time (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:08 pm Report abuse
@50 The ongoing mistake seems to be bathing yourselves and your children in so many lies that the only thing you have left is to hide behind semantics, which under quick examination fall away to reveal yet another hate-filled and repressive being.

Any more easily refutable lies that you want to put down here, that you'll refuse to get any kind of legal judgement to resolve?
52 HansNiesund (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:09 pm Report abuse
@50
You seem to have caught something off Tobias, this weird notion that nobody in the UK believes the UK ever did anything wrong. And the unfortunate fact about the Falklands case is that Argentina really doesn't have much of a point at all, as Vicente Palermo has just had the bottle to point out. You dont need to be superhuman, Albert Einstein, or a Falklander to figure this out either, all you need is to read what the texts actually say.
53 Musky (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:10 pm Report abuse
@44 XAVIER
Argentines - Brainwashed
North Koreans - Brainwashed
Chinese - Brainwashed
Religous Followers - Brainwashed
Naturally plenty of people in these groups are not brainwashed... and if you believe that, you're brainwashed too! :-)
54 agent999 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:15 pm Report abuse
@52
echo's of the blood dependants theme from Guzz and others
55 Be serious (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:18 pm Report abuse
50
You would have a point if the Islanders vote to join Argentina.
56 XAVIERV (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:21 pm
Comment removed by the editor.
57 HansNiesund (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:37 pm Report abuse
@56

Cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing. Must be particularly terrible for a teacher and law student who is unable to handle a contradictory opinion.
58 Huntsman Extraordinaire (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:39 pm Report abuse
56)

The last I checked Isreal and Palestine are not British Oversea Territories...

Also, there are uneducated and deluded people all over the world, that includes the UK. With a population over 60M, this is a given. These are the people you talk of in this forum. People who are miss informed, do not really understand or care about the politics of the Falkland Islands. This is generally speaking understandable since a good deal of people these days have great many more problems than to take the time to listen to you whing over something you have absolutely no right or claim over.
59 Liberato (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:44 pm Report abuse
Andy65, Brainwashing?. Who is making brainwashing? Argentina? who are asking to dialogue?, which is the same the UN is asking? who consider the islands a colony? as the UN consider the islands in the same way?. Or the UK, That is killing millions of people while we speak around the world without you noticing who the enemies are. That is brainwashing. Your leaders should be hang for what they are doing to the world.

Kelperabout: (((What will your response be should it turn out that a UN member did attend the refferendum .))))))
UN have observers that can be sent when it is apropiate, to non self-determined territories to help them achieve self-determination. In the case of Malvinas, it is not a colonized people that is making a self-determination act, but a colonized territorie, where the referendum, as in the case of Gibraltar is not legal, ergo no UN observers will be sent.

Musky: ((((@44 XAVIER
Argentines - Brainwashed
North Koreans - Brainwashed
Chinese - Brainwashed
Religous Followers - Brainwashed
Naturally plenty of people in these groups are not brainwashed... and if you believe that, you're brainwashed too! :-))))))

Your comparison is a demostration that you are brainwashed. You are putting together all nations that you reject as the bad nations. Im sure if Camaron says we are terrorist you would believe it in a click. Becouse you are so f....g brainwashed dumb.
60 Sergio Vega (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:46 pm Report abuse
Definitively, we must go to the begin and, as the very known question “what is the first: the egg or the hen?”, make the main question
What is the first, the UN Chart (where the people´s self determination rights is stated as one of the top principles) or the Resolutions (like decolonisation one).
I understand that no one Resolution can be against the UN Chart,wich is the main expression of the principles of that organization, so those Resolutions must result into the full respect of the content of the UN Chart like the the principle of the people´s self determination rights......considering that it´s the Art. II of the Chart.
61 Condorito (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:51 pm Report abuse
Good article.
Good clear analysis of the situation.
62 Idlehands (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 12:53 pm Report abuse
59 Liberato

Your foreign minister was offered dialogue only a week ago while he was in London - and he refused.

Has that fact been washed out of your brain too?
63 XAVIERV (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 01:02 pm Report abuse
57
Contradictory opinion what you have .. Britons who call and go to a referendum to see if they wish to remain British .. It's the dumbest thing has happened, do not know anyone that want change nationality r ..
The problem is here is on another level, the Argentina claims sovereignty of the islands (territory) and Argentina's claim was never change the nationality of its occupants .. They remain British and their descendants as well, that is not challenged ..
It is absurd to ask them if they want to remain British (While there is a nation that name, by what happens in Scotland, I do not last much longer with that name)
Because it will allow only 5,000 Argentines vote and ask if they want to remain Argentines?
64 txiki (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 01:04 pm Report abuse
If you repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it..... As used by new labour in the UK, and as used by the current Argentine government when it comes to the Falklands.

But at least Bordou has a nice desk and office furnishings, Eh!

Xavier - conozco a lo suficiente argentinos para saber que hay gente con todos opiniones en Argentina, incluso ellos que no conforman con la idea que las islas son argentinas. Lo que pasa es expresar esa idea es para mucha gente un insulto a la “patria”. Solo hacer falta leer los comentarios en LN para darse cuenta de esto.
65 Musky (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 01:04 pm Report abuse
@59 Liberator
Not at all. North Koreans... so absolutely brainwashed, they believe their leaders to be demi-gods and all the stories their TV reporters throw at them. North Koreans don't just hate britain, they hate the world, including argentina.
Argentina is listed because they've been indoctrinated with the malvinas rubbish since school. This began in the mid-1930s.
Chinese are brainwashed by the restrictions on their access to free information, through the years of communist rule. They will throw off their shackles one day.
Britain is great place for freedom of speech, it is highly rated for freedom of speech and we choose what we want to believe. Cameron a terrorist! Not a chance. Britons do not blindly swallow what their government dishes out. We have independent public enquiries into governmental activities, private activities. Wehave independent regulatory bodies, independent newspapers, independent broadcasters, freedom of print, free thinkers, government mickey takers, government mockers, satirical comedy shows poking fun at governments. We are highly rated in our freedom of activites, you guys are much further down the chart.
66 Raul (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 01:31 pm Report abuse
Vicente Palermo is totally wrong.
The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Question of the Malvinas Islands.


V.Palermo says:
The first argument is false, Resolution 1514 of December 1960 relates: “All peoples have the right to self-determination ..

V. Palermo is wrong.
The specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility remains of the principle of self-determination, as its exercise by the islanders, cause the ”disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. In this regard it should be noted that Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” in the sixth paragraph states that “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. ”
In the Malvinas Question General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine - the principle of territorial integrity by referring to the interests and NOT the wishes of the population of the islands - in its resolution 2065 (XX), 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41 / 40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination.

And the grossest of these examples is the 1982 military invasion.

Argentina suffered four British invasions (1806-1807-1833-1845). Also remember that the conflict was initiated by a military junta not supported by the people of Argentina (30,000 missing) and prior to the 1982 conflict, Galtieri UK support in the preparation and implementation of state terrorism carried out by the military against the Argentine people.
67 Shed-time (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 01:46 pm Report abuse
@66 Raul, the principle of self determination might not apply in the case of the Malvinas (they don't exist) but it does apply in the case of the Falkland Islands. To suggest it doesn't goes against the Charter of the United Nations. Argentina didn't exist until 1853 (after it's constitution was repealed in 1826) so it couldn't have been invaded in 1806, nor 1833, nor in 1845. In 1833 no one invaded Argentina because it didn't exist, and because the Falklands were deemed to be British from the 1700s, and the illegal settlers were mainly asked to stay. That's not an invasion, it's simply telling the combatants of an alien nation to go home.

The UN resolutions you mention, have no bearing on this, I guess you never read them. You might want to read Resolution 1985 40/25

” The General Assembly,

Reaffirming its faith in the importance of the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,

Reaffirming the importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, national sovereignty and territorial integrity and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples as imperatives for the full enjoyment of all human rights,

Reaffirming the obligation of all Member States to comply with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the resolutions of the United Nations regarding the exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial and foreign domination,”

Seems it applies to all folks, and not just when Argentina wants it. Besides Argentina tried to get the principle of Territorial Integrity placed above the principle of Self-determination in 1990s if I recall and failed.

Sucks to be you. liar.
68 Idlehands (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 01:49 pm Report abuse
66 Raul

Do you really believe the nonsense you just wrote?

This quote is the funniest:

“remember that the conflict was initiated by a military junta not supported by the people of Argentina ”

Any muppet can go onto youtube and find the videos of hundreds of thousands flocking to the Casa Rosada waving their little flags and cheering Galtieri on the balcony. There's an even better one of a TV show that began where members of the public turned up with their valuables and then handed them in for the war effort to the cheers of the rest of the audience.

If you search for videos a few months later thre's some good one's of these flag waving Argentines having a riot because it turned out they lost.

Normal service was resumed.
69 Monty69 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 01:49 pm Report abuse
63 XAVIERV

I don't know what you are finding so difficult about this.
There are plenty of instances where former British colonies and overseas territories have voted to sever ties with Britain and become independent. Why would we not do the same? One day, we probably will.
Nobody cares whether you would 'allow' us to remain British. This is about sovereignty. We don't want to be ethnic Britons living in Argentina. If we did, we would go and live in Argentina. We want to live under the democratically elected government of our choosing.

66 Raul

We already know what you think. You think that Britain sending in a gunboat in 1806 as part of the Napoleonic Wars, against a country that wasn't even Argentina, somehow is more significant than your disgraceful invasion of our peaceful country in 1982.
You think that the Falkland Islands is somehow part of your territorial integrity, despite the fact that it is an island hundreds of miles away and has never been under your effective rule. Who ever said that the principle of territorial integrity applied here? The UN never did. You just made it up. It doesn't become more true if you keep saying it.
You think that Britain expelled an Argentine population, despite overwhelming evidence that they didn't.
You say that the 1982 invasion was carried out by a 'military junta', although it clearly had massive support, and your own politicians say they would do it again if they could get away with it. You still all celebrate it every year.

Actually, you're just a comtemptible liar. Everyone can see it.
70 Idlehands (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 01:56 pm Report abuse
Here's a “territorial integrity” challenge for our Argentine friends.

As you live in Argentina why don't you walk to the Falklands to stake your claim?
71 Shed-time (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 01:58 pm Report abuse
@66 Raul, come to think of it you also forgot to say that the UN defines that a claiminant state (Argentina) has to have existed before the time you are claiming it was colonised, when Argentina didn't even exist until 1850's. So even by your logic you claim isn't valid under international law.

.... secondly you have to have exerted valid sovereign ties over the territory at the time, which you did not (been explained too many times)

... thirdly in 1850 you signed away your claims to it in the treaty of perfect friendship, which means you peacefully renounced the claim and you didn't even exist as a country.

Under international law, your claim using your logic is non-existent.
72 JohnN (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:07 pm Report abuse
Maybe not that important, but Palermo's original opinion article in El Clarin includes bold fonts to emphasize some of his key points. I think the MercoPress interpretation of Palermo appears to square with what Palermo thinks most important to emphasize.

