Tuesday, July 16th 2013 - 05:23 UTC

Falklands united as a political community thus a ‘micro-nation’ says SAC

The, “orthodox,” view that the Falkland Islands referendum was little more than British voters choosing to remain British, as pedalled by the Argentine government, is not enough to explain the result of the Falkland Islands referendum argues Professor Peter Willetts in his ‘A Report on the Referendum on the Political Status of the Falkland Islands’.

St Helenians, Chileans and 18 Argentines figured in the Falklands electoral register (Photo AP)

Professor Willetts who was in the Islands to witness the referendum on behalf of the South Atlantic Council, SAC, states in his report: “New tables from the Falklands census show that 11.0 per cent of the referendum electorate was neither born in the Islands nor in Britain. Almost certainly, some 100 to 150 foreign-born individuals, or perhaps more, voted ‘Yes’.” In a variety of international forums the Argentine government has dismissed the referendum claiming the Falklands people are nothing more than a British ‘implanted’ population and therefore not entitled to the right of self determination, as they are guaranteed to vote for British sovereignty.

Professor Willetts says the idea of holding a referendum was the Islanders’ response to the increasing pressure they faced from Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, pursuing a sovereignty claim over the Falklands, but, he concludes the President achieved the direct opposite of her intentions.

Instead of weakening and isolating the Falkland Islanders, they were strengthened and given a stronger basis for appealing to the global political community for support, argue Professor Willetts.

“Ironically, President Fernandez de Kirchner has guaranteed that there will be no settlement of the dispute during her presidency and she has made it much more difficult for her successors to have any possibility of being trusted as potential negotiating partners. The Islanders have become so united as a political community they should be called a ‘micro-nation’.”

Professor Willetts agrees with the official Referendum International Observation Mission that procedures for a free and secret ballot were scrupulously followed and the result accurately represented the collective choice of the electorate. It cannot be reasonably argued by the Argentine Government that there was any unfair bias against their sovereignty claim.

However, he suggests the Falkland Islands Government (FIG) information about the referendum, sent out to every voter, was “highly prejudicial against voting No to support independence.”

The three No votes are widely believed to have been pro-independence and not pro-Argentine. Professor Willetts does not support independence or any other specific option for the future of the Falklands, but he recognises the referendum result has forcefully asserted the right of the Falkland Islanders to have their wishes respected. The Islanders will have to be participants if any negotiations about the future of the Islands are resumed, he says.

He adds that among the whole census population of 2,840 people, 8.9% do not have British citizenship; 24.8% were neither born in the Islands nor born in the United Kingdom; and 24.0% do not chose British or Falkland Islander, when asked to “describe their national identity”.

These figures cover both people with Falkland Islands Status (FIS), who could vote, and immigrants on work or residence permits, who could not vote.
He explains it is not necessary to be a British citizen to have the vote. New immigrants, who have been in the Islands long enough, are able to apply to belong to the community, to gain FIS and to vote.

Professor Willetts has invented the term ‘Incorporated Islanders’, to cover people who have been granted Falkland Islands Status, who were neither born in the Falklands nor born in the UK. He then asked the census office for an extra table counting the number of Incorporated Islanders. The answer was 182 people from 58 other countries provided 11% of the referendum electorate.

Given eight per cent of the electorate did not vote, then simple arithmetic proves that a minimum of three per cent or at least 45 individuals who voted Yes were foreign-born.
The largest minorities were St Helenians and Chileans, he notes, but there were also 18 Argentines on the electoral register. These new Islanders are committed to their new country. Over 100 have also chosen to become British citizens, alongside the 42 St Helenians voters who are British.

Only one third of the foreign born Islanders chose their former country as their national identity in the census and two thirds have changed to being an Islander or British or having joint identity.

Professor Willetts deduces, not just 45, but most of the 182 Incorporated Islanders voted ‘Yes’ with the same enthusiasm as the longer established population.

Professor Willetts is a founder member of the South Atlantic Council, set up in December 1983, to ‘promote better communication and understanding between Argentina, Britain and Falkland Islanders’. (PN).-

 

68 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 Anglotino (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 06:50 am Report abuse
This article only confirms two points that I have made more than once:
* The Argentine president has done more to advance the Falkland
Island's cause than any other politician.
* That the Falkland Islands are a nation.

