Falkland Islands’ referendum message to Argentina: “intimidation of Islanders must cease”
The Argentine government demands to control the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the people who live there are fundamentally incompatible with modern democratic values and attempts to intimidate the Islanders must cease, said Foreign Secretary William Hague in an update to Parliament.
FCO Hague was referring to the British government’s response to the Falkland Islands referendum on their political status as a British Overseas Territory, which was overwhelmingly confirmed.
On 10th and 11th March 2013, the Falkland Islanders voted overwhelmingly to maintain their current constitutional arrangements with the United Kingdom. The result is a clear democratic expression of the Islanders’ wishes and was conducted in a free, fair and transparent way.
“We believe that the result should be recognized by the whole international community as a definitive act of self determination. It has sent the clearest possible message to the Argentine Government that its demands to control the Falkland Islands against the wishes of the people who live there are fundamentally incompatible with modern democratic values. Attempts to intimidate the Islanders must cease” underlined Hague.
The Foreign Secretary confirmed that representatives of the Falkland Islands Government will travel widely in the coming weeks to convey the result around Latin America and elsewhere.
“More broadly, the Government will continue to strengthen our engagement with Latin America, as I set out in my Canning House speech in November 2010”.
Since the UK has considerable interests in the region, with high potential for future economic growth, “I am confident that this increased cooperation and partnership with the countries of Latin America is consistent with our desire to ensure that the interests and wishes of the Falkland Islanders are respected and protected”.
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
270 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.
Or else?
What aid?
“Block trade”
Be my guest!
“Break diplomatic relations”
Ditto.
“No more offers of talks”
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0JDfaT4_w
Or else more of the world will realise that Argentina is only interested in colonising, and has no interest in the rights of humans.
Or else?
We too have 'strong declarations'. Hah!
en.mercopress.com/2013/03/14/falkland-islands-referendum-vote-blasted-unanimously-in-both-houses-of-argentina-s-congress
or else you cant help yourselves and go toooooo far and get your arses kicked again
But, ... What can we expect from a Latin country so badly managed, another junta soon perhaps?
You mean, like the CELAC, the AU, the ASEAN and 70% of the UN members?
“Get your arses kicked”
Teacher, teacher... Mr. English is bullying...
There is no, or else?
I expect you would like there to be.
There isn't.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind. Better luck next time, but don't hold your breath.
Just talk to the Turnips then?
You mean, like the CELAC, the AU, the ASEAN and 70% of the UN members?“”“
hang on, are these percentages and organisations by Argentine definitions or ”the real world“ definitions?
Im thinking of things like the ”all 54 Africa countries support our claim” when only 18 of them attended and it wasnt official government policy there either.
I mean, if you can actually point to a vote at the UN where 70% of countries openly and officially supported Argentina, good on you.
Otherwise I have to judge your comments on your prior track-record of accuracy: which, lets be honest, is very, very poor.
The Falklands are the responsibility of the FOC and that are supported by UK in following the path they wish to follow.
David (Falklands) and Goliath (Argentina) and a sling shot defence solution (The UK)…. I think we all know how the story ends!
Mr Timerman discovered on his last visit, Hague is too clever a politician to hand them a gift like that.
No sh*t, Sherlock!
Or else we will continue to derive unconscionable amusement from your rampant self-delusion and impotent posturing.
Looking back:
The UK hasn't been voting against Argentina whenever they try and get World Bank loans (unlike many other countries), that could quickly and easily be changed.
Trade: this would include minor things like parts for Rolls-Royce Tyne and Olympus engines and possibly asking the French to encourage SEMT Pielstick and Snecma to do the same.
more unsubstantiated drivel as usual Herr Think
I too support Argentina's legitimate rights over the Falklands.... just like everyone else it seems. Including the recent declaration in Africa.
Pity they don't have any LEGITIMATE rights!
The British Foreign Secretary, using the measured words and tone of a world statesman, advises Argentina's president and the more excitable of its people to CALM DOWN AND CARRY ON.
As we say in a democracy .. “The people have spoken”, the people who inhabit the islands in question.
And all exhortations to the contrary are 'hot air'.
CFK would be advised to put muzzles on herself and her little terriers, Timerman and Castro, for their posturings and pronouncements are now seen by the world for what they are, the blusters of a frustrated nation in difficulties.
not only once but amazingly TWICE!!!!!
What a legacy Argentina,what a f*cking legacy!!!
Is argentina ever going to bring anything to the global table other than tears???
SELF-DETERMINATION.....you like them apples???
We talked, The government of Argentina accepted its historical misunderstanding and signed an agreement in 1850. Then went very quiet until the cowards saw Britain on the ropes in 1941, and tore up the agreement. They were obviously devastated at the tragic loss of Hitler and Mussolini, and were relatively quiet and subdued again until 1982. The good kicking we gave their junta shut their mouths for a few years. Unfortunately we were too soft with the invaders and didn't finish the job properly, though to be fair with Argentina that doesn't usually seem necessary, as left to their own devices they will usually shoot themselves in their collective foot.
I suspect in a few years the Falkland Islands will be a completely independent nation with full UN membership. They might even be a member of Mercosur. I wonder if they could simultaneously be a member of NATO. Anything in the Mercosur rules to prevent that? Other than the obvious objections of the current nasty little clique of nationalist-socialist heads of state in that region. Soon they'll all be gone, with a bit of luck. Chávez down, just a couple more to go.
Rest assured that Argentina will redouble its efforts to regain Malvinas.
It will, of course, all be done in the most calm, serene and diplomatic way.
Calmly hitting Mother England there where it hurts the most….
Her purse, her wallet and her billfold.
You can quadruple your efforts if you like, it will all be to no avail. The last thirty years have flown past, the next unfortunately, will do the same. Nothing will change, except a new generation will be living on their islands.
Here's an idea though, how about a Referendum on 10th & 11th of March, 2043.
Rest assured Argentina
Britain will continue to support the Falkland islanders right to self-determination. You are crazy if you believe the financial costs to doit (minimal) are in anyway significant versus the 255 lives that were sacrificed to the same ends.
Your quadrupled efforts will be the same shrill, ignorant rhetoric that has got you precisely nowhere for the past 30 years, and will continue not to.
However, your quadrupled efforts, at the expensive of your far low GDP per capita, your far higher levels of poverty, your higher levels of infant mortality, your far higher levels of government corruption can continue...good luck
Remember, so far the islands are further than ever from you, the more rhetoric, the stronger the UK resolve..so far you have George Galloway and Morrissey...LOL
SELF-DETERMINATION......Check mate!
surely if CFK has collected a number of statements from countries around the world this is enough to ride rough shot over the self determination of the islanders, historical fact and let the Rg's colonise the Falklands.
Its simple logic, like a petition get enough signatures and away we go, dam we should of tried that with Nazi Germany.
Perhaps (and I do hope myself), one day soon your trolls will be answered. The islanders will be unhindered and their homeland no longer under geo-political dispute.
However, asking for cooperation between your government and argentines people is a bridge far too far. We do not particularly jump up and down to cooperate with a murderous (of non-Europeans), human-rights violating (of muslims), self-determination denying (of non-British) institution as yours.
I will now troll for you my child.
The only answer to your ridiculous logic is this:
Ha, ha, ha to the power googol (if you know what that means).
Nice one.
Well done Hague m'boy, you've shown focus and resolve in this top job. Keep the moment going and show the world that when it comes to diplomacy, we invented it.
'hit them in the pocket'
It would be more like a divorce, where both parties - and their children - are damaged beyond good sense. The only ones to benefit are the non-participants and the lawyers.
Is 'trying to kill the opposition but dying as a nation in the process' what the man in the Argentinian street really wants?
Argentina has effectively killed off Mercosur and the power of group trading.
It has also killed off dealing with the EU, the largest trading bloc in the world.
This is a 'Death Wish' strategy with Argentina's tactic being to take the UK and TFI down with them. Unfortunately for them, the UK has a much too resiliant economy. The UK will be still standing on firm ground when the economic quicksand throttles off the last gasps of this dying nation.
My child, why do you speak for Argentines when you are not one yourself? Penitence, humility. I will troll for you.
How grandiloquent!
As usually, we disagree about Mercosur...
I see the current situation as a Brazilian-Argentinean “united front” symbiosis (Bad Cop/Good Cop) to achieve our common political social and economical objectives..
The Neo-Cons as yourself... kicking, biting and spitting against, as usual...
About the Malvinas Issue……
We are not attempting to take England down!
We couldn't achieve that…...... Not in 100 years…
But we can strive to increase the current *P.K.C. of £50,000 ten-fold, hundred-fold, thousand-fold or even more....
*(Per Kelper Cost)
We can make life in them Islands so dull for that highly educated, English passport bearing, new squatter generation that they may decide to move on….
We can plenty of things, Geoff.
£50,000 is cheap. In the end, appeasement costs more.
Of course your new PKC..will reduce to zero come about 2020, and indeed probably start running in credit by mid 2020s...even if you could double it LOL...I'd try a new tack as trying to compete with an oil-rich Falklands on a per capita basis will make you look even more stupid than you do already.
Lets see...80,000 barrels per day from Sealion @$100 per barrel is $8m a day. FIG get roughly 1/3 of that...I make that roughly £250,000 PKR (per kelper return), just from Sealion.
You can make life on the islands dull for these oil-rich millionaires...PMSL...good luck
Think, you are all hat and no cattle. All Argentina is doing is shooting itself in the foot, self harming by missing out on lucrative oil industry support business. If Argentina wishes to do that, so what, the economics of Falklands Oil and Gas makes it all very affordable for the Falklands and will pay for even stronger defence force. Argentina has been well and truly Falked, economically and politically. Slither out of that....
What do you make of this, Your Holiness? (as in bucket)
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/argentinian-founding-father-genocide-row
piss in the ocean think,at least the Falklanders are British
Billions in foreign aid to go through British companies
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9919320/Billions-in-foreign-aid-to-go-through-British-companies.html
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3713384.ece
'The head of the Catholic Church of the Falklands hopes that Bergoglio make something in the conflict - It held that there was “fast” Pope. He said he hoped to do something for the conflict of sovereignty “powered” by “political ideology”.
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3713384.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_03_14
'Pope Francis' outdated view on the Falklands is exactly why the islanders voted to stay British - Rob Burnett, who was brought up in the Falklands and now works for the Daily Mirror, says the Pontiff needs to recognise the islanders' democratic rights'
www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/pope-francis-outdated-view-falklands-1763015
'Falkland Islanders greet election of Argentine as Pope Francis I with surprise - As parishioners readied themselves to file into St Mary's Catholic Church in Stanley this morning for a special service of thanksgiving, no-one was more surprised to find themselves waking up under a Argentinian pope than the Falkland Islands' senior priest....'
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/falkland-islanders-greet-election-of-argentine-as-pope-francis-i-with-surprise-8533715.html
'The head of the Catholic Church of the Falklands hopes that Bergoglio make something in the conflict - It held that there was “fast” Pope. He said he hoped to do something for the conflict of sovereignty “powered” by “political ideology”...
www.clarin.com/mundo/Iglesia-Catolica-Malvinas-Bergoglio-conflicto_0_881912064.html
Here's a few example why and one reports from your Iranian froends so it must be true
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgImXt93o5Y
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRA1wIcCZ3Y
You call the USA hypocrites......look in the mirror when you the pot calls the kettle black.
“Argentina has taken the £452million from an international aid fund heavily-backed by Britain. Over the last 12 years, we have contributed £4.66BILLION to the fund.”
'Argentina wants Pope to fight for Falklands - The President of Argentina has dropped a heavy hint that she wants to exploit the appointment of her country’s first Pope to push forward its claim to the Falkland Islands....'
