Falkland Islands’ post referendum musings and the ‘Britishness’ feeling
Writing for Penguin News its Deputy Editor, John Fowler, takes stock in the wake of the recent referendum in the Falkland Islands which resulted in a 92%turn out and 99.8% of voters opting to maintain the Islands current status as an overseas territory of Great Britain.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” It is probably not appropriate to use the above famous quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet, with reference to Argentina's President, because as some scholar would otherwise be bound to tell me, in Shakespeare's time, 'protest' did not mean object, but 'promise' and Mrs Fernandez de Kirchner doesn't seem inclined to promise us anything except more of the same old rhetoric with which she has bombarded the world for what is beginning to seem like an eternity.
If one were to give Queen Gertrude's words a modern interpretation however then they might be regarded as very apt; this lady and her acolytes in the Argentine Government do protest about almost everything the Falkland Islands Government does. However, as they also do not recognise the existence of the Falkland Islands Government, they have to blame everything on the Government of the United Kingdom, or more generally and even more incorrectly, the 'English.'
As a consequence of this annoying and contradictory confusion, the world is told by the Argentine Government that it is the 'English' who by an act of piracy implanted a population in the Falklands in 1833 and are holding them there against their will, the 'English' who are illegally licensing oil exploration in the waters around the Falklands, and the 'English' who are illegally stripping the South Atlantic of natural resources by issuing fishing licences to Spanish, Korean, Japanese and other nationalities.
Most recently, of course, because the existence of the Falkland Islands, its government and its people can not be allowed to exist, it had again to be the perfidious 'English' who organised a referendum in the Falklands.
The fact that all the above is untrue and can be proved to be so, does not seem to trouble Mrs Kirchner or her Foreign Minister Mr Timerman, whose principal usefulness to his boss seems to be a willingness to come out with statements that are so palpably false and deniable that even she hesitates to utter them.
To digress in the interests of accuracy, albeit at the risk of boring the reader, may I briefly recite the following:
a) The Falklands, like Argentina, has an immigrant population composed of people, predominantly British in origin, but also from a number of other countries, who were born here or came seeking work and a new life from up to nine generations ago. All volunteered or were recruited; nobody was condemned to live in the Falklands, which has never been a penal colony, while under British sovereignty. No prior civilian population was ever annihilated or expelled from the Falklands in 1833 or at any other time. In more recent times, a small number of Falkland Islanders were expelled from the Falkland Islands following the illegal armed occupation of their country in 1982.
b) Licences to explore for hydrocarbons and other natural resources around the Falklands are issued by the Government of the Falkland Islands and not by the Government of the United Kingdom. This is because such resources belong to the Falkland Islands and not to Britain. Should oil begin to flow from beneath the waters of the South Atlantic in commercial quantities, the UK Government will not benefit directly, though, of course, British companies involved will, as could have Argentine companies if their country had taken a co-operative stance, rather than their current obstructive one.
c) Licences to fish in the Falkland Islands Maritime Conservation Zone are issued by the Falkland Islands Government without consultation with or interference from the Government of the United Kingdom. The chances of conserving the most commercially important fish stock, the migratory Illex squid are now made more difficult by Argentina's withdrawal from the research work which used to take place jointly between Falkland Islands and Argentine scientists.
d) The recently held referendum on the preferred political status of the Falkland Islands was proposed and organised by the Falkland Islands Government alone, not by the Government of the United Kingdom. It was not intended to tell us anything about ourselves that we did not already think we knew, but was impelled by our collective frustration at being denied a voice by a government which not only refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of our democratically elected government, but even our very existence as a people.
Of course, there will still be a majority of Argentines who would refuse to accept the above brief summary, but one of the encouraging aspects of recent weeks and months has been the number of commentators in Argentina who, if not necessarily totally convinced of the British version of the early history of the Falklands as expressed above, have begun to ask questions publicly, both about the accuracy of the officially-held Argentine version and about its function as the bed rock of a kind of mindless, “my country right or wrong” nationalism. Hopefully the referendum result will give some fuel to those questions at least among the more open-minded of Argentine citizens.
Returning to the subject of mindless nationalism, I was interested to read an article by Lillo Montalto Monella, called “Las Malvinas Son Argentinas: Who Taught You That?” published in the Argentine Independent on April 4. Mr Monella, who is an independent journalist based in Buenos Aires, reviewed not only how the history on which the sovereignty claim is based is taught in Argentina's schools, but also why, according to some historians, the building of a national mythology around the events of 1833 has been so important to successive Argentine governments.
Montalto Monella quotes from a controversial article entitled 'Are the Malvinas really ours?' published in the Argentine newspaper La Nacion on the 14th February, by historian Luis Alberto Romero who wrote that: “We have outlined (the frontiers of the Argentine territory] so many times at school that we ended up believing this was the reality.”
Romero's article, as quoted by Monella, explains that Argentine education policies were part of the response to massive immigration into Argentina from Europe at the end of 19th Century. There was a perceived need on the part of the government to weld this tide of immigrants into a unified nation and education, which from 1880 in Argentina was both free and compulsory, offered the perfect vehicle.