Independence in 2033 I reckon. A new Commonwealth Realm.
2 RedBaron (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 07:54 am Report abuse
The “implanted” accusation from the Argies is one of the things I think the FIG should work on to dispel.
Having been based in the Islands for an extended period, I can say that there is no question of an implanted population. It is impossible to accuse third, fourth and up to ninth generation residents of being implanted. Those new arrivals (first and second generation) who I knew and met were moving to the Islands after applying for jobs freely and individually - mostly free enterprise positions rather than Government inspired.
If there really was some sort of dastardly plan to import people to live on the Islands against their will, it certainly is not very successful because the population of the Islands has hardly moved upwards in all the recent years and I know of no scheme or recruiting drive (nor is there any points system similar to Australia or Canada for immigration) to encourage or otherwise incent people to move there. Indeed, the opposite may be seen to be true - it's very difficult to get into the Falklands unless you have a job before you want to arrive.
The myth that there is some over-arching design to populate the Islands with people through inducement or coercion is simply not true and should be banished immediately.
3 Benson (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 07:55 am Report abuse
CFK never really wanted sovereignty over the Falklands, she just wants a political whipping boy. I'm fairly sure that even she could see that her aggressive stance would of made it impossible for the UK government to entertain the idea of handing over sovereignty. It whipped up a bit of nationalism and won her a bit of political weight. If she had managed to get the Falklands she would have been a national heroine and if not she could scream about British imperialism, a no lose situation really. I think she may have overplayed it though, the worse the situation gets in Argentina the more people are questioning her motives over the Falklands and the more people are questioning the claim.
4 Islander1 (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 11:55 am Report abuse
2- also our Immigration procedures have ZERO BIAS between an Argentine-British-Canadian-US-Chilean national - all have to fill in excactly the same form.
5 Devolverislas (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 12:15 pm Report abuse
Dr. Peter Willetts is the man who, when was on the islands for the referendum in March, was a cat among the pigeons. Having had his status of observer removed by the islands he unsettled the self-confidence of the islanders at the post-referendum press-conference. Devolverislas wrote at the time in a comment to the Huffington Post:-

“One observer of the referendum, Peter Willetts, reportedly cast a shadow over the celebrations, described by Klaus Dodds and Alasdair Pinkerton.
At the press conference Willetts pointed to the innate contradiction of the islanders’ status.The islanders can only claim self-determination if they are in the process of de-colonization. Since they claim they are no longer a colony, they have no right of self-determination. The professor, no doubt aggrieved after being rejected as an observer, was being pedantic. It was a salutary reminder, however, that the islands are subject to a dispute in the United Nations, where, as per Resolution 2065, the islanders are classified as a “population” as opposed to a “people”. They tried to conceal this uncomfortable truth when, in a statement to the press, they invented the term: “people’s referendum”. The observing world outside, however, can see through the wiles of the islanders. The Argentinians have not delayed in calling the media's attention back to the fact that they are “nuestras islas”. ”

Now apparently Dr. Willetts seeks to curry favour with the islanders anew. The islanders, according to these repeated reports in Mercopress, are desperate for support from any source.
6 Anglotino (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 12:24 pm Report abuse
What the hell is the point Devolverislas is trying to make?
7 agent999 (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 12:29 pm Report abuse
His post was shot down in flames by other commentators!

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/professor-klaus-dodds/falkland-islands-referendum_b_2908572.html
8 cornishair (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 12:45 pm Report abuse
Democracy, something Argentina cannot hope to win against :) talking about territory in the 21st century, makes you sound like colonialists!.
9 Benson (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 12:49 pm Report abuse
Call us what you want, we are people with our own identity. Denying that we are a “people” hasn't got Argentina one step closer to stealing our islands.
10 GFace (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 01:02 pm Report abuse
@5. The islanders aren't “people” do you can do to them what people like you did to the Jews, Roma, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Danes, Belgians and Dutch.. Disgusting. Irredeemable. Fascists like you never change, just as you can never hide the truth about yourselves for anyone with a memory. Anglotinos right, there is no better PR for the rights of the Island than brining in the Malvanistas to show their true faces.
11 Steve-33-uk (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 01:34 pm Report abuse
'“Clarín” lies (among others) over the Malvinas - Clarin yesterday asked readers if they knew that it took place the meeting of the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations. “Most likely not”, is the reply in the same article. Long ago that I did not coincide with Clarin, but this time are correct: Clarín reader does not have to know it, because the journal hid that strategy in London to promote a referendum on the Islands failed in the UN, as also published other important events that came out strengthened the Argentine position. Long Clarin editors are more concerned to avoid that his boss, Héctor Magne-tto, meets to present to testify at trials for violation of human rights in which it is involved that reported the Argentine reality...'
www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-224568-2013-07-16.html

