Argentina accused UK of sending submarines with nuclear weapons capacity to the Falklands
Argentina accused the UK of displacement of submarines with nuclear weapons capacity in the Falkland Islands, violating international treaties that established the South Atlantic zone as free of nuclear arms. The claim was made on Monday at the United Nations Disarmament Conference in Geneva.
“We currently are in an unstable stage of the implementation of the Tlatelolco treaty, which bans nuclear arms in Latin America and the Caribbean. This is being defied by the United Kingdom” said Argentina’s Deputy Foreign Minister Eduardo Zuain.
Likewise Zuain recalls that the UK government publicly admitted in December 2003, that the Task Force sent in 1982 to the South Atlantic to recover the disputed Falkland Islands then occupied by the Argentine military, “included vessels with nuclear weapons”, which were involved in incidents born out of the manipulation of those weapons.
“This is why Argentina in several opportunities has expressed its concern, before different international fora over the possibility that the UK could have introduced nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic”.
Zuain also claimed that all this happens in the framework of the UK involvement in a ‘disproportionate and unjustified” military deployment in the Falkland Islands.
The Tlatelolco is an international treaty sponsored by Latin America and the Caribbean which sets the territory as nuclear-free and dates back to 25 April 1969.
Zuain insisted that the Falklands are among the most militarized territories in the world, with more than 1,500 British soldiers and 3,000 citizens.
“Such deployment includes a powerful naval group, state of the art fighter planes, an important command and control centre plus an electronic intelligence gathering base that can monitor all air and sea traffic in the region”, claimed the Argentine official.
“We deplore that the UK government so far has not provided requested clarifications on the incidents reported, nor has it given any information which could corroborate or deny recent displacements of nuclear submarines with the capacity to carry atomic weapons”.
Zuain added that the significant UK presence in the disputed South Atlantic area not only concerns Argentina, but also the countries of the region and outside the region as are evidence the declarations from the Ibero-American summit, UNASUR, Mercosur, the Rio Group and the Summit of South American and Arab countries, ASPA.
Argentina urged the Conference, that began Monday in Geneva and that will last until March 1, to overcome the stalemate it has been under for the last 15 years and advance in several issues, the Falklands/Malvinas Islands dispute among them.
Suggested Stories
-
May 23rd 2013
Falkland Islands wish for normal neighborly relations with all South American neighbors
-
May 21st 2013
Falkland Islands: it’s a three-side debate; Argentina must recognize Islanders right to decide their future
-
May 20th 2013
Falkland Islands: Argentina blasts UK’s ‘double standard’ on self determination right
-
May 20th 2013
Polynesia in decolonization list; Pacific islands proposal supported by 193 votes in UN General Assembly
155 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Is someone getting nervous??
That's the thing about “The silent service” isn't it Ladies and Gentlemen? just because you can't see them, it doesn't mean that they are not there. you only find out that they ARE there when your ships start sinking ( at sea, not while they are tied up in port!! ) and the birds are in the air.
“We currently are in an unstable stage of the implementation of the Tlatelolco treaty, which bans nuclear arms in Latin America and the Caribbean. This is being defied by the United Kingdom” said Argentina’s Deputy Foreign Minister Eduardo Zuain”.
Pardon me, but did the UK sign up to this treaty? If we didn't then why is this clown making reference to it. If the UK didn't sign then we can't be bound by it can we?
“We deplore that the UK government so far has not provided requested clarifications on the incidents reported, nor has it given any information which could corroborate or deny recent displacements of nuclear submarines with the capacity to carry atomic weapons”.
Oh dear!! someone is about to spit their dummy out!!!
Big boys rules now!!! Get over it!! deal with it!!!
Like our MOD is going to tell the whole world the locations of our submarines!!!
clown
Hell even Argie hysteria and insanity is becoming boring.
No, No. nnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
I fear that 2,000 characters may not be enough for him.................
I could accuse argentina of having an ounce of intelligence, however just like argentina i have no proof either.
Its just argentina trying its blind luck, yet again..........
SELF-DETERMINATION.....who needs luck?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
first off, your meeting has no legal bounds on us, and we don’t have to obey it,
2nd,you are very unstable,
3rd, what is tlatelolco,,,,,,,,,,,, should it not be LOCO,
You Argies think just because you agree something, we have to obey it, you think just because some countries follow you like sheep, they will fight for you,
The facts are, you are pushing for war,
And when it come, at your very own request,
You will be the nation to run, hence the your nickname
[run rabbit run rabbit run run run ]
.
Speaking of wales, how is Maximo these days? has anyone seen him lately??
The UK does have UGM-133 Trident missiles.
The Trafalgar and Astute class SSNs have 21“ torpedo tubes, one of which might be lurking around the Falkland Islands.
The Vanguard class SSBN has ballistic missile tubes for the UGM-133, and 21” torpedo tubes. It won't be anywhere near the Falkland Islands as from there it couldn't be used to retaliate against anyone who might attack the UK.
The thing is that there is absolutely no way that the SSN submarines could even carry a SLBM, much less fire one, without substantial modification (which hasn't happened).
And Bs As is within their range if the Vanguard class sub is holding station off of Grimsby.
Oh, and please could we not have PH's lunatic Argenuclear derangements please?
full of rats we hear, right up their street.
”Such deployment includes a powerful naval group, (Powerful Naval group? 1 Frigate,a patrol boat and an Survey vessel (scary stuff))
State of the art fighter planes, an important command and control centre plus an electronic intelligence gathering base that can monitor all air and sea traffic in the region” That's correct none of which can rgenweener muster so tough tittie
What kind of lunatic rhetoric can we expect just before the referendum?
The did not sign up to the Tlatelolco treaty until 1994
gsinstitute.org/dpe/countries/argentina_brazil.html
Carlos Menem Fernando Collor de Mello - in 1990, the two presidents signed the second Foz do Iguaçu declaration, which barred use of nuclear technology for military purposes and led to the creation, in 1991, of the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials. In 1994, Brazil ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which created the Latin American Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, and in 1997 ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Argentina ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco in 1994 and the NPT in 1995.
Talking of the Geneva convention though what about the NAPALM found on the islands after the surrender monkeys surrendered which was banned by the UN in 1980
Argentina is reaping what it has sown!
”We deplore that the UK government so far has not provided requested clarifications on the incidents reported, nor has it given any information which could corroborate or deny recent displacements of nuclear submarines with the capacity to carry atomic weapons”.
Like we are going to tell you where our Ballistic missile boats are. PRICK
It was:
A picture of a map of the Islands that was actually the Cable&Wireless local telphone relay mast sires! Guess what - they are sired on hilltops!!!!
A picture of the joint Br.Ant .Survey and cCnadian Arctic Survey radio signal arials to study the inonospehere in north and south hemispheres!
Jets - yes we have a mighty big all 4 of them based here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
approx 1000-1200 (not 1500) service personnel - to patrol and defend an area the size of Wales or Conneticut State in USA(population is irrelevant) made up of over 200 islands and a coastline of approx 3000 miles! - Oh and that is before you add in South Georgia etc!
OH - yes forgot , 20-25 years ago force levels here were 100% higher in number than they ar enow! 25 years ago we had 4 destroyers and frigates permanently based here - now we have ONE for about 2 months every 4 months!
Get a life Argies!
Oh and nelrly forgot- WHOSE Defence Minister has PUBLICLY stated that if there were no British trrops based here - his side would retake the Islands?
Give you Argies a clue - country name begins with A - and ends in A. and it is not Albania - it is in S.America.
Text of the treaty
www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/P-Tlatelolco-i.htm
Protocol I applies to countries that have territories in the area covered by the treaty
Protocol II applies to nuclear weapons states
www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/P-Tlatelolco-i.htm
UK signed Protocols 1967 ratified 1969
When BA is well withing the tridents range if launched from its home base within UK waters.
It's funny because he even admits to not knowing;
“This is why Argentina in several opportunities has expressed its concern, before different international fora over the possibility that the UK could have introduced nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic”
So they are making allegations whilst simultaneously stating they don't know if it actually happened.
These folk really aren't very smart are they?
Still no sign of CFK, where has she disappeared too? When her country needs her most to deal with their latest economic disaster shes nowhere to be seen!
Less than 2 weeks to the referendum.