A big hint
CFK hopes Francis 'will send a message to the great powers'
www.buenosairesherald.com/article/126307/cfk-hopes-francis-will-send-a-message-to-the-great-powers
January 2013 South Georgia News and Events:
- Further Protection In Marine Protected Areas
- Reindeer Eradication
- Commissioner’s Visit
- Fishing And Shipping News
- Director Of Fisheries Decision Upheld By Court
- Rodent Eradication Getting Underway Again
- Hazard Forecasting
- Rich Life Even In Glaciers
- Bird Island Diary
- South Georgia Snippets
- Dates For You Diary
www.sgisland.gs/index.php/(h)South_Georgia_News_and_Events
www.sgisland.gs
So on the one hand here's Argentina asking the Pope to intervene in favour of dialogue, and on the other convening an extraordinary session of two houses of congress to declare they're not listening.
Apparently the new pope dislikes CFK as much as we do
lmfao - Argentina are hiring somebody to represent them then?
lolol, when has CFK been anything other than the opposite of calm, serene or diplomatic?
Timmerman..? Castro..?
Not a diplomat or calm, serene gene to be found amongst any of them.
Priceless faux pas there Thinkerino! ;-0
I don't hate her for wearing black or trying for 'eternal youth'.
I don't even hate her for all the disasterous things that are happening to Argentina on her watch.
I do have, however, an immense sadness for the Argentinian people who (in my opinion) mistakenly believe that she is the best that Argentina can produce in the way of leadership.
But it may well be that she IS the best that Argentina can produce ... and how sad is that!
She never gets it right, does she.
Mr. Hague, two things:
1) Argentina seeks only a resolution of the dispute over the sovereignty of the islands.
2) The wishes of the islanders are not to be taken in to account as per Resolution 2065 (XX) Question of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas (1965).
Only their interests.
short answers:
1) tosh
2) tosh
There's the rub
No new trains, no new sewage/water treatment/no new hwys, bridges, Dams...and on and on until all infrastructure construction is ground to a halt.
Then we have WB, “poverty reduction” which pays for the Jefe and Jefa payments AND the child allowance. Poof Gone too
Do you think CFK is so mad over Vale because she was counting on the U$ BILLIONS to help with the imbalance of trade?
How does one make up that much when you can't print it?
Hmm do you think they'll restrict all medicines or just stick with HIV, Cancer and Diabetes to kill off the people draining the “free healthcare” system.
Rut ro
The resolution to the dispute was settled once and for all in 1982 when Argentina invaded a peaceful community yet still ignored United Nations resolution 502,they were removed END OF STORY.
1) your country, in violation of binding UNSC and nonbinding UNGA resolutions, illegally invaded and imposed military dictatorship complete with secret police, illegal imprisonment of an entire civilian population and much more. Your actions permanently alienated the local population and you lost all moral sovereignty rights just as the Germany forfeited all rights to East Prussia in perpetuity.
2) There is NO such explicit verbiage in nonbinding resolution 2065 (which your country callously threw out in 1982, see item 1). The interests and rights of the islanders must be taken into account -- unless you think that holding a gun to a civilian's head is in their “interests” as you did in 1982 and recently celebrated it with coinage. Self detrmination is a fundemental right overarching all aspects of the UN. 2065, C24 and the rest of the UN can no more override it than your fascist 80s fashion icon, Galtierri, tried. The Islanders have repeatedly demonstrated that they are capable in expressing self-termination in international forums and in this referendum. They said no in a vote so overwhelming that it was clearly unnecessary if it weren't for fascist nostalgists and neocolonialists in Argentina such as yourself.
What part of “no” don't you understand?
Please, 'redouble' their efforts? There is nothing more argentina can peacfully do now, exept make noise.
“demonstrated that they are capable in expressing self-termination in international forums”
I think you meant self-determination :)
The UK Government shouldn't waste any more time on Argentina, they used to be a threat but now barely even a minor irritation.
All the verbal garbage that the Campora bunch post up here changes...... nothing. at. all.
That is all ;-)
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9930327/Argentinas-Cristina-Kirchner-suggests-Pope-Francis-could-mediate-over-Falklands.html
'Pope Francis appointment gives Argentina hope in Falklands dispute - Former archbishop of Buenos Aires previously said islands were 'usurped' by Britain, but experts say he will remain neutral'
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/14/pope-francis-argentina-falklands-dispute
'Falklands: British media urges the Pope to intercede on behalf of London
The British press left aside criticism of Argentina over the Falkland Islands and greeted the new pope Francisco, the first High Priest of the Americas.'
www.ambito.com/noticia.asp?id=679754
'A Galician lives in the Falklands and voted in the referendum'
noticias.terra.com.co/internacional/un-gallego-vive-en-las-malvinas-y-voto-en-el-referendo,6f8e03c5cb56d310VgnCLD2000000ec6eb0aRCRD.html
'The referendum is one “ridiculous, the Malvinas are Argentine, ” says Correa'
www.diariolasamericas.com/noticia/154027/32/el-referendo-es-una-ridiculez-las-malvinas-son-argentinas-dice-correa
Gotta love it :)
Not true.
China now lends more money to LATAM than the IMF and IDB combined. Argentina being a major recipient.
There is a new paymaster in town now.
I can almost assure you that they are not loaning for poverty reduction.
The UK is globally the largest recipient of China Development Bank loans ($3000 million) so you might be eating “noodles and chicken feet....” before me.
I thought Argentina defaulted on loans and was basically a pariah state in respects to the international money markets, but expect the rest of the world is wrong and the trolls will now spout their scripted propaganda.
The truth will out
For your perusal:
blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/05/18/quantifying-chinas-presence-in-latam/#axzz2NXwGPcYr
www.marketwatch.com/story/chinese-to-continue-argentina-investment-wave-2011-09-17
It's complex.
Prove your bollocks with a definitive link of STFU.
As usual you have misinterpreted things: mainly loans by the CDB to companies as sovereign loans to the country of the company; they are not.
The only sovereign loans I could find are to the African States.
They are making big loans to housing associations in San Francisco, USA, but they are not aligned with any sovereign entity as far as I can determine.
I cannot find ANY CDB loans to any western government, including the UK.
Bet you can't answer this other than changing the subject.
(The self-termination and self-dectructive behavior however seems to be the Argentine position in this situation, Timerman's London visit alone was just painful to watch).
who says so,
you speak big words, but will you , can you back those words up with action if they don’t stop,
for it seems very few others back you,
so we must back it up ourselves.
Poor CFK close, but not close enough.lol.
.
and
BTW cleaning the Riachelou and buying the railway equipment was supposed to be financed with IDB money that Argentina will never ever see.
You are grossly misinformed as usual, maybe misinformed is really just dumb. One wonders.
interesting read, slightly off topic but doesn't stop our many troll friends posting obscure threads
You see? For KFC this is now a religous crusade. She has got a local lad in the Vatican and he is God's right hand man on Earth. Now, when things are going badly for her, she just needs to pick up the hot line to him and dial-a-prayer.
If the British don't play things her way then she will get her home boy in the V to have us all smited!!!
Look out Falklands!! KFC is coming!! and God is her co-pilot!!!
And probably more,
Just make these argie troll hypercrits does it not.
.
Like I said “Nothing to say”
103 physiwg
UK debt is the biggest in the world you say? What?? bigger than the US debt?? wow!!! Tell you what try engaging your brain next time. just spouting c**p like that makes everyone think you're a retard.
104 Pesky Army
It's no good just making noise petal. You have to actually say something.
I know, I know!!! but I can play with the troll for a while can't I???
I promise to put it back when I'm finished............
www.economist.com/news/americas/21573581-islanders-seek-sway-world-opinion-voting-stay-british-loud-and-clear
'Will an Argentine Pope raise hell over the Falklands?' www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2013/03/14/will-an-argentine-pope-raise-hell-over-the-falklands
“Faz smocking crack is no good for your brains”
Yeah, Faz is making no sense at all, where as you are a regular William Shakespeare arn't you????????
Clown
In that case, what's your Gollumesque Foreign Minister so scared of?
I do agree we are a lapdog of US, but are you not a little jealous of our mighty nuclear submarines. Don't think we have an American captain on the submerged vessels whilst continuously at sea, most of the time submerged, unless they have a big red auto destruct button like in the movies!!!
“China now lends more money to LATAM than the IMF and IDB combined. Argentina being a major recipient.
There is a new paymaster in town now.”
Interesting that you used the term PAYMASTER. Also interesting that you used a FT Beyond Brics Blog post to back it up.
I found this recent article by the FT much much more interesting:
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/562692b0-898c-11e2-ad3f-00144feabdc0.html
Written by Lamido Sanusi, the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Some of my favourite quotes are:
“The British went to Africa and India to secure raw materials and markets. Africa is now willingly opening itself up to a new form of imperialism.”
“China is…. capable of the same forms of exploitation as the west.”
“[China] is a significant contributor to Africa's deindustrialisation and underdevelopment.”
So now Argentina is becoming a colony of China! Congratulations. You must be so proud.
After all the whinging and whining and castigation of the UK acting like an Empire and South America needing to rid itself of any colonial relics….. along comes a new “paymaster”.
Congatulations:
Falkland Islands - British Overseas Territory in name
Falkland Islands - British Overseas Territory in reality.
Argentina - Republic in name.
Argentina - Chinese Colony in reality.
At least they'll get their $ without a decade in courts.
Psst...they don't care about the rule of law either.
C.R.U.S.H.
just ask Africa, the rest of the Axis of South America and don't forget Iran.
one in the hand equals two of the wrist,
is this not your line.
poor microlight.
“Since the UK has significantly Interests in the region, with high potential for future Economic Growth,” That I am confident this partnership and cooperation Increased With The Countries of Latin America is consistent with Our desire to Ensure That the Interests and wishes of the Falkland Islanders are respected and protected “.
Yes! Mr. William, understand exactly what he meant, scoundrel: ”We organize our theater (referendum) to give a veneer of legality to our presence there given that which is absolutely unjustified in the eyes of the whole world, especially Latin America.” Speak clearly, secretary.
In the last year our exports with Brazil, Mexico and Colombia is doing good UK exports to these countries have increased by 15%, 11% and 30% respectively
Just done a big deal with Brazil,
Yep we don’t do to badly, and we intend to do more trade,
Says our government,
Do doubt , CFK and her new halo, will try the spanner in the works.job..
.
I always wanted to have a chat with a friendly person from the islands, I always wanted to know what is like to live the in the islands, understand the culture and so on.
The few things I know is due to the few information we have from our media.
I am Argentinian, that is why I would like to talk with a friendly person without any prejudices.
navaltoday.com/2013/03/12/new-brazilian-navy-ship-departs-uk/
“The wishes of the islanders are not to be taken in to account ... Only their interests”
Answer me this:
If they were to become an Argentine colony, how are their interests taken in to account when they have overwhelmingly decided to stay a British Overseas Territory?
”The UK is globally the largest recipient of China Development Bank loans ($3000 million)”
$3000 million may sound like a lot to you, but it is only three billion dollars or two billion punds - a days spending.
www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2013/03/201331313434142322.html
How could it possibly be in the best interests of ANYONE to live under the control of a country that inflicts such suffering on the most vulnerable members of it's population?
For that we receive a constant harvest of agentine tears of impotant rage.
Delicous wirg chicken:)
Well spotted.