Not surprisingly the curriculum was very nationalistic and the 'rape of the Malvinas' in the official history became a rallying point as deeply embedded in the Argentine consciousness as the tale of Robert the Bruce and the spider is for the Scots.
Of course, national myths, like St George and the Dragon, may sometimes be borrowed from other countries and their symbols appropriated by football hooligans.
Even where myths have some basis in truth, that truth may be insignificant. English children of my generation all learned about how King Alfred had burned the cakes of some peasant lady in whose house he had taken refuge after a battle; this incident may or may not have happened, but was far less important than the fact that if it hadn't been for him, Englishmen might all by now have been speaking French as their first language. Zut alors!
The universal Argentine experience from infancy is of years of the kind of nationalistic indoctrination, which Romero says is “visible in this galloping love for flags; marches and anthems sung everyday while raising the flag.” This kind of response conditioning goes some way to explaining how it was possible that the crowds who cheered Galtieri's announcement of the invasion of the Falklands were the same that had taken to the streets only three days before in protest against the dictatorship.
Some observers of the recent referendum in the Falklands might be forgiven for thinking that we have caught the same “galloping love for flags” and that this might be a disease for which some kind of mass inoculation might be in order.
I don't think that is necessarily true, though I have to admit that mass flag-waving does have too many uncomfortable historical connotations for me really to enjoy it. However, I was delighted that though there was much flag-waving, there was no flag-burning and this I think was evidence that what we were witnessing was a positive and essentially good-natured celebration of unity and community: self-assertion rather than aggression. This was quite different from the kind of nationalistic confrontation we have recently seen so much of in Ushuaia, Buenos Aires and elsewhere.
I worry, however, that too much prominence of the union flag might have seemed confusing to observers in other countries. What we were so overwhelmingly voting to maintain was a status which admits our dependency on Britain for defence and foreign relations, but otherwise permits us almost complete autonomy and a platform from which we may, with our former colonial master's approval, in time choose whatever future status may seem appropriate. If we have to supplement the power of a democratic vote with any kind of a flag, then the Falklands flag, which has the union flag in one corner and our own national crest in the centre, symbolizes our current situation much more adequately.
We are undoubtedly British in character and in nearly every aspect of our existence and probably always will be, at least in a sentimental and emotional sense. This does not mean we are not politically and legally entitled to consider becoming something else as well. Too much emphasis on our 'Britishness', rather than on our own unique identity, forged by our geographical situation, our history and our climate, simply serves to encourage those who say that we should return to Britain, or become some kind of far-flung extra-county governed from Westminster.
One should also keep in mind the fact that for many countries and peoples of the world, the union flag, as the British label, is not seen immediately as a quality mark – witness the whole unforgivable business of the Chagos Islands, which Argentine bloggers keep mentioning or David Cameron's recent near apology for the massacre by the British of hundreds of peacefully protesting Indian men, women and children, not too long ago.
While one might not totally accept the premise of recently visiting Professor Peter Willetts that retaining our present status actually reduces our legal right to self-determination (See the article by Dr Lyubomir Ivanov in PN of March 22 for a refutation of this), all 99.8% of us who recently voted 'yes' and maybe even the three as yet unknown 'no' voters, should agree that given the light of the world's attention which has been briefly shone upon us, (thanks to the efforts of Argentina's President and Foreign Secretary amongst others) the time has clearly come when we must start to think less about the past and more about the possibilities which the future holds.
There is maybe no rush to consider a change in our present status as the current intransigence of our neighbours would make some desirable scenarios, like full independence, more difficult to achieve, if not impossible. Anyone who was listening to the debates during the recent Regional Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meetings in Stanley will know, however, that the options still open to us short of full independence are many and exploring them need not in any way threaten either our feelings of Britishness or our feelings of gratitude for the sacrifices made on our behalf in 1982.
Come to think of it, we don't even have to do away with the union flag completely, even if Scottish independence might leave it looking a bit different. Australia and New Zealand are both former British colonies which have chosen to retain the British Sovereign as their titular head of state and also retain the union flag in one corner of their own national flags as a symbol of their historic origins. Although within Australia this British connection has occasionally been subject to debate, both countries are independent and it has been a long time since anyone referred to them as mere colonial enclaves.
John Fowler -Stanley
Suggested Stories
-
Jun 19th 2013
Malvinas C24 Argentina petitioners: Maria Angelia Vernet and Alejandro Betts
-
Jun 19th 2013
India-Argentina pledge to improve trade; Timerman thanks Delhi support on Malvinas dispute
-
Jun 17th 2013
Brazil and UK sign long term cooperation program in biotechnology research
-
Jun 17th 2013
Brazilian protestors clash over excessive expenditure in World Cup stadiums
81 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.
loser to the end,
the falklands will remain brituish untill they wish otherwise..
I think the comment of flag waving (rather than burning) was good.
If the Pope is stupid enough (and I don't think he is) to get involved in this, then his credibility (like the Catholic Church's) will be so badly damaged, that we may see another 'abdication'.
He is no longer an Argentine cardinal. He is the Pope, and is supposed to support all Catholic people no matter what their nationality. He therefore has to be apolitical.