“ La causa por Malvinas, en otro callejón sin salida” :
www.clarin.com/opinion/causa-Malvinas-callejon-salida_0_865113546.html
.
73 GFace (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:10 pm Report abuse
@66. The lie that the Juntas involvement absolves AR of any accountbility is an obscenity. Germany can never ask for their 1942 boundaries back ever again. As for the lack of support? And then he compounds it with an even bigger lie. Not only did the people celebrate the expansion of their Dirty War in 1982. They celebrated it with a coin! Did we see a super special euro created by Germany to celebrate the anniversary of “taking back” the Sudetenland? A special yen printed to honor the soldiers that “pacified” Nanking? A US state license plate thanking the victors of Wounded Knee for their service (and I mean COME ON, you can get a special plate for ANYTHING!)? Uh... No. To all three. But in Argentina we have unrepentant celebrants of Fascism.
74 Idlehands (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:19 pm Report abuse
Truth is that Argentines find it easier and more palatable to paint themselves as victims of the junta rather than the creators of it.
75 GFace (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:29 pm Report abuse
@74. Well additionally due to dodgy amnesty and the broad involvement of the Junta “machine” there is a reasonable assumption that, like other metastasized “ex”-dictatorships, is that not all cogs of the machine are entirely gone and are there in a network of enforcers protecting the “little Eichmanns” (and not so little ones). There are lots of accounts that remain unbalanced in the Dirty War's ledger.
76 andy65 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:32 pm Report abuse
Argentines might as well admit they are still victims of the Junta only this one wears tights and uses botox
77 HansNiesund (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 02:55 pm Report abuse
@59 Liberato

What makes you think the aim of the present Argentine campaign is dialogue? Do you really think they are so dumb that if they genuinely wanted dialogue, they would be going about it in the present manner?

@63 Xavier
Quite obviously, this referendum is about sovereignity, not nationality. The islanders aren't being asked if they wish to remain British, but if they wish to remain a British Overseas Territory. A positive response, of course, amounts to a rejection of Argentine sovereignity. In this respect, it does seem likely that those islanders of Chilean, Saint, Scandinavian, Hottentot, or whatever other origin is present, will be every bit as keen to be Argentine as those of more traditional British descent. I wonder why that is?

@66 Raul
You're not up to speed with the latest propaganda. Even your present government has dropped the ludicrous claim that the population was expelled in 1833, presumably because it is easy to disprove. See the pamphlet produced for the London Comedy False Pretenses Malvinas Conference of this month :
apoyoamalvinas.cancilleria.gob.ar/page/2
78 toooldtodieyoung (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 03:03 pm Report abuse
76 andy65

“only this one wears tights and uses botox”

Hector Timerman wears tights and uses botox???

I knew it!!!

Every time I saw that man my Gay-dar went straight into the red!!!
79 GFace (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 03:26 pm Report abuse
@78 With *those* shoes?!?!? Drag Queens around the world now weep.
80 row82 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 03:29 pm Report abuse
Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom? YES or NO

www.facebook.com/questions/477553115645297/

Join the debate on www.facebook.com/Britain1592

Falkland Islands Desire the Right!
81 mikey48 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 04:07 pm Report abuse
It is obvious the argentine government as showing their bad side.1982 they invaded the Falklands,by doing so they are no longer any claim to the islands.Also with un charter paragraph 1354,“Self Determination is to be held under all charters”.
82 GSall (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 04:07 pm Report abuse
I'm sat here with the popcorn; please, continue Argies, try and make another claim. I suppose next you'll be asking for Gibraltar too?
83 mikey48 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 04:12 pm Report abuse
They have tried that one too with the help of the Spanish,but never came to fruitions thank god.
84 GSall (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 04:18 pm Report abuse
The Spanish have no real claim to Gibraltar though? The ceded it to us in The Treaty of Utrecht and then re-confirmed that in the Treaty of Paris (1783) after the American War of Independence.

And the Falklands, again, no real claim from the Argies; especially since '82! They have more of a claim to Uruguay and the rest of South America!
85 Terence Hill (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 04:25 pm Report abuse
66 Raul
You are the only person who is totally wrong. You are attempting to apply modern law to a legal situation that occurred in 1833 . The application of retroactive law is barred under international law.

Here is the opinion of former ICJ judge.
'...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion....'
35

The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
© 1963

Here is another from a Dutch professor of international law
'The generally accepted view is that the validity of an acquisition of territory depends on the law in force at the moment of the alleged acquisition; this solution is really nothing more than an example of the general principle that laws should not he applied retroaclively.

It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared
in 1970 that the modem prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created 'prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law'

Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk
86 GFace (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 04:34 pm Report abuse
And i really have to say that this contrarian piece by Palermo is one of the few AR sources that recognize that the 82 invasion, even if “we weren't really with the Junta,” was an bridge burner into perpetuity.

It was AR that acted unilaterally by imposing their dictatorship at the time in breach of the UN resolutions to which it dishonestly clings. It was AR that illegally imprisoned a civilian population in Goose Green and ran another prison camp a far distance from the detainees families, warcrimes both. It was AR who deployed unmarked land mines. It was AR soldiers that were prepared to use the citizens of Stanley as human shields, hockeycheking Menendez into a surrender. It was AR that sent its secret police like Dowling over to impose its Dirty War against citizens under another country (even as a neglected colony as go the excuses for the Junta). And on top of that add the violation of rules of war during the liberation of the islands against the UK military forces (false surrenders, mixing or just disguising military assets under red crosses, etc.).

And this is supposed to be ignored as if “no harm no foul?” There WAS harm. There WAS foul. And for that there ARE consequences. Just as reformed de-Nazified liberal democratic Germany can never claim back its WW2 maximum gains, so to is it for unrepentant effectively unreformed illiberal marginally democratic Argentina.

It's rare that 1982 is mentioned at all in AR claims over the Islands. Even when in full apologetics mode when 82 IS mentioned, it's rarer still to fully recognize that it had adverse and indelible consequences for any government seeking to annex and colonize the islands -- and that includes those somewhat conciliatory governments that ~don't~ mint commemorative coins and pass out medals to countries married diplomatically and trade-wise to them shotgun-style by geography in their celebration of their Dirty War's failed Hail Mary pass.

This piece is a rare one.
87 toooldtodieyoung (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 05:02 pm Report abuse
86 GFace

well said. Nice post.

As I have in an earlier post, you only get one chance at a first impression. If 1982 did anything, it was to persuade the Islanders that they wanted nothing to do with Argentina.

I have always had a feeling that the Argentines were only ever sorry for the 1982 invasion because they didn't get away with it.

In the same vein as the Japanese apologising for their part in WWII. The Japanese seem only to be sorry that they were caught red handed, not for the crimes they commited against those people they invaded and those prisoners of war they treated badly.

So too it's the Argentines who say sorry but I expect them to say afterwards “........ We would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for that interferring Royal Navy”
88 row82 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 05:11 pm Report abuse
For more information, see this link:

samilitaryhistory.org/vol072iu.html
89 Be serious (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 05:18 pm Report abuse
The UN knows that if the Falkland Islanders rights are overridden to satisfy Argentine aggression, then similar Wars could break out all over the planet.
All Nations have an interest in the vitally important principle of self determination and any attempts to undermine or nibble at the edges must be firmly resisted. Don't know what you said at 56 XAVIERV to merit it being deleted, perhaps you lost your temper and with it the argument.
90 Monkeymagic (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 05:40 pm Report abuse
@85

Raul is EVEN MORE wrong than you state.

He is trying to apply modern law to a retrospective situation that DIDN'T happen in the past.

So apply an inapplicable law to a situation that never happened....it's quite an achievement.

The specificity of the Malvinas (Falklands) is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, (never happened) expelled the original (not original) population (not a population) and did not allow their return (not true) , thus violating the territorial integrity (nearet territory 1000 miles away)of Argentina (who didn't exist, the UPoRP existed, with a completely different territorial integrity),

So, applying an inapplicable law to a situation that never happened is the best argument Argentina can come up....not very strong is it?
91 BritishLion (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 05:42 pm Report abuse
All this educated slanging to and fro might impress some of the people on here, 'mainly the authors themselves' in their 'vain' attempts to mark their spots on the discussion that then goes off topic while they do it. In basic plain English, Argentina has run out of steam and the UN and the rest of the world know it, the Falkland Islands and the UK hold all the cards and need only keep a weary eye on Argentina. Nothing else to worry about, all the ducks are in a row with SELF DETERMINATION being the last trump card. It will soon be back to normal business with Argentina doing its best to disrupt the islanders lives with blocades (an act of war), fishing and mineral arguments, cruise and air travel disruptions etc all whilst doing so cutting their own noses off to spite their faces and their own people continue suffer and suffer. DILIGAF
92 Steveu (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 06:17 pm Report abuse
@91 Pretty much bang on!

Pardon my ignorance but ...DILIGAF?
93 Monkeymagic (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 06:20 pm Report abuse
Does it look like a give a fuck
94 Anbar (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 06:20 pm Report abuse
“”“The specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore,”“””

hehe - everything after your first sentence is invalidated BY your first sentence....

that's gotta be a record for numbnuttedness surely?

Raul: when forming an argument make the foundation of based in reality, not in fairy land.

heres a link to read and absorb: www.falklandshistory.org/false-falklands-history.pdf

and another: www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/newsfromargentina/las-malvinas-son-argentinas-who-taught-you-that/
95 Zethee (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 06:38 pm Report abuse
“The specificity of the Malvinas is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina.”

Violated the territory of Argentina before it was even a nation, breaking a law that was not to be created for another one hundred and fifty years.

Laws aren't retroactive. And you can't have national territorial integrity before you are even a nation!

You can't be THAT stupid, can you?
96 Conqueror (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 06:41 pm Report abuse
Some simple FACTS for the argie dumbos. FACT 1: NO UN General Assembly resolution is BINDING. Not one. A General Assembly resolution is, at best, an “opinion” or “wish”. It has NO legal force. FACT 2: UN Security Council resolutions ARE binding on all members. FACT 3: The UK abstained from UN GA resolution 1514. There are NO circumstances under which 1514 can be applied to the UK.

@8 Nothing of what you say can be applied to the UK. See FACTs 1 and 3.
@16 I'm sure Saddam Hussein and Muamar Gaddafi thought the same. And now they're dead!
@21 “No s”, “troll”, “damn”, “us”. You are already damned, war criminal.
@44 Nothing for you. You're a clod. A “teacher”, right? A make-believe “job” for useless incompetents. Just an excuse for the argie “government” to pay benefits, but call it “wages”.
@46 EVERYONE is superior to an argie. Especially an argie “teacher”.
@50 Of course argies have a point. It's on the top of their heads. Used to dig their heads into sand.
@59 So many questions. “Who is brainwashing?” You are. Have you not seen the video? “Who are asking to dialogue?” You are. And we're saying “NO!” “Who considers the Islands a colony?” You do. The UN calls them something else. I haven't killed anyone today. But you look like a good prospect.
@63 You can vote for what you like inside your little 19th century enclave!
@66 All irrelevant. See FACTS 1 and 3.
@81 Are you trying to suggest that the argie “government” has a good side?
@84 A proper BINDING UN Security Council resolution, no. 502, that argieland IGNORED! See FACT 2.
97 Gordo1 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 06:49 pm Report abuse
@66 Raul - I am sorry to say that you are a LIAR or are STUPID or even BOTH.

You state ”Argentina suffered four British invasions (1806-1807-1833-1845)” This statement is just not true. In 1806 and 1807 Argentina did not exist - British troops invaded Buenos Aires in 1806 and 1807 when it was a Spanish colonial city and Britain and Spain were at war, so Britain did not invade Argentina at that time. In 1833 British Royal Naval vessel arrived in the BRITISH Falkland Islands in order to expel an illegal occupation of the Islands by an Argentine garrison. Other civilian illegal settlers were invited to stay - most of them accepted the invitation whilst four of them left VOLUNTARILY and requested to be allowed to go to Monteviedeo NOT Buenos Aires.

As far as an invasion in 1845, I think that you will find this was a trade blockade against Argentina AND Uruguay - a joint exercise between France and Britain - which was resolved by the signing and ratification of the Arana Southern Treaty - the Treaty of Perfect Friendship - in which both parties(Britain and Argentina) declared there were no impediments to friendship between them - NOT EVEN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.

I think you have a lot to learn about the history of the Falklands/Malvinas.
98 Liberato (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 07:07 pm Report abuse
Idlehands (((((Liberator: Your foreign minister was offered dialogue only a week ago while he was in London - and he refused.
Has that fact been washed out of your brain too?)))))