So here it is again for Argentine Posters:
www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2013/03/201331313434142322.html
Argentine birth defects, number 1 killer of children under 1 year old in Cordoba region. 100 times national miscarriage rate in village 'Malvinas Argentinas'... argentine posters, you guys should be worrying about your poisoned homeland instread of trying to steel someone elses.
www.lanacion.com.ar/1563296-los-militares-britanicos-clave-en-el-desarrollo-economico-de-malvinas
'Argentina urges Pope to help win back Falklands
CONTROVERSY hit the new Pope yesterday as it emerged he had described Britain as “usurpers” in the Falkland Islands.'
www.express.co.uk/news/world/384385/Argentina-urges-Pope-to-help-win-back-Falklands
'Obama ‘loyalty’ criticised'
www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=28450
That in some way explains why I'm not a catholic.
2) The wishes of the islanders are not to be taken in to account
Only their interests,
We promise , we swear , says CFK,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
OK
Falklanders what is your interests,
Our interests are to live in peace and remain British.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CFK
No we don’t accept that, we wont accept that,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
But you promised , you swore you would put our interests first,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CFK
Fxck off, if your interests are not argentine, then you have no interests and thus we don’t have to promise nothing,
Would you trust the promises of an ally cat..lol.
.
What conflict? The one with TMBOA screaming lies to any poor foreigner who will listen to the shit?
That's not a conflict! If TMBOA ever tries another 'landing' on the Islands then that will be a real conflict but it won't last very long.
We will kick your arses to death BEFORE you even get anywhere near them AND then we will obliterate most of your governmental infrastructure to ensure it will take generations before you pester the Islands again.
No conflict there then.
So I give up, which conflict were you talking about?
Can't see any conflict or invasion in that. Simply an act of reaffirming sovereignty.
Arrogantina occupied the islands in 1982 and were removed in pieces.
It has to be hard living in other land and finding that the world consider UK and OLD EMPIRE. I am glad you have this forum as SUPPORT GROUP. I think
you should have a referendum and VOTE for continuing to Be
SECOND CLASS CITIZEN IN THE WEB. You can even consider the
the WEB as your EXTENDED TERRITORY , TOO.
After all, you invented it as Football, Tennis, the Tea, etc. EVERYTHING
THANK YOU FOR SHARING !!
Who's winning?
@138 You seem smart, so tell me in your opinion what’s the solution to the conflict?
Well im not smart, just a genius .lol.
Ok,my opinion,
First of there is no conflict, the islands are British, and the inhabitants wish to remain British, [and you know this full well]
You have no claim whatsoever, [and you know it]
Everything you accuse us of, is a mirror translation of Argentina in part,
[as you well know
Argentine illegally invaded a tiny innocent unarmed peoples for no other reason than distraction from home problems, and thus directly responsible for the deaths of over 700 innocent people,
This in turn killed of any and all false claims,
The fact is, and has been proven many times,
Argentina /CFK has no interest in the islands, or the people on them,
Both could disappear under the sea tomorrow, and you would not miss them,
You are, and we all know it,
Just interested in what is under and around the islands, [OIL] and [MINERALS]
Worth billions, and Argentina is billions in debt,
You work it out,
So what can be done,,,,
1, argentina recognise British sovereignty
2, agree to leave them in peace forever
3, change your bad attitude to the islands
4, try to become more friendly
5, let this be your rod on your back, for say the next 20/30 years,
And then come back and ask the same question,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Argentina is ten time the size of us and fifty time the Falklands, argentina has great wealth of her own, oil and minerals, vast open plains, argentina could well and truly be one of the big 10, instead of the bottom ones,
You have everything, but to put it simply,
Your government is to lazy, corrupt, and greedy to explore, find , and extract all these riches, instead all CFK wants is to steal from others like the Falklands..
Just my opinion,
And no argentine was hurt or insulted in making this point.
....
1, argentina recognise British sovereignty
2, agree to leave them in peace forever
3, change your bad attitude to the islands
4, try to become more friendly
5, let this be your rod on your back, for say the next 20/30 years,
And then come back and ask the same question,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Argentina is ten time the size of us and fifty time the Falklands, argentina has great wealth of her own, oil and minerals, vast open plains, argentina could well and truly be one of the big 10, instead of the bottom ones,
You have everything, but to put it simply,
Your government is to lazy, corrupt, and greedy to explore, find , and extract all these riches, instead all CFK wants is to steal from others like the Falklands..
Yes, Yes, Yes, to all my Darling I love the wig you wear for me tonight.
Hey Prat, been in hiding from the Canadian authorities who want to get hold of you for all the bad mouthing of the peace loving legally abiding people in the Falklands?
I think castration might be in order but I seriously doubt if they could find any balls on you.
Still after the nuclear weapons 100% argie shit made then I suppose.
I have to admit to missing your posts, they are SO funny.
Keep up the crap work! Oh sorry, you don't work do you?
Thank you for your polite repply. Now, and briefly because I don´t have much time.
Regarding our claims no one here can explain the 1825 treaty and the 1776-1833 gap.
Furthermore, regarding Britain´s sovereignty, please read a letter dated in 1829 which belonged to the Duke of Wellington
www.archives.soton.ac.uk/wellington/results.php?count=2
DOC REF=WP1/1036/14
“I have perused the inclosed papers respecting Falklands Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Enmont [Port Egmont] which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.
If our right to the Falkland Islands had been undisputed at that time and indisputable, I confess that I should doubt the expediency of now taking possession of them. We have possession of nearly [f.1v] every valuable post and colony in the world and I confess that I am anxious to avoid to excite the attention and jealousy of other powers by extending our possessions and setting the example of the gratification of a desire to seize upon new territories. But in this case in which our right to possess more than Port Enmont is disputed, and at least doubtful, it is very desireable to avoid such acts.”...
1, argentina recognise British sovereignty (Not According to Wellington)
2, agree to leave them in peace forever (No problem with the people)
3, change your bad attitude to the islands (????)
4, try to become more friendly (You mean like in 1960's and 1970's..Sorry didn't work once)
5, let this be your rod on your back, for say the next 20/30 years,
And then come back and ask the same question, (I can tell you just the same)
Kind Regards
The nub of it, including the Argentine sources, fills almost 6 000 characters and thus needs 3 postings.
The Falkland Islands were ceded to Britain by Argentina in the 1850 peace treaty (“Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, …”). Signed in Buenos Aires 24 November 1849 and ratified 15 May 1850.
“VII. Under this convention perfect friendship between her Britannic Majesty’s government and the government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.”
2. Presidente de La Republica Argentina Bartolomé Mitre al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1865:
“there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those governments.”
3. Vicepresidente de la Republica Argentina Marcos Paz al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1866:
“The British Government ...for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled.”
4. Presidente de La Republica Domingo Faustino Sarmiento al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1869:
“The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.”
So: Only one dispute, British (merchant’s) losses. No dispute between Britain and Argentina over the Falklands.
Commencing 1833 and through December 1849, Buenos Aires regularly and officially protested British sovereignity in diplomatic letters and in the “Message to Congress”. When the peace treaty was ratified in 1850 the Argentine protests stopped.
The Southern/Arana Convention states the following:
Art. I. The Government of Her Britannic Majesty, animated by the desire of putting an end to the differences which have interrupted the political and commercial relations between the 2 countries, having on the 15th of July, 1847, raised the blockade which it had established of the ports of the 2 Republics of the Plata, thereby giving a proof of its conciliatory sentiments....
VII. Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.
It never mentions the islands simple because it clearly refers to the Anglo-French blockade (Art.I). This was conveniently forgotten by “Gettin-it right” (I assume you are just copying and pasting).
Art VII ....its former state of good understanding and cordiality, refers to the situation previous to the blockade not to 1833, since this was the reason the treaty was signed.
The citations you are quoting next have no legal value since though there was a dispute for the islands, the relationship between the two nations were very cordial.
“When the peace treaty was ratified in 1850 the Argentine protests stopped.” Not true, Gettin-it right mentions Ricardo´s Napp book but “again forgets” to quote p.450 p.451. It reads as follows:
“Pertenecen al territorio de la Patagonia las Islas Malvinas o Falckland, de que, contra todo derecho, esta posesionada la Inglaterra desde el año 1833… …El Gobierno Argentino tuvo que limitarse a una protesta en toda forma, entregada en el acto al representante ingles en Buenos Aires que, algunos meses después fue repetida en Londres ante el Gobierno Británico por el enviado Argentino, y por mas que este paso no haya producido consecuencias practicas, ha servido, sin embargo, para resguardar nuestro buen derecho......
Now the question is can you challenge Wellington´s handwritten letter?
“Now the question is can you challenge Wellington´s handwritten letter?”
Yes, and I bid a T45 and a nuclear armed sub.
Game, set and match to us over the cinder-block that would be argieland?
See, you have me behaving just like an argie!
LMFAO
Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause - Victor Hugo
Nobody is disputing very much of the history before 1811.
Who spotted the islands first, whether the British knew the French were already there, the Spanish-British disagreements, Papal Bulls etc...all very interesting but not especially relevant.
As of 1811 the islands were vacant. The Spanish and British both left “historic claims”, which in my view are valueless without a population to back it up.
Argentina “claims” title was passed from the Spanish, through the Viceroy, through the United Provinces to Argentina. Again, without a civilian population, it's a bit academic, and no more relevant than Britain claiming its title remained during the period of vacancy.
This ambiguity led to Vernet requesting permission from both London and BA for his business. He knew even in the 1820s it was unclear who sovereignty resided with.
In November 1832, the UP attempted to usurp, (steal pirates jajajajajaj) the islands, and ignore the British historic claim. This was the 19th century colonialism, this was the crime. Just as in 1982, they didn't expect a British response.
Once they'd completed their murdering and raping, these attempted thieves, we're removed peacefully from the islands. if in 1832 the UP were prepared to usurp, steal and ignore historic claims...why shouldn't Britain???
So, Britain responded peacefully to UP piracy in 1832.
The islanders now own the islands....and 1982 FOREVER removed any sympathy anybody should have with the Argentine claim.
game over
....“As of 1811 the islands were vacant.” And since even Wellington admits Britain had no rights, except and maybe he remarks only to P. Egmont... you just proved me right ;
As Monkey says, this is all very interesting but irrelevent. Maybe we should just call it (re)conquest and done with it (although if it is conquest it is the most reasonable and gentle that I have encountered). The UK and Argentina settled their differences in 1850 (irrespective of what some observers have stated). The lack of protest letters and the Latzina Maps seem to confirm that this is the situation and so this is a very strong case for prescription (and this is the main tenet on which the UK bases its claim). This is why Argentina won't go to the ICJ - it knows it will lose. The same maps were invoked by Chile in the Beagle Channel dispute in their ICJ case so a legal precedent has already been set.
if CFK feels so strongly, and thinks she has a cast iron case,
then why not stop all this and take the british to the ICJ,
and end it once and for all.
The peace treaty never mentions the islands simple because there were no longer a dispute.
“I assume you are just copying and pasting”
In which case you are wrong - didn't you notice that I wrote “including the Argentine sources” and used the headlines of the 'State of the nation' speeches - the Argentine sources take a lot of space.
“The citations you are quoting next have no legal value since though there was a dispute for the islands, the relationship between the two nations were very cordial.”
As vice president Argentina Marcos Paz said in his 'State of the nation' speech 1866, under Relaciones Exteriores:
“El Gobierno de S. M. B. concurrió igualmente al mismo designio aunque sin el éxito deseado, como lo he referido en otra parte. Este mismo gobierno aceptó por árbitro al Presidente de la República de Chile, sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.”
la única - can you make that into two?
The UK probably saw it as an opportunity to lose a remote “colony” (as it was then). Unfortunately the 82 invasion put the Falklands and its people on the map and turned it into a cause celebre for freedom and self determination
Of the six attempts of mediation to which you allude, please can you name them (dates, times etc). Were any of these the ICJ in specific relation to The Falklands? If not, why not?
the-hug.org/paul/falkland.html
The last quotation is pure gold...