'UASD and Embassy Argentina conducted symposia on Falkland Islands - The Autonomous University of Santo Domingo (UASD) and the Embassy of Argentina jointly develop a series of colloquia, both at Headquarters and in some centers and enclosures of the interior of the country, with regard to the issue of the Malvinas Islands...'
elnuevodiario.com.do/app/article.aspx?id=337220

'Timerman told justice spying Argentines, It received evidence in the Mercosur Summit. - BUENOS AIRES.-the Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman confirmed that it filed with justice documentation that they gave on Friday, within the framework of the Mercosur Summit, with hundreds of emails - with their names and the respective passwords belonging to leaders of the ruling party and the opposition, victims of a network of international espionage...'
www.lagaceta.com.ar/nota/552619/politica/timerman-denuncio-ante-justicia-espian-argentinos.html

'“In a complex world, we must be United the peoples of South America”
www.rosarionet.com.ar/rnetw/nota130305
12 Conqueror (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 02:14 pm Report abuse
@6 He isn't trying to make a point. He's just repeating the drivel he posted on the Huffington Post on 19 March 2013. Just look at one section. “The islanders can only claim self-determination if they are in the process of de-colonization. Since they claim they are no longer a colony, they have no right of self-determination.” Can one actually imagine an Emeritus Professor of Global Politics saying such a thing? But let's look closer. This was a comment posted at the height of the argie reaction to the referendum result. Mostly what it shows is typical argie fuddled thinking. In straightforward terms, it means that only a colony in the process of decolonisation can have self-determination. So argieland isn't entitled to self-determination. It's not entitled to determine how or by whom it should be governed. So which “country” imposed the argie “government”? Therefore, there are three states of being. Colony - can't have self-determination. Non-colony - can't have self-determination. Only in the short period between the two states of being can you have the third - and self-determination. An argie “argument” constructed to suit the case of the Falkland Islands. I reckon “Devolverislas” is around 13 or 14 years of age. If he's much older than that, he comes over as a retard. Either brainwashed or brain-dead. IF he's passed the years of his (its?) education, it's a clear indication of why argieland can't make its way in the world. Because it's congenitally stupid!
13 raul2 (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 02:42 pm Report abuse
The referendum was a fraud patriotic.
Argentina has strengthened the position in front of the world public opinion that sees the British islanders as accomplices of colonialism, racism and imperialism of the 21st century English.

The referendum, as it was raised never solve the problem of sovereignty of the islands. Too much damage has made UK the islanders into thinking it would solve the sovereignty dispute, when in fact it did not have the authorization of UN decolonization committee also was not recognized by anyone.

To make matters worse for the Islanders English, David Cameron is still refusing to dialogue continues its sovereignty and political colonialist and imperialist racist 21st century. Besides the referendum never had greater institutional quality. It was an organization pays and unfortunately, for what is observed, the referendum was a forgery. According voters were not required documentation was voted only to give the name without any pattern control. He had no serious methodological rigor. It gives every impression and suspect it was a patriotic fraud.

Argentina's position was strengthened by giving a position and a more solid basis to appeal to the global political community support for the principle of territorial integrity and leave uncovered English colonialism. Argentina to be supported by the unanimous support of many forums, such as the OAS, CELAC, UNASUR, MERCOSUR and African Nations Argentina had given its support through Malabo Declaration, the Declaration of Lima South American States and the Arab .