That “offer” of dialogue by islanders to the foreign minister Timmmerman, do not include sovereignty. Which is exactly the kind of dialogue Timermman and several UN resolutions are asking to take place and not between islanders and Argentina but between the UK and Argentina.

Musky ((((((Liberator: Not at all. North Koreans... so absolutely brainwashed, they believe their leaders to be demi-gods and all the stories their TV reporters throw at them. North Koreans don't just hate britain, they hate the world, including argentina.)))))))

So you know a northkorean for real and he told you they believe their leader are demi-gods? Or the media news told you so?. I tell you what, go for a visit to a republican nation, and explain to them you have a symbolic queen, that symbolically owns everything you have, that symbolically she descends from god, that symbolically you would die for her.

HansNiesund ((((((((( Liberato: What makes you think the aim of the present Argentine campaign is dialogue? Do you really think they are so dumb that if they genuinely wanted dialogue, they would be going about it in the present manner?))))))

Hans, the problem with you guys is that you never put your self in the position of the guy in front of you. Argentina is taking the claim pacifically and under international law terms using diplomacy tools. What do you mean when you refers to present manner? How the uk would react if the Isle of Wight is occupied by a foreign power, with a foreign military force and patrolled by foreign military ships?.
99 briton (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 07:08 pm Report abuse
They have exhausted this to the very very end, and still lost,

They are so desperate, that they are now grasping at theories,
And yet , still they argue,

When will they ever learn,
You cannot claim for thing before you were ever born,
They were not argentine,
Never was,
Yet this proves beyond a doubt that it’s the wealth under the sea they want,

And perhaps by causing all these tantrums, they are hoping that the islands may agree to give them a share just to shut them up,

Sadly if you gave Argentina the dripping from ya nose,
They would take this gesture as a fact, that they are in fact entitled to the bloody lot,
And it will all start up again,
No has to be no.

.
100 Anbar (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 07:17 pm Report abuse
“”“How the uk would react if the Isle of Wight is occupied by a foreign power, with a foreign military force and patrolled by foreign military ships?.”“”

well the problem with that analogy is that is absolutely nothing like the situation in the Falklands.

At all.

Not one little bit.

Nada.

Zilch.

rien.

zip.

didly squat.

nuffink at all.

got a better one?
101 axel arg (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 07:18 pm Report abuse
Vicente palermo is a prestigious and respectable writer, he has right to think whatever he wants like everybody else, however there is something much more important than our opinions, i mean the facts.
While it is true that the u. n. has never asked the u. k. to return the islands to arg., it is also true that there is not any resolution that invokes the right to self determination for the population from the islands, like there are for others colonial situations, in fact if you get into the website of the u. n., you'll see that there is not any resolution which says: application of the right to self determination for the population from the malvinas-falkland islands.
On the other hand, palermo omitted the fact that this cause has always been considered like a special colonial situation by the decolonization committe, and omitted also that in 1985 the u. k. presented a project of emmendation, in order to include the right to self determination for this case, and the general assembly rejected that proposal.
The strong the deffence that the u. k., the govt. from the islands, and many others people make respecting the right to self determination for the islanders, is no more than a hipocrite colonial caprice of the u. k., because although many of them prefer ignoring or invaliding the fact self determination was never applied for this cause, and continue making a distorted interpretation of the posture of argentina, the facts show that c. f. .k read before the u. n. last year, a secret proposal treated between arg. and the u. k. in 1974, which included the wishes of the islanders, and argentina's sovereign rights, that proposal refered to a shared sovereignty.
If after these facts, you prefer continue believing that for arg. there is just one outcome, and at the same time express that the govt. from the islands is dipsosed to discuss about different issues with arg., but not the sovereignty, which is the main problem, it shows once and again your colonial hipocresy.
102 reality check (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 07:25 pm Report abuse
The 1974 proposal, you threw that baby out with the bath water in 1982.
103 HansNiesund (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 07:32 pm Report abuse
@101

Right, Axel. The UN has abandoned its fundamental founding principle, and the evidence for this is that it hasn't said it hasn't.
104 slattzzz (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 07:42 pm Report abuse
Roses are red violets are blue my lasagne went neigh when it should of said moo!
105 screenname (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 07:45 pm Report abuse
@77 HansNiesund:

Thanks for the link. Has anyone else noticed that not only Argentina and the BOT islands are coloured in blue on the maps?

@38 CaptainSilver: 'At least in Britain where the British live, we didn't wipe out an indiginous population like they did.'

Well I don't know about indiginous, but the Danes took a hammering off the Normans during the harrying of the North, the Scots had a good go at the Picts, and the Irish followed by the Saxons battered the Welsh, before the Normans and then English attacked the Irish.
106 LEPRecon (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 07:56 pm Report abuse
@101 - axel

This part of your post is amusing.

“While it is true that the u. n. has never asked the u. k. to return the islands to arg., it is also true that there is not any resolution that invokes the right to self determination for the population from the islands, like there are for others colonial situations, in fact if you get into the website of the u. n., you'll see that there is not any resolution which says: application of the right to self determination for the population from the malvinas-falkland islands.”

Your post is hilarious.

Every UN resolution has to be in line with the UN Charter. The UN Charter specifically states that all people have the right to self-determination.

So therefore it is taken as a matter of course that the people have the right to self-determination and they don't have to waste time putting it in every resolution going.

Not only that, but NO UN resolution can overturn the founding principles of the UN Charter.

Resolution 1514 declares that:

All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer ALL powers to the PEOPLES of those territories, without ANY conditions or reservations, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR FREELY EXPRESSED WILL AND DESIRE, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete INDEPENDENCE and freedom.

On March 10/11 2013, the Falkland Islanders will show the UN what they want by freely expressing their wishes.

And that is what frightens Argentina the most, because the UN will recognise the Falkland Islanders and state that they are fully de-colonised. And that is the end of Argentina's colonial ambitions.
107 Pugol-H (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:06 pm Report abuse
“simply by reading UN Resolution” –Says it all.

@101 axel arg
“there is not any resolution that invokes the right to self-determination for the population from the islands”

Simply by reading UN Resolution 1514 from December 1960 referred to concession of independence to colonial peoples, which in Article II states that “All peoples have the right to self-determination and in virtue of that right can freely determine their political condition and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

Likewise Article V says that “Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom”.

Note the use of the word ALL in both articles.

The omission of the “special case” statement by the C24 is probably intentional, as it is irrelevant given that the C24 simply does not have the power to decide who does, and who does not, have the right to SD. This would require a fundamental change to the UN charter, and cannot be ruled upon by this advisory sub-committee, soon to be Extinct.

The only purpose of the C24 (as clearly stated when it was created, and clearly re-stated by Ban-Ki Moon a year ago) is to guide (ALL) the territories listed to self-determination.

Ban-Ki Moon has clearly, and publicly, stated that the Falkland Islanders do have the same rights to SD as everyone else. This can be taken as the UN position.

Sovereignty is not an issue here because Argentina has no legitimate legal, or historical, claim to any territory in the S Atlantic/Antarctic.
108 screenname (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:08 pm Report abuse
@106 '...And that is the end of Argentina's colonial ambitions.'

No it isn't. Take a look at the maps on @77 HansNiesund. There ambition does not end with the BOT. They have coloured in land to the South in blue.
109 agent999 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:11 pm Report abuse
@101 axel arg

Again this mysterious “secret proposal” in 74

All the UN resolutions call for peaceful means of negotiation - so what happened 1982?
110 Monty69 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:20 pm Report abuse
101 axel arg

I've asked you, several times, to provide links to the UN resolutions that apply the right to self determination to the specific cases of other Overseas Territories.
I'd like to see one for St Helena, one for Montserrat and one for Pitcairn Island. Just for starters.
That's right, go to the website of the UN and tell us where any resolution describes the ''application of the right to self determination for the population from the....''

You're telling us there isn't one for the Falkland Islands. I believe you. Just show us where all the rest of them are.

Thanks
111 slattzzz (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:28 pm Report abuse
@110 he doesn't know because they don't exist
112 Monkeymagic (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:35 pm Report abuse
@liberato

“The problem with us is that we don't put ourselves in the position of the guy in front of us”

Ok, let me humour you..

Firstly, the Isle of Wight is one mile off the spit at Hurst Castle, I've been there many times...not three hundred miles from the coast. So a nearer analogy to your argument would be islands closest to the UK than any other country, but not currently part of the UK. My examples would be the Faroe Islands (part of Denmark) at 200miles from the UK and Iceland (an Independant state) at 500 miles.

How do I feel at having the Faroe Islands and Iceland not being part of the UK? At best totally indifference, at worst....pleased that they are whatever their inhabitants want them to be.

Now, How do I feel about many many territories of the world that were once under British control no longer being so...(for a much longer time period than 60 days in 1832), at best total indifference, and at worst pleased that they are whatever their inhabitants want them to be.

Finally, you want me to put myself in an Argentinians shoes. Ok. There is a territory hundreds of miles from my country, in the ancient past 60 people representing a precursor to my country went there, raped, murdered and mutineed and were thrown out 60 days later....in living memory my country invaded, lost, at the cost of 900 lives...now my government wants to negotiate...how would I feel?

pathetic?
Humiliated?
Guilty?
Ashamed?

Crikey,,you are right, putting myself in your shoes is a horrible experience, I wouldn't try it again.

Now, perhaps you should put yourself in an islanders shoes...nine generations of living in a,previously uninhabitted islands, constantly threatened bullied and harrased by Argentina. Forbidden the same rights as all other people's on the planet by a bunch of retarded Nazis.....but about to have the last laugh...
113 Brit Bob (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:35 pm Report abuse
'Malvinas Cause in another dead alley'
There has never been a Malvinas Cause just the 'Great Malvinas Lie' used by Argentine politicians.
114 HansNiesund (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:41 pm Report abuse
@108

Indeed. This is about the whole South Atlantic basin, plus Antarctica. But they can only get that through the Falklands, since their claim for e.g South Georgia is even more specious than their claim for the Falklands. But this hasn't stopped them registering a claim with the UN for some 1.5 million square kilometers, an area bigger than Argentina itself..

There's a wonderful circular argument in there too - The Falklands are on Argentina's continental shelf and are therefore Argentine. But since the Falklands are Argentine, so is the continental shelf they are on. And since South Georgia was once part of the same British territory, it's Argentine too. And since it's Argentine, that's Argentina's continental shelf. And therefore South Georgia must be Argentine, since it's on the Argentine continental shelf! And so on, all the way down to the Antarctic peninsula.
115 Brit Bob (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 08:57 pm Report abuse
Oh dear, I wonder what poor old Hector is going to do about taking legal action against British firms drilling for oil and gas in Falkland Waters. Will he continue with his legal action? Just how far has he actually gone with this threat?
116 Steveu (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:01 pm Report abuse
@115 Which court should hear such a case

I know, how about the ICJ!

It's international and unbiased.
117 slattzzz (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:03 pm Report abuse
I don't think oliver pestorias has a leg to stand on
118 Redrow (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:06 pm Report abuse
Intrigued by Axel's reference to 1985 I was looking at the UN yearbook's reference to the UK's attempts to have a paragraph regarding self-determination inserted into a resolution. These amendments were voted down by 60-38 and by 57-36. Interestingly, Kuwait voted against us though we still helped liberate them from Saddam 5 years later (giving them back their own right to SD ironically). While Argentina's strongest supporters were Iran, Mongolia & communist Albania, how certain can we be that a UN vote would definitely go with the Islanders assuming a Yes vote in March? In other words, while Argentina is getting bad press these days and the UK generally better press, is this all a done deal or still all to play for?
119 reality check (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:06 pm Report abuse
Bad enough taking this blades away, now they have also disarmed him.
120 slattzzz (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:10 pm Report abuse
@114 I reckon that rgenweener is on the Falkland basin / continental shelf so RGenweener belongs to the Falkland Islanders
@119 LOL
121 Monty69 (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:12 pm Report abuse
98 Liberato

How do you imagine those 'bilateral negotiations' would work out then? Britain has repeatedly said that it won't discuss sovereignty unless the islanders wish it. Therefore, every time your people made some suggestion about sovereignty, there would be a hiatus whilst someone left the room and consulted the FI representatives waiting outside.
We offered you a sensible alternative and you didn't want it. That's fine, but you must understand that the situation you would like, where the UK and Argentina negotiate handing over the islands to Argentina, is never going to happen.