If he supports Argentina in this matter (he can't arbitrate as he wouldn't be neutral) then he risks alienating the 5 million plus British catholics, plus the dozen or so (just guessing at the number here) catholics on the Falkland Islands.
He then also further risks alienating the 14 million or so catholics in Canada, 5 million or so catholics in Australia, half a million or so catholics in New Zealand, and the 20 odd million catholics in India.
And that doesn't include the Catholics in other European countries that support the Falkland Islanders right to determine their own future and political allegiance.
Pope Francis is playing with the big boys now, and no matter what his personal feeling are on the subject, he will not be allowed to do what he wants. No Pope is, they must tow the 'party' line to a certain extent.
Perhaps CFK should learn from this. Pope Francis is the leader of ALL Catholics regardless of nationality in the world.
CFK is the President representing ALL the people in Argentina, even the one's that didn't and don't support her. It's way past time she started doing the job she was elected to do, and not constantly 'dodge' the responsibility of being President by waving the 'Malvinas Myth' and/or feigning illness every 5 minutes.
Argentina can't offer anything new. Same tired old arguments hinging on minuscule legal points and unsubstantiated historical events.
It is time to cellebrate the last DAYS....
BREAKING NEWS! THERE IS A COUPLE OF CARNIVAL SHIPS, AND ICEBERGS FLOATING IN THE ATLANTIC. YOU CAN CLAIM THEM AS ANOTHER OVERSEA TERRITORY, BEFORE YOUR COMPETITION FROM SOMALIA GET THEM FIRST !!!
DO NOT RESOLVE ANY CONFLICT WITH A FOOTBALL GAME OR OTHER SPORT BECAUSE YOU WILL LOSE ANYWAY
HOW ABOUT A TEA, MY DARLING SUSSY...?
Hypocrite!
Whether or not that is true, I don't know. However, I do know that the Pope would be advised against alienating Catholics in all Commonwealth countries by supporting Argentina's lost cause. He may have said what he did as Cardinal during a ceremony for the war dead, but he cannot say the same now he is head of state of quite another country with different responsibilities.
Kretina asked him to intercede on talks. I'm sure that the Pope is well aware that Argentina was OFFERED talks & REJECTED them. No matter how much Argentina complains, they will not overcome the rights of the islanders to Self-Determination.
What I am absolutely certain of though, is that the Pope will be using his power to do something about the Argentine poor. He's been critical of 'La Mujer' for some time & her neglect of her responsibilities to protect the poor. The economic malaise in Argentina will get far worse when the IMF cuts off access to any loans or credit.
Argentine people are suffering & their voices will reach the Pope. Moreover, he knows that the oil exploration will become oil production in a few years time, but Argentine companies or people won't be benefiting from it, because the Argentine Government refuses to even acknowledge the Falkland Islanders existence, let alone talk with their government, for fear that acknowledgement will cede the status of a 'peoples' with all the rights that the UN Charter confers.
The Pope has set an agenda of sorts. He's indicated that the poor of this world matter to him & he wants a poor church for a poor people. Other religions are growing at a faster rate because they offer more to the poor. They don't take wealth away from the poor & then hoard it away for the bishops/cardinals to live like princes/kings.
Unless Pope Francis focuses the church on the poor, the poor will leave the church to wither.
shouting and screaming, and demanding,
and getting nothing..
aparently CFK did this on the vatican floor when she did not get her own way,
frustrating aint it, straddle in very cocky,
and crawl out in shame,
so they say.. ??
It goes a long way to showing the rest of the world who is calmly within their rights and who is too busy chanting nationalistic rhetoric to see the real world around them.
As the article points out though, the small but ever growing section of Argentines who dont rely entirely on untrustworthy politicians and indoctrinated education systems are questioning more and more the slavish attitude of the Argentine Government to “facts” that really are not facts once one escapes the confines of Argentine State History.
and good on them too.
For all of you current Islanders, are there still traces of the Finlayson family on the island? They were relatives of mine that settled on the islands back in the 1890(?)s. I had heard one of them was sadly killed by a land mine back in the 80's or 90's.
I don't think your heart is in it anymore sweetie. Is everything alright?
I miss the old Sussie.
KFC (Chicken Legs) should accept the inevitable and try to repair some of the more recent damage she has caused. I could only be for the GOOD of her country. That said she is probably too concerned with her own failing youth and visions of more aesthetic surgery... pathetic..!!
Imagine asking the recently implanted Pope to intervene... Where is her head... I tell you it must be buried somewhere very dark and warm... She is beyond the church's help... Poor thing!!
“Maybe we have been goaded into a referendum a little bit by people who justifiably say, 'Look, in the present situation, you have the best of both worlds. You are supported by Britain militarily, but you are not paying British taxes and you are actually better off than Britain. Come on, grow up a bit.’ ”
This new article in PN reads like penance from a man who thinks that the due owed to the United Kingdom is more than just gratitude but who made the mistake of going off message in a national newspaper. The implication that there is or should be a hunt for the three No voters is also quite distasteful as an act of deflection.
You say...:
“.... blame everything on the Government of the United Kingdom, or more generally and even more incorrectly, the 'ENGLISH.'