At the end of the Decolonization Committee this right. It gives more strength to the arguments Argentinos. The referendum organized by the UK was “a political move” totally lacking in legitimacy and world public opinion was not fooled by racism, colonialism and imperialism English of the 21st century

See the following link:
en.mercopress.com/2012/06/16/c24-chair-calls-falklands-referendum-political-ploy-praises-argentine-president
14 Steveu (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 02:54 pm Report abuse
A few rattled folks out there today!
15 GFace (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 03:19 pm Report abuse
@14 Fascist fear people voting. Fascist fear people hearing about it. Fascists fear being ignored.

The life of a LaCampora troll must be a living nightmare.

Mommy! There is a self-determining people under my bed! Mommy! There is a democratically elected leader who wants to talk to me about mutually beneficial issues from which we can both profit in my closet! Not to worry little one, just pull that our dear Auntie Junta made for you over your head and pretend they aren't there.

Sad.
16 Britworker (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 03:35 pm Report abuse
@13
The UK does not subscribe to the C24 committee, it is biased and has no bearing on sovereignty. So we don't really care what they think and we are not the only ones.
17 reality check (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 04:00 pm Report abuse
The UK government certainly does not care, or have they failed to notice it.

Argentina at the C24.

Bit like going to a dermatologist complaining of a tooth ache!
18 Conqueror (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 04:10 pm Report abuse
@13 You are STUPID. When will you be 15 years of age?

Argieland couldn't “strengthen” a wet paper bag.

There is no “problem” with the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. They are BRITISH. They have been BRITISH since 1690. If you have a problem with the math, that's 323 YEARS. In all that time, no other country has ever made a successful challenge. Except for the Security Council, the UN is just a talking shop. It has no relevance.

“Dialogue”? With whom? In order for there to be “dialogue” there needs to be someone with whom there is any purpose to speaking. London talks to Stanley, Stanley talks to London. Who else is appropriate?

As previously pointed out, argieland couldn't “strengthen” a wet paper bag. “OAS, CELAC, UNASUR, MERCOSUR and African Nations”. Of what significance are they? Having dismissed most of the UN as being irrelevant, what do these little cliques mean?

As Britworker says “The UK does not subscribe to the C24 committee, it is biased and has no bearing on sovereignty. So we don't really care what they think and we are not the only ones.” The UK rarely attends C24 meetings because it's a useless bunch of self-opiniated, self-important wastes of space.

The “C24 chair” is a particularly useless asshole. Given his obvious bias, he should disqualify himself, IF he had any integrity. I doubt whether he knows what the word “integrity” means.

And neither do you. I wonder at the time you seem to spend typing this garbage. Do you have a free period between “Malvinas” indoctrination and CFK Economics 101“?

You are a truly sad individual. Still, if the ”government” can provide you with a bag of flour and half a dozen tomatoes in place of the pocket money from your parents, I guess it can be understood. But not excused. Has your brain been sucked out as well? Assuming you ever had one!
19 Simon68 (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 04:23 pm Report abuse
13 raul2 (#)
Jul 16th, 2013 - 02:42 pm

Please raul2 you are making Argentina look more stupid than even Timerman does. For goodness stop writing things like “... To make matters worse for the Islanders English...” unless you are trying to comment about the Islander's language, and “David Cameron is still refusing to dialogue continues its sovereignty and political colonialist and imperialist racist 21st century...” which means absolutely nothing!!!!!

I would suggest that you ask your La Campora monitor to get you English lessons ASAP if you are to go on commenting on MercoPress, or alternatively you could resign and do Argentina a favour!!!!!!!
20 GFace (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 04:45 pm Report abuse
@19 “I would suggest that you ask your La Campora monitor to get you English lessons ASAP ”

So can he can tell his bald-face and repeatedly and so easily disproven lies through the use of BETTER English -- and from there make Argentina look even worse?