If I was argentine, I'd be pretty ashamed about the nature of the intelligence that my government has in order to craft its decisions. Apparently it's all conjecture and nothing substantiated.
Are the new Brazilian submarines nuclear 'capable'? Is any boat not nuclear capable?
So Argentina is counting the islanders as part of the military? The only reason the islands remain one of the most militarised territories in the world is to protect the islanders from Argentine Aggression!
But this is still one of the best by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the Iranian president, he and Cristina share similar fantasies. (notice the similar pose, arms stretched high asking for divine intervention)
thecomingcrisis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/ahmadinejad-accuses-west-of-stealing.html
Yawn....
Likewise the Falkland Islanders are entitled to self determination.
The only real difference is that the Argentinians are very boring and becoming slightly pathetic.
The Argentine government constantly makes unsubstantiated claims, then parade the support of everyone from Mozambique to Godzilla, who on the face of it lend their support on the basis of those claims.
However, the Brits, never seem to take the opportunity to present counter arguments; even when the opportunity presents itself. They just stick to a particular principle and allow Argentina PR victories (at least in their own country!).
Surely it's time to go on the verbal offensive and start deconstructing the Argie assertions in the most humiliating way possible.
Yeah...
I have to agree with you on this. We should as a nation stop being so Prim and Proper in dealing with this country and it's officials as start politely but firmly answering these accusations...
That said there is every chance that if we give them any reaction they will simply double their misguided efforts resulting in a large proportion of our seniors officials time being spent continually disproving this nations nonce.
Prehaps turning a deaf ear to Argintina is the best way forwward until they cross the line properly (which sadly I think is only a matter of time away for their current failing rullign party) by seicing boats, damaging drilling on a platfor etc….
One simply doesn't drop down to the level of the scum in this world just because they want to have a nationalistic rant. Everyone knows that the Argentines have no evidence and the whole thing is a festival of hypocrisy, but you don't want to be seen playing their diplomatic game, or they have won.
Don't rise to the troll, unless he strikes out and then you cut his hands off.
I suppose asking for evidence would be unsporting?
LOL! But the Libertad will not be able to go on its sub finding missions for fear of being impounded again! What if she breaks down in the middle of the ocean? Maybe a passing British Naval ship will be able to rescue them? Chuckle chuckle :D
”Compatriots: We Argentines have more rights over Monterrey, California (now USA) than over the Falkland Islands. Monterrey was discovered and colonised by Spain. The Falkland Islands were discovered in 1592 and colonised (around the 1600s) by England. The Corsairs of the River Plate “attacked” them. Hipólito Bouchard attacked Monterrey IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SPANISH. He beat them, set fire to the barracks and took it in the name of the United Provinces of South America. Some days later the Spanish rearmed and threw him out. Luis Vernet took the Falklands IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ENGLISH (who had concentrated in Europe against Napoleon). After the Napoleonic Wars were over, the English came and recaptured the Falklands. This is the true story.”
the greatest threat to Argentina is the Argentine government
I'm surprised La Nacion allowed that comment to go through. Aren't they pro-government? Surely any comment reflecting badly on the current government's plans to steal the FI would be banned?
Good to see that common sense and historical correctness are not entirely lost on the Argentinean population.
www.opanal.org/opanal/Tlatelolco/maptlatel-i.htm
The actual boundaries of the area, including oceans, covered by the Treaty of Tlatelolco. For those of a geographical turn of mind, the Cape Verde Islands lie 350 miles off the coast of Senegal. They also spread between 14 and 18 degrees of longitude. Look at a map to compare the positions of Africa and South America. Can everybody see how one sails south wherever one likes until reaching the northernmost boundary (30 degrees N). Then one stays east of the appropriate line between 20 degrees and 50 degrees west. Or maybe one starts by sailing NORTH. Under the Arctic ice. And then sailing south on the other side of the planet! Always nice to know that the UK's nuclear missiles, with a range of over 7,000 miles, can hit argieland from the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Southern Ocean. Another good thing is that by tearing up one piece of paper, an action argieland is fond of, the UK can simply secede from the treaty! But would it need to? Article 26(2) of the treaty might be applied! “2. The condition of State Party to the Treaty of Tlatelolco shall be restricted to Independent States which are situated within the Zone of application of the Treaty in accordance with Article 4 of same, and with paragraph I of the present Article, and which were Members of the United Nations as of December 10, 1985 as well as to the non-autonomous territories mentioned in document OEA/CER.P, AG/doc. 1939/85 of November 5, 1985, once they attain their independence.”
I can see why the UK doesn't want to go down to the school yard level, but given the level and the frequency of the rhetoric, the UK's patience is remarkable (and somewhat difficult to understand).
Argentina has long since crossed the line that most countries would consider acceptable. The problem with not retaliating is that you allow them miles of newspaper columns (particularly in Latin America) that go uncontested. What would be wrong with polite official statements from the foreign ministry? I don't doubt for a second that all the answers necessary will be given through diplomatic channels to the regional players that count, but public opinion in the region also counts. The squeaky wheel gets oiled.
We have a similar situation with Bolivia. Many Chileans (myself included) are sympathetic to Bolivia's case and we have provided them access to the sea and port facilities. We have offered the hand of friendship and cooperation (like the UK a few years back by offering to jointly exploit and share resources in the the FI) and what do we get back in return, hostility and machinations against us. I am glad that Piñera slapped Evo down and is now being much more robust in replying to Evo's rantings.
We should suspend their access to the sea and throw down the gauntlet. If you want to escalate it, let's escalate it .... how like me now...how like me now?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVzvRsl4rEM
Papers can print what they want, when controlled by the likes of KFC, it's usually to toe the party line.
Keeping silent, keeps the bastards guessing, they whinge about a submarine, so the MOD releases a rumour another one has been deployed, has it?
would'nt they love to know?
Take Correa and the Assange episode, engaging with him, gives him a stage to to strut his bravado on which is exactly what he wants. Keep silent, release the same FO statement again and again and he's fucked. Painted himself into a corner, let him squirm. As for Assange, we can wait, the judicial process has taken it's course, he will be deportetd to Sweden, only a matter of time.
Basically you cannot let a troll like trimmerman cause you to become what they want you to be through their manipulations. They want the UK to react, because it gives them something new to rant about, they want the UK to lash out because it allows them to raise the Bolivarian Banner. The UK will ruin what it has gained and the whole of South America will solidify against it.
Better just to watch these Argies while they make themselves look like a bunch of penises and to remain dignified, as one was originally.
When a child(Argentina) is playing up expecting attention, The worst thing you can do is reward said child with the attention it craves because you are teaching them that this is a positive action and they will repeat it.
Have you ever tried to argue with someone who simply refuses to do so? It is beyond infuriating on every level.
Must be Humourous Hector's day off...
That infuriates any child/lady.
”“One doesn't defeat a rapist by raping the rapist in return. All that this does is to transfer the role of rapist to yourself; you have become the beast”, Shed-time (2023)”
No, but castration does the job and serves justice.
Having said that looking at some of the more hysterical posts supporting the Argentine position - perhaps a reasoned response from Britain would be a waste of breath only leading to more convoluted, meaningless bleating from Timmerman and friends.
Now, if the article is accurate, argieland has accused the UK of “recent displacements of nuclear submarines with the capacity to carry atomic weapons”. But deploying a vessel ”capable“ of carrying atomic weapons is not the same as deploying a vessel carrying atomic weapons. Just think of all the possible vessels ”capable“ of carrying atomic weapons. Probably anything of a length of 10 metres or thereabouts! Would argieland's next step be to ”demand“ the right to inspect any vessel ”capable“ of carrying atomic weapons? Please notice that they don't refer to vessels capable of deploying or launching atomic weapons. It's just typical emotive argie hot air. Remember Tinpotman's previous accusations about British nuclear weapons-carrying submarines? Remember the photographs? Except that they were photos of a Trafalgar-class fleet submarine. Not a Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarine. Even the UN knew the accusations were crap. That's why Tinpotman's ”presentation” was met with silence and got nowhere. The UK is doing the right thing. Letting the argies make fools of themselves!
They wouldn't need to confirm or deny the position of any sub. They could say pretty much what you have said in your second paragraph, then remind them that the UK is a law abiding member of the international community, adheres to the UN charter. bla bla....
They are making a serious accusation in an international forum and it should be replied to.