As for Wilson, whatever he was is not Argentina´s problem, after all we don´t blame the UK for CFK do we?
And that was the evidence, was it?
Some out of context memo's from the early 1900's published by a wacko who can't make it in the real world, so now he's attempting a server farm, and he has two servers?
I think we should hand over the Falklands and the whole of the UK on this evidence.
I have seen some stupid fcukers on here but you most certainly take the number one position, and think of the other argie prats you have beaten!
LMFAO
I wonder what life would have been like if you had had enough oxygen at birth....
I beg you, don´t hit me with your purse
ROFLMAO
I don't know how this works in Argentina, but typically in the UK it's not assistant librarians who decide matters of international law or strategy. All you've got here in fact is some out of context references to one side of a debate. You can find plenty of conteary opinions on the other side if you look. What you seem to be missing is that a perfectly normal process in a society where policy emerges from debate, rather than the current caudillo's electrodes.
You're also the victim of a further logical fallacy, in that you seem to believe that any weakness you think you can identify in the UK's position automatically translates into a strength in the Argentine one. But the fact remains that the Argentine claim is based on the notion of a colonial inheritance that was never left you. This would still be weak as water, even if it turned out that your 1833 rapists and murderers had really been expelled by aliens from outer space who took a wrong turning at the Lines of Nazca, rather than a British law enforcement operation.
Since Foreign officer are assistant librarians, we should go and look for bakers and butchers, surely they are more qualified in this matter
Was Harold Wilson an ¨assistant librarian¨?
Where did I mention colonial inheritance?
Why do you people hate aussies so much? I've always thought they were just like you...
Harold Wilson was one of many politicians who would have been perfectly happy to transfer the Falklands for reasons of expediency. It doesn't mean they ever accepted the validity of the Argentine claim. This kind of reasoning is however no longer feasible since the small matter of the 1982 invasion.
“This kind of reasoning is however no longer feasible since the small matter of the 1982 invasion”...
So this leads us to...
There is a certain futility in interposing the lean and ascetic visage of the law in a situation which, first to last, is merely a question of power.’ J Goebel The struggle of the Falkland Islands 1927.
If you didn't want it resolved by power, you maybe shouldn't have started awar over it. But you're missing something again. It's not a question of power, it's a question of political constraints. Your governments have been so inept they couldn't even negotiate a deal when UK governments wanted to give you the islands. You chose to invade instead, and 1000 people got killed. The consequence of this is that no british government, even if one wanted to, could possibly attempt to transfer sovereignity to you and survive. But you're too dumb even to recognize that what has cost you the Malvinas is the Malvinistas. Ironic, isn't it?
It's not a question of power you say but yet you have refused to sit down and negotiate for almost 200 years (Wilson the exception maybe). Anyway I don't expect you to understand that.
PS Never say never...Allegedly no British government was ever going to sit down with the IRA. Ironic isn't it?...but of course you people are too dumb to realize that.
if the quotations in had not been taken out of context, you would have known, that they are all based on reading ONE secondary source, namely a memorandum written by Gaston de Bernhardt (F.O. 881/9755), an assistant clerk In The Librarian's Department in 1910, a memo based on whichever sources he used more than a one hundred years ago.
One more quote, which tells it all:
“If you carefully read **the memorandum of December 1910**, surely must have realized that Argentina's attitude is not ridiculous or childish. I had assumed that our right to the Malvinas Islands was irrefutable. This is far from being the case”, Sir Malcolm Robertson, ambassador to Argentina, 1927
The Uk only attempted to negotiate in the 40s, 50s, 60s,70s, and 80s. In he 90s Argentina inilaterally repudiated the agreements that had arisen from post-war negotiations. The only thing that prevents negotiations now is that Argentina has somehow got it into its head that it is entitledto determine the participants, timetable, outcome, and course of these “negotiations”. Thus demonstrating an inability to grasp elementary vocabulary and semantics.
Are you telling me that a librarian who actually worked for the Foreign Office intentionally misquoted 6 foreign office servants, to give Argentina a claim?
What about these:
V. A. Mallet, , 1929 [F. O. 371/12735] -
J. M. Vyvyan, 1935
Memorándum Fitzmaurice G. H. 1936. [F. O. 371/ 19763; A. 1140/889/2]
Memorándum William Beckett; ” [F. O. 371/17111; A. S. 5728/311/2])
how could de Bernard possibly misquote them when he wrote in 1910?
They all used his memorandum as the basis for their statements.
One source (1910), many quotes based on it.
You need to do some research.
So. what?
By the way,
A referendum is supposed democratic, right ? People voted and chose to be Servants and second class citizen instead of Argentinian . Argentina does not argue about that point. neither
They want to be British . Is OK too. Hey, nobody is perfect....
Argentina allows them to live and die there....
They want to have that flag with the 1800's Pirates, is OK too. In America we allow Southerns to have the flag of the civil war, standing in the front of their homes.
But, Argentina does not have any territory to donate to then, neither is and ” over sea territory from nobody more than Argentina. YEP.
LOL, Hague: please stop lying to everybody, even to the same british people. How can you show Argentina as a threaten when the one bringing the army to the table is this British Conservatory Government?
Hague: The world needs more people that stands in front of people like you and say: “wait a moment, NO, you are not working for peace, you are not working for justice, you are not working for the good of humanity. Get out of the Institutions and let these seats for somebody that work for the good of people, be it british, argentine or any people, nobody really wants war”
Hague: “The UK has privileges at the UN Security Council and an army that is by far larger than Argentine one, the difference in power is too LARGE that lies like yours can only be imposed by a corporate media that has carnal relationships with a conservatory government like yours and that has relationships with the Corporations and lazy contaminating companies that enjoy the Economic and Geopolitic benefits of keeping a military base in Malvinas.”
Argentine protests:
There were two kinds of protests: A brief protest was made in the “Message to Congress” 'State of the union' speech every year from 1833 to 1849 inclusive and three campaigns by diplomatic letters, with some gaps of several years between them, in 1833-34, 1841-42 and in December 1849. All the protests by letter are printed in full in Alfredo Becerra: “Protestas por Malvinas, 1833-1946”, (301 pages), ISBN-13: 978-9879998922, Caja Editora, Buenos Aires, June 1998. (A brief list of the 81 documents in the book: www.angelfire.com/ab/cajaedit/kjimalvin.html ) which also includes British protests.
After the above peace treaty of 1850 was ratified, the Argentine protests ceased. The Falkland Islands were not mentioned again in the Messages to Congress before 1941. The Messages to Congress were official addresses at the highest level, made each year at the ceremonial opening of the Argentine Congress. They were of international significance, because they were made in a top-level diplomatic forum that among other subjects dealt in detail with Argentina’s territorial disputes with other countries (e.g. Chile, Paraguay and Brasil), but the Falkland Islands were no longer mentioned after May 1849.
Foreign diplomats attended, international affairs were treated in detail, and the addresses were published, not only in Argentina but in other countries including Britain (in English translation) in the volumes of “British and Foreign State Papers” during the 1830s and 1840s, and all of the Messages, dated 1810 to 1910 inclusive, were reprinted in full in Spanish in “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, by Heraclio Mabragaña, “Los Mensajes 1810-1910”, Buenos Aires 1910.
.
BTW: “Now the question is can you challenge Wellington´s handwritten letter?”
I simply quote your remark, with which you reject the 'State of the nation' speeches of two Argentine presidents and a vice president: “The citations you are quoting next have no legal value”.
You fail to acknowledge the obvious:
The speeches you are mentioning have been challenged by the sayings and actions of bothThe Foreign Office and a Prime Minister of the UK…
Since De Bernhardt´s memorandum was written in 1910, and was being used by the FO until 1936, please explain me the following:
1) No one in the FO EVER questioned the veracity of this Memorandum during these 26 years? Not even one them tried to prove the memorandum wrong? (Although what is written in it is confirmed by British historians Belsham, Miller, Coote, Hughes & Wade )
2) The Southern-Arana Treaty is hardly a secret pact, why wasn´t it mentioned as an irrefutable proof during all those years?
3) The Foreign Office file :“Proposed offer by Her Majesty's Government to reunite Falkland Islands with Argentina and acceptance of lease” from 1940 (HC Deb 23 January 1984 vol. 52 cc392-4W)
4) Why did Wilson begin negotiations? The memorandum was no longer “officially “in use, and yet negotiations took place. Why? Had Argentina claimed the Isle of Wight, would have Wilson negotiated? The FO experts who advised Wilson were using which documents to advise him for or against negotiations?
5) Another poster pointed out that the librarian was a whacko, was Wilson a whacko too? Were all FO officials from the 1910-1974 period whackos?
In any case that´s not Argentina´s problem.
PS: Regarding the “lack of protests” you have mentioned, what about the 60 years gap? Are you telling me that this works only one way? Please explain.
2. You are asking me to tell you how other people think - my cystal ball is still broken. There are several other arguments in favor of the British positions, which have not been put forward by the FCO. Sometimes they appear to be not the brightest lot.
Why doesn't Argentina claim the Isle of Wight? after all, the Spanish Armada was close to it in 1588.
Argentina claims to be the sole heir to the Falkland Islands, although The Viceroyalty of La Plata consisted of Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay, parts of Brasil and about one third of what is today Argentina. Uruguay probably has a better claim of the islands, as the last Spanish governor was in Montevideo.
3. You may not be aware of it, but at that time the UK was involved in a war, which threatened its survival. Sorting out minor poblems may have seemed a good idea under the circumstances.
4. You are asking me to tell you how other people think. Wilson had more important problems, so it was probably tempting to clear a minor one.
5. I cannot answer for what other poster write. I doubt Gaston de Bernhardt was a wacko, but his task may have been to point to weak points in the British position, similar to Ronald Campbell who issued a document resuming the previous work, playing 'The Devil's Advocate'.
6. What gap?
The 1771 declarations states that the mutual claims “cannot, nor ought any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.” Both Spain and britain reserved their claims. Nothing to protest.
Britain protested the Buenos Ayres occupation in 1829 and the Argentine map whach was to show the Falkland Islands as part of Argentina in 1884.
“Protestas por Malvinas” #9. Protesta británica. De Parish a Guido. 19 de noviembre de 1829. and #27. Protesta por un mapa. De Monson a Ortiz. 15 de diciembre de 1884.
'In December 1927, British Foreign Secretary, Sir Austin Chamberlain has a meeting with Argentina’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Angel Gallardo, in which the Minister says that, “ .. he had been looking into the question of the Falkland Islands, and had come to the conclusion that (the British) position and claim were exceedingly strong.'
falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1900-1965/
'Sir Anthony Eden’s confidential note to Ambassador Henderson of August 28, 1936. P.R.O. / F.O. 371/10763 (A 6461/889/2). “In the first place, 100 years’ possession, whether disputed or not, should found a perfectly sound title to sovereignty over the islands in international law, and there should be very little danger of such a title failing of recognition by the Permanent Court of International Justice or an international tribunal. Meanwhile, each year that passes, and in addition the celebration of the centenary of British occupation, strengthen His Majesty’s Government’s case. At the same time, there is reason to doubt whether, in fact, Argentina ever had any grounds of claim to the islands at all. '
parlamentario.com/bank/uploads/The%20Question%20of%20Malvinas%20and%20the%20Bicentennial.pdf
Note that last sentence in particular.
And why the focus on Wilson? Virtually every post-war British government would have been quite happy to reach an accommodation with Argentina. The Thatcher government in particular was pursuing a potential leaseback arrangement until shortly before the 1982 war. None of this implies any acceptance of the Argentine claim at all. The fact that party A sells, cedes, gives, or otherwise transfers a possession to party B does not, under normal rules of logic, mean party B owned it in the first place.