“or alternatively you could resign and do Argentina a favour”

Well that ~would~ be more productive.... On that there is little doubt.
21 Terence Hill (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 05:13 pm Report abuse
5 Devolverislas, 13 raul2
The only occasion that I am aware of where the ICJ has dealt with whom has a legal right to self-determination was the Western Sahara case. ICJ president, Dame Rosalyn Higgins, wrote: ”Attractive an aphorism though [self-determination] is, it still has to be said that the territorial issue does come first. Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have a right to self- determination” (Dame Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process - International Law and How We Use It, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994)
As to the question of sovereignty she stated earlier “No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.80”
80. Rosalyn Higgins, “Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
So since sovereignty is the UK's the Islanders have an absolute right to self-determination. Thus your claim that “The islanders can only claim self-determination if they are in the process of de-colonization.” is null and void. Further, Argentina's claim was legally extinguished by 1982, which is why she invaded and doesn't seek to pursue it through the international courts.
22 Steve-33-uk (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 05:48 pm Report abuse
Anyone read Timerman's drivel in Página/12 yet?

'“Clarín” lie (among other things) on the Falklands - By Hector Timerman'
www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-224568-2013-07-16.html
23 A_Voice (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 06:04 pm Report abuse
@21
So..........according to ICJ president, Dame Rosalyn Higgins, the people on the Falklands are wasting their time playing the self-determination card?.....
”Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have a right to self- determination”
Is that what you are saying?
24 GALlamosa (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 06:18 pm Report abuse
Peter Willetts was for many years an arch Argentine apologist. Over the last decade he and most of his SAC colleagues have come to realise the futility of fighting the self-determination case. He has now completely swapped views, which all intelligent men/women, when presented with the facts, are entitled to do.
25 A_Voice (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 06:40 pm Report abuse
@24
So there is truth in what Devolverislas @5 .....is saying?
26 Steve-33-uk (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 07:08 pm Report abuse
@5 Devolverislas @25 A_Voice

'Self-determination versus territorial integrity
...A number of states have laid claim to territories, which they allege were removed from them as a result of colonialism. This is justified by reference to Paragraph 6 of UN Resolution 1514(XV), which states that any attempt “aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter”. This, it is claimed, applies to situations where the territorial integrity of a state had been disrupted by colonisation, so that the people of a territory subject to a historic territorial claim are prevented from exercising a right to self-determination. This interpretation is rejected by many states, who argue that Paragraph 2 of UN Resolution 1514(XV) states that “all peoples have the right to self-determination” and Paragraph 6 cannot be used to justify territorial claims. The original purpose of Paragraph 6 was “to ensure that acts of self-determination occur within the established boundaries of colonies, rather than within sub-regions”. Further, the use of the word attempt in Paragraph 6 denotes future action and cannot be construed to justify territorial redress for past action.[50] An attempt sponsored by Spain and Argentina to qualify the right to self-determination in cases where there was a territorial dispute was rejected by the UN General Assembly, which re-iterated the right to self-determination was a universal right.'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
27 Conqueror (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 07:17 pm Report abuse
@23 Do you think that the title “Dame” implies intelligence? I note that you don't provide a link to where Dame Rosalyn Higgins said that. Says a lot.

In any event, territorial sovereignty is British. Or are you unable to understand “uti possidetis”? So territorial sovereignty has been ESTABLISHED. It took 258 British lives. British blood. British guts. British endurance. British ability.

@25 Don't be a prat. Devolverislas is a 13 year old brat. I doubt it even understands what “truth” is. But then, neither do you!
28 Monty69 (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 07:19 pm Report abuse
13 raul2

We don't need the authorisation of the C24 to have a referendum in our own country. What a crazy idea.

As for your objections to the way the referendum was carried out, the international observers were satisfied. Your opinion, based on nothing, is irrelevant.
No we didn't have to provide 'documentation'. We had to state who we were, and our names were crossed off the list to make sure we didn't vote twice, and to make sure no-one else voted in our name. The only possible fraud would be for us all to swap identities with someone else and give the wrong name. Which would be utterly pointless. And impossible in a place where every voter is known personally to the election officials.

Your lies are pathetic. The referendum was organised by Falkland Islanders and carried out in a fair and transparent fashion.
If you need to tell lies to make your case, you don't really have a case, do you?