I'm frightened now.
So when is the divorce then? :o)
LOLs
That is the starting point for dangerous fanaticism.
The truth is usually divided into warring parties much more commonly than you seem to think. At least from what appears from your comments.
Trying to understand the opposite view is the basis of mutual understanding.
“We currently are in an unstable stage of the implementation of the Tlatelolco treaty, which bans nuclear arms in Latin America and the Caribbean. This is being defied by the United Kingdom” said Argentina’s Deputy Foreign Minister Eduardo Zuain.”
The minister should be obliged to produce the evidence he has to substantiate this accusation.
It is much better (and more annoying for the Argys) to treat them with the contempt they deserve.
How many S American Air forces have aircraft capable of carrying nukes, or Armies have artillery capable of firing tactical nukes.
Not to mention Argentina doing a deal with Iran to get missile technology, and possibly nuclear weapons as well?
Even most S American countries know the British military posture in the S Atlantic is defensive, formidable, but defensive none the less.
And they know full well why the British Military are there, they know what Argy governments are like.
As the referendum gets nearer, the Argy gov talking this sort of rubbish is likely to get more frequent and the rubbish spoken even more desperate.
This is going to get quite amusing.
The dangerous fanaticism already exists in Bolivia and in Argentina.
Both countries continually fan the flames. As I mention above, in the case of Bolivia we have long since met them half way and given them access to the sea, but they want to push it some more. At some point we will have to remind them more forcefully to stop claiming part of our country.
How would Argentina react if the Chilean government started proclaiming Mendoza or Salta were Chilean; started misleading the public to that effect; changed the school history curriculum to teach children that Argie territory was ours?
This is what Bolivia does and I am not fanatical to say it is unacceptable.
God bless Paul Singer and the American Task Force Argentina - just hurry up and nail the lid shut on CFK and Co.
One of the effects of Argentina’s attempted land grab in the S. Atlantic, has been to make territorial disputes fashionable in S America. Soon everybody will have one, brand new or old resurrected.
Whilst pgerman does have a point about “understand the opposite view”, this is always better, even if only from the point of view of knowing your (potential) enemy, however I do not believe that mutual understanding is the inevitable result of this, just more likely.
Talk quietly and carry a big stick.
Sounds pretty cool :)
Fine words to your friend condorito however britain”s viewpoint is not born of fancyful dreams and hopefulness. We have explored all that argentina says about the falklands and we respond, refuting the rhetoric and revealing the facts which are denied to your countrymen. Britain and british posters want to protect their rights and sovereignty like any good citizen. Be british for one moment and see why we have full confidence in in our facts, the UN and international law. Were this not the case we'd give it up in a blink of the eye.
So you are now Sussie the transvestite.
Thought so with your drivel about the USD.
If Argentina were so peaceful, why would the Islanders need anything to make them feel safe in their homes? Why are you of the opinion that they would not feel safe in their homes were it not for a few comments on a news site of local interest?
And what would happen if people in England , Ireland, Scotland and Wales were not Friendly with the Islanders?
Do you not realise that the Islanders can just declare independence?
There is not a hope in hell of the UK goverment evicting the Islanders, so no matter what CFK and Timmerman say, IT IS CRAP and at some point they will have to change their approach. The options are to either accept Falklanders own their homeland, at least talk with the islanders, or it is seige and invasion.
The guy with the mask on is KFC and the guy with the mohican is trimmerman.
I wouldn't say Argentina continually fans the flames, taking into account that any country is more than its Govenrment. it's basically its people. But It's quite evident that CFK is fanning flames basically to divert public opinion from daily issues. Anyway, most probably Argentina will end in “economic” flames pretty soon so don't worry much about her.
I know nothing about Bolivia, and this issue with Chile, but, most provably, in Bolivia they teach false thinngs about history but in Argentina and the United Kingdom they definetly do the same. So most provably in Chile some thngs have been twisted too. It's part of the “game” most of the countries do to strengthen their sense of identity and nation.
“At some point we will have to remind them more forcefully to stop claiming part of our country”. I would say that a war beween both countries won't lead to anything good but more poverty and economic backwardness. Do you think that the FI led to anything? Did it settled and solved the issue?
In Europe they fought plenty of wars for small portions of territory during centuries and they took long time to start thinking about Europe as a “whole”. Now they are much better, whitout wars and working as a team and working as partners.
It would be great if, in South America we could imitate them taking into account that we had very few wars among us compared to Europe among them.
CFK's fanning the flames, like Galtieri's in 1982, is only successful because the issue strikes a chord in most Argentine hearts, due to the grudge and falsehoods they have been taught for generations. Your average Argentine citizen sincerely believes that “the Malvinas are Argentinas”, the difference being that only fanatics are willing to try and blockade/invade.
If the Uruguayan gov't attempted to gain political popularity with something of the sort, they'd be laughed out of office.
www.facebook.com/Britain1592?ref=hl
We are supposed to believe the Argentine government and their friends don't know the difference between a Hunter Killer Submarine and ISBN Nuclear Missile Submarines!
It is also common knowledge that the only nuclear weapons the UK possesses are Trident ICBM's which can only be launched by one of four Vanguard class submarines. We are also expected to believe that Argentina does not know that Britain has (unlike Argentina) signed the non proliferation treaty and has agreed never to target non nuclear states with nuclear missiles!
We are also expected to believe the Argentines have also not figured out the range of Trident II missiles (available via wikipedia! And plenty of other more academic sources such as Janes Weapons!). The range of the weapon is at least 11,000 km, in other words the UK could target Argentina from UK waters and not only would we not need to cruise off Argentina to target her but it would be counter productive if we felt the subs were at risk! However, see above 1) We don't target non nuclear states, 2) The only nuclear weapons we possess are Trident II, 3) There is a BIG difference between SSN Hunter Killer submarines and ICBM Nuclear Missile Submarines.
In summery an adolescent child has the capability to research the veracity of the Argentine claims in a 5 min web search! Anyone taking the Argentine government seriously is stretching credulity beyond the point of belief!
The Argentine government continues to act with the maturity of a three year old deprived of his sand pit! The only thing the Argentine government has yet to claim is the UK is at the heart of a global Jewish conspiracy but then we know most of their drones in the ranks of Malivinista nationalists already claim that! Anyone taking the clowns Timmerman and Fernadez seriously needs a metal exam! Argentina is a second world nation, fast tracking itself to the third world!
I'm sorry but I totally desagree with you. In Argentina, like in most of the countries of the world, people (let's call them “common people”) have the tendency to believe what is shown in the media. I know that a large portion of the USA population still believe that their country is in war against Irak because they are protecting freedom in Mid West.
I belong to a typical mid-class family of Argentina and, believe me, most of the people “like us” don't hate the UK at all. I would say just to the contrary. London is one of the most desired cities to visit as a tourist. British culture is very populas. The Rolling Stones and Roger Waters, two british cultural expressions, are so popular thay every single time they visit Argentina on tour several shows are performed. The last visit of the Rolling Stones cosisted on five shows and Roger Waters performed NINE in a row !!!
I believe that FI belong to Argentina but this doesn't mean that the islandres aren't honest people that have plenty of rights and deserve respect.
Taking into account the kind of economic issues that Argentina is facing right now regular people believe that FI is not a bid issue to devote plenty of tiem at all. “The last thing we need is another issue with the UK now” is a common comment that can be listened in public transports
My best friend believes that FI belong to the UK, I don't agree with him but he is still my best friend.
Usually, Latam countries (most provably due to their common history) believe that the neighbor stole part of their territory. Some chilean people say that the Patagonia belonged to them, Uruguayan people say that Isla Martin Garcia belonged to them, paraguayan people that Formosoa and Misiones belonged to them, While argentine people say that Uruguay was an argentine province and so on...
I personally, believe that as Mao told “China can wait a hundred year to unite Taiwan”. So we have plenty of issues to solve before thinking about FI
As some have already pointed out, not rising to the game by making a statement, takes the wind out of the Argentine's sails. They cannot force us to play their game & all that they gain out of this is to mislead people who are uninformed about the capabilities of nuclear submarines & the difference between an SSN & an SSBN.