You want us to hand them to you.
Whats in it for the British Goverment?
1) I know that you don't have a crystal ball, I was merely asking rhetorical questions. The point is, if your right is so irrefutable why so many doubts? Does this make any sense?
2) Ditto. “There are several other arguments in favor of the British positions, which have not been put forward by the FO” care to explain which arguments are those?
“Why doesn't Argentina claim the Isle of Wight? after all, the Spanish Armada was close to it in 1588.” ???????? I was simply asking if Argentina starts claiming rights to the Isle of Wight would the FO or a PM even consider the possibility of negotiations?
“Argentina claims to be the sole heir to the Falkland Islands, although The Viceroyalty of La Plata” ...You went back a few years, but to answer your question Montevideo became capital of the latter only after 1811.
3) Yes I am aware of it since family members took part in it. Anyway this FO file (1940) raises another interesting question. Allegedly Argentina remained “silent” about the Islands until 1941. Are you telling me that the FO indeed could foresee the future?
4) Maybe, but I must ask you again the same question: if Argentina starts claiming rights to the Isle of Wight would the FO or a PM even consider the possibility of negotiations?
5) Maybe yes or maybe not.
6) Which gap?, please reread Wellington´s letter. Since you evacuated P.Egmont in 1764 and did not return until 1833, that´s a 57 years gap.
Regarding 1771 (keeping in mind Wellington´s letter) please read the following:
-Correspondence of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham.” - Vol. IV – 1840 - pag. 28, 47, 57, 68, 71, 77, 87
-Tratado Masserano - “Tratados de Paz y Comercio”– Madrid – 1843 - pag. 519
-“Junius”; Vol. I,
London – 1850/ Letter XLII, 30 January, p.319
-“The Life of Augustus, Viscount Keppel” Admiral of the White, and First Lord of the Admiralty in 1782-3, Vol I, London, 1842, p.408
Me bad :( Since you evacuated P.Egmont in 1774 and did not return until 1833 that´s a 59 years gap. Sorry for that.
I agree that are quotations but your 1927 one was challenged by
John Vyvyan, 1935, George Fitzmaurice 1936 and John Troutbeck 1936.
Regarding Anthony Eden´s note of 1936, please explain me the FO file of 1940 and the next years “attempt” of negotiatons. Pretty much a contradiction.
“The fact that party A sells, cedes, gives, or otherwise transfers a possession to party B does not, under normal rules of logic, mean party B owned it in the first place.”
Then explain me why would you do so? Would you negotiate the Channel Islands with us for example?
You're only confirming what I say : there was an assessment of policy during which various points of view were expressed by different people. This is normal. And what is more, a weakness identified in a British argument does not necessarily translate into a strength in the Argentine one. It can be argued, for example, that British abandonment in the late 1700's mean the Falklands were res nullius by the early 1800's. But this doesn't mean that they were Argentine territory either.
And even if those weak points taken into account, the British case remains far stronger than the Argentine one, based as that one is on an inheritance that was never left to you, an expulsion of civilians that never happened, and a legal principle that was only stated some years later, and never generally accepted anyway.
And in the meantime, the world has moved on, and new legal principles come into play. You Malvinistas need to take ALL of that into account, not just wave around some redundant memo from 100 years ago as if it was a smoking gun. It wasn't and isn't.
I really can't see either why you think any attempts at 'negotiation' amount to a contradiction. It's no secret that elements of the British government regarded the Falklands as a burden costing more than it was worth, and were prepared to make some kind of deal with Argentina to reduce that burden. This includes, notoriously, the Thatcher government pre-1982.
But this still doesn't imply any kind of admission that the islands should have been Argentine in the first place, it only means that Argentina was regarded as a potential counterparty to a deal.
As for the Channel Islands, it's true you have as much right to those as you do to the Falklands, but we have no interest in letting them go. Some Brits may have seen advantage in a Falklands deal pre-1982, but now Argentina by its continuing actions has made any such move politically impossible.
Or in short you blew it, and it's time you had a long rethink.
It can be argued, for example, that British abandonment in the late 1700's mean the Falklands were res nullius by the early 1800's....If you were not so sure why did britain evict argentinean settlers, claiming sovereignty?
As for the rest, not one straight answer.
You seem to be having some difficulties with reading comprehension.
I said “it can be argued”, as I believe Gaston de Bernhardt argued. Other people took a different view.
In any event 180 years later it makes very little difference one way or the other, except of course for the purposes of stoking your Cult of Victimhood. The British position remains that you attempted to implant a garrison where you had no right or business to do so. But even at the very, very worst possible interpretation of those events, all you can say is that there was a minor colonial skirmish, which you lost, and some territory was acquired from you in the same way you acquired most of yours.
As for the rest, I can appreciate you might not like the answers, but do pray tell where I've dodged the question. Please note however that repeating the same question a third time after I already answered it twice, doesn't count.
Did Wellington had reading comprehension problems too? Based on which claims Brits evicted people from the islands?
But even at the very, very worst possible interpretation of those events, all you can say is that there was a minor colonial skirmish, which you lost, and some territory was acquired from you in the same way you acquired most of yours.
At last something resembling the truth reaches the surface, and tell me since we never stop claiming them, when are you going to give them back?
I'm sure you could have them 'back' if you could prove they were ever yours. There's a thing called the International Court of Justice which I am sure would be happy to process your claim. Why don't you try there?
Alternatively, there is another really simple route to sovereignty. All you have to do is convince the islanders they'd be better with you. Why is that so hard?
But I suspect that you will do neither, and carry on like a character in a Greek tragedy, forever condemned by your own flaws to fail in your aims. Enjoy.
Pssst Hans
one more thing ICJ exits to solve problems with borders and frontiers not sovereignty. UN is the proper place. See ya
Oh dear, what a shame. You've blown it there too.
We both have an old friend called Resolution 2065 (XX). I hear he is always complaining you guys never stop by.
Speaking of never stopping by, I thought you'd left.
United Nations Resolution 2065, that's the one that recommends what virtually every British post-war British government had attempted to do with you,right up until you invalidated it by landing 8000 armed negotiators in 1982. That one?
And now you'd like to pretend that invasion never happened, or at least it wasn't you it was your evil twin brother, and it's terribly unjust you can't just go back to the status quo ante before the war you started, only 1000 dead after all, and you really do have the islanders' interests at heart although you also claim they don't exist and refuse to sit in a room with them, while attempting to convince the world that the UK refuses 'dialogue' with you.
But that must all be true because North Korea, Belarus, and Iran agree with you.
I'm sure that is news to all the sovereignty disputes ruled upon by the ICJ. after all what does a border or frontier signify except for the extent of a country's sovereignty.
“your 1927 one was challenged by John Vyvyan, 1935, George Fitzmaurice 1936 and John Troutbeck 1936.”
28 August 1936 Anthony Eden, the British Foreign Secretary, replies to the British Ambassador in Buenos Aires, Sir Neville Henderson:
”... you should be aware that the legal basis of the (British) claim is far less weak than at one time supposed...“ [1]
... ”there is reason to doubt whether, in fact, Argentina ever had any grounds of claim to the islands at all. In the diplomatic exchanges of 1833 the case would seem to have been argued upon the wrong grounds by both sides. It would seem that the events in the 18th century were irrelevant, that the islands had become completely unoccupied in 1811, and that they had to be considered at that time as ‘res nullius’ open to the occupation of any State. Further, unless the occupation of the privateer Vernet, whom the Argentine Government tried rather unsuccessfully to clothe with their authority, can be considered to have been an Argentine occupation, the islands were ‘res nullius’ at the time of the British reoccupation in 1832.“ [2]
January 1937 The Foreign Office responds to Sir Neville Henderson: ”the legal basis of the claim [to the Falkland Islands] had been discovered to be far stronger than it had been hitherto supposed“. [3]
[1] PRO FO 373/7, quoted in Klaus Dodds: ”Pink Ice: Britain and the South Atlantic Empire”, London & New York, 6 December 2002, ISBN-13: 978-1860647703
[2] Anthony Eden to Ambassador Henderson August 28th PRO FO 371/10763
[3] PRO FO 371/20508
”there is reason to doubt whether, in fact, Argentina ever had any grounds of claim to the islands at all. In the diplomatic exchanges of 1833 the case would seem to have been argued upon the wrong grounds by both sides. It would seem that the events in the 18th century were irrelevant, that the islands had become completely unoccupied in 1811, and that they had to be considered at that time as ‘res nullius’ open to the occupation of any State. Further, unless the occupation of the privateer Vernet, whom the Argentine Government tried rather unsuccessfully to clothe with their authority, can be considered to have been an Argentine occupation, the islands were ‘res nullius’ at the time of the British reoccupation in 1832.
Fortunately the following proves Eden wrong yet once more:
“History of the Colonies of the British Empire” - From the Official Records of the Colonial
Office - 1843, p.45
It clearly refers to a certain Captain Weddell, whom while in P. Egmont received a letter from the Commander of “Heroína” frigate saying that the Government of the UP had taken possesion of the Islands. Therefore no “res nullium”.
While the “privateer” Vernet was in fact a governor
Decreto 10 Junio 1829 - A.G.N. Fondo Luis Vernet, Sala VII 2-3-3t
One question springs to my mind though. First you mention 1771 and now Eden´s documents “states” that the 18 century events where “irrelevant”. So what´s your claim based on, “Res Nullim” already proved wrong or the sneaky and temporary settlement in 1770?.
Please find attached the document of M. de Bougainville which specifies the compensation he was granted for handing the islands back to Spain. This proves (confirming Wellington´s letter) that Britain never had sovereignty except to “maybe” P. Egmont
servicios.abc.gov.ar/docentes/efemerides/2deabril/descargas/historia/bouganville.pdf
Archivo General de la Nación, Sala X 3-4-5.
I see you're still hunting the snark, then, and have made the remarkable discovery of a sovereignity conflict between the UK and Spain.
I wonder also if you aware of the testimony given by Marcelo Luis Vernet at the C24 in June 2012? He quotes from the diary of his great great grandmother Maria Vernet, wife of Don Luis Vernet as follows :
'Sunday, 30 August 1829 was a feast day for the village. Maria writes in her diary “Very good Saint Rose of Lima day, so Vernet has decided to take possession today of the islands in the name of the government of Buenos Aires”'.
So what do we learn from this?
1) If the “Governor” is only “taking possession” in 1829, then clearly “possession” can't have been taken already. So it appears that not even the United Provinces and its duly appointed “authorities” recognise the Jewett “claim” of 1820.
2) The good Marcelo having read this out before an Argentine delegation of some 90 people led by CFK and comprising Ministers, Mayors, Governors, and what not, it seems reasonable to assume that this is also the position of the present Argentine government.
Ot has some terrible mistake been made?
...“and have made the remarkable discovery of a sovereignity conflict between the UK and Spain.” Nope just pointing out that your so called “Gettin-it ALL WRONG” is merely a collection of fabules for children.
Regarding your “interpretation” of Maria Vernet´s diary, and to put it mildly is simply ridiculous. The diary simple says that HE (Vernet) is taking possession of Islands, as governor. He doesnt specifically say “first” does he? You better read the original in Spanish. Another mental projection of freudian desire.
BTW by confirming Vernet´s appointment you are proving Eden was wrong. There was no res nullius
The original in Spanish :
“Muy bien día de Santa Rosa de Lima, por lo que determina Vernet tomar hoy posesión de la islas en nombre del Gobierno de Buenos Aires”
Don't see any translation difficulties there, unless of course you are using those special Malvinista reading glasses that allow you to read what isn't there, and not read what is there.