And I don't much care for your 'diplomacy tools'. They mostly seem to be about lying, threatening and insulting.
122 reality check (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:20 pm Report abuse
There can not be many things more insulting than telling a community dating back 180 years, that they do not exist, aside from actually believing it, that is. Who In their right mind would want to associate themselves with a nation that held such fascist beliefs?
123 HansNiesund (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:37 pm Report abuse
@121, @122

Exactly. Which is why I find it increasingly hard to credit that the aim of this circus is to promote dialogue. Are they really so clueless? It looks rather that the aim is to raise tension by whatever means possible - threats, insults, lies, economic blockade, etc, etc. Apart from the fact that it seems to come naturally, I would guess there are at least two other reasons coming into play. In the short term, histrionic macho posturing seems to help keep the domestic audience in line, while in the longer term ramping up tensio. Helps to engineer the kind of South/North hostility necessary to get support for the a major territorial expansion in the South Atlantic. Dialogue is the last thing they want, which is why they consistently refuse it.
124 Santa Fe (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:40 pm Report abuse
Dead Alley trolls , Dead Alley
125 reality check (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:49 pm Report abuse
@123
In reality all they have done is provide the islanders with a perfect reason, not to talk. Ten, fifteen or twenty years from now, the political landscape may have changed and Argentina may suddenly say, we want to talk to you about this or we want to talk to you about that. The islanders have a perfect out, sorry, talk with us, are you forgetting something? We do not exist. Enter the Junta Card, that was not us that was them! Pathetic.
126 slattzzz (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 09:54 pm Report abuse
@125 absolutly correct all the trump cards are with the FI people now because of the constant Fook ups from Botox alley cat and the tinman
127 hjarta (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 10:14 pm Report abuse
Doesn't the MBOA get it yet, they gave us the Falklands way back in umpty fumph, then they tried to forcibly take them back again in 1982 and were promptly kicked off the islands. In other words YOU LOST THE WAR and are lucky that Britain didn't invade your country and make it a subject of the United Kingdom. Mind you would all have beenbetter off, free medical, free housing, benefits etc .
Citizens of Argentina
128 slattzzz (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 10:35 pm Report abuse
will be soon be troll time
129 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:15 pm Report abuse
Trolls have been very quiet.

When the sun goes down, they'll slink out of their crypts to visit the Living.
130 Terence Hill (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:22 pm Report abuse
90 Monkeymagic
I agree with you, but even if what he is asserting was true sovereignty is still the UK's according to this renowned jurist.

General theory of law and state by Hans Kelsen

Nevertheless, there occurs, according to international law, a territorial change, provided that the occupation, made with the intention of incorporating the occupied territory into the territory of the occupying State, assumes a permanent character, and that means that the legal order of the occupying State becomes efficacious for the territory in question. Usually one speaks of “occupation,” as a title of acquisition, only when the territory previously did not belong to another State. When, on the contrary, the territory belonged to another State, one speaks of “annexation,” having in mind the case of conquest, that is, the case of taking possession of enemy territory through military force in time of war. Traditional theory admits that annexation of conquered enemy territory, whether of the whole (subjugation) or of part, constitutes acquisition of the territory by the conquering State, if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, “a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexati
131 golfcronie (#) Feb 14th, 2013 - 11:46 pm Report abuse
Apparently the police have asked Oscar to stop arsing around and admit it.
132 Pugol-H (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 12:00 am Report abuse
@118 Redrow
Been a done deal for some time now, it just took some people longer than others to realise it.

@ 123 HansNiesund
This has always been far more for internal Argentinian consumption than any external effect.

In recent times this has always had everything to do with Argentina, and nothing to do with Britain, the islands, or colonialism.

It is a button they build into Argys at an early age, so they can “press it” at any time later they feel like, and then they all run around like headless chickens and forget everything else.

@130 Terence
In this case, Argentina has singularly failed to demonstrate in any respect, that the territory in question has ever legitimately been administered by, or formed part of, the sovereign territory of the Republic of Argentina.

Annexation is what Argentina is trying to do now, not what happened in 1833 that was a re-capture.

“Acquisition” is the name of the game for Argentina here.
133 Terence Hill (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 12:03 am Report abuse
Continuing 130 Terence Hill

annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.

101 axel arg

'it is also true that there is not any resolution that invokes the right to self determination'. Is not correct former President of the ICJ had stated that before self=determination is allowed sovereignty must be decided. She went on to state about the islands ”No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.80

80. Rosalyn Higgins, ”Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
134 surfer (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 12:38 am Report abuse
These Malvinistas are going to be weeping again later looking at the latest stories on Mercopress..... much sobbing and wailing will commence....ho ho
135 Islander1 (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 02:30 am Report abuse
Axel - I have asked you this twice before and you refuse to answer - please answer this time:
Question:

You are in your home - in the street outside is a nasty person who shouts abuse at you and is threatening you and demands you hand over your house to him. He also blackmails your friends and neighbours to get them to refuse to do business with you- like container-cargo shipping lines. Others - he prevents them from travelling to you by air?

Now Axel - Do you go outside and agree with this person to sit down and talk about the owership of your house with him - knowing full well all he will settle for is takeover of all your home?

Or do you call the Police?

Which is your answer?
136 Anglotino (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 05:08 am Report abuse
@136 Islander1

In the US they'd just shoot!

It's still an answer though.
137 lsolde (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 10:05 am Report abuse
@101 Axel,
Wrong again, Dear Axel.
You have NO SOVEREIGN RIGHTS here, so your arguments falls flat on their face.
Please just go away. Thank you.
138 Brit Bob (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 10:50 am Report abuse
Why is Argentina So Poor? by Philip Greenspon

blogs.law.harvard.edu/philipg/2013/02/14/why-is-argentina-so-poor/
139 HansNiesund (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 11:02 am Report abuse
Interesting link, minor correction to the URL :

blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/02/14/why-is-argentina-so-poor/
140 nigelpwsmith (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 01:06 pm Report abuse
The above author wonders why Argentina has deteriorated. Could Argentina be the most selfish country on Earth?

When everyone in society is out to protect their own interests at the expense of anyone else, even family members, then there is no respect for family, friends, community, state or country. People do no offer to help others or do their job properly, because they would be taken advantage of, possibly even hurt.

Is it that Argentines are lazy, or that they see no point in working hard to improve themselves, because it would only enrich someone else?

Is it that Argentine politics revolves around bribery & corruption, not being elected on a mandate to carry out certain tasks & then actually doing them when you are in office?

Is it that Argentine politicians see no point in improving society, because the public won't re-elect them - only their corrupt mafia can get them another term in office, so they do whatever they need to do to enrich themselves & the mafia, leaving the public to fester, with high unemployment, lack of food, lack of public services & lack of respect for those in power?

Is it that the countries neighbouring Argentina do not trust them, because Argentina sets up trade barriers, because they break agreements, because they have threatened war in the past?

Is it that foreign investors won't invest in Argentina because they see other companies nationalised by the Argentine government to enrich politicians or worst still, they are forced to invest the money they would have received for selling a product into buying worthless Argentine goods which they then cannot sell abroad?

Is it that Argentina lives by the creed, Viveza Criolla, that it is OK to lie, cheat or steal and that this is the only way you will get rich, by robbing from someone else?

Yes, Argentina is a failed society, because they live by a creed that every other country rejects. No wonder that they elected a president who is actually certifiably mad.
141 axel arg (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 01:29 pm Report abuse
LEPRECOM. PUGOL-H. AGENT999. MONTY69. TERENCE HILL. ISLANDER1.
LEPRECOM and PUGOL: I have always wondered and asked you, if the right to self determination is perfectly applicable for the islanders, then why has this case always been considered like a special colonial sitaution, why there is not any resolution that applies self determination for the islanders, like there are for others colonial situations, why did the general assembly reject in 1985 an emmendation presented by the u. k., with the purpose of including self determination for this case?. I dont deny that perhaps this right is applicable for the islanders, however, if many of you had unless one line of intellectual honesty, you would recognize that the application of that right is very arguable. On the other hand, if you think that just our politicians omit information before the u. n., or before any other int. forum, respecting the historic aspects of this conflict, then it means that you have been perfectly indoctrinated by your so loved empire.
AGENT999: I understand that for many of you, the war of 1982 is your best excuse to reject the negotiations, however, accept it or not, if the u. n. has always continued calling both parts to resume the negotiations, it should be respected by both countries. Like it or not, the u. k. is not the owner of the int. right.
MONTY: Search the u. n. website on line, and you'll see what i say about the resolutions, i used to have the website, but i lost it, anyway, it won't be difficult to to find it on line.
TERENCE: Perhaps both countries should take the case to the i. c. j. It's the only one way to know wether arg. lost it's rights or not, or wether self determination is applicable or not, there are different opinions about those issues.
ISLANDER: I have already answered about it. If you insist on blaming just arg., and avoid recognizing that your side is not acting correctly either, it's really pathetic.
142 golfcronie (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 02:13 pm Report abuse
@140
Seems you have summed it up pretty well. I lived in Argentina for some years and I found pretty much what you say is correct.
How many decades do you think it will take to eradicate all their faults?
143 Raul (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 02:20 pm Report abuse
69 Monty69

Actually, you're just a liar comtemptible. Everyone can see it

Pathetic and sad. Do you think the Argentines are stupid? Always adjetivizas insult and what you do not know. Always with your explanation wrong regardless of the historical context of the time. Is colonialism, racism and imperialism English. Everyone suffered that. He studied Latin American history and you will realize. In 1982 was a shameful invasion, of course, I admit. But the four British invasions they are still too embarrassing. Also not a country, are a colony that was never implemented pacific. Read the resolutions committee of UN decolonization.

71 Hangar-time
Under international law, your claim using their logic is nonexistent.

Hangar-Estimated time: you are wrong. Something very basic. Lee UN Resolutions (2065) and the committee of United Nations Decolonization. You have to study Latin American history and Argentina. I recommend two books.
British policy in the Rio de la Plata by Raúl Scalabrini Ortiz.
Argentina and Latin American History by José María Rosa.

77 HansNiesund

Unfortunately your pride and arrogance blocks your mind. No argument both English or Argentine is easy to refute.
Give up hatred and resentment. I've told you several times. Your hatred and resentment against everything that is American and Argentine not let you see and hear other bells.
I appreciate the link Malvinas conference in London. Reading it has not reduced at all the demand of the population expelled in 1833. With older now and contextualized arguments demonstrating the expulsion of 1833.
You have a nice day.
144 agent999 (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 03:00 pm Report abuse
@143 Raul

The illegal military garrison and their family's were removed in 83, the rest of the non military settlers/population stayed.
145 Raul (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 03:52 pm Report abuse
85 Terence Hill

Dear Terence Hill
I'm not the only person. It is not retroactive laws apply. This is to resolve a conflict created by colonialism, racism and imperialism in the 21st century English. You do not want to accept the UN Resolution 2065 and the resolutions of the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations. Resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. All of them evaluated the Argentine claim is legitimate and fair. All of them are in accordance with international law.

97 Gordo1
Raul @ 66 - sorry to say that you are a liar or stupid or both.

Pathetic and sad. You are insulting passes all new to you and all the Latin American and Argentine.
You are an English course. Knows absolutely nothing about American history and Argentina.
It makes sense to talk with you.

144 agent999

The expulsion of Argentine occurred in 1833. This proven historically. Historical evidence is very clear. The global specialist and historians confirm expulsion. The garrison was not illegal as it was in Argentina.
They were expelled and civil authorities. However escaped some as the Gaucho Rivero who reconquered the islands for a few months.