Most of the nations present know full well that the Argentines are making a mountain out of a molehill for their own self-serving reasons and not to highlight any dangers for the Treaty zone. Most of these countries are fully aware of the difference between an SSN & a SSBN. After all, Brazil will acquire an SSN in the next 5 years & I doubt that Argentina will complain about them when they do.
The FCO will have quiet discussions behind the scenes, pointing out that it is not UK policy to discuss the deployment of nuclear submarines for obvious reasons. The only times that they do mention them is when they pass through an area where they have to remain on the surface (such as the Suez Canal) or when they have a problem (as happened to HMS Tireless recently), or when they visit a foreign port, or take part in missile trials, or are engaged in operational duties, as in Libya.
The reason that the Argentines get so wound up about the British SSNs is because of the effect it had upon the Argentine psyche in 1982.
It is a very real fear for the Argentines, because if they are to provoke any trouble when the oil starts being extracted, they have to overcome the vastly superior capabilities of the British SSNs. They are very unlikely to. Argentine diesel submarines may be quiet, but Argentine submariners do not have the experience of our Silent Service.
Quite simply, it freeks the Argentine Government that they will lose again!
I agree with much of what you say, and I don't think that the average Argentine loathes the UK. At least those I am friendly with in Punta del Este have never said anything of the sort.
Unfortunately, it is also clear to me that the average Argentine believes in his heart of hearts that the “Malvinas” are Argentine, and this is the result of many years of indoctrination at the educational level, as well as the ubiquitous presence of billboards, names of squares and avenues and what not.
Certain Argentines have made it an article of militant faith, a belief worth going to war for, others such as yourself are far more sanguine.
I agree with the pertinence of the quotation from Mao. Perhaps one day the Islanders will forgive the Argentine military aggression of 1982, and CFK's current aggression. But if the latter is not soon replaced by very different attitudes and actions, even 100 years may not be long enough.
Feb 27th, 2013 - 01:33 am
I am very sorry but I cannot accept this. This is the kind of 'reason' that would-be dictators use to claim that the 'unwashed masses' must be lead by the nose. That 'they' cannot be trusted to think for themselves and must have all of their decisions made for them.
It is the sort of argument that Europhiles use to try to crush any sort of debate on the subject and claim that there should not be a referendum about anything other than who should win 'Britain has got x-factor' or some such nonsense because it is the only kind of decision that they can ever be trusted with.
Most people are capable of thinking for themselves if the 'powers that be' allow them to. In fact even when there is indoctrination as there is in Argentina people are still capable of independent and rational thought. In fact, even when it is 'discouraged', people still express themselves often (all too often in some parts of the world) paying the ultimate price for doing so.
Try not to be so disparaging. Humans are not herd animas, they value individualism.
If they knew the truth, then the politicians might not use the Falklands as a diversion. It was very clear that many in BA were surprised when the Sun printed that reply to CFK's letter/advert, showing that the British had been on the Islands far longer than most realised. The average Argentine believes that Britain only arrived in 1833 and stole the Islands then. They don't know the truth because no one explained it to them. That's why we should do those documentaries about the Islands. The least we could do is show them the truth & let them make up their own minds. If they still wish to carry on with this Quixotic quest to recover Islands that do not belong to them, then they will get a bloody nose for any aggression.
Getting back to the submarine issue, the very fact that Argentina brings up the militarisation is because they believe that through working through these treaty organisations, UN bodies or trade groups, they can force Britain to reduce the defences around the Islands to the point where a second invasion would be successful.
The fact that they are so concerned about British SSNs is an indication of their deep concern that unless these SSNs are removed, they could NEVER invade the Falklands. Even if they were to capture the Islands, they could never supply the troops by an air bridge alone & ships would be vulnerable to SSNs.
The best way that the Falkland Islanders can ensure their freedom, is to invest some of their oil revenue in a number of SSNs, crewed by the Royal Navy & on permanent patrol around the islands, armed with some cruise missiles to remind the Casa Rosada that if they cause trouble in the Falklands EEZ, then we have the power to reduce the pink house to rubble.... conventionally!
azstarnet.com/news/world/q-a-argentina-s-ny-court-showdown-on-default-debt/article_0f8783fa-535f-502a-95fb-c3c149cbce79.html
'Argentina is presented before the Court in New York by the vulture funds'
www.telam.com.ar/notas/201302/8827-argentina-se-presenta-ante-la-corte-de-nueva-york-por-los-fondos-buitre.html
'‘The islands belong to Argentina, but…’
newint.org/blog/2013/02/27/falklands-malvinas-sovereignty/
'Nuclear weapons in the Falklands - It should be considered that an atomic arsenal, this small, puts at risk the entire American continent and unknown international treaties on the subject.'
correodelsur.com/2013/02/27/74.php
Please, I do offer my appologies if I offend any of you with my comments. As English is not my mother tongue sometimes I feel that I cannot explain quite well my thoughts based on the fact that I know just a little of English. I'm sorry, I try to do my best.
I agree with the fact that human being are not herd animas and they value individualism. But education is the key issue. As any third world country in Argentina the education level of most of the people is far for being the ideal. As a result, most of the people ingore the influence of the UK in Argentina history and the good things we, both countries, got from our partnership during almost 150 years. Their ignorance is used by some nacionalists (CFK and the Peronist Party) to convince them that the UK is a sort of “evil empire”. The most educated people are the most difficult is to cheat them.
In addition, the concept that Argentina is trying to reduce the crew and material in the FI garrison in order to attack it again is, at least, quite funny.
CFK is obsessed with mantaining her power untouched so the last thing she would want is another war. She is a corrupt lady that wants to make businesses as much as possible. Adding to this, she is so affraid of the militars that she is not taking care of the equipment of the defence forces. By doing this she feels free of any attempt of any coup d'etat.
The correct course for Argentina to take in the circumstances is to stop banging the aggression drum and cooperate fully with the Islanders and the UK to remove tensions and create friendship. If there is a pie, in that way Argentina can get a share in it now, and an increasing slice in the future . As for sovereignty long in the future who knows how a deep friendship and cooperation might develop? It's not only the obstacle of the islands that Argentina should be thinking about, but its relations with the UK, EU and United States too. If there was better friendship and cooperation between all these countries wouldn't that be beneficial for Argentina instead of the trend towards becoming an outcast and pariah?
I agree with Captain Silver that it is good to hear from a non-CFK Argie on this forum.
I also agree with much of what you say, but I take issue with your lack of distinction between individuals and governments claiming foreign territory. For example, you say:
“Some chilean people say that the Patagonia belonged to them”
Yes some do. [Actually a lot of Patagonia is in Chile, but I understand you mean Argentine Patagonia. ] But this is very different from the Chilean government claiming Argentine Patagonia. We could create a good argument to claim your Patagonia and then modify our constitution to enshrine our claim and then educate our children to believe it is ours.
This would be an aggressive act and destabilizing. This is what Bolivia does and this is what Argentina does. If peace and cooperation is the aim, they must both stop.
You cannot support Argie claim on the FI and say you respect the islanders. The islanders do not want to be part of Argentina so demanding they should be is disrespecting their wishes.
1) Yes. The UK has nuclear missile capable submarines.
2) Yes. They might be in the South Atlantic.
3) If they are in the South Atlantic they will be in international waters and so will be none of Argentinas business.
4) They probably are not in the South Atlantic because: a) they do not need to be in order to target Argentina and: b) Argentina is not a nuclear threat to the UK and so will not be on any target list.
5) Finally we are never going to tell Argentina, or anybody else where they are.
Argentina. Stating the bleeding obvious since 1982. Viveza criolla and the Argentine dream.
Ambitions to seize the Islands by force are still very much on the agenda of many Argentine organisations. Primarily the veterans of the 82 war. There are a great many in the Argentine armed forces who believe that if things had gone differently, then Argentina would have stayed in charge. Whilst many of these groups lack the means to invade the Islands, they do not lack the will.
I understand that for a number of years the Argentine military was sending special forces personnel to the Islands as a 'graduating ceremony' to plant a flag, sing the national anthem and then return.
Be that as it may, there are some who would like to take it further, but for the British military presence. The British garrison is small in comparison to the number of troops sent by Argentina in 1982, 1,200 compared to >10,000. However, Argentina knows that the biggest threat is the one they cannot see. The one that managed to cause the greatest loss of life in a single action.