So all we can say is that there was an attempt in 1829 to “clothe the privateer Vernet with authority”, which was immediately rejected by the British authorities of the time. The Vernet settlement prior to 1829 quite obviously was not “Argentine” (or more correctly, BA) in character, and the Jewett story has more holes in it than the Santissima Trinidad.
So where does it say, he is the 1 governor? According to your logic I can assume he got there by plane.
which was immediately rejected by the British authorities of the time...based on what?
The Vernet settlement prior to 1829 quite obviously was not “Argentine” (or more correctly, BA) in character... Sure...they were from Mars.
Jewett story has more holes in it than the Santissima Trinidad.
Care to explain
Running out of arguments....
“one more thing ICJ exits to solve problems with borders and frontiers not sovereignty. UN is the proper place.”
Your incorrect on both points, the ICJ or the PCA are the only places that can give a definitive legal answer to the question of sovereignty. THe UN cannot it is mainly a debating chamber, so it is beyond it's remit to answer the question of sovereignty.
Let's recap a bit. Here we have eye-witness testimony by the wife of the main man, no less, and this testimony has been publicly presented to the UN and the world in the presence of the upper tiers of the Argentine government, including the President herself. This is a matter of record.
I think it's reasonable to assume also that this testimony was checked out beforehand by lawyers at the Argentine Foreign Ministry.I man, La Presidenta and the UN, after all. So all in all, I think we can say the information is credible, and verified, wouldn't you agree?
Now you maintain that none of this means that Vernet was the first to take possession on behalf of the government of Buenos Aires. I don't buy this interpretation myself (for reasons we can come back to later if you like), but let's run with it anyway, and say for the sake of argument, no, Vernet wasn't the first to claim possession for Argentina.
Now this begs the obvious question, if Vernet wasn't the first, who was? Logically, it can't have been Vernet himself, since he couldn't have been claiming a possession he already possessed, could he?
But then if Vernet wasn't in possession of the islands, then surely by definition this would mean that the Vernet settlement can't be regarded as evidence of Argentine possession?
Or to put this another way. If Vernet was first, then logically the Vernet settlement prior to 1829 doesn't count as Argentine possession. On the other hand, if Vernet wasn't the first, then logically the Vernet settlement prior to 1829 doesn't count as Argentine possession either.
So whichever way you look at it, by Argentina's own records, the Vernet settlement in the islands does not support the Argentine claim to them.
On the other hand, maybe there was somebody else on the islands. Could this be perhaps where J.J Abrams got the idea for “Lost”?
The reiterated arguments are whether or not Vernet was acting for the authorities in BA, what his wife wrote in her diary etc, but - Hello! - this is 180 years ago. A lot has happened elsewhere in the World since then. In 1833 much of the USA was still the Wild West and some states still had slavery and would continue to for another 30 years. The source of the Nile remained undiscovered. No white man had seen Lake Chad. Germany and Italy did not exist as political entities,
Is Argentina really such a political backwater that it needs to carp on about this?
In the 180 years since then we have fought God knows how many wars. France has exchanged the province of Alsace Lorraine three times with post Bismarck Germany, several European countries have made and lost empires.
In the UK we look at Argentina and this squabble over the Falklands chugging along and we can't believe that you're still weeping and wringing your hands over those islands which were never yours in the first place.
The fact that you call them the Malvinas shows they were never orignally yours because the name 'Malvinas' is a Spanish version of the original French name 'les Malouines' because the first French sailors to go there came from the Breton port of Saint Malo.
And yet you have even written this lie into your constitution. It is like a new money family pretending to be of noble blood and telling a story about themselves of lost nobility, buying crested silver etc and repeating the anecdote ad nauseam, “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” until you believe it yourselves, only you are doing it on a national scale again and again and again, for generations, so that even the new Pope believes it. What happens when a schoolboy checks you all out on ancestry.com, that you're all immigrants from colonial and imperial countries yourselves?
“If Vernet was first, then logically the Vernet settlement prior to 1829 doesn't count as Argentine possession. On the other hand, if Vernet wasn't the first, then logically the Vernet settlement prior to 1829 doesn't count as Argentine possession either”. ??????
Where did you get the idea that one excludes the other?
So whichever way you look at it, by Argentina's own records, the Vernet settlement in the islands does not support the Argentine claim to them...
He was elected governor by a government already recognized by Britain
according to the Treaty of 1825. (Who btw did not contest Jewett claim on the islands)
The borders of Eastern Europe would be under constant revision, leading to war. The legality of several states making up the United States of America would be massively opened to question. So too would a large number of present day boundaries in Asia.
In the UK we have a statute of limitations in common law preventing us from suing someone in court for money after six years, and after three years in medical cases. This principal should be extended to disputes between nations by both the UN and the ICJ.
Argentina clearly doesn't like to place any value on the 1850 Convention of Settlement. But if it still regarded Great Britain as a hostile power that injured her, then why did she appeal to King Edward VII in 1902 to mediate in the dispute with Chile over Tierra del Fuego?
In a civil dispute between individuals under Common Law in the UK, these would be winning arguments that would see an end to the matter, BEFORE we factor in recent events like the Falklands memorandum. But for CFK, Hector Timerman and other Argentinians, these arguments just bounce off. They are dismissed as 'advertising,' 'tergivisation,' and other extraordinary things that make little or no sense to most educated and fair-minded Brits.
We are accused of being colonialists by members of a country which could never have existed without Spanish colonialism and we think it is terribly hypocritical.
And before Argentina tells us to 'grow old gracefully' etc, just remember that several important countries in this World are the fruit of Britannia's loins.
2. (“There are several other arguments in favor of the British positions, which have not been put forward by the FO” care to explain which arguments are those?)
E.g.: Could a state legally acquire sovereignity over a territory by force in 1833?
Contemporary international law confirms it. [1]
In practice we know e.g.: All of Spanish America in the early 19th century, more than half of Mexico to USA, including the **disputed** parts of Texas (1848), Schleswig-Holstein (1864), Argentine provinces Chaco, Formosa and Misiones (1870), Alsace-Lorraine/Elsass-Lothringen (1871) and again in 1918.
[1] Henry Wheaton: “Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science”, Volume 2 (1836)
@ 200 Pesky Army
“why did britain evict argentinean settlers”
Name them. You can find the complete list in “Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas” from Pinedo's trial. Argentine source: farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg - photo: farm6.staticflickr.com/5137/5533643350_7d94862ca9_b.jpg
- - -
Declaration signed and delivered by Prince de Maserano, Ambassador Extraordinary from his Catholick Majesty, the 22nd day of January 1771: “A collection of all the treaties of Peace Alliance and Commerce between Great Britain and other Powers 1727-1771”, p. 328ff (p. 342ff in the .pdf file) Online: books.google.com.ar/books?id=Ab8sAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
- - -
On another note: “Since you evacuated P.Egmont in 1774”
I have never evacuated Port Egmont, neither has my country - as a matter of fact I doubt “we” were ever even in the vicinity of it before 1800.
Well done for showing that.
If His Catholic Majesty the King of Spain conceded and reinstated Great Britian's right to the Falklands/Malouines in 1771 then it makes it even worse that the Argentinians should be going on like this.
Think of founding a central piece of their foreign policy on such a slender and erroneous claim and sending all those young men to die for it in 1982.
Honestly!
> Where did you get the idea that one excludes the other?
Partly from Vernet himself :
”1856 – May 5th, Luis Vernet writes to Lord Harrowby; “… the wish, to get my Colony under the British Flag, was in accordance with my own interests and those of my colonists, which required such change of flag; because situated as we were on the Highway of Nations, we could not expect permanent prosperity, unless placed under the sovereignty of a Government capable of protecting us against filibustering4 or other aggressions. As to the grants of Land, wild cattle, and privileges, these were originally obtained not with the view to establish any claim to the Islands on the part of Buenos Ayres, but merely to secure the best protection I could for my new colony, from the Authorities for the time being, regardless who they might be.”
falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1850-1899/
6. “please reread Wellington´s letter”
“It is not clear to me ...” = I am not sure
I have read it a number of times over the years - but in full context.
1829 23 July the Colonial Secretary, Sir George Murray, writes to the British Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington:
“It appears to me that the interval between the cessation of the power of old Spain and the consolidation of that of the new governments in South America would be the best time for our resuming our former possession of the Falkland Islands …. I have not spoken with Lord Melville on the subject, but I believe he is very sensible of the importance in the naval point of view of the occupation of those islands.”
1829 25 July The Duke of Wellington RESPONDS (following your somewhat abruptly ended quote):
“... That which I would recommend is that the government of Buenos [Ayres] should be very quietly but very distinctly informed that His Majesty has claims upon Falklands Islands and that His Majesty will not allow of any settlement upon, or any cession to, individuals or foreign nations of these islands by Buenos Ayres, which shall be inconsistent with the King's acknowledged right of sovereignty. I think that this is all that can be done at present. It will have the effect of impeding any settlement or cession by Buenos Ayres and as we may suppose that the French and Americans will hear of this communication they will not be disposed to act in contravention to it unless determined upon a quarrel with this country.”
1829 28 July Sir Herbert Jenner's legal opinion is given: “the symbols of property and possession which were left upon the islands sufficiently denote the intention of the British Government to retain those rights which they previously acquired.”
1829 8 August Lord Aberdeen sends instructions to Parish to inform the Government in Buenos Ayres that the British claim should not be treated with indifference ...
E.g.: Could a state legally acquire sovereignity over a territory by force in 1833?
Contemporary international law confirms it. [1]
I am sure that States can legally acquire “sovereignity” by means of war, since this had happened since the dawn of times.
Please can you show me the war declaration of Britain against Argentina in 1833? On the other hand let my refresh your memory with the Treaty of Commerce and “Friendship” signed in 1825.
Name them. Well we know for sure that 38 men, 13 women, and 8 children had to leave the islands ie 73% of the population.
Declaration signed and delivered by Prince de Maserano, Ambassador Extraordinary from his Catholick Majesty, the 22nd day of January 1771: “A collection of all the treaties of Peace Alliance and Commerce between Great Britain and other Powers 1727-1771”….
I seriously doubt you have read this since it states:
“ …the Prince de Maserano, at the same time declares, in the name of the King his master…to restore to his British Majesty P. Egmont CANNOT, NOR OUGHT in anyway affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.
In other words Spain only “leased” P. Egmont, which was abandoned by Britain in 1774.
On another note: “Since you evacuated P.Egmont in 1774”…Sorry English is only my third language.
…these were originally obtained not with the view to establish any claim to the Islands on the part of Buenos Ayres, but merely to secure the best protection I could for my new colony, from the Authorities for the time being, regardless who they might be.”
Well this is contradictory with the events that took place on the 6 November 1820.
Sir, I have the honour to inform you of the circumstance of my arrival at this port, commissioned by the supreme government of the United Provinces of South America to take possession of these islands in the name of the country to which they naturally appertain. In the performance of this duty, it is my desire to act towards all friendly flags with the most distinguished justice and politeness. A principal object is to prevent the wanton destruction of the sources of supply to those whose necessities compel or invite them to visit the islands, and to aid and assist such as require it to obtain a supply with the least trouble and expense. As your views do not enter into contravention or competition with these orders, and as I think mutual advantage may result from a personal interview, I invite you to pay me a visit on board my ship, where I shall be happy to accommodate you during your pleasure. I would also beg you, so far as comes within your sphere, to communicate this information to other British subjects in this vicinity. I have the honour to be, Sir Your most obedient humble Servant, Signed, Jewett, Colonel of the Navy of the United Provinces of South America and commander of the frigate Heroína.
Weddell, James (1827). A Voyage Towards the South Pole.