For evidence look at these links.

www.encuentro.gov.ar/sitios/encuentro/Programas/detallePrograma?rec_id=103988&capitulo_id=103991

www.cuestionmalvinas.gob.ar/
www.embajadaabierta.com/?p=660
www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/docs/03-Jorge_Arguello.pdf
146 Be serious (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 03:59 pm Report abuse
143 Yes indeed, the Falkland Islands are British.
But why argue the toss now. There is a referendum coming up which will put the matter beyond doubt. I hope a majority of the Islanders vote to remain British but its their free and democratic choice.
147 Simon68 (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 04:06 pm Report abuse
Actually the worst thing that could happen to any populist government in Argentina is for the Islanders to decide that they would like to be Argentine, that would be the end of the “Malvinas” smoke screen!!!!!!
148 agent999 (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 04:17 pm Report abuse
@146 Raul
“All of them evaluated the Argentine claim is legitimate and fair.”
and where is this actually quoted ?

“The global specialist and historians confirm expulsion”
and where is this actually quoted ?
149 Raul (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 04:53 pm Report abuse
147 Be serious

The Malvinas are Argentine.
There is no problem to make a referendun, can do all that quierean. But the problem of sovereignty remains. The referendum does not solve the problem of sovereignty since Argentina had a population that was expelled in 1833. It's like today on Israeli settlements in Palestinian territrio.
British citizens can not be British in Argentine territory.

Besides Argentina and Latin America do not recognize. Neither recognizes UN Decolonization Committee or the UN.

UNITED NATIONS THAT says about it.

“The chairman of the United Nations Decolonization ............. described the announcement of a UK referendum on the Falkland Islands as a” political stunt “, insisting that the islanders can not appeal to the right to self-determination according to them, because in the Malvinas case ”is not a principle of territorial integrity“ of Argentina, which is above other considerations and the UK is the ”occupying force“ since 1833 ”.

See the following link:

en.mercopress.com/2012/06/16/c24-chair-calls-falklands-referendum-political-ploy-praises-argentine-president

149 agent999

I'm not going to do the work for you. look at the links I suggested.
150 Terence Hill (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 05:20 pm Report abuse
150 Raul

Sovereignty as legal question is another dead-end for Argentina. UK has possession and its a done deal, there is nothing legally that can be done to wrest ownership from her. As these experts on international law state. No legal power resides in C24 to compel anything.

Argentina never submitted its claim to the Court for judgment, Its failure to do so, to take advantage of the requirements prescribed by international law, has quietly ceded sovereignty to Britain by extinctive prescription. Thus by 1982, Argentina's claim was extinguished. ... There was therefore little doubt that Britain acquired title to the Falklands by extinctive prescription. In other words, it was in this mode that the strength of the British claims resided.

The Falkland War : Britain versus the past in the South Atlantic /by Daniel K. Gibran

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. ....However, in any case, there is little reasonable doubt that Great Britain acquired definitive title to the Islands by prescription before 1982.

The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute
Between Argentina and Great Britain, James Francis Gravelle
151 agent999 (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 05:21 pm Report abuse
@150 Raul
non of your links point to anything I have questioned @149
152 Steve-33-uk (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 05:37 pm Report abuse
'The kelpers translate “their story” into Spanish - The people of the Falklands did not stay with the chancellor's refusal to participarlos of meetings over the sovereignty of the archipelago. Today Internet launched the Spanish version of his book “Our islands, our history.”'
www.mdzol.com/nota/448216-los-kelpers-traducen-su-historia-al-espanol/

'Commonwealth countries backed the “self-determination” of the Falklands - It was during a meeting of representatives of 37 countries that ended yesterday in the islands. It took place less than a month after the referendum that will kelpers to define their “political status”.'
www.clarin.com/politica/Paises-Commonwealth-respaldaron-autodeterminacion-Malvinas_0_866313544.html

'Parallel truths in parallel universes: can that be the only explanation?'
www.penguin-news.com/index.php/news/politics/item/504-parallel-truths-in-parallel-universes-can-that-be-the-only-explanation

'Falkland Islands referendum stamp issue released'
www.penguin-news.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&id=507:falkland-islands-referendum-stamp-issue-released

'Falklands: Has Argentina has lost their big chance - The Republic of Argentina, through its Foreign Minister, again made a serious mistake diplomatic and strategic, if the idea was to achieve an approach to British citizens residing in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).'
www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=SERP&br=ro&mkt=en-GB&dl=en&lp=ES_EN&a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.elojodigital.com%2fcontenido%2f11780-malvinas-la-argentina-ha-perdido-su-gran-oportunidad

Google Chrome won't translate the last link for some reason, so I've use Bing translate...
153 reality check (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 05:43 pm Report abuse
Raul
The Chairman of the committee says it does not.
His boss says it does.
Think I'll listen to the boss and not the employee.
Simplistic enough for you.
154 Terence Hill (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 05:58 pm Report abuse
41 axel arg

There is no policy of indoctrination in my country of Canada, it only existents in totalitarian regimes and Argentina.

146 Raul

Fortunately, for the UK none of UN resolutions have the force of law, that authority resides exclusively with the Security Council. So any other pronouncements from other committees are merely advisements and not binding. So I have shown through experts that everything that the UK has done in islands was completely legal under international law, I can show many more that say the same.
You wave the term “All of them are in accordance with international law.” Then what international law?, there isn't any it's just your personal opinion .
155 Be serious (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 06:05 pm Report abuse
150 Raul
The Falkland Islands are British.
Argentina belongs to the Amerindians (Mapuche, Kolla, Toba, Guaraní, Wichí, Diaguita, Mocoví, and Huarpe).
It's like Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories.
Spanish/Italian citizens cannot be Argentine in Amerindian territory.
156 golfcronie (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 06:16 pm Report abuse
@147
simon
Your not suggesting a conspiracy here. Maybe CFK is thinking of sending food parcels to the FALKLANDERS ? Good God, I never realised that they had a surplus of food in the supermarkets in BA. Nah she wouldn't be that stupid, come to think of it there are no ships ,so thats no good.Someone on here said that Argentina is on the same continental shelf, trucks maybe? Just Kidding
TOODLEPIP
157 Redrow (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 06:30 pm Report abuse
146 Raul
“They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. All of them evaluated the Argentine claim is legitimate and fair.”

I would be interested to see your evidence for this - I assume you mean “majority” as opposed to “all”. However even if you had said “a majority evaluated the Argentine claim as legitimate and fair” then you still have to remember that some countries view BOTH claims as legitimate to some extent and thus worthy of debate / negotiation etc. Simply saying a claim is legitmate does not necessarily mean that you support it or that you reject the counter-claim from the other party. Clearly a few countries will vote with Argentina no matter what, but for many others their previous (limited) support may be soft and seriously threatened by both the Referendum result and the recent rejection of talks by Argentina. They may simply shrug and say “Well, Argentina had its chance”. However, I have no idea what numbers we might be talking and I asked this very question on here last night. In the absence of a definitive answer however I would have to assume that BanKi Moon would not have said what he said unless he was pretty sure of his position. Had he mispoken in the interview he would have later had to retract or clarify. He didn't.
158 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 06:34 pm Report abuse
@153 Simplistic and wrong. The Secretary General is a Secretary not a General. He is not the Boss of the Nations' Representatives, he is the Boss of the functionaries who support the work of the Committees that are made up of and led by Nations' Representatives. It's the same in NATO, ECOWAS, OSCE and OAS.

If you're now going to listen to one of the Bosses and not the employee like you say you are, make sure you choose the right Boss. I would choose the UK Perm Rep myself.
159 Monkeymagic (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 07:01 pm Report abuse
@Raul

The lie that you keep repeating is that Argentina had a population removed in 1833.

It is deliberately misleading, you know it, Think knows it, your own National Archives show it.

On January 6th 1833, Captain Onslow of the HMS Clio requested that Pinedo and the crew of the Sarandi vacate the islands, islands which they arrived at just 2 months earlier. There were 55 of them.

Now, there is no “International Standard” as to what constitutes a population, but generally I would suggest there was a few determinants:

1) Non-military
2) time
3) size

A military posse of 55 who'd been present for 2 months and already raped and murdered seems to me not to be a population.

Had it been civilian, a few hundred or a few years perhaps your oft repeated lie would hold some water...but it was 55 military personnel for 2 months..thyd already done a bit of murder, rape and mutiny...that's it...you know, I know it.

Argentina always “forget” that bit when they tell the story.

Argentina use words like “original population” when the group was neither the original one, nor a population.

Argentina like to be nice and vague, how many we're evicted? How long had they been there? have any Argentines ever been born on the islands? Who were there before the United Provinces? ....all nice and misleading...reliant on most not bothering to check.

There has never been a UN resolution supporting Argentina just a request for dialogue. Britain has supported this request three times now:

in the late 70s when we talked and you didn't get what you wanted YOU CAUSED the death of 900 people
In the late 90s we talked and when you didn't get what you wanted YOU RIPPED up Oil and Gas and Mineral agreements
last we we wanted to talk but you were too scared of a couple of Islanders wanting to express their views...

3 strikes and out I am afraid....
160 screenname (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 07:35 pm Report abuse
@145 Raul: you say,“...All of them evaluated the Argentine claim is legitimate and fair.”

I say that you are a liar or stupid or both.

Feel free to now call me pathetic and sad.
161 HansNiesund (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 07:59 pm Report abuse
@158

From a strictly formal and legalistic point of view you are of course right. But let us not pretend that the Secretary- General is a mere purveyor of paper-clips on the international stage, with no understanding of the organisation's business, or that the ProRG_Ecuadorian fronting the C24 is anything more than a partisan stooge.
162 toooldtodieyoung (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 08:23 pm Report abuse
145 Raul

You mean Antonio “El Gaucho“ Rivero???

Who murdered the five leading members of the settlement of Port Louis on the Falkland Islands on 26 August 1833??

That Antonio “El Gaucho” Rivero????

“El Gaucho“ Rivero who has since acquired the status of a folk hero in Argentina, where he is portrayed as leading a rebellion against British rule???

That Antonio “El Gaucho” Rivero????

A murderer celebrated as a hero?? ( chuckle, chuckle ) Says a lot doesn't it???

Only in Argentina
163 agent999 (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 08:24 pm Report abuse
Also the chairman of the United Nations Decolonization committee was in no position to make the comments that he did
164 nigelpwsmith (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:56 pm Report abuse
Don't forget that it was Antonio “El Gaucho” Rivero, that murdered the administrators of Vernet's business.

That Antonio “El Gaucho” Rivero also murdered an Argentine, Don Ventura Pasos.

Rivero murdered one of his own countrymen, or was he a British administrator in disguise?!

Rivero did not rebel against British rule, he rebelled against Vernet for not paying him in hard currency. Vernet was taking advantage of the Gauchos. He gave them worthless paper that was no use in Argentina, then set the prices of goods exorbitantly high, so the Gauchos were permanently in debt. They were no better than slaves to Vernet.

Captain Onslow recognised that they needed to be paid in hard currency and told Vernet's adminstrators to do this, but Vernet decided otherwise & the administrators paid the price.

Funny how the Argentines were all set to name Port Stanley Puerto Rivero, until someone in Buenos Aires pointed out the truth, that he was a murderer, who murdered Argentines and ended Vernet's business.
165 golfcronie (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 10:59 pm Report abuse
@164
Lets not forget Juan Manuel de Rosas ruled Argentina 1829-1852
Rosas was one of the first famous ' caudillos' in Ibero-America and through his rule united Arentina, provided an effient government and strengthened the economy.
Rosas rule was filled with violence, he killed his opponents and anyone else who would not support him.
He was overthrown in 1852 and spent the rest of his life in exile in ENGLAND.
He obviously got wind of our excellent benefits system.
166 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 15th, 2013 - 11:50 pm Report abuse
@161 The SG knows very well his position having been a bureaucrat and a national politician, a foreign minister no less. He also knows that all member Nations are equal within the UN, except the five permanent members of the Security Council of course. However important he is, he is not their boss. That is my point and it's up there with debunking the myth that the consultative Referendum is an exercise in self determination that will make any sort of difference.
167 C0nqueror (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 01:22 am Report abuse
i am tired of posting. good night
168 Tobers (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 01:41 am Report abuse
@Think /DOD

Is that the best you've got?