Whilst Argentina's armed forces are mostly neutered at present, to prevent 'La Mujer' from waking up in a prison cell, there is no doubt that the government is suggesting that they would try to disrupt any oil extraction from Falklands EEZ as a theft of Argentine resources. Indeed, one might even suggest that they might be compelled to do something, in order not to lose face when the oil starts flowing.
The biggest problem is that Argentina cannot mount any military action within the Falklands EEZ without the Royal Navy SSNs interceding, arresting the offending ships or even sinking them.
Not only that, but the more American firms invest in Falklands oil, the more it becomes a strategic asset for the United States. President Obama has been actively seeking to disengage dependence on the middle east, a region that could be at war (even nuclear war) very soon. He is sourcing oil in the western hemisphere. So it might not just be Royal Navy SSNs protecting those rigs, but maybe US Navy ones too.
Good points.
I agree that a historical documentary of the Falkland Islands, even if the Argentines did not believe it, is a good idea, as long as historical records are resourced.
I think additionally that there should be a follow up programme involving British and Argentine historians, ie if the Argentines don't believe 1833, they should be asked to provide evidence (not merely opinion devoid of referencing) that contradicts the current historical records, and put them in their 19th century context (which is different from the 21st century-ie the UN was not around in 1833). They will have a tough task, but if they resort to unreferenced rhetoric it will (as usual) show them up in an ignorant light.
Too much has been said that if the Argentines capture MPA, with the absence of aircraft carrriers, Britain would be unable to retake the Falklands. This as you have pointed out Nigel is utter nonsense. If British submarines were allowed to roam at will, the Falklands could be blockaded, Argentine airfields damaged, and no Argentine ship would be safe. If it were possible for T45s to operate, the Royal Navy could destroy all transport and offensive aircraft from Argentina at will, and totally isolate the Argentine forces. British special forces could retake the airfields (MPA & Stanley) which I assume for the purposes of re-supply the Argentines would wish to keep intact. Britain could then resupply by air. If the runways were taken out, the Argentines would shoot themselves in the foot as it would isolate them from the mainlandand they would then be dependant on shipping-if they kept them, UK would have a toehold.
No wonder the Argentines want our subs out of the way.
I also think in the event of an overwhelming attack by the Argentines, they would underestimate the ability of the FIDF to ruin their day, but as the Argentines mistakenly label the FIs as cretins, the Arg military would foolishly not take this into account and would suffer, very badly.
Feb 27th, 2013 - 03:44 pm
But what makes no sense to me is this idea about 'getting Royal Navy submarines out of the way'.
At the moment there is no more than a supposition of the presence of RN SSNs and an accusation of RN SSBNs. How do we know one way or the other?
In the very unlikely event that the UK agrees not to send any subs to the South Atlantic, based on my second paragraph how will anybody but the crews know one way or the other?
If they are there but aren't supposed to be by dint of some agreement and Argentina sends an invasion fleet there would be yet another stalemate. The AG would accuse the UKG of dishonesty for having subs in the area after agreeing not to have them in the area and the UKG would accuse the AG of dishonesty because they'd agreed not to send another invasion force but did anyway.
I suppose that the AG would simply say “well what did you expect? We are Argentineans. When did we ever abide by an agreement? Viveza criolla!”.
Thank you, it's good to know that others agree.
Argentine dis-information has succeeded in winning them a lot of support from the un-informed. That might not be so easy if the documentaries showed the real historical documents from both National Archives (and the US ones too) to prove that the sovereignty correctly belongs to the Islanders. Not to Britain, not to Argentina, but to the people who made the Falkland Islands the success it is today.
I cannot stress it highly enough that if Argentina had taken a different approach in 1833, then they might have been part of the community, regardless of the sovereignty. As I wrote on a different board today, it was Samuel Fisher Lafone, (sometimes described as a BA businessman who emigrated to Montevideo), who invested heavily in making the Falklands a viable business. He obtained the leases from the Crown to exploit the Islands where Vernet failed. In 1851, his business became the Royal Falkland Land, Cattle, Seal and Whale Fishery Company under a Royal Charter and subsequently became the Falkland Islands Company.
If Manuel Moreno had approached Palmerston with a business proposal to develop the Islands, instead of a demand to hand them over, then Argentina might have been a willing partner with the Islanders & benefited from the fruits of their labours. However, Argentines seem to live by the creed of Viveza Criolla, to steal something that does not belong to them if they get the chance (as they did with YPF) rather than work to build something that enhances the lives of everyone.
I have no doubt that the Royal Navy could not only frustrate any Argentine aggression, but give BA a bloody nose if they attempted to interrupt the oil extraction. Although we are yet to see a massive oil find, I have no doubt that we will see it. I also have no doubt that the Falkland Islands will be protected, to make sure that Falklands children grow up to benefit from the Islands & to protect the community.
I also found this take on the whole nuclear debate
malvinasblogdotcom.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/argentina-y-la-amenaza-nuclear/?preview=true&preview_id=14&preview_nonce=67dc033168
I respect them because as any other human being they have the right to be respected
I respect islanders because things are not “black and white” and at a certain point historical facts are quite confusing and don't follow a clear line.
Basically if a human group have been making their living for decades (or even centuries) in a place cannot be considered “invaders” at all.
I also try to understand them because they are a small community with very strong identity (and a high life quality) so we, the people from the continent led by our Government, sometimes seem to be a group of barbarians screaming threats and insults at the distance.
In addition, LATAM countries still have plenty of basic pending social and economic issues so as to be appealing for them to join us.
The sovereignty fact is different.
I live in Canada (you already know) and Quebec is a province that has a very different status from the rest of the country. It's my understanding that they don't recognize the Queen as the chief of the state. Why don't thing about the opposite option for FI? I mean FI could be a new argentine province with a such different status that do recognize the Queen while the rest of the Country (Argentina) doesn't.
Due to my profession I visited China Mainland and Hong Kong. Why don't explore the chances of using the same “solution” of one country with two systems?
Or having a place with shared sovereignty between the UK and Argentina?
Or having the islands in charge of the UN for decades in a slow change of sovereignty?
I don't know I'm just imagining, I don't pretend to be naive, but I think that it's just a matter of good will and intelligence. And to understand that a good partnership is much better than to be fighting all the time.
SELF-DETERMINATION.....there is only one winner!
I don't think the islanders are interested in any joint / shared solution.
As I said, if Chile invented a claim on Argentine patagonia, would the solution be to look for some way to share Argentine patagonia with Chile?
Of course not.
We are in the 21st century and states should respect existing borders and treaties. Chile ceded most of Patagonia to Argentina in the 1890s (don't have the date); Bolivia ceded Antofagasta to Chile in 1904; Argentina dropped its claim on the FI in 1850.
These are the agreements we have and they should be respected. Those looking to disrespect them are provoking confrontation.
www.ambito.com/noticia.asp?id=677502
I won't write a single word about the issue between Bolivia and Chile simply because I know nothing about it. Just that it's my undertanding that the borders were settled in a peace agreement.
The borders between Chile and Argentina were settled in several different agreements after negotiations and, in some of them, with the presence of the Crown of the UK as mediator. Luckily for Argentina its President, at that time, was J.A. Roca who was an outstanding leader (we discussed about it in the past) .
So, it seems to me that in these two cases there were written agreements signed for the parties that gave (and must give) some stability to the borders.
In the case of the FI this reasoning is not applicable since neither Argentina nor the UK signed any agreement to settle the borders or the sovereignty issue.
And in the case of the FI its quite an old issue, so nobody can says that the issue was invented. It's an old pending issue !!!
”I live in Canada (you already know) and Quebec is a province that has a very different status from the rest of the country. It's my understanding that they don't recognize the Queen as the chief of the state.”
Quebec is an interesting analogy though as the Canadian government has recognised their right to self determination.
Argentina would never recognise this right.
> In the case of the FI this reasoning is not applicable since neither Argentina nor the UK signed any agreement to settle the borders or the sovereignty issue.
Someone will probably cite the 1850 Treaty of Perfect Friendship, but apparently that was just a clerical error and it should have been called the Treaty of Imperfect Friendship.
“in the case of the FI this reasoning is not applicable since neither Argentina nor the UK signed any agreement to settle the borders or the sovereignty issue.”