I posted the link where the full letter could be read. But let take a look at this:
It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands.(DOUBTS). The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Egmont (according to Maserano declaration and bear in mind not the sovereignty, while afterwards The Nootka Sound Treaty expressively forbade new settlements in territories within or next to the ones occupied by Spain), which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago (FACT)…
… But in this case in which our right to possess more than Port [Egmont] is disputed, and at least doubtful (DOUBTS YET AGAIN), it is very desireable [sic] to avoid such acts.
I am at the same time very sensible of the inconvenience which may be felt by this country and of the injury which will be done to us if either the French or Americans should settle upon these islands, the former in virtue of any claim from former occupancy, the latter or both from any claim derived by purchase or cession from the government of Buenos Ayres. That which I would recommend ...
Here he is clearly stating the “inconveniencies” of the occupation of the Islands by others (French or “Americans”) and RECOMMENDS VERY QUIETLY (don´t make noise about this) but very distinctly….
Question is, if Wellington had so many “doubts” and admits the fact that the islands were abandoned for 60 years, based on what he did those “recommendations”? Colonialism?, Imperialism? Lies?
Besides the islands had already been claimed in 1820 by Argentina and such claim was not contested by the British Government while signing the 1825 Treaty.
1829 28 July Sir Herbert Jenner's legal opinion is given: “the symbols of property and possession which were left upon the islands sufficiently denote the intention of the British Government to retain those rights which they previously acquired.”
Which rights? Acquired when?
I wouldn't say so. It's only contradictory with the interpretation you are trying to put on the events of 6 November 1820. But it is rather hard to take seriously the contention that a pirate presenting a letter to two sea captains constitutes a claim of possession, when the authorities the said pirate claims to represent only find out about it in a newspaper more than a year later, make no effort to substantiate or even publicise their claim, and are unable to produce any record of the pirate's supposed “mission”.
From this perspective, it's your interpretation that is in contradiction to everything else : Vernet's own words re the status of his settlement, his missus' account of his activities in 1829, and last but not least the actual behaviour of the BA authorities in keeping quiet about Jewett and only “taking possession” 9 years later. Do please pull the other one.
Incidentally, I did learn from Wedell's book something new, which is that Jewett's crew, it transpires, was every bit as well behaved as the attempted garrison/penal colony of 1833. It seems they planned to mutiny, murder Jewett, hoist the black flag and set off pirating on their account instead of that of the authorites in BA. Unfortunately for them, Jewett got wind of the scheme, and shot 4 of them. Seems he would have shot more, but he needed them to work the ship.
But what with the Jewett crew, the Mestivier killers, Vernet's own ventures into piracy, and the Rivero murders, I'm surprised you're not more grateful the Brits turned up at last to restore some law and order.
August 1823
“ .. Don Jorge Pacheco and myself, CONVINCED OF THE RIGHT OF THIS REPUBLIC, AND SEEING IT RECOGNISED BY THE TACIT
AND GENERAL CONSENT OF ALL NATIONS DURING THE 3 PRECEDING YEARS,“solicited and obtained from the Government
the use of the Fishery, and of the Cattle on the Eastern Malvina Island, and likewise tracts of land thereon, in order to provide for the subsistence of the Settlement we should establish there...”
Report of the Political, and Military Commandant of the Malvinas' - Buenos Ayres,10 th August, 1832, Luis Vernet, in British and Foreign State Papers 1831-1832
Regarding Jewitt, well let me just say that it is at least laughable that Britain, the home of ”Sir“ Francis Drake, ”Sir“ Walter Raleigh and God only knows how many more accuses somebody else of ”Piracy”. Like it or not the islands where claimed in 1820.
1828
Luis Vernet formulates a plan to convert his fledgling settlement from a commercial enterprise, to a political one; “… having realised the natural advantages that it might provide the country, I conceived the project of establishing a Colony directly subordinate to Buenos Aires which at the same time would give the state the benefit of putting the sovereignty over the coasts and islands of the south beyond doubt.. “
So once again by the application of elementary logic, we can conclude that prior to 1829, the Vernet settlement was not regarded by Vernet as “directly subordinate to Buenos Aries”.
This is perfectly consistent with his letter of 1850. And as we also know from Woodbine Parrish, he also sought British permission for his activities in he islands.
The first thing about a claim, of course, is that people have to know it was made. A secret claim makes no sense to anybody.
And dogmatic reassertion does not constitute a sensible argument either. There is no evidence that a properly constituted was ever made by BA, and when a claim is made, it turns out be on the basis if an inheritance from Spain that not only was never left to you, but was explicitly denied to you by Spain.
Hans the 6 November 1820 existed (reprinted by The Times in London on 3 August 1821, published in the Buenos Aires Argos on 10 November 1821). whether you like it or not. Not my problem.
I'm sure it did exist. But just existing doesn't make it credible. It's hardly credible if those who supposedly ordered it only found out about it one year later in the paper. And for some reason chose not to officialise it, announce it, or publicise it afterwards. And only sent a “Governor” to “take possession” nine years later. If this is the best argument you can come up with, it's easy to see why you've never dared take it to court.
You're missing the point here. I'm not denying there was a letter. I'm questioning whether the letter constituted a valid territorial claim.
“I'm questioning whether the letter constituted a valid territorial claim.”
Please explain why not.
Tough day tomorrow, Good Night.
Have a nice day and try re-reading @231 again.
“Regarding Jewitt, ... accuses somebody else of ”Piracy”.”
Read the trial ref:
“NOTICIAS NACIONÃES, 6 de Maio [1822]
Sentença proferida pelo Auditor de Marinha, condemnando como preza a Corveta ==Heroina== aprezada pela Fragata == Perola.”
“Diário do Governo, Segunda Feira 1.” Abril - Junho de 1822. Nº 77-151, Imprensa Nacional de Lisboa.
books.google.com.ar/books/download/Diário_do_governo.pdf?id=PQ4wAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U1-kdYkUWRnqH4M8YEgOTKLV8mOBA
[p. 752 (p. 251 in .pdf)] Noticias nacionães, Lisboa 6 de Maio [1822]
Good Morning,
Regarding your post 231
Governors of the islands 1820-1833
1820 - 1821 - David Jewett
1821 - 1822 - Guillermo Mason
1823 - 1828 - Pablo Areguati -Comandante
1829 - 1831 - Luis María Vernet
1832 - 1832 - Juan Esteban Francisco Mestivier
1832 - 1833 - José María Pinedo
Furthermore as early as 1810, the first Argentine government order to pay the salary to the Commander of the garrison of the Islands.
18 december of 1823 Pablo Areguatí was named governor.
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandancia_militar_de_las_Islas_Malvinas
Besides Vernet´s letter fro 1823 confirms that he requested permission from the authorities in BA to settle in the islands. Question is why did he request such permission? Where did the government´s authority came from? Based on what?
Vernet was appointed governor to the newly created Political and Military Command of the Islands, but that doesn´t make Vernet the first governor.
You forgot to mention the context when that event took place.
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasi%C3%B3n_Luso-Brasile%C3%B1a
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_del_Brasil
Basically the king of Portugal fled to Brasil, and decided to take over former spanish territory which led to an “unofficial” war between Argentina and “Brazil” (Portugal), which was in turn the trigger of the war between Argentina and Brazil. But anyway just a question:
Did Jewett commit piracy the 6 of november of 1820? Did he seize any ship? Did he ask for money to the whalers? Is the behaviour of a pirate? Keep in mind, he was commanding a frigate and there were at least 50 whalers and sealers.
Therefore this leads to
1820 sovereignty is claimed
1821 is published in several countries among them Britain.
1825 Argentina is formally recognized by Britain as a sovereign state, thus not questioning it´s sovereignty nor objecting something that was known and published 4 years before.
Under internationl law, there are a number of ways a state can claim sovereignity over a territory. Having a pirate captain's letter published by soembody esle in another country's newspapers a year later, isn't one of them.
The context makes no moro sense either. Why, if Jewett had a mission to claim the islands for BA, did he first sail the South Atlantic for 8 months as a crap pirate, till he eventually turns up in the islands with a ship falling apart and a crew half dead with scurvy? Not even a BA ship but a privately owned privateer with only a BA piracy licence. He sets up no trappings of authority, and departs without leaving a trace. It wasn't even he who had his announcement placed in the papers, nobody would have known a thing if Wedell and Orne hadn't reported it. And BA in particular knew nothing of it until a year later, and made no attempt to officialise it as theirs, or announce it to any other countries.
This is a sovereignity claim? A much more plausible explanation is that Jewett, on his last legs after his failed privateering venture, had a bright idea of his own which he failed to follow up on. This is also consistent with the subsequent writings of Vernet and the BA authorities. Why for example, would Vernet write a letter in 1828 offering to establish soverignity if BA had it already? And why would BA not tell Vernet there's no point, mate, it's all ours already?
As for your list of governors, please. Mason was only Jewett's successor as Captain of the Heroina. He sailed off to resume his career in piracy three weeks later. Areguati was never appointed to any rank, and his attempt to settle in the islands collapsed after a few months. And as we have seen already, neither Vernet nor BA regarded the islands as BA territory until 1829, at which point there is an immediate British protest.
And since you can only date an Argentine claim from 1829, there is clearly no breach of an 1825 Treaty, unless of course it's by you.
“Besides the islands had already been claimed in 1820 by Argentina and such claim was not contested by the British Government while signing the 1825 Treaty.”
I am sure you can tell me where in Jewett's 13 pages report he mentions that he should have taken possession of the Falkland Islands in the name of Buenos Aires or the United Provinces - (which in 1821 were no longer united) - or for that matter any other state. (Jewett’s report of 1 February 1821 can be found in 'Archivo General de la Nación', 'Marina Corsarios 1820-1831', 10-5-1-3.)
I should also like to know, who ordered him to do so - published in the Gazette, perhaps?
The government of Buenos Aires did not order Jewett to take possession of the Falkland Islands, nor did they make any official announcement of Jewett's claim, simply because they had no knowledge whatever of any such claim.
- - -
@ 240 Pesky II
“You forgot to mention the context when that event took place. ...”
NOTICIAS NACIOÃES, Lisboa 6 de Maio [1822] (link previously given):
“... como acto de propriedade desta, e authorisação para fazero Corso, passados em nome do Director Supremo das Provincias unidas ao Sul de America, ... dados ao primeiro Commandante da Heroina David Jeevitt em 15 de Janeiro de 1820, ... declarão expressamente que a Heroina de huma Corveta de Guerra de Buenos-Ayres, e que se destinava a fazer a guerra á Bandeira Hespanhola.”
“... document ... authorizing to operate as a privateer ... declare expressly that the corvette 'Heroina' ... shall wage war on [ships with] the Spanish flag.”
Only Spanish ships! Upbringing of the Portuguese ships were acts of piracy, no matter how you try to twist it.
- - -
@ 239 Pesky Army
“Governors of the islands 1820-1833”
Documentation missing - please provide.
Hans
Facts
6 november 1820 sovereignty is claimed
1821 reprinted by The Times in London on 3 August 1821, published in the Buenos Aires Argos on 10 November 1821
Your opinions about Jewett, certainly you are entitled to, but you have to prove this facts wrong. It´s up to you to prove the 6 of november never happened or that Jewett was never comissioned. Regarding Vernet´s contradicton, since the letter you mentioned is from 1828, and the one I have mentioned dates from 1823, I only found this
servicios.abc.gov.ar/docentes/efemerides/2deabril/descargas/historia/notapacheco.pdf
Archivo General de la Nación, Sala IX 24-5-7
Jewett was comissioned in 1815 as Colonel while at war with Spain. Your point is...Besides he died in guess where? Rio de Janeiro. So sure the Portuguese had plenty of time to judge him, no matter how much you try to twist it.