Your compulsive need to lie about Falkland Islanders and demean us exposes you as a racist and imperialist. Your wish to disenfranchise us and treat us as colonial chattels is outdated and contemptible and has no place in the 21st century.
29 Briton (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 07:28 pm Report abuse
RAUL
You are argentine,
enough said,

no matter the truth, only argentine version is of interest..
30 A_Voice (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 07:41 pm Report abuse
@27
Perhaps if you had read the post @21 you would see that I didn't quote the reference it was Terence Hill from ???.......Manchester?
He provided the detail here.......
” (Dame Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process - International Law and How We Use It, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994)”.......I guess they just let anyone become ICJ President?
31 Terence Hill (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 07:53 pm Report abuse
23 A_Voice
In spite of your sophistry. and deliberate misstatement, in a word no. Here again is Higgins assessment on the Islands sovereignty.
“But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.80”.
80. Rosalyn Higgins, “Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
So in fact she has determined where territorial sovereignty lies, therefore the inhabitants have a right to self-determination, is what she is saying.
32 Conqueror (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 07:53 pm Report abuse
@30 Oh, goody. A quote from 19 years ago. How far will desperation take you? So dumb!
33 A_Voice (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 08:12 pm Report abuse
@31
The first quote is an explanation of how international law is applied the second is merely her opinion without submitted facts or have these facts been laid before the ICJ in their entirety ?.........No! The British Title only pertains to West Falkland and no more!
@32
How dumb are you, are you saying the pertaining International Law used by the ICJ has dramatically changed in the last 19 years?
Please provide the relevant links for me to study
34 alan (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 09:09 pm Report abuse
@33 The court must apply 'international treaties AND conventions in force'. Conventions currently in place are self determination. Sovereignty resides in the nation and belongs to the people. It certainly does not belong to Argentina.
35 screenname (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 09:10 pm Report abuse
@33 A_Voice: “The British Title only pertains to West Falkland and no more!”

In your opinion...Chuckle Chuckle

The real Spanish obviously thought they could have all the Falklands by use of force against the British, so if the British equally take that view it is clear both parties think there is a chance to gain all of the Falklands.

At the end of the 18th century two parties were claiming all of the Falklands, and Argentina was not either of them.

Since the real Spanish didn't drop their claim until after the British had taken full control of the Falklands, claims of inheritance by you plastic Spanish are nonsense.

19 more years of habitation built up by the Falklanders on their islands Thinko...

Chuckle Chuckle
36 Terence Hill (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 09:13 pm Report abuse
33 A_Voice
Without even touching upon Britons claim from 1765, if they had sailed over and just seized the Islands. That was legal under international law in 1833, and is still legal to-day. The only thing that hasn't changed is your ignorance.

”Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that: Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Power or at least one of them, have the faculty of effectively disposing of the ceded territory.10 That the tribunal's decision in this
arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß“
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by SHARON KORMAN

”It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared
in 1970 that the modem prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created 'prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law'”
Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk
37 GALlamosa (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 09:20 pm Report abuse
#25 The reason for Prof Willetts change of mind is a matter for him. Speculation by any of us adds nothing, though I cannot see what is in it for him to “curry favour” with Falkland Islanders .

Interesting that idiot boy Betts tried to make a big deal at the UN of Prof Willets loss of accreditation as an observer at the referendum. In fact Prof Willetts agreed that it was not appropriate for him to hold that status because he was no longer of an independent mind on the issue.
38 A_Voice (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 09:32 pm Report abuse
@36
You really are stupid.........so now you are saying the the British Title is based on conquest........yeah I can see that going a long way.
Why don't you represent the UK.........“ermm forget all the claims guvnor' Its ours because we seized it by force”.......how many times are you going to shoot yourself in the foot. Your first quote was a pro Argentine one and now this one is also.
Is it that Brazilian sun getting you confused?
39 LEPRecon (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 09:50 pm Report abuse
@38 AVoice of Thinks

No. What he is saying is that IF Britains claim was solely due to right of conquest, then it would still be valid as the law of THAT time fully supported this right.

The problem with Argentina is that you want to apply 21 century law retrospectively as you think this will somehow gain you the Falklands.

But unlike Argentina, the rest of the world states it is ILLEGAL to try and apply laws retrospectively.

Do try to keep up, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
40 A_Voice (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 10:03 pm Report abuse
@39
Oh well if that's the case then all the historical research and the self-deternination nonsense was all unnecessary and all the Brits need to do is proclaim it's Ours by right of Conquest..........are you for effing real?
Obtuse? I'm more of a cute kind of guy......so they say!
41 Anglotino (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 10:17 pm Report abuse
Even Argentina currently recognises that the UK has sovereignty.