You are incorrect you signed a peace-treaty, 1850 Convention of Settlement, the legal effect is thus:
ELEMENTS INTERNATIONAL LAW. ...By HENRY WHEATON, LL.D.
resident minister from the United States in America the court of Berlin;
member of the philosophical society of Phillidelphia; of the Royal Asiatic Society of London; and of the Scandinavian Litery Society of Copenhagen, 1836.
TREATY OF PEACE. 285
…The effect of a treaty of peace is to put an end to the war, and to abolish the subject matter of it. It is an agreement to waive all discussion concerning the respective rights and claims of the parties, and to bury in oblivion the original causes of the war.…
..The treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it found it, unless there be some express stipulation to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the conqueror, and his title cannot afterwards be called in question …
yensere-ly isolde aka la think is wrong again
Thanks, I do try.
Dear Terence Hill. Excellent and very finely analyzed arguments.
I've read this argument before and it is quite a very controversial theoretical doctrinal stance but it's not a “fact” not even accepted in international law.
Its not clear the interpretation you made about it (this argument was already mentioned by some media of Argentina some years ago):
The effect of a treaty of peace is to put an end to the war, and to abolish THE SUBJECT MATTER of it.
It is an agreement to waive all discussion Concerning the respective rights and claims of the parties, and to bury in oblivion the original .... CAUSES OF THE WAR
Summing up, in the mentioned treaty the cause of this war was not the presence of the UK in the FI.
Your interpretation (somewhat crooked and mañosa) is clearly intended to extend this agreement to the FI issue.
I bet you are a lawyer !!!! and a good one I can imagine. Unfortunately law is not my field.
Anyway the tacit acceptance of the sovereignty conflict were the negotiations held between the UK and Argentina about this issue several times.
I must recognize that from time to time I meet respectful people with fine arguments in this site. My pleasure.
Your incorrect, it is excepted as international law, especially as I can post numerous other experts of international law giving the same opinion. First the ICJ would view it as valid law for 1833 under their rules of interpretation.
Article 38, paragraph 1 of the statute indicates that, in disputes submitted
to the ICJ, the law the ICJ will apply will be:
a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules
expressly recognized by contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
d.... judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified pub-
licists of the various nations, as a subsidiary means for the determination
of rules of law.11
Globalization and International Law by David J. Bederman.
The ICJ wouldn't try to read “tea-leafs” they would apply the Convention to the islands. They interpret very strictly these issues, coupled with the fact that The Convention of Settlement ended Argentina’s protests over the Falklands. After the Message to Congress in December 1849, the Falklands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress for 91 years until 1941. In his message at the opening of the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1865, President Bartolomé Mitre said that Argentina had scrupulously fulfilled undertakings with Britain and France, so “there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those Governments. The court would view this as acceptance of the status quo as relates to the islands.
What ever discussions the two government have had concerning sovereignty is meaningless in law, thats simply politics.
Argentine politicians consider that the Convention of Settlement (Arana-Southern Treaty) did apply to the Falklands dispute and effectively gave up Argentina's claim on the Islands.
The Mexican diplomat and historian Carlos Pereyra considers that General Rosas gave up the claim to the Falklands in order end Britain's involvement in the River Plate.
Pereyra adds that the effect of the Convention was as if it had had an unwritten article stating that “Britain retained the Falkland Islands.” Pereyra’s book was reprinted in Buenos Aires in 1944, with the same statements.
The impact of the treaty was also raised in a 1950 debate on Argentina's claim to the Falklands by a member of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Absalón Rojas.
Rojas complained that the treaty restoring “perfect friendship” between Britain and Argentina without any reference to the Falklands was a serious omission and a weak point of the Argentine claim.
As a result Rojas blamed General Rosas for the loss of the Falklands.
Other Argentine historians have indicated that the Convention of Settlement has a negative impact upon Argentina's modern sovereignty claim. These include historian Ernesto Fitte and Alfredo R. Burnet-Merlín. Both indicate that the omission of any mention of the Falklands in the treaty was a “a concession to Britain or a culpable oversight”.
So you see, Argentina gave up the claim, either by oversight, or by intention, when they ratified the Arana-Southern Treaty. This is further verified by other points.
You see Manuel Moreno did enquire if Argentina could settle the Barings debt by giving up the Falklands. He was informed that not only did Britain not recognise the Argentine claim, but that the Baring's debt was by that time £1.9 million and greater than the value of the Islands anyway.
There is also the point that Argentina was attempting to trade what did not belong to them. Like trying to sell a house that you do not own to the original owners! Laughable.
Your interpretation is crafty and malicious, as it said in Argentina is “tirada de los pelos” that means forced artificially.
This treaty was Indeed discussed and questioned later in Argentina and elsewhere but you forget the most important thing:
Agreements involve an explicit acceptance and agree upon something in particular. As a result they are always cared to be as clear and explicit as possible to avoid diversity in interpretations.
For example, the boundaries between Argentina and Chile were accepted and ratified by the parties freely and settled explicitly what was under dispute or in doubt.
In this case what was in dispute was precisely the navigation on the Rio de La Plata, reason of the confrontation.
Extending this treaty to the Falklands issue this is clearly an perverse interpretation (a brillant example of “viveza criolla”).
Juan Manuel de Rosas effectively negotiated the Malvinas sovereignty a in his attempt to cancel a debt. This historical proposal leaves the “revisionistas” historians in a very unconfortable situation since they promote Rosas image as a sort of “argentine sovereignty paladin” in detrimental of the generation of Free-Masons who were his direct enemies.
In addtion, your interpretation is so misleading that both the UK and Argentina had plenty of meetings trying to settle the sovereignty dispute long after this treaty was signed.
There doesn't have to be a formal declaration of war for there to be a war.
A definition of the three ways of thinking about a declaration of war was developed by Saikrishna Prakash. He argues that a declaration of war can be seen from three perspectives:
1. Categorical theory, under which the power to declare war includes “the power to control all decisions to enter war”. This means that the power to 'declare war' in effect rests with the ability to engage in combat.
2. Pragmatic theory, which states that the power to declare war can be made unnecessary by an act of war in itself.
3. Formalist theory, under which the power to declare war constitutes only a formal documentation of executive war-making decisions. This sits closest to traditional legal conceptions of what it is to declare a war.
The Argentine invasion falls under Pragmatic theory. Basically the act of invasion was a declaration of war against the UK.
The Argentines gambled that the UK wouldn't want to come out and play, and they lost.
So the surrender document is a internationally recognised LEGAL document where the party surrendering promises to obey the terms as laid down in the document.
That is why Menendez refused to sign the document until the word 'unconditional' was crossed out, as he opted for a 'conditional' surrender of all Argentine military forces on the Falkland Islands.
If Argentina had gone back on its word, then the state of war between the UK and Argentina would've continued, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the actual fighting would've continued.
The main problem with the surrender of the Argentine forces in the Falklands was that the rest of Argentine refuses to accept it, just like they refuse to accept anything that doesn't fall in with their world view.
However, the surrender documents would've been copied and sent to the UNSC, and will be on record, just like the invasion and the fact that Argentina disobeyed a UNSC resolution.
It seems that you've overlooked Terence Hill's excellent response above @ 116
“113 pgerman
“in the case of the FI this reasoning is not applicable since neither Argentina nor the UK signed any agreement to settle the borders or the sovereignty issue.”
You are incorrect you signed a peace-treaty, 1850 Convention of Settlement, the legal effect is thus:
ELEMENTS INTERNATIONAL LAW. ...By HENRY WHEATON, LL.D.
resident minister from the United States in America the court of Berlin;
member of the philosophical society of Phillidelphia; of the Royal Asiatic Society of London; and of the Scandinavian Litery Society of Copenhagen, 1836.
TREATY OF PEACE. 285
…The effect of a treaty of peace is to put an end to the war, and to abolish the subject matter of it. It is an agreement to waive all discussion concerning the respective rights and claims of the parties, and to bury in oblivion the original causes of the war.…
..The treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it found it, unless there be some express stipulation to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the conqueror, and his title cannot afterwards be called in question …”
The precise words that matter are these:
“unless there be some express stipulation to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. ”
Argentina did not amend the treaty to include the Falklands dispute. If this was still an outstanding issue, it was incumbent upon them under international law to include it & they didn't.
It goes on to say:
“If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the conqueror, and his title cannot afterwards be called in question …”
This is why Argentina never complained after the treaty, because they knew the treaty ended the dispute forever.