Hes not the -General- but the chief spokesperson. So what? - when he says people have a right to decide how they are governed hes expressing the positions of those members of the UN and its charter. How does that change anything? It doesnt. Ban Ki Moon is not Judge Dredd.
169 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 06:59 am Report abuse
@168 So what? So another error for a start.

www.un.org/sg/spokesperson/about.shtml
170 HansNiesund (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 07:08 am Report abuse
@166

Indeed, you do put rather an inordinate amount of effort into your attempts to undermine a referendum that supposedly won't make a difference but which clearly has the Argentines all in a tizz.

But I guess it makes a nice change from trawling through the website of the FIG looking for arguments which likewise support the Argentine view.
171 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 08:02 am Report abuse
@170 Believe me. it's no effort. Any coincidence with the view of any Argentinian citizen or the Government of Argentina is just that, coincidental. My position is clear and principled. The Islands belong to UK and I have no doubt about it. However, the UK habitually overspends and I need the UK Government to do something about it; my pension depends on it. Three simple options are to cut spending, get British Citizens to work harder and pay more tax or find a replacement for North Sea Gas and Oil revenues.

Being a bright chap you will see where this is leading. A Yes vote maintaining the status quo will do nothing to assuage Argentinian frustration. I don't give a fig about that. It will though encourage the UK Government to continue to ring fence revenue from the Falklands for the Falklands as some sort of defence against accusations of colonialism. Stiff that I say. Get that money into the UK treasury.
172 HansNiesund (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 08:57 am Report abuse
@171

And how much support would you say there is for this coincidentally pro-Argentine neo-imperialist stance among British politicians or the British public?
173 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:41 am Report abuse
@172 Don't care how much so long as the issue is aired and free market, enlightened self interested thinking isn't stifled by pinko left leaning idealists who can't see beyond the clichés and headlines of the Guardian when framing their pc posts.
174 HansNiesund (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:11 am Report abuse
@173
So it's just yourself, then? Not even the loony fringe running with this one?

Perhaps you should have a quiet word with Sancho Panza next time he turns up in the Legion.
175 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:34 am Report abuse
@174 The more UK news headlines there are about recession, inflation, deficit and debt the more attractive UK retention of future revenue will become.
176 HansNiesund (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:43 am Report abuse
@176
And the more desperate certain chronically mismanaged economies of South America will be to get their hands on it. A good way to go about that, of course, would be to claim to their neighbours the Brits are proposing to thieve it all back to Europe.
177 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:49 am Report abuse
@176 Not really my problem . That's a risk for those who currently serve in military and diplomatic appointments to mitigate. That said, I do expect the capital expenditure in the Falklands to go to European companies and for the sovereign wealth fund to be invested in London one way or the other.
178 HansNiesund (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 01:03 pm Report abuse
@177

Those are the best schemes, huh, where the drawbacks are all someone else's problem.
179 Pete Bog (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 04:09 pm Report abuse
@145
“the Gaucho Rivero who reconquered the islands for a few months.”

They did not reconquer. Rivero and his gaucho friends were allowed to stay by the British in 1833. They did not leave the islands until they were arrested.
They did not rebel against the British but against Vernet's deputy Brisbane -who arrived from Soputh America(not from Britain)-There were only about 5 British people in Vernet's settlement when Rivero went riot and he was rebelling against Vernet's paper currency (ie not British currency). There were no British military authorities at Port Louis until January 1834 after Onslow left.

You seem to forget that in 1833 immediately after Onslow left there were only two British settlers in Vernet's community, most were South American, including Rivero who accepted Briitsh rule in 1833 otherwise he would have left then.

You also seem to have forgotten all the British sailors serving Pinedo, that were ejected, by........ the British.
180 axel arg (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 06:33 pm Report abuse
TERENCE HILL. SIMON.
Terence: There are some people in this forum who accuse arg. of indoctrinating the population with a false history, with the purpose of making our people believe that arg. has sovereign rights over the islands.
I have never denied that our politicians omit information respecting the historic aspects of this conflict, before the u. n. or before any other int. forum, in fact, each part always tell just what is convenient for them.
I i decided to investigate, is because i have never believed in our official history, that's why i have always recognized that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations.
For all these reasons i have always told those people that if they think that just our politicians omit information, it shows that they have been perfectly indoctrinated by their so loved empire, or perhaps they don't have enough intellectual honesty, in order to discuss about something so complicated like politic issues are.
Simon: Respecting your comment 147, don't worry, the interests in the south atlantic of your so loved empire will remain in the same way after the referendum.
On the other hand, every time you show the histerical hate that you feel for c. f. k's govt., you never say what are your ideas for the country.
If your argument is just kretina, it shows the low level of debate that you have, anyway it would be good that you express what are the decisions that our politicians should take in order to solve the hard problems that the country still has.
Come on simon, show us that you are not as medioce as i think, and tell us what kind of national project arg. should follow, in order to eliminate the level of poverty, and become the nation into an industrial and developed country. Beside, tell us also who is the politic representant of that project.
According to my centre left ideology, i agree on many of the decisions taken by c. f. k., but i also have some critics. It's necesary to know about your ideas too.
181 golfcronie (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 06:34 pm Report abuse
@171
The FALKLAND ISLANDERS have already stated that when the Oil starts flowing in 2017 they will be paying the UK the cost of defending the FALKLANDS, plus of course we shall will probably benefit from discounted oil.
182 axel arg (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 08:08 pm Report abuse
THE DIFFICULT DEBATE ABOUT THE MALVINAS-FALKLAND CAUSE.
I have always said in different oportunities that it's necesary to have enough intellectual honesty, in order to discuss about something so controversial like politic issues are.
For being honest, along these 3 years that i take debating in this forum, in just a few oportunities i could talk to people who had intellectual honesty, and although they were a few, i don't regret choosing this website to debate about this issue.
Some people often say in this forum that general secretary of the u. n., banki moon expressed last year that the islanders should decide about their own future. I don't know if some of you searched on line the interview that he gave for tiempo argentino (pro kirchnerist newspaper), which was publised partially in la nacion (conservative newspaper and pro imperalist) which headline was, the islanders should decide about their future. I searched that interview, and read it.
I must recognize that banki moon's posture was very contradictory, because while it is true that he said that the u. n. works in order to achieve that all the territories can get their independence, however when he was asked about the malvinas-falkland conflict, he manifested that he was concerned about the verbal scalation between both nations, and said also that he had the hope that both countries solve the dispute by mean a dialogue, however, he didn't include the gotv. from the islands in that dialogue, and didn't express either that self determination must be applied for the population from the islands.
As i said in others comments, everybody have right to think whatever they want, however, the facts are much more important than our opinions. And the facts show that self determination has never been applied for this case, beside, the cause has always been considered like a special colonial situation, and the govt. from the islands has never been included in any of the resolutions as a third part in this dispute.
183 lsolde (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 08:59 pm Report abuse
@182 Axel,
Like it or not, Axel, Self-Determination DOES APPLY.
Like it or not, Axel, the F.I.Govt WILL DEFINITELY be present at any “negotiations” with Argentina.
Like it or not, Axel, there will be NO NEGOTIATIONS on Sovereignty.
Like it or not, Axel, Ban Ki Moon DOES support Self-Determination & DOES NOT support Argentina's colonial ambitions.
Hope this helps to clear your confused thoughts.
Thank you.
184 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:11 pm Report abuse
@182 As far as the UN SG is concerned this is an issue between two member States coupled with a politically unacceptable colonial relationship between one of them and its non-self governing territory. UK can ignore Argentina for all the reasons regularly rehearsed here but needs to address rather than ignore the colonial relationship enshrined in the 2008 Constitution.

In this regard I do admire Argentina for finally getting around in 1990 to integrating as part of a Province the Islands they lay claim to. This trumps the accusations of colonialism such as @183 . So. the time is right for UK to do the same by fully integrating the Islands into the UK. Then it truly becomes a straightforward dispute between two UN member States (and the EU, the OSCE and NATO).

As an aside, here's an extract from a feature from UN News that tells you a lot about the Secretariat's view of decolonisation:

The modern colonial era stretches at least back to the 1500s, when European powers began establishing empires made up of colonies in the Americas, Africa and Asia. While most of the former European possessions are now independent UN Member States, 16 territories remain classified by the UN as ‘Non-Self-Governing Territories.’

The list is not universally endorsed, making for lively exchanges in the Fourth Committee, where states with claims to the territories, sometimes with the backing of their allies, spar with one another over the merits of their respective arguments.

www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43868&Cr=decolonization&Cr1=#.UR_wKGcYF0o

Sparring and allies. Just like posts on Mercopress.
185 HansNiesund (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:46 pm Report abuse
@184

But the colonial relationship is being addressed, both through the various reforms that have taken place and the 'consultative' referendum that you are so determined to belittle. I mean, why ask the people with skin in the game what they think, right?

In the Argentine example which you so admire, it is rather difficult to see how straightforward annexation counters accusations of colonialism, or how a UK attempt at integration would somehow be more acceptable within South America generally than a BOT solution voted upon by the populace.
186 GSall (#) Feb 16th, 2013 - 11:14 pm Report abuse
BBC News: Asteroid 2012 DA14 in record-breaking Earth pass, now claimed by Argentina

An 8000 page dossier is on its way to the UN explaining why “Las 2012 DA14” always has and always will be an “integral part of Argentine territory”, as 17,000 miles clearly makes it part of the Argentine continental shelf.
187 Tobers (#) Feb 17th, 2013 - 12:45 am Report abuse
haha excellent GSall
188 St.John (#) Feb 17th, 2013 - 03:05 am Report abuse
@ 8 Liberato writes:

“If Argentine invade South Africa, expelling its inhabitants and implanting our own. Wouldnt be that a colonial territorie and also a disputed territorie?.”

What is the relevance to the Falkland Islands?

No (zero) settlers - only the Buenos Ayres garrison - were expelled in 1833.

Name the settlers who were expelled.
As a matter of fact only four civilians left the islands, the rest, 22 or 23, preferred to stay under British rule.

Read this Official document from the Pinedo trial:
”Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas”
farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
189 lsolde (#) Feb 17th, 2013 - 05:28 am Report abuse
@184 DoD,
What a ridiculous conclusion, that just because Argentina “integrated” (whatever that is supposed to mean!)our lslands into one of their provinces, they then ”trump(s)“ the accusation of colonialism!
With everything that is happening re Argentina's spurious ”claims” to the Falkland lslands, l can't believe that any sane person would make such a wild statement!
You say that you live in Dover(there seems to be some doubt about this), if France “integrates” Dover into Normandy, does that lend legitimacy to any French claims over Kent?(if they had them?).
Of course not, Think, err l mean George(or whoever).
190 malen (#) Feb 17th, 2013 - 09:29 pm Report abuse
167 Its your best comment in here!!!!! Good afternoon
191 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 17th, 2013 - 10:03 pm Report abuse
@189 I will ignore the personal abuse as usual and limit myself to your serious point. I have no doubt that UK has sovereignty over the islands but they are not a part of the UK. Integration into the sovereign state or independence are the only ways, in my opinion, to rid a NSGT of the interminable colonial taint. Argentina recognised that in 1990 and independence wasn't their choice - no surprise eh? We should do the same. It clearly has nothing to do with legitimacy, it is simply politics.
192 Magnus (#) Feb 17th, 2013 - 11:19 pm Report abuse
@142 it's a matter of centuries, not decades. Unfortunately you need some degree of corruption to survive in Argentina. If you are honest and hard-working you'll end up dead or in extreme poverty eventually as the politicians and the parasites at government will squeeze you out. See what happened to Rene Favaloro, who attempted to change things for the better but was driven to suicide after he realized that it was absolutely hopeless, because the entire system is rigged to benefit the mafia on top. It's literally survival of the fittest in Argentina, and the fittest are always the most corrupt. Cristina Kirchner and the other parasites will survive and reproduce, the hard-working people will become extinct very soon.
193 lsolde (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 12:20 pm Report abuse
@191 DoD,
What personal abuse?
194 LEPRecon (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 12:30 pm Report abuse
@193 - Isolde

You called his claim ridiculous.