Areguatí´s appointment
servicios.abc.gov.ar/docentes/efemerides/2deabril/descargas/historia/notapacheco.pdf
Archivo General de la Nación, Sala IX 24-5-7
BTW I am still waiting for you repply to my post 226.
Surely not. It's up to you to prove the claim that you're making.
The only fact is that the Jewett claim was printed in the papers. There is no proof of BA involvement either before Jewett turns up in the islands or after the claim is printed. It is no more than a newspaper story. Indeed the evidence which does exist indicates that BA itself did not recognise the Jewett claim, while the subsequent behaviour and writings of both Vernet and the BA authorities is not logically consistent with it either. And it is quite clear from their correspondence that neither Vernet nor BA regarded his settlement as a specifically BA occupation on BA sovereign territory until Vernet offered that up in 1828.
But the most remrkable thing of the lot is that this entirely dubious edifice should be considered grounds for war 150 years later, and that thirty years after that people are still picking over it.
As somebody said earlier, it is not the early 19th century any more. You are never going to find the smoking gun that proves your claim because no such gun exists. And if you really do want to acquire the islands, it is really time to try a different approach. Harping on about an imagined grievance of nearly two centuries ago just makes you look silly.
Since you find Jewett claim so bizarre, let me show you how another pirate claimed land for Britain.
bestoflegends.org/pirates/drake.html
I agree with you that it is sad that after so long people are still fighting over this, but let me remind you that entirely dubious matter Duke of Wellington´s letter comes to my mind) did not prevent one nation attacking another just for greed or colonialism. We might look silly, but at least we are not the ones trying to find a hole to sneak through and justify ourselves. Probably this, makes you look even worse.
Who needs to find a hole to sneak through? You could parade a herd of elephants in line abreast through these arguments without touching the sides.
Practically every argument put forward exhibits the same three weaknesses we have just been kicking around : there is no documentary evidence to support the claim being made, the evidence that does exist contradicts the claim, and the subsequent behaviour of the people involved is completely inconsistent with it.
This same phenomenon applies for example to the Jewett/Vernet claim, the claim that a civilian population was expelled in 1833, and the claim that the 1850 Treaty was not intended to resolve the dispute.
And typically when these inconveniences are pointed out, it ends up with some extraneous reference to the crimes of the British Empire, or in this case Sir Francis Drake, who I don't believe ever set foot in the place.
Tell you what, I didn´t expect we would agree about who is right or wrong. You have your arguments with its strengths and weaknesses and so do I ; but still it was a nice tennis game.
Have a nice weekend.
“Please can you show me the war declaration of Britain against Argentina in 1833?”
I love your sense of humour. The majority of wars have been started without any sort of declaration of war.
“Any sort of previous declaration is an empty formality unless the enemy must be given time and opportunity to put himself in a state of defence, and it is needless to say that no one asserts such a quixotism to be obligatory.” [1]
- - -
PA: “Well we know for sure that 38 men, 13 women, and 8 children had to leave the islands ie 73% of the population.”
All except 4 (four) and a prisoner were the Buenos Aires garrison and their families. If you had read the official Argentine document, I gave links to, you would have known that. Do some research.
“... to restore to his British Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont; cannot, nor ought any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.” [2]
Nothing in the two documents can reasonably be interpreted as other than the claims of both the Spanish crown and the British are upheld, but undecided upon, except that the Spanish king accepts British sovereignty over Port Egmont.
Lord Chancellor Lord Camden wrote: “... The question remains as it stood before the hostility; the King of Spain declaring only that he ought not to be precluded from his former claim ...” [3]
- - - -
[1] William Edward Hall: “A Treatise on International Law”, 8th ed. by A. Pearce Higgins, Humphrey Milford: Oxford University Press, London 1924. (p. 444)
[2] “A collection of all the treaties of Peace Alliance and Commerce between Great Britain and other Powers 1727-1771”, p. 328ff (p. 342ff in the .pdf file)
books.google.com.ar/books?id=Ab8sAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
[3] Sir Henry Cavendish's Debates of the House of Commons during the Thirteenth Parliament of Great Britain, p. 297, note 1
“Any sort of previous declaration is an empty formality unless the enemy must be given time and opportunity to put himself in a state of defence, and it is needless to say that no one asserts such a quixotism to be obligatory.”
Nice words but the relevant fact here is that in 1825 Britain signed a Treaty of Friendhip with Argentina. Are you suggesting that backstabbing is justified by law?
Document of M. de Bougainville which specifies the compensation he was granted for handing the islands back to Spain. This proves (confirming Wellington´s letter) that Britain never had sovereignty not even to P. Egmont. Plus you left the place for 60 years.
servicios.abc.gov.ar/docentes/efemerides/2deabril/descargas/historia/bouganville.pdf
“... to restore to his British Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont; CANNOT, NOR OUGHT any wise to AFFECT the question of the PRIOR RIGHT of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.”
Unless you can provide a document specifically saying that Britain ever had sovereignty of the islands, interpretations are completely irrelevant, merely a sophism.
All except 4 (four) and a prisoner were the Buenos Aires garrison and their families. If you had read the official Argentine document, I gave links to, you would have known that. Do some research.
Again the relevant matter here is that people were evicted not their names. Get your priorities straight.
Countries do not start wars by giving the opponent a warning - surprise is essential.
“Document of M. de Bougainville which specifies the compensation he was granted for handing the islands back to Spain.”
No.
de Bougainville received compensation for EXPENSES in connection to the establishment of the colony.
“dineros que importa un estado que he presentado de LOS GASTOS que han causado a la Compañía de San Maló las expediciones hechas para fundar sus intrusos establecimientos”
- -
Again the relevant matter here is that no settlers, only the garrison, were evicted. Are you suggesting that the British should have left the armed forces of Buenos Aires on the islands?
Countries do not start wars by giving the opponent a warning - surprise is essential.
Show me the war declaration.
“de Bougainville received compensation for EXPENSES in connection to the establishment of the colony.”
Well, since the French never returned again, either show me a document saying that the French kept the sovereignty or that it was transferred to Britain.
Are you suggesting that the British should have left the armed forces of Buenos Aires on the islands?
Well, you still have to tell me what Britain was doing there in the first place.
You seem to operating on the assumption that the sovereignity dispute between Britain and Spain was somehow resolved in favour of Spain. It wasn't. You then seems to be assuming that the UP inherited the Spanish claim from Spain. It didn't.
As for your very own stab in the back myth, if anybody got stabbed in the back in 1833 it was the Brits. In 1825 when the Treaty was signed, there was no claim of sovereignity by BA. All there was, was a newspaper report of a letter supposedly issued by a pirate captain claiming to represent the government of BA. No official statement of any kind was issued by the BA authorities. Either this is diplomatic incompetence of the highest degree, or they didn't recognise the claim themselves. Which do you think it is?
Sunsequenty in 1829 when Vernet finally attempts to claim sovereignity and gets himself made Commander or whatever, there is an immediate protest and restatement of the British claim. UP and Vernet pay this no attention whatsoever, and Vernet decides to go into the piracy business on his account.
One severely kicked arse later, UP sends in a garrison which murders its commander and rapes his wife.
And then finally at long last the landlord turns up to restore order in his own property, but makes the mistake of not garrisoning the place himself, with the result that another undesirable tenant, national hero El Asasino Rivero, is free to go on a murder spree a few months later.
Some people just don't know how to behave.
But I'm glad to see we dont have to go through the fictitious nonsense of the expulsion of the civilian population.
Another proof that the French handed the sovereignty of the Islands to Spain, and that Britain was merely attempting to sneak through.
Prince Maserano
8 de Agosto de 1766
“Avise a VE días pasados que de resultas de una junta del Almirantazgo en ausencia
de Milord Egmond se havia diferido la partida del Armamento a las Islas…
Advertirá su excelencia que piensan fijarse ahí con solidez. Tengo entendido que lo
consideran mas fácil desde que saben que los franceses deben retirarse de las
Malvinas, porque nos tienen a los españoles por menos vigilantes y mas lentos; y se
(¿?) que les daremos tiempo para que afirmen el pie”
Correspondencia Príncipe Masserano – Archivo PARES
The rest of your speech is very nice, but still you fail to show any document.
You are simple showing the protest letter of....1829?
Please show me the documents, that prove that Britain ever had any right to the Islands or P. Egmont. The letter simply mention the “rights” of Britain.
Documents please
Q 173 St.John: “vice president Argentina Marcos Paz ... la única - can you make that into two?”
Q 188 St.John: “how could de Bernard possibly misquote them when he wrote in 1910?”
220 St.John: “Name them” (the evicted settlers) - although I gave you a link to the official Argentine document, you still haven't named them.
242 St.John: “I am sure you can tell me where in Jewett's 13 pages report he mentions that he should have taken possession of the Falkland Islands in the name of Buenos Aires or the United Provinces” - where?
242 St.John: “I should also like to know, who ordered him to do so - published in the Gazette, perhaps?” - who + documentation?
242 St.John: “Governors of the islands 1820-1833” - documentation missing - please provide.
What is your basis for offhand dismissing two Argentine presidents (Mitre and Sarmiento to boot) and a vice presidents 'State of the nation' speeches?
Q 173 - my comment was removed , but i said it means the only one.
Q188- I made a mistake. so what?
Q220- I gave you the number of how many people were force to leave check post@224
@242 The claim was made and published and we know this ,thanks to a Captain of the RN.
@ 242 Ditto
@242 Check post @244 for Areguati´s appointment, Vernet you can google it, the others I don´t know.
”What is your basis for offhand dismissing two Argentine presidents (Mitre and Sarmiento to boot) and a vice presidents 'State of the nation' speeches?“
Reread all the threads. And what is your basis to dismiss the FO opinions since 1910, and the fact that Wilson and Thatcher were ”willing to negotiate“?
BTW still waiting for your answer to @226 and please we are talking about the 1770´s, you still fail to show a single document about the ”rights” of Britain to the islands.
I don't believe there was any kind of catastral in those days. Ot has Argentina got a deed from somewhere? I did hear that Timerman had got something from a Nigerian he met on the Internet, but I though that was just an urban myth.
Then explain me, why Britain evicted Argentineans from there since there was no catastral, based on what?
See @253 and @255.
And Argentina was there on what basis, exactly?
253- 6 november 1821
255- Still waiting for your documents, and since there was a garrison when Clio arrived, it´s up to you to prove that Britain had any rights to evict those people.
Sorry but you're going to have to read @253 and @255 again. Unless you can come up with something that a reasonable person would regard as constituting a stronger claim than the grounds put forward by Fox.
Hans, documents please provide documents to prove me wrong since we are “brainwashed”. Doesn´t look well I´m telling you.
I've got a letter here that my great great grandfather had published in the “Swansea Advertiser” of 1857 in which he claims Patagonia for the Welsh. I'm just waiting for a good 150 years to go by before I invade.
Good it means you are a Argentinean ;
We were in the 1770´s remember, talking about Britain rights to expell a group of people?
I've got an idea. If you think you were badly treated, why don't you take your case to the International Court of Justice?
We are not posing as victims, just claiming a land which never belonged to Great Britain. Argentina doesn´t go to the ICJ as we are sure that you had no rights to grab that land, as you are proving.
You don't go to the ICJ because anybody with a browser and a half hour to spare can see for themselves how empty your arguments are. But the really astonishing thing is that anybody would consider any of this worth starting a war over 150 years later, while simultaneously denying there's a Cult of Victimhood in operation.
PS : I´ve never ever mentioned the war nor praised the Junta.
Good night
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!