I have already answered it and I have already given my opinion.
Both of you reached false conclusions. It is a false statement because you, misleadingly, want to extend and apply a treaty signed by the Uk and Argentina to the FI area.
Its wrong the interpretation you made about it (I put in capital letters the key words of these concepts):
The effect of a treaty of peace is to put an end to the war, and to abolish THE SUBJECT MATTER of it.
It is an agreement to waive all discussion Concerning the respective rights and claims of the parties, and to bury in oblivion the original .... CAUSES OF THE WAR
Was this war, in 1850, caused by the presence of the UK (or Argentina) in the FI? No, so the principles of Mr. Henry Wheaton cannot be applied in FI. I'm not a lawyer but it's quite clear your intentions.
Nothing of the following written by all of you change the fact that the principles are applicable to territories under dispute or conquered in the war.
In addition, if there were plenty of official meetings between the UK and Argentina about the sovereignty during decades (that, unfortunatelly, reached to nothing) long time after 1850 it was because neither the UK nor Argentina had considered that the mentioned agreement settled the dispute. It's also quite clear.
It is a good attempt on your part but it leads all of us to no side.
What happens if they are La Campora bullies who are not officially part of the Argentine armed services? Arrest and trial and incarceration? But where?
Feb 28th, 2013 - 04:28 pm
An interesting if flawed and subjective argument. Why don't you try it out at the ICJ?
Pgerman, my old chum :-)
What does the phrase “perfect friendship” mean in Argentina?
“Nothing of the following written by all of you change the fact that the principles are applicable to territories under dispute or conquered in the war.”
Let me bring you up to speed legally. Even if the UK had appeared over the horizon with no prior claim to the islands and seized them. That was perfectly legal prior to 1919.
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST
The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by SHARON KORMAN
96 Conquest in Traditional Law and Practice
...John Fischer Williams wrote in 1926: To say that force cannot give a good title is to divorce international law from the actual practice of nations in all known periods of history.9
Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Power or at least one of them, have the faculty of effectively disposing of the ceded territory.10 That the tribunal's decision in this arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish
a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...
9 'Sovereignly, Seisin, and the League', BYBIL (1926), 24, at 35.
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928),
The court wold not give any consideration to official meetings between the UK and Argentina about the sovereignty, they are legally meaningless, are considered merely politicking.
You cannot say you have perfect friendship and disputes, the two are mutually exclusive.
You either have one or the other and we know that Argentina agreed to be at peace, therefore there can be no disputes.
In order for Argentina to retain the claim on the Falklands, it would have been necessary for them to cite this in the Treaty as an exclusion. They didn't. Also I would point out that if Argentina had tried to include it, then Great Britain would not have agreed to the Treaty.
Argentina's behaviour after the Treaty shows that they accepted that the claim had ended. They ceased to make any diplomatic protests for decades - protests that would have been raised as a breach of the Treaty.
I'm afraid that as much as you try to deny the fact that Argentina signed a peace treaty which affected the claim on the Falklands, the ICJ would conclude differently.
Haven't you considered why Argentina refused to take the claim to the ICJ when urged to do so by Britain? It's not just the history, the peaceful prescription or the fact that we can demonstrate the Argentine logic as flawed, it's because the Treaties would be regarded as concrete proof that Argentina gave away the Falklands in 1850.
Haven't you ever wondered why Argentina has never mentioned the Arana-Southern Treaty to the UN?
Argentina has created a false history around the Falklands dispute and anything which clearly shows that the claim was given up is conveniently ignored.
From my point of view is more than clear that the 1850 Agreement does not grant any recognition of parties on the FI. Only limited to the navigation of the Rio de La Plata, the corresponding estuary and the Isla Martin Garcia.
Your mention about the Right of Conquest is not new but it is highly dangerous expressed that way in modern times. Don't you think so?
According to it there was no spoliation of land to indigenous peoples by the Argentina as many argue on this site accusing J. A Roca, and the Government, of genocide and land grabbing
After all it seems that Galtieri was not so stupid, irresponsible and improvised as I have always thought. Had he got away with it Argentina would have full rights over the islands nowadays and the United Kingdom currently no right at all.
I dont 'like your point of view ..
Your qualtifing to the meetings between the UK and Argentina about the sovereignty as legally meaningless and merely politicking is up to you but not quite a solid argument.
Sorry, pg, but I repeat he question: what does the phrase 'perfect friendship' mean in Argentina?
It could be a mere formality or have other connotation.
Taking into account how narrow the diplomatic, political, cultural and commercial relationships between the UK and Argentina were since the moment of the declaration of argentine independence onwards it could perfectly well be a mere formality.
I can immagine you prefer to interpret it as a recognition of the absence of outstanding pending issues between the two countries but I really do not know the real reason why this tems was included but you are not a disinterested, or neutral, opinion, so as to considered an objective informant.
But surely you don't need to be a lawyer, diplomat, or historian to find it just a little bit mysterious that Argentina signs up to a treaty swearing 'perfect friendship', and right away all protestst cease in both BA and London? And this a mere 17 years, incidentally, after the supposed monstrous outrage of the 1833 usurpation? Which disappears off the radar until 90 years later? If the treaty doesn't mean what it says, how do you account for the subsequent actions and statements of the Argentine government?
One might consider that sensible Argentines would look at the facts presented in any documentary, check them for themselves in the National Archives.
If they have any intelligence at all, they would then compare these facts with the propaganda they've been fed since childhood & in school & ask why the version told in Argentina differs so radically from the documents.
After all, who told you that ALL the Argentines were evicted from the Islands in 1833?
Doesn't the evidence presented by Pinedo at his Courts Martial contradict the official Argentine Government statements?
Pinedo arrived in BA & told the United Provinces that there were 22 civilians on the Islands & he named them. 12 of these people were from the United Provinces. Yet CFK & every Argentine Government for the past 70 years has told you (lied to you) that ALL Argentines were forced to leave the Islands.
You don't have to trust the documentaries, all you have to do is read the facts for yourself and then ask why people in Argentina have been misleading you. They've been misleading you, because they know the claim is false, so they distorted the facts to raise patriotic fervour.
The soldiers that went to the islands in 1982 were told that they were liberators. They were told that they were going there to free oppressed Islanders. That these Islanders were under cruel British colonial rule.
However, when the soldiers arrived in the Islands, they soon realised that this was untrue. The people were free, they were not oppressed by the British, they were oppressed by the invading Argentine forces. They were forced to drive on the opposite side of the road, or to speak Spanish. They were told to do things with an Argentine gun in their back & told if they didn't, they would be shot dead. Even children were threatened with death.
Read the facts. Check the documents. Find out the true history and make your own decision about what is true.
The rest of the world will see the truth & can check it too.
So contrary to what the best legal minds of the nineteenth century say about the legal effect of a peace treaty are. You say their wrong and your interpretation is the correct one.
If used the the Right of Conquest isn't dangerous, it's protected under international law as:
'...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....'
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
Also it is a right recognized by the UN
'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
If meetings between countries representatives that don't result in any new treaty, qualify as a legal significance please show the precedence you are relying on, and your humble opinion doesn't count, nor your viveza criolla.
It would depend on the manner of the La Campora's 'invasion'.
The Laws of Armed Conflict (Geneva Conventions) state that civilians should be protected and their property should be respected (in other words not looted).
If they just turned up and began waving banners and shouting slogans, then it would be a civil matter, and they would be arrested for demonstrating without a permit, disturbing the peace etc...
However, if they turned up with weapons and started shooting up the place, then they could be considered enemy combatants (militia) and fired upon by the military.
Theoretically a civilians best defence is to do nothing, however, we all know that there are certain countries who do not follow the Laws of Armed Conflict to the letter.
In 1982, Argentina certainly didn't follow the rules to the letter, yet the UK did. Argentina told their soldiers that the British would murder them all if they surrendered, to try and make them fight to the death. However, when these young Argentine men did surrender, they were surprised that they were treated far better by their 'enemies' than they were by their own officers.
La Campora is made up of bullies and cowards, they might demonstrate, but they would never have the courage to pick up a weapon and fight against someone who can fight back.
Quite true. If La Campora turned up & started waving banners, shouting slogans, but merely demonstrating, then they would be arrested for disturbing the peace or protesting without a permit. Basically they would receive a small fine & then placed on a ship to Montevideo.