As a consequence of this annoying and contradictory confusion, the world is told by the Argentine Government that it is the 'ENGLISH' who by an act of piracy implanted a population in Malvinas in 1833 .....
The 'ENGLISH' who are illegally licensing oil exploration in the waters around the Falklands....
and the 'ENGLISH' who are illegally stripping the South Atlantic of natural resources by issuing fishing licences to Spanish, Korean, Japanese and other nationalities.
I say...:
CORRECT...., it is the ENGLISH doing all that.
Nothing ”Incorrect“ nor any ”Confusion“ about calling ”Les Goddam Britishgh“ for ”Les Goddam ENGLISH“, by the way....
That's how most of the World call you......, ”ENGLISH“.
We don't care if you call yourselves a ”Crown Colony“ or a ”ENGLISH Overseas Territory”
We know what you are..............., ENGLISH.
Get used to it
Not as keen sighted as l thought. hmmmm.
Also, some of us are very proud of our English heritage.
Get used to it.
Yes there is still a Finlayson family in the Falklands.
Yes, there is still a Finlayson family in Malvinas.
But none of them was killed by a land mine.
Not in Malvinas anyhow.......
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9917947/The-fate-of-the-Falklands-is-in-the-islanders-hands.html
Perhaps you could read the following excerpt:
”Falkland Islanders derive from various origins. Earliest among these are the numerically small but internationally diverse early 19th century inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, comprising and descended in part from settlers brought by Luis Vernet, and English and American sealers; South American gauchos who settled in the 1840s and 1850s; and since the late 1830s, settlers largely from Britain (especially Scotland and Wales) with a minority from other European countries. There has also been significant recent contributions from Saint Helena and Chile.”
Further research shows that on 5 January 1833, the following nationalities were present; gauchos (Spanish/Portuguese/Amerindian mix), French, Uruguayan Amerindians, South Americans, Irish, Scottish, German and North American.
Through the late 19th and early 20th centuries, immigration consisted mostly of Scots and Welsh, Scandinavians, Germans and a variety of other Europeans. Post-1982, immigrants have included people from the UK, Sanit Helena and Ascension Island, Chile, Australia and New Zealand. There have also been tiny numbers of Russians and Germans. Not much sign of the actual English, is there? But it doesn't matter. Because they all have a couple of things in common. They are British and they are Falkland Islanders. And they are protected by the United Kingdom. Shame, eh?
Would love to be in the room when you have another rant about the English - to a group of Scots Guardsmen! Let alone a bunch of Glaswegians!(and in case you are not sure - they are Scottish people from Glasgow)
Do grow up and regain your intelligence please. We may see things differently - but I know you are not an idiot - but you sure are becoming one.
The Falkland Islanders are the true descendants of Vernet's colonists, together with others brought to the Islands in the decades after 1833, a large number of which came from South America through the Lafone Royal Charter.
The immigrants from Britain and Europe were not forced to come to the islands, they were not implanted against their will, neither are the current Falkland Islanders being held against their will. They are born in the Islands to Islanders.
It's true that there have been a great many immigrants since 1982. Not many people knew about the Falkland Islands until the war plastered them over the TV screens. It was then that a large number of people decided that they wanted to live in such a wonderful land. Full of open natural beauty with a warm community.
It's also not surprising that there is such a large Chilean community. The Chileans have always enjoyed strong friendly relations with the British. The Chileans on the islands are part of the community. They retain their strong national pride, but they also feel like Islanders & they do not want the islands invaded by Argentines.
I've also explored the possibilities of emigrating to the Islands. It's a community I would feel at home in and also want to protect. If only the Argentine government would drop their ridiculous claim on the Islands, then more Argentines might be allowed to come to the Islands, but as it stands right now, the Falkland Islanders feel like they are under threat from an aggressive neighbour and they have to protect their community.
From the top of my head....
From the “22 original settlers” who were forced or chose to stay:
2 Were female Negresses confiscated from Vernet, kept in them Islands to serve the men....
2 were the sons of one of the above mentioned Negresses.
8 were Gauchos or Indios tha, as you well know, soon rebelled against the English authorities and were, later, deported...
5 Were English or European citizens that, for obvious reasons, had no problem with the English invasion.
That leaves only 5 (five) Argentineans staying “voluntarily”...
Who knows why...
Seems to be quite a turnaround going on in the Argieverse.
All these years we were told these settlers were forced to leave, but now it turns out they were forced to stay instead. I wonder just compelling piece of evidence came to light to occasion this change?
And only 5 Argentinians, too. Kind of calls into question the Argentinian character of the settlement, to begin with, wouldn't you say?
Your history is wrong yet again.
The 8 gauchos you mentioned did not rebel against the British. In fact, they were very happy with the British, because the Royal Navy instructed Vernet's men to pay them in silver and not the useless paper that Vernet was dispensing.
The only reason that Rivero and the others murdered Vernet's representatives, was due to them receiving more of Vernet's worthless paper, which could not be used outside the Falklands, as well as the exorbitant prices that Vernet charged for simple necessities.
It's a common misconception in Argentina that Rivero was a hero who rebelled against the British. A myth that fitted the propaganda fed to the masses by the Argentine goverment.