Now if DoD were truly British, he would know that you were saying that his statement was ridiculous.

However, being an Argentine troll, he takes everything that is said as a personal insult, and will therefore take exception to it.

It appears to be something that they are indoctrinated with from childhood. Tobais/TTT/Nostril has the same problem.

It's all the same to them. Criticise Argentina, you insult them personally. Criticise the Argentine government, you insult them personally. Disagree with what they are saying, you insult them personally.

As for DoD's “2-ways” he obviously has never bothered reading the Decolonisation committee charter which allows territories numerous ways to exist.

1. Full integration into either the original 'colonising' country or another country of the POPULATION'S choosing.
2. Remain as they are if the population wishes it.
3. Full independence if the population wishes it.

The main thrust of this dovetails nicely with the UN Charter on Self-determination.

So to cut a long story short. The only people who can say how a territory (former colony) is government and what their political or sovereign affliation is.......is the POPULATION (people) of that territory.

DoD doesn't like that, despite what he says, because he is an Argentine troll who doesn't want the people of the Falkland Islands to have any say in how they are governed and by whom.
195 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 02:25 pm Report abuse
@189 I am sane, I do live in Dover, I am not Think and my first name is not George. Put another way your insinuation that I am an insane lying Argentinian called George is personal abuse.
196 dab14763 (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 05:43 pm Report abuse
“ Integration into the sovereign state or independence are the only ways, in my opinion, to rid a NSGT of the interminable colonial taint. ”

Dove,

Please explain why Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, and Northern Mariana Islands were removed from the list. They were neither integrated nor became independent.
197 axel arg (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:40 pm Report abuse
DOVEOVERDOVER.
Your post 184 is interesting.
On the other hand, beyond what some reactionary and ignorant people parrot all the time, we can't deny that the application of self determination for the population from the islands is very arguable, in fact, i have investigated about this case for years, that's why, according to my opinion, the facts justify what i said in my comment 182, respecting the application of that right for this case.
Let's see what decision will the decolonization committe take after the result of the referendum, it's president manifested that the referendum is a politic ploy of the u. k., and said also that self determination can't be applied for this cause, you can search what he said in the news archive of this website, the date is june 16th 2012.
In 1985, the u. k. presented an emmendation project, with the purpose of including self determination for this case, and the general assembly rejected that proposal.
198 HansNiesund (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:54 pm Report abuse
@197
In 2008, Spain and Argentina introduced a proposal at the UN attempting to restrict the right of self-determination in cases where a territorial dispute exists. The proposal was booted out like an illegal garrison, despite support from your mates in North Korea, Iran, Belarus and whatnot.
199 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:39 pm Report abuse
@196 Without going into each in detail, they each were removed because at the time of removal there was a consensus in the UN GA that they should be. That was then, this is now. However, I will observe that none of them retained their then current political status.

www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml

@197 Thank you for your kind words. I also have posted elsewhere that what the SG reportedly said was, in fact, not a lot but it hasn't stopped strident people from using it to support their own entrenched positions. I also agree that the Referendum is a rather weak ploy and will achieve nothing positive unless the vote is No of course. That would prompt a more honest an open debate than has been had so far.

Anyway, in my opinion, this isn't about self determination it's about decolonisation of a territory without a native non-European population. From 1833 to 1990 both UK and Argentina were fighting and arguing over whose colony should occupy the islands. Argentina spotted that and sorted it. UK has still to do so but colonialism, even self determined, is not an option. I think C24 watchers will find this out in due course.

@198 So it isn't in and it isn't out, in this specific case. We can all take our pick.
200 lsolde (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 09:48 pm Report abuse
@195 DoD,
Very, very touchy by all accounts.
So very Argentine.
As LEPRecon says, if l disagree with you, then its a personal insult?
Also very Argentine.
They are very easy to wind up! lol.
l believe you once said that you were Scottish?
lf you were, in fact Scottish, then you would know that a Scottish pet name for George is Dod.(l have consistently called you DoD).
lt seems that you didn't know this.
You didn't get the connection, so, are you slow off the mark?
Or perhaps you are not Scottish.
1) Therefore, exactly what are you?
You also failed to convince other posters that you live in Dover?
2) Therefore where do you live?
3) Your posts are ambiguous about support for your supposed Kith & Kin.
4) You seem on very good terms with a certain señor Think.
5) You betray Argentine traits of “touchy-ness”, a fragile ego.
To sum up, more than enough evidence to warrant our strong suspicion that you are, in fact, an Argentine.
201 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 18th, 2013 - 11:46 pm Report abuse
@200 Your insinuation that I am an insane lying Argentinian called George is, I say again, personal abuse. I arrived at that assessment myself in an act of self determination.

Auld Doddy

ps Think has his faults but he seldom resorts to name calling and is always open about his motivation. He is well read and witty. Just like me and, even though he wouldn't thank me for saying it, I quite like him. But then again you can choose who you like but you can't choose your kith and kin.
202 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 03:18 am Report abuse
@“201 Col. Blink

”ps Think has his faults but he seldom resorts to name calling and is always open about his motivation. He is well read and witty. Just like me and, even though he wouldn't thank me for saying it, I quite like him. But then again you can choose who you like but you can't choose your kith and kin.“

Jeez, talk about ”self-adulation”!!

Too much twaddle, no substance in your post - again
203 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 07:02 am Report abuse
@ 202 Name calling but no substance in your post - again either.
204 lsolde (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 08:48 am Report abuse
@201 & 203 DoD,
If your precious feelings have been hurt that much,babykins, why don't you complain to the Moderator?
Talk about people with thin skins!
Based on all the evidence, l do not believe that you are British. l believe you to be an Argentine or an Argentine supporter.
Be as that may, l don't really care. l know that l don't trust you.
And as for your defence of sr Think.
Well, what can l say? You are telling more lies.
To quote your good(?) self:-
“Think has his faults but he seldom resorts to name calling---”
will do for a start.
Do the the words “squatters”, “thieves”, “bint”, “turnips” “pirates” etc ring any bells in your brain case?
Most of them do not insult me, although they are intended to.
However l take exception to the word “squatter”
l have paid for my house, money honestly earned.
Think is a squatter on land stolen from murdered people.
And he wants to boot the lot of us out of OUR homes. Despicable.
And you? Who knows(or cares! lol)where you are.
l stand by my observations.
205 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 09:10 am Report abuse
@204 Sr Think delivers his (generally generic rather than specific) barbs with a degree of panache seldom found in any of the posts by my kith and kin.

On the substantive point of whether or not you are a squatter on someones land, assuredly you are not. I do not agree with him about whose land it is; it belongs to the United Kingdom and I have no doubt about it. If you have the deeds under English and local law (that derives directly from it) the house is yours. Enjoy it.
206 Be serious (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 09:12 am Report abuse
So Think/Doddy..... what do you think about “Middleton”.

Wonder why many of these Argentine imposters claim Scottish ancestry.
207 lsolde (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 09:36 am Report abuse
@206 Be Serious,
l think its because in their minds they equate “British” with “English”, know that in the past there have been wars between the English & the Scottish and are therefore trying to appeal to the Scots in their(Argentine)war with the English(when they mean British).
Do you get my reasoning?
Looking for allies.
Well, that the way l see it, l could be wrong.
l'll bet that shrinks would find fertile ground trying to analyse & explore the malvinista psyche!
Unmapped wilderness!
208 Be serious (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 01:52 pm Report abuse
207
You are probably right but they are mistaken if they think the Scots will give them the time of day independent or not.

It is quite amusing reading Think/Doddy discuss, agree and compliment himself. Unfortunately it does nothing to improve their Nation's reputation as a complete joke.

No response in respect of “Middleton” question proving beyond all doubt that the Doddy persona is a fraud. Turning to the “Swedish” Think persona, I think that is just wishful thinking on his part and what we are really dealing with is a greasy, pock marked, bitter individual with black hair, dirty finger nails and bad breath.
209 axel arg (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 03:04 pm Report abuse
HANSNIESUND. DAVEOVERDOVER.
DAVE: When i refered to reactionary people who parrot all the time about self determination for this case, i didn't' mean you, i meant others people.
You analysis is interesting, and i also think that this is not a matter of self determination. But the decision that the decolonization committe takes after the referendum, will be very important for the future of this conflict, and will clarify many concepts.
HANS: Why if after the rejection to the argentina's and spain's proposal, the u. n. continued calling arg. and the u. k. to resume the negotiations, without including the govt. from the islands in the proposal of dialogue, and without invoking self determination for this case. Don't you think that the application of self determination for this case is very arguable?.
210 nigelpwsmith (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 04:05 pm Report abuse
@209
The application of Self Determination is not 'arguable'. It is an basic right of every member of the UN. This right is so important, that it was prominently included at the beginning of the Charter.

The C24 committee includes a lot of people who are sympathetic or even outright supportive of the Argentine claim. Some of them because they hail from South America, such as the chairman. He even suggested that the referendum was a political ploy devised by the British government, when in fact the Falkland Islands government already stated that they originated the idea for the vote in consultation with the Falkland Islanders. In other words, the chairman of the C24 committee is misleading the UN & making statements that are erroneous at best & at worst, contrary to the ideals that are encompassed in the UN Charter.

There is a growing realisation by most of the parties that this dispute is unlikely to be resolved by dialogue, when one of the parties won't even sit down with the British government & the Falkland Islanders to talk about it. Ever since Argentina obtained the first resolution in the C24, they have been demanding talks. They shout loudly to other nations that Britain refuses to discuss the Falkland Islands. Other nations urge discussions to try & find a solution. Yet when talks are offered, Argentina runs away.

It's not just that Argentina knew they would have to talk with the Falkland Islanders, it was that they would have to accept that the Falkland Islanders have rights & those rights are in the UN Charter.

The right of Self Determination.

Argentina knows full well that talking with the Islanders also means that the Islander's wishes will come into play (Ban Ki-moon) & they will state that sovereignty is not negotiable. Argentina only wants talks, if those talks are about handing over sovereignty & that is never going to happen whilst the Islanders do not want it.

The UN recognises the Islanders rights & they are losing patience with Argentina.
211 HansNiesund (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 08:43 pm Report abuse
@209

Yes, Axel. We know. Obviously the UN must have abandoned its fundamental founding principle, baccuse it hasn't said it hasn't. Has it?
212 lsolde (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 09:00 pm Report abuse
The usual garbage from Axel.
Hey Axel, just in case you haven't heard:-
There will be NO NEGOTIATIONS on Sovereignty.
Got it now? Want me to remind you every day?
l can, its no problem. Thank you.
213 nigelpwsmith (#) Feb 19th, 2013 - 11:13 pm Report abuse
@209
As you can see at the start of this article, they've placed a picture of Ban Ki-moon. His statement in November 2012 is very important:

“the impression is that people living under those conditions should have certain level of capacities to decide their own future, and this is the main criteria from the main UN bodies: achieving independence or having certain degree of self government in their territories. I don’t think it is an issue of abuse or violation of relevant UN resolutions”

This tells us where the United Nations is headed. The C24 still considers it an active case, but their resolutions are unenforceable. The main body of the UN can only suggest discussions, not order them. Only the Security Council has the power to instruct nations & they will not intervene in this matter, except if either side resorts to violence.