If on the other hand, La Campora demonstrated aggressively, started rioting or engaged in violence to people or property, then they would be arrested, tried & if guilty, incarcerated.
Of course, these are the rules in peacetime. In time of conflict, there are subtle differences. Uniformed enemy combatants comply with the Geneva Conventions. This prescribes what is within and outside the rules of war. British forces also have to act within the Rules of Engagement. This means that the government sets the limits of what can be regarded as a viable target.
For instance, in the Kosovo War, the rules were relaxed to allow NATO forces to engage any group that were purposely killing Kosovo civilians to prevent atrocities. NATO fired cruise missiles aimed at strategic Serbian targets, but not at the general population.
If a group of La Campora came onto the Islands with weapons, they would be detained. If they could not be detained, then to prevent any loss to the civilian population, they would be stopped.
If there was another conflict, the FIDF would be considered a uniformed group of combatants & protected by the Conventions. Civilian non-combatants would also be protected.
However, any group not uniformed, or accredited with the armed forces of either nation would be considered as Francs-tireurs.
Strictly speaking, a Francs-tireurs is outside the rules of war & if captured not entitled to prisoner of war status. The French Resistance were just such a group of civilians engaged in asymmetric warfare.
The Geneva Conventions were updated in 1949 to allow captured un-uniformed civilians POW status, if & only if, they fought under the rules of war, under control of a superior & wore a mark.
The problem you have is that it has put together a scheme that has to be assembled in order to “prove” what, so far, no one could prove
It is also clear that there are people, probably in the FI, that have been studying documents and history to find every possible advantage to the position of the UK
Then you assume things that are not true and reinforces your position saying that “have universal recognition” or that has been settled by some “guru of international law.” as a “rule”. I don’t need to be a lawyer to understand that in law everything depend on the interpretation
What is clear, though your paragraphs are in English and similar expressions in different languages may have totally different meaning, is that the Treaty established the conditions to the normalization of the relationship between UK and “The Provinces” (later Argentina)
Moreover, you ignore facts that could jeopardize your position as despising the official negotiations about sovereignty between Argentina and UK. That’s the key issue that nullifies the argument that the 1850 Treaty settled all the pending issues
There are other issues:
I cannot believe that there are people afraid of an “attack” or “invasion” of members of “La Campora”. It might be because they don’t know that they are just unemployed people paid by the Government to make some noise in the demonstrations. No one of them would think about going to the FI to be “face to face” with the British authorities. They are not so stupid.
As regards the events of year 1833 that fact that some people were allowed to stay in the islands doesn’t change the fact that the authorities of “The Province” (later Argentina) were expelled by British forces. The British force allowed some people to keep on living there to avoid having sovereignty over a desert island.
Another issue, you might don’t know that, in Argentina, accusing a regular, or fairly educated and honest, person of doing “viveza criolla” is quite an offense.
'that has been settled by some “guru of international law.” as a “rule”. I don’t need to be a lawyer to understand that in law everything depend on the interpretation '
The so called gurus are best qualified people to interpret-ate international law of 1833. Since there were no international courts they are one of the sources of law acceptable to the ICJ. So as much as you believe you have the definitive interpretation, your not an expert so it's worthless.
'official negotiations about sovereignty... ...that nullifies the argument that the 1850 Treaty settled all the pending issues...'
Again, negotiations carry zero legal significance. You not find any court in the Western hemisphere that has considered them as part of its determinations.
'...accusing a regular, or fairly educated and honest, person of doing “viveza criolla” is quite an offense....'
Please! you were the first one to to use the expression in 123 pgerman 'Extending this treaty to the Falklands issue this is clearly an perverse interpretation (a brillant example of “viveza criolla”).' So I'm to understand it's only offensive if somebody other than yourself uses it.
I was the first in using this expression but with a different connotation. Basically, I tried to mention that your reasoning could eventually be considered a sort of “viveza criolla”.
Anyway, it's my fault, please, accept my appologise.
I mentioned that this expresion is quite a local one and is really quite offensive if you acuse someone of doing it. I mentioned this just in case your intentions were not to ofend me.
Let me add, that no matter that I don't agree with your concepts I really enjoy having discussed this issue with you in respectfull terms.
Saddy this FI usually ends in offensive expresions.
How correct you are!! You would have to be hare brained to think that the US, UK, Russia, France would give the location of their nuclear subs. They would hardly be deterrents if the “enemy” knew their locations. These RG politicians are totally hare brained, to use a Spanish expression, they don't have even two fingers of forehead (lengthwise).
i don't know what to do
i can only say the ”argentine goverment is harrasing the FI retards!
Well Sussie, being a retard yourself (I never use the term) you would know, wouldn't you?
What I can't possible comprehend is why and how the government in Argentina, across ALL political ideologies would lie for so long. It definitely wasn't Peron's idea given the “Malvinas lobby” during the 30s and early 40s. Even if it was for patriotic fervor or to get territory, it wouldn't explain how different governments could agree on THIS for so long, when they disagreed on everything else. It seems odd...
the next argetnine president can be La Junta again
well, that will make old briton happy
he always mention La Junta
lol
It's hard to believe that any country would act rationally, when their own self-interests dictate otherwise.
The British Empire no longer exists & many believe that it was a force for good, introducing democracy to the world. In truth though, many of the countries in it, did not want to be part of it. India fought long & hard to be free. The British did an awful lot of bad things in India for which we should feel ashamed. Don't take my word for it. David Cameron admitted as such about Amritsar. On the other hand, we did help to act as midwife to two democracies, one of which is the biggest in the world.
We can also be proud of the Commonwealth, because apart from the UN, there is no other association of nations from all different backgrounds who all speak the same language & all act as equals.
The Argentines have a typical Latin approach to history. Not just Spanish, but Latin. There is a touch of the 'Mafia' in Argentina. What you can steal, you take.
The Spanish were also big empire builders & like the British, they were also resented. When their offspring separated from them, like most small children, they demanded as much as they could seize.
The UP/Argentine approach was to seize as much territory as they could, even that which then became Uruguay/Bolivia/Chile/Paraguay/Peru, because the larger the empire, the larger the revenue for the ruling elite.
When these claims could not be formalised by war, they tried other surreptitious means. The UP Gov did not dare to invade the Falklands or claim them formally, because they knew that Britain would respond. We had just defeated France AND Spain, so it would have been suicidal to try. British sailors manned most ships on the high seas & UP relied on British trade after Spain was lost as a market.
So UP tried an invasion by a proxy colony. After 1833, they've distorted history, because they knew they needed to convince their own populations of a righteous cause. They would lose face if they didn't.
It really isn't accurate to say that José Gervasio Artigas was a member of, or at the service of, the ruling elite.
You are correct. Artigas was born of privilege parents, but chose to be with the gauchos. He played a pivotal role in Uruguay.
Not all people in the region had their own self-interests at heart. Some honestly tried to make the best of the newly independent states. The trouble is that there were far too many people who were out to line their own pockets and most of these were responsible for the repeated conflicts, the death squads, the instability that characterised independent South America.
As for the lying, it comes from that old adage, that one lie leads to another. The poem goes thus:
By so called reputable people we so often are misled
And one lie leads to another lie as we often have heard said
And to cover up for one lie another lie you must tell
'Tis a thorny path to heaven but an easy path to hell.
One lie leads to another lie that always is the case
Your first lie for deception and your second to save face
And when you are faced with the truth the truth you will deny
And to lie to you comes easy so you tell another lie.
One lie leads to another lie if what you say is untrue
Then another lie you must tell and your lies won't stop at two
But the truth of guilt will free you though the truth can be hard to speak
And to lie is always easy and 'tis easy to be weak.
Look at ex President Bill Clinton to millions of people he lied
When his affair with Monica Lewinsky in public he denied
Had he told the truth in the first place of guilt he would have set himself free
But he took for him the easy option and he lied quite easily.
One lie leads to another lie and to more lies that will lead
And to cover for the lies you've already told a good memory you need
And though the truth at times is hard to speak the truth will serve you best
For the truth will always ring true in a lie detector test.
Francis Duggan
That poem about sums up Argentina's predicament. They told one lie & to conceal the fact they told it, they have to tell another & another...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!