Many well known and accredited Argentine historians have verified that Rivero did not rebel against the British, but against Vernet, the United Provinces absent governor, because his representatives refused to pay the men what they were owed.
It's par for the course that Argentina has twisted history to suit it's own weak claim to the Islands. When the Argentines arrived in 1982, they promptly renamed Port Stanley, Porto Rivero.
That is until some Argentine historians contacted the military to tell them that Rivero was nothing but a common murderer, who actually murdered a United Provinces citizen (and relative of Vernet), Don Ventura Pasos. After the Argentine military were aware of their error, they promptly renamed Puerto Rivero to Puerto Argentino.
When Pinedo left on the Sarandi, he listed 22 inhabitants remaining.
Eighteen men remain in the settlement, including the Gauchos. William Dickson is an Irishman, Jean Simon, French, Antonio Werner and Charles Kusserley are German, while William Jones is English. Benjamin Pearson is from Jamaica. There are also three women; Antonina Roxa, and two black slaves, Gregoria and Carmelita who has a child.
When Rivero killed on Aug 26, the population had grown to 29 after the return of Vernet's supply ship Rapid.
not recognized by the UN.
You say...:
“The 8 gauchos you mentioned did not rebel against the British. In fact, they were very happy with the British, because the Royal Navy instructed Vernet's men to pay them in silver and not the useless paper that Vernet was dispensing.”
I say...:
A convenient (and totally undocumented) myth created by the English.
The English Navy expulsed the Argentinean authorities and most of the population in 1833 and left those 21 souls under the command of an English citizen.
The Argentinean and Uruguayan gauchos and indios were kept in the islands under false English promises of paying them in silver.
When that proved to be just another English lie, the English and European leadership left in charge by the English Navy, was expeditiously judged by the Justicia Gaucha.
John Fowler recognizes him English genocide in India and the Chagos Islands (unforgivable for) but unfortunately contradicted later. It has a brainwashing that justifies racism, colonialism and British imperialism. Think because always raised him and taught justify these atrocities. For English colonialism and imperialism in the 21st century is normal.
Do not want to understand that is a conflict of sovereignty. No self-determination. Argentina seeks dialogue and peace under international law and UN resolutions (2065) and decolonization committee.
World public opinion welcomes this proposal francisco mediating the pope, because unfortunately UK remains committed to the power of weapons, violence and colonialism and imperialism of the 21st century.
John Fowler must leave hatred and resentment against South America and Argentina. He must recognize that it can not be English in Argentina. You must work for peace and understanding between peoples.
Welcome then this contribution to peace and dialogue from the pope. The international community is demanding it as a matter of strict justice.
Which English citizen would that be?
I AWAIT YOUR ANSWER.
You are ignoring the question on other topics on this forum
The most important of all is the 1965 resolution 2065 of the UN. United Kingdom has never complied with this resolution. Because of this failure is worth the genocidal military junta to invade the islands in 1982 without the support of the people of Argentina. UK also does not comply with Resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49). After the war 1982 (37/9), 1983 (38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43 / 25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination.
Remember that Argentina suffered four British invasions (1806-1807-1833-1845). But it is useless to talk to you. You keep attacking and insulting to all those who think differently from you. Essential in a democracy. Opting for peace and understanding violence, colonialism and imperialism English.
For you peace and dialogue, are concepts that you do not want to understand. Everyone hopes that the United Kingdom.
Learn the Pope Francisco.
Do not bother to answer. I expect nothing from you.
If that's the case, it's one that was swallowed by the Argetine junta in 1982. Of all people.
But shouldn't you be getting on with your Danish lessons anyway?
You ask…:
”Which English citizen would that be?”
I answer…:
The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag, of course!
I quote...:
”After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France, Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Aires then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before, for a penal settlement. England claimed her right and seized them. The Englishman who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered.....”
The Voyage of the Beagle
Charles Darwin 1839
1) Please note Darwin's carefully chosen words...:
ENGLAND claimed her right and seized them. The ENGLISHMAN who was left in charge of the flag was consequently murdered.....”
2) Just for your info....:
Time to educate the ENGLISH…..
In the ~3 years I have been present on these pages there have been countless English people ”explaining” to the brownies….:
It’s not ENGLISH, it’s British
or
It’s not ENGLISH, it’s the U.K.
or
It’s not ENGLISH, it’s Scottish.
or
It’s not ENGLISH, it’s Welsh.
or
It’s not ENGLISH NAVY, it’s the Royal Navy.
or
It’s not ENGLISH ARMY, it’s the British Army.
or
It’s not ENGLISH AIRFORCE, it’s the Royal Air Force.
And so on….., In Aeternum.….
From now on I will solely employ the term that most brownies, all over the world, use when having to refer to the Les Goddams Bloody British…..
And that's….: Les Goddams Bloody ENGLISH….
As an “Inglés” living in Latinoamerica you should know this.
Yours
El Think
Quite so, Dickson was entrusted with the flag:
January 5th 1833, Onslow appoints William Dickson, the settlement's storeman & employee of Vernet as the British Representative on the Islands. Dickson's instructions are to fly the flag on Sundays and whenever a foreign vessel arrives at the port.