It is obvious to all that we are at an impasse.

If Argentina demands talks with Britain, yet runs away when they are offered talks, which include the Falkland Islanders, then the UN's time is being wasted.

Ban Ki-moon very kindly offered his offices to act as a mediator in the matter. However, he made it quite clear that he regards that the 'peoples' (the Falkland Islanders) “should have certain level of capacities to decide their own future” and what he means by this is that the Islanders are only exerting their inalienable right to Self Determination.

Under the UN Charter, they cannot be forced to do something that they do not want. To do so, would be not only contrary to the very essence of the UN Charter, but would also be a colonial act in the very basic sense. Forcing the Islanders to suffer under the sovereignty of a nation to which they do not wish to belong.

You may see where I am headed with this.

The impasse can only be truly broken if the Falkland Islands become an independent nation. Ban Ki-moon sees this. The Islanders want to be British, not just to afford the protection, but to preserve the identity of the Islands.
214 Doveoverdover (#) Feb 20th, 2013 - 07:17 am Report abuse
@213 They want to be British in the same way Australians in the mid 20 Century were British, then. Self determined integration into the UK (rather than annexation as HN described it) and devolution meets their needs better than independence. Just look at TRNC for an example of unrecognised declarations of independence.
215 ChrisR (#) Feb 20th, 2013 - 11:04 am Report abuse
@204 Sr Think delivers his (generally generic rather than specific) barbs with a degree of panache seldom found in any of the posts by my kith and kin.

Which kith and kin would this be, the argies? I can agree to that.

To imagine for a nanosecond that 'Think' aka The Turnip In Chief aka The Chief Liar On MP can be considered in the same breath as 'panache' is laughable in the extreme.

If anyone needed evidence of where your real interest (other than your own self-interest which is always to the fore) lies they need look no further.
216 nigelpwsmith (#) Feb 20th, 2013 - 02:42 pm Report abuse
@209 & 214

I've discussed this dispute with some very reasonable Argentines & Falkland Islanders. Both sides seriously want a solution, but cannot see it so long as Argentina maintains a claim to sovereignty, or a demand that any talks would be merely be about handing over sovereignty.

The Falkland Islanders do want to trade with Argentina. They want reasonable relations. They want to feel safe that they will never be invaded again or forced to live under the rule of a country to which they do not wish to belong.

The longer the impasse remains, the more that Argentina will lose out. The Falkland Islanders will extract oil. They will get rich. Argentina will see that wealth pouring into the Islands & it will frustrate every Argentine who believes that these resources belonged to them.

Sooner or later, someone will make a serious (& fatal) mistake. It may be that Argentine warships attempt to prevent the movement of oil, or its extraction. If they did, they risk bringing some of the other nations that invested in the oil, into the dispute on Britain/Falkland Islander's side. I'm referring to the United States. The Americans may have sat on the fence because of their history in the dispute & their ties to OAS. However, they will not do so if American firms stand to lose out, or US strategic interests are threatened.

Assuming that Argentina does not take this path, that Kretina is booted out of office because of the financial crisis & someone more reasonable & less nationalistic is elected, the only way that Argentina can help themselves is to:

1. Put aside the sovereignty claims for the time being, just as Spain & Britain set them aside in the Falklands Crisis 1770-1

2. Commence talks with the Islanders about shared interests in oil & fisheries

3. Open Argentine ports to goods from/to the Islands

4. Explore ways that increase understanding between the mainland & Islands by promoting educational visits for Argentine children, so they can see the community.
217 lsolde (#) Feb 21st, 2013 - 08:48 am Report abuse
@216 nigelpwsmith,
All very nice but l don't agree with your point #1.
To make any headway at all, Argentina needs to:-
1) Drop ALL claims & stop indoctrinating their children with the “malvinas myth”.
2) Tell the world that they have done so.
3) Apologise for all the problems that THEY have caused us.
4) Apologise for the lnvasion of 1982 & subsequent loss of life.
5) Promise(ha ha!)NEVER again will they ever resurrect any claims over our land.
Then we might have peace
Can you see any of this happening?
Neither can l!
We'll just have to keep our guard up until Argentina disintegrates.
218 nigelpwsmith (#) Feb 21st, 2013 - 11:06 am Report abuse
@217

It was Otto von Bismark who said that politics is the art of the possible. It's oft been misquoted that diplomacy is the art of the possible.

Whilst I agree that Argentina has to eventually accept the truth & give up their claim, both sides are so entrenched that there is a very real possibility that conflict could break out again, over the oil extraction. It is very unlikely that Argentina would give up their claim. It's equally unlikely that the Falkland Islanders would want to discuss sovereignty. So the only way to progress forward peacefully to a solution acceptable to both parties is to take small steps.

Hague's recent offer to have talks with the Falkland Islanders there, embarrassed Argentina and put them in a very difficult position. They cannot stamp their feet & demand talks at the UN, because we can point out that they were offered talks & rejected them. Argentina's position has been to say that Britain is being unreasonable & colonial, but now the shoe is on the other foot.

Argentina needs to stop indoctrinating their children & the rest of the world with the false history. They are very reluctant to accept a truth which weakens their claim, or indicates that they've been misleading the rest of the world about the true story. Just recently someone on the mainland did print some of the truth & caused quite a controversy.

The recent literature prepared by FIG about the Falklands helps, but what would really demolish the Argentine lies are television documentaries, prepared by BBC or History channel or Discovery, to teach the true story of the Islands & explore the weakness of the Argentine claim. If these documentaries were placed on You-Tube in multiple languages, then it would be hard for the Argentines to use their propaganda.

Lord Palmerston believed that the Argentines would eventually get tired of repeatedly making their false claims & forget about them. What we need to do is get the Argentines to accept reality. Accept the truth.
219 ChrisR (#) Feb 21st, 2013 - 11:33 am Report abuse
218 nigelpwsmith

“I make a point of believing six impossible things before breakfast” said Alice.

The 'wonderland' that is AR: it's a wonder how they are still living and not starved to death / committed suicide given their tribulations caused by TMBOA despotic government and the egotistical attitude her supporters have.

Shame for the rest of the population who have to cope with the onging madness of TMBOA.

But that is the problem they face in accepting the truth: they would have to:

1) Alter the constitution for starters and remove the nonsense about the mythical Malvinas;

2) Scrap all the schoolbooks and reverse the indoctrination programme that states the Malvinas son Argentines;

3) Remove the present despots from government and replace them with level headed, practical, politicians;

4) Alter their position at the UN to align with the truth;

5) Convince their ‘allies’ that they were wrong about the Malvinas;

6) Recognise that the Islanders do exist and open fruitful, none military but political discussions with them.

I think even Alice would be unable to believe these impossibilities if she lived forever.
220 nigelpwsmith (#) Feb 21st, 2013 - 01:29 pm Report abuse
@219

It's very difficult to convince the Argentines to see reason. Very few of them can actually see the bigger picture and even fewer want to consider dropping their claim. The Argentines I've conversed with are adamant that they would never relinquish the claim, but they might put it to one side if there was another goal they could focus on.

I totally agree with you regarding the indoctrination. Argentines have been misled & are misleading other nations. They are as fanatical about this cause as they are about their football. The problem as I see it is that they have to come to terms with reality, or they will make the same mistakes they did in 1982.

This is where I believe that Hague's approach last month scored a major victory. It forced the Argentines to look unreasonable. The next step would be to take this to the UN. Ban Ki-moon is in favour of rights for the Islanders and Argentina would be forced to negotiate with them, or lose friends & supporters.

Whilst this is underway, the Falkland Islands Government needs to go on the offensive, spreading the facts, highlighting how Argentina has misled others and explaining why the Falkland Islanders have more right to be on the Islands than the Argentines do.

Let's face it, Argentina is never going to change anything whilst TMBOA is still in the Casa Rosada. However, she & her cronies are doing more damage to the Argentine cause if they act unreasonably. Even the South American supporters will become more disenchanted with them, if they disrupt much needed trade.

Argentina is on the brink of financial disaster of mega proportions. They will soon have more pressing matters to deal with than the Islands. However, this may be the excuse that the hot-heads were looking for to use the Islands as a distraction from their woes, just as Spain is using Gibraltar to distract from their imminent financial collapse.

The more reasonable the Islanders & Britain are, the more pathetic the Argentines will appear.
221 axel arg (#) Feb 21st, 2013 - 02:38 pm Report abuse
NIGELPWSMITH.
As i always say, everybody have right to think whatever they want, but there is something much more important than our opinions, i mean the facts, and they show that the case has always been considered like a special colonial situation by the decolonization committe.
Beside, the u. n. has never included the islanders as athird part in this conflict.
For being honest, if the u. n. had never included the govt. from the islands in any of the resolutions, i don't know wheter our govt. should include them or not in the proposal of dialogue.
Anyway, although our govt. decided not to include the islanders, it wouldn't mean that their wishes will be ignored defenetly, due to c. f. k. read before the u. n. last year, a secret proposal treated between arg. and the u. k. in 1974, which included the wishes of the islanders of remaining under british govt., and argentina's sovereign rights, that proposal refered to a shared sovereignty.
In my opinion, that was a strong messagge for those peple from the u.k., and from here, where we have some sepoys, who love being pro imperalist, and parrot all the time that arg. wants to subdue the islanders.
Respecting banki mon's expressions, i searched on line the interview that he gave for argentine newspaper tiempo argentino (leftist and pro kirchnerist), which was partially published by la nación (conservative and pro imperalist), and i read it completly.
His posture was very contradictory, because while it is true that he said that the u. n. works in order to achieve that all the territories can get their independence, however when he was asked about this conflict, he answered that he was worried about the verbal scalation between both nations, and said also that he had the hope that both countries solve this dispute by mean a dialogue, however, banki moon neather included the islanders in the proposal of dialogue, nor mentioned about the application of self determination for them.
222 ChrisR (#) Feb 21st, 2013 - 03:55 pm Report abuse
220 nigelpwsmith

And if ever you needed support for your argument you only have to look at old Broken Axel @221.

What a plonker. :o)
223 nigelpwsmith (#) Feb 21st, 2013 - 07:18 pm Report abuse
@222
I have to agree with you Chris.

They are their own worst enemy.

They never learn.

Their country will implode whilst the Falkland Islanders have the highest GDP per person in the world, higher even than the middle east.

You'll all become millionaires and they'll become starving & desperate for a handout.

They obviously don't want to solve the problem. They would much rather make the same mistakes again.

I suggest you invest in half a dozen SSNs, a dozen squadrons of Harriers and a few regiments of Ghurkas and they will never trouble you again!
224 lsolde (#) Feb 21st, 2013 - 08:26 pm Report abuse
Usual drivel from Axel.
Axel, shut up! you are dribbling again. Go and sit in the corner, you silly boy.
@218 nigelpwsmith,
There is going to be another war with Argentina.
We must be well prepared, they may not make the same mistakes twice.
225 axel arg (#) Feb 23rd, 2013 - 07:57 pm Report abuse
NIGELPWSMITH.
Beyond your predictions for argentina's future, which seem wishes actually, i would like to ask something.
You say that we dont' want to solve the problem, however, what do you think that both countries should do, in order to solve the problem, with a fair solution which satisfies the wishes and the rights of both countries over the islands?.
If your proposal refers to the application of self determination for the islanders, let me remind you that you won't find any resolution which invokes that principle for them. What i can propose, is to dialogue with arg. about a similar idea to what i told you in my comment 221, which took into account the wishes of the islanders of remaining under british govt., and argentina's sovereign rights.
If you don't gree on this idea, just propose another.
226 Troy Tempest (#) Feb 23rd, 2013 - 10:34 pm Report abuse
@225 Axel.

There is no problem. Today

There was no problem.
1833
You created a problem1941

You perpetuated the problem1976

You brought problem to crisis 1982

We solved the problem 1982

There will be no problem 2013

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