Before his departure, Pinedo provides a written order to one of Vernet's settlers, Juan Simon, a Frenchman, promoting him to 'Political and Military Commander' of the Islands. Simon is illiterate and, either unaware of the contents of the order, or disinterested in the responsibility as he takes no action.
“Commander Pinedo told the people that anyone who wished to go to Bs Ays., he would take him, and he took some gauchos (the Brazilian & Uruguayan & their wives).
Capt. Onslow persuades the majority of Vernet’s settlers to remain, including gauchos whose wages he pays in silver;
“ I had great trouble to persuade 12 of the Gauchos to remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments to the shipping must have ceased.”
@40
Clearly you did not take note of what Ban Ki-moon said last November.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’ and more specifically on colonialism, he argued that a prevailing impression is that “people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future”, be it independence or some kind of government in their territories.
en.mercopress.com/2012/11/12/ban-ki-moon-and-colonialism-people-should-be-able-to-decide-their-own-future
I re-iterate for your education:
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’
It was Argentina's invasion of the islands in 1982 which invalidated all previous resolutions, including your precious esoluti
You say further…:
”….he was given no authority by Onslow, except to fly the flag.”
I say….:
”…except to fly the flag???”
We all know how important it is to fly the Flag, don’t we, Englishman?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8
You're dead wrong:
The eradication of colonialism, according to the principles of the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the UN, is our common task, ”said Ban Ki-moon
For your education Read the following link:
en.mercopress.com/2013/03/01/ban-ki-moon-calls-for-a-more-inclusive-dialogue-on-decolonization
“a more inclusive dialogue”? That would be one excluding the islanders, then, would it? Or could it be ( shock horror) that once again Ban Ki-Moon is being subtly critical of Malvinsta Argentina?
“Ban Ki-moon and colonialism: people should be able to decide their own future
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’ and more specifically on colonialism, he argued that a prevailing impression is that “people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future”, be it independence or some kind of government in their territories”
Now you can cry like a girl as much as you want infact go to the airport and meet your dear lady leader The Botox queen who will be flying home soon via Morocco because as we say here two minds THINK alike -A HOPELESS CAUSE.
To finish.....:
You English are just too much……
You want the World to believe that English Captain Onslow negotiated work conditions with those ignorant Gauchos and Indios in Malvinas as if they where his fellow men?
Eight hours work, free weekends & 5 weeks holidays in ”Ayia Napa” or ”Bennydorm”, AYAY SIR!
For god’s sake!
We are talking 1833!
We are talking English Navy!
We are talking the end of the World!
Those Gauchos and Indios were ”Shanghaiied” and ”Impressed” by the English Navy, as sure as my screenname is ”Think”.
Brainwash anybody?
That would have been a good thing for Rivero to say in his defence. Maybe when he betrayed his comrades to the Brits. But I do wonder why there is no record of it anywhere. Like everything else you come up with.
royal navy old chap.
You are completely wrong & the boys here have shown you up to be a nasty, twisted, lying old fool.
Not our problem that you can't accept us.
Not our problem that you hate us.
But console yourself, we will soon be megarich while your excuse for a country slips further & further behind.
l THINK that you've finally lost it.
@40 Raul,
Your infamous Resolution #2065, which is only suggested anyway, was made null & void by your invasion in 1982.
What about Resolution # 502, a binding Resolution, which Argentina ignored?
You cannot pick what suits you & ignore the rest, Raul.
lf you put so much faith in UN Resolutions then you must honour them all.
ln short, both you & Think are so full of shit, that its a wonder that your bodies can function.
But apart from “NO NEGOTIATIONS on SOVEREIGNTY”, try to have a good day for the both of you.
For your education, I suggest that you read this prior article by Mercopress in November 2012:
en.mercopress.com/2012/11/12/ban-ki-moon-and-colonialism-people-should-be-able-to-decide-their-own-future
Ban Ki-moon and colonialism: people should be able to decide their own future
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’ and more specifically on colonialism, he argued that a prevailing impression is that “people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future”, be it independence or some kind of government in their territories.
The fact is that Ban Ki-moon does not believe Argentina has a valid case, because he knows the imposition of a foreign government upon the Falkland Islanders would be an act of colonialism. He can no more support the Argentine cause than he can deny the Falkland Islanders the right of Self Determination.
He is subtly tell Argentina that they cannot claim that Britain is in breach of any of the UN resolutions. Talks were offered to Argentina AND REJECTED, so they cannot moan to the UN that they did not have an opportunity to resolve the matter.
The truth is that all Argentina wants is talks about how the sovereignty is going to be handed over. The Islanders have no wish to hand over the sovereignty & they cannot be forced to leave their homes. Therefore Argentina is demanding the impossible, because sovereignty talks will never happen.
The Falkland Islanders & the British Government have offered to sit down & discuss trade, fishing conservation & even the oil exploration, but Argentina has to address these matters to the Islanders. If they refuse to do so, then it is Argentina that is in breach of the UN resolutions to discuss the Islands & not Britain.
In fact, if Argentina recognises the Falkland Islanders, they must also recognise the Islanders rights to Self Determination.
END OF STORY
Well put.
And as the Argentines ignore the Islanders, that means their interests are not being taken into account therefore Argentina breaks all the resolutions they claim the UK is breaking.
And all the resolutions to talk must take account of the UN charter, which the Argentines do not.
The UN does not state anywhere that the islanders can not be present during such talks.
The recognition of a dispute does not necessarily mean that the United Nations agrees that Sovereignty should be handed over. Far from it. The United Nations makes no decision on the sovereignty. That is for the Falkland Islanders to decide.
The UN was formed to help nations resolve disputes peacefully. It was Argentina that unilaterally decided to try and resolve it by conquest in 1982.
Argentina cannot even claim that Britain started the conquest in 1833, because there was no force used, no shots were fired, no one was harmed & Britain only reasserted their prior claim to the sovereignty, a claim held longer than any other nation on Earth, since 1690.
The Islanders are perfectly happy to sit down & talk with Argentina about any number of matters - except sovereignty. As far as the Islanders are concerned, that is not up for discussion.
If Argentina demands that they discuss sovereignty, then Argentina is perfectly able to raise the matter in the International Court of Justice as they've been advised to by Britain on many occasions in the past.
The Islanders have no doubt that the ICJ will tell Argentina that the 180 years of peaceful prescription, combined with the original British claim dating from 1690, the Arana-Southern Treaty of 1850 & the failure of Argentina to initiate a claim in the ICJ at the first instance (when they were perfectly able to in 1833, or as a new country in 1853), means that they lost any claim (however weak) by failing to bring the matter to the courts.
At the next C24 meeting, I suspect that the Falkland Islanders Government (or the British) will draw the Committee's attention to the empty chair meeting & point out that Argentina refused talks when they were offered. They will also point out that Argentina refuses to even recognise the Islanders exist, let alone the inalienable rights of Self Determination exercised so well in March & will say the Islanders have spoken & they want to be British.
END OF STORY
“Looks like we'll just have to wait for the sequel then.”
Which one do you want to see,
The Empire Strikes Back or Return of The Jedi???
Nothing can be resolved until Argentina realises that they cannot ignore the Islanders. It's like leaving a pressure cooker unattended with a safety valve jammed closed. Sooner or later (most likely when oil production starts) Argentina is going to have to face the problem head on.
At the moment Argentina is banging their collective heads against a wall, to try and make the pain go away! It's amusing for most to watch, but we are all shaking our heads at their stupidity.
They have told them that they can catch more bees with honey rather than sh1t, but they refuse to accept the advice & still believe that being aggressive will make the Islanders agree to surrender. They simply cannot accept that they've already lost, in 1833, 1850 and 1982.
Maybe it's a collective denial. They don't want to admit that they are a failure and to face the facts, because that truth would be too unpalatable. The problem with having a national aspiration that cannot be achieved is the repeated feeling that they are missing something.
They can never achieve sovereignty legitimately, so they must cheat to try and get it instead. The trouble is that other nations recognise that Argentina is not trustworthy. Spain found this out just recently, as will the bond holders when their next payment fails.
Sooner or later, the whole thing falls apart & they have to be bailed out by others, but if the IMF won't offer these recovery loans, the only alternative will be for the other Mercosur countries to step in and take over. A similar thing happened in Africa when Tanzania had to invade Uganda. If Argentina starts falling apart, I could easily see Chile taking charge of everything south of Patagonia, whilst Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay & Bolivia look after the north.
CFK will keep ranting until she disappears to her private Caribbean hideaway with fat Maximo (or receives her 9mm retirement) & her replacement will have to start talking to the Islanders, or look a complete fool when the
“So you agree, it isn't END OF STORY. Another false dawn catches out the unthinking.”
How does @65
“Which one do you want to see,
The Empire Strikes Back or Return of The Jedi???”
mean that I agree with you??
It does not. In fact, I think Nigel's post is more realistic.
Now that you have stated there is to be “sequel” , what do you think/want it to be??
Or, was that just one of your glib, curmudgeonly comments??
Don't you see the dilemma that Argentina is facing?
As Pete Bog pointed out, Argentina (& C24) have been demanding talks and there is nothing in the resolutions that say the Islanders cannot be present. Quite the opposite, it specifically mentions the Islanders.
Furthermore, Argentina has been ranting to the UN that Britain refuses to sit down and talk, but when Argentina was offered talks, it was THEY who refused to talk.
How can Argentina go back to the C24 now and say that the situation has not changed. It is Argentina that is now defying the resolutions of the C24, not Britain. The whole matter was turned about face by the Empty Chair Meeting.
Moreover, the referendum expresses the true wishes of the Islanders to remain British and as the Islanders rights of Self Determination are sacrosanct, and even the C24 resolution states that their interests must be taken into account, then it is no longer possible for Argentina to deny those interests.
Argentina makes it plain that the Islanders are IMPLANTED, but the opposite is true. The majority of the Islanders were born in the Islands to Islanders. This population was not placed in the Islands by Britain. They migrated to the Islands naturally, exactly the same way that Argentine citizens did. However, the Falkland Islanders have been in the islands longer than the majority of Argentines have been in Argentina.
The Falkland Islanders now have the opportunity to show the C24 that they've offered to talk, but they've been rebuffed, that it is Argentina breaking the UN resolutions, just as they did Security Council resolution 502 in 1982.
Very soon, we will see Gibraltar & the Falkland Islands demanding to be removed from the UN list of colonial countries. The only colonialists are Argentina & Spain, trying to impose an unfriendly government on the peaceful inhabitants of the Falkland Islands & Gibraltar.
The REAL colonialists are Argentina & Spain.
Game Set Match
Or is it? A positive response to a request for a courtesy office call by one Foreign Minister to another will not be interpreted by any other country as an invitation to negotiate. Don't even try it. As for demanding to be removed, I wonder why no one has tried that before. It seems such an obvious way to solve the dispute.
By the way, Argentina has continues to welcomes immigrants and turns away very few, unlike the Falkland Islands whose population appear to be proud to keep their tightly hand on the mixer tap. Where is the new immigration policy by the way?
“Game Set and Match” - borrowing a troll tactic to elicit a response, but you knew that and still could not resist.
It seems to be particularly irksome to you that you are denied the privilege of residing in the Falklands, but others are deemed acceptable.
Is this just an 'ego thing'?? You are so disdainful of the Islands, and other people in general, that I cannot imagine you would be happy there.
Or did you want to stalk Isolde some more?
END OF STORY
This totally wrong, is just the beginning of recovering the islands in a new global context. The eradication of colonialism and imperialism in the 21st century English.
You're full of pride. Give up the hate and spite of all that is Latin American, Spanish and Argentine. This totally wrong, is just the beginning of recovering the islands. It is a struggle of strict justice.
The cauda Malvinas is a Latin American and global causes. And that's just the beginning.
Remember that the committee of United Nations Decolonization of the 16 cases of colonialism, 10 are caused by the United Kingdom. Although you do not like, this is referred Ban Ki-moon: The international community is more than ever convinced that colonialism has no place in the modern world, “said Ban.” Eradication of Colonialism, according to the principles of the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, is our common endeavor. “
Remember this: ”The eradication of colonialism, according to the principles of the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, is our common endeavor.“
Refers to the UN resolutions and decolonization committee.
In other word the eradication of colonialism and imperialism of English Siglo21.
Always remember our constitution. It is never the end of history.
”La Nacion Argentina ratifies its legitimate and sovereignty over the Mlavinas Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular areas, being part of the national territory. Recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty , respecting the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law are a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people. ”
CONSTITUTION ARGENTINA, Prime transitional provision
Mail: face1354@hotmail.com
Raul you are a fool. You've misinterpreted what Ban Ki-moon said. He wasn't referring to British colonialism, he was referring to colonialism generally & in this case, Argentine colonialism. That's why in November he referred to the rights of peoples to decide their own future.
en.mercopress.com/2012/11/12/ban-ki-moon-and-colonialism-people-should-be-able-to-decide-their-own-future
Ban Ki-moon and colonialism: people should be able to decide their own future
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’ and more specifically on colonialism, he argued that a prevailing impression is that “people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future”, be it independence or some kind of government in their territories.
The Falkland Islanders have their own government. Therefore, to impose an unfriendly Argentine government upon them would be an act of colonialism.
IT IS ARGENTINA THAT IS THE COLONIALIST COUNTRY.
Over the past 70 years Great Britain has been taking steps to make any of the countries listed on the C24 list independent - if they want it.
The Falkland Islanders have their own government and manage their own affairs. They only need Britain to defend them against an aggressive neighbour like Argentina. If Argentina gave up her claim to the islands, then I'm sure that the islanders would opt for full independence, so long as they could maintain their British nationality if they choose to.
There is no such place as the Malvinas, only the Falkland Islands & Argentina's claim was merely aspirational, because at the time the Vice-Royalty split, the islands were not occupied & previously administered from Montevideo. Argentina tried to steal the land from the true owners Britain, but like any thief, they were caught.
Argentina has never had a legitimate claim on the Falklands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands or South Orkneys.
Ban Ki-moon CLEARLY and without any doubt stated that people should be able to determine there own future.
Then create your own empire with colonies,
As that is colonialism.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In reality Argentina wants to remove one ex-empire and replace it with a modern 21st century
Empire under another name.
But still an empire,
Argentina already has a colony in the Antarctic [is this true]
And if they got all the British possessions, that would make them colonies, and thus make it an argentine empire,
You call it what you like,
We call it being a hypercrit. And an empire..
.
What annoys me most is that the Argentines never try to justify their claim to South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands or South Orkneys, because they know that these claims are totally without merit.
Argentina has been trying to emulate Spain by creating the Argentine empire, but they've been trying to do with other people's land. Their South American neighbours have also suffered as a result of this & Argentina is still claiming territory claimed by Chile.
I guess that Argentina does not know how to be a friendly neighbour. They only know how to be @rseholes.
“-they only know how to be @rseholes”
and they're good at it!
Yes, quite true. Only Kretina's latest facelift now means that her @rsehole is now located where her mouth used to be and vice versa!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!