Anyway nothing creates a group identity more than a common enemy and thanks to Cristina, a Falkland's national identity is further solidifying more and more.

One day I expect the islanders to raise a statue as thanks to all her good work.
42 screenname (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 10:23 pm Report abuse
@40 A_Voice: “the self-deternination nonsense was all unnecessary”

I can't see how having a say in the running of their society would be nonsense or unnecessary to the actual inhabitants of the Falklands.
43 Terence Hill (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 10:29 pm Report abuse
I have just shown you how adjudication would likely view it based on past cases dealing with international law. The Island of Palmas Case, was decided by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and was further endorsed by the UNGA in 1970. In any event Argentina had lost any legal claim under the principle of extinct prescription.
“3. Assessment of the Totality of Argentina’s Claim to Sovereignty
...But, after critically reviewing the bases for Argentina’s claim to sover-
eignty, one must conclude that Argentina never developed definite
title to the Islands. None of the bases argued by Argentina are con-
clusive in establishing sovereignty. ...
28
Applying the rules concerning the mode of extinctive prescription to Great Britain's claim results in a different conclusion. Extinctive prescription involves possession,... ...However, since this was such a long period of time, exceeding eighty years, l7O one could conclude under general principles of international law171 that this was a sufficient period to extinguish Argentina's claim in spite of her diplomatic protests.
Regardless of the conclusion reached above, however, the establishment of the world courts changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep Argentina's claim to sovereignty alive.172 ”
The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain Major James Francis Gravelle
MILITARY LAW REVIEW CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES
Pamphlet NO. 27-100-107 HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; Washington, D.C., Winter 1985
44 A_Voice (#) Jul 16th, 2013 - 11:02 pm Report abuse
“...But, after critically reviewing the bases for Argentina’s claim to sover-
eignty, one must conclude that Argentina never developed definite
title to the Islands.”
you are kidding me right?
How could they develop when the Brits took over administration forcibly, excluding Argentina......and prescription ........the same thing applies.
If the Yanks hadn't destroyed the settlement governed by BA and the British hadn't taken over admin, there wouldn't have been a case.
You are just cutting and pasting without even thinking about what is being said!
45 José Malvinero (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 12:01 am Report abuse
“Malvinas: what legal value is the referendum?”

www.rionegro.com.ar/diario/malvinas-que-valor-juridico-tiene-el-referendo-1072390-9539-nota.aspx

Answer: NONE
46 Islander1 (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 12:41 am Report abuse
Jose - Did we ever ask Argentine if it was legal in theri eyes? Of course we did NOT as in our eyes Argentian is IRRELEVANT when it comes to the future of the Islands.
Our Government- yes the one that is recognised by many South America Nations - decided to carry it out because we were fed up with all the verbal crap your stupid President and here late husband have been screeching out to all and sundry - we decided that it was about time the world took note that there are actually TWO sides to Argentina,s claims and a people are involved, and it is actually LITTLE to do with Britain, buit a LOT about Argentina,s wish to Colonize a people and their home against their wishes.Good old fashioned 18-19th Century Colonialism!
And by God it has worked - because why else would all you be so steamed up about it all!
47 GALlamosa (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 01:23 am Report abuse
#44 You have the permanent Argentine problem of not admitting there was any history to the Falkland Islands before 1829 when you illegally invaded. The Falklands first became British territory in 1775. The British only reasserted administration that was already theirs. You cannot illegally take something that is not yours and then complain when the owner takes it back.
48 José Malvinero (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 01:28 am Report abuse
46

“yes the one that is recognised by many South America Nations”

Like what?
49 Islander1 (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 02:25 am Report abuse
48 Jose: Well The 3 that we trade and have communications with for a start and thus receive standard documentations from their Govt Departments addressed to the relevant Falkland Islands Govt Departments. Chile-Uruguay-Brazil
The Columbian Govt who allowed out elected Govt representative to speak in and address their elected members in their Govt buildings. various other S and Central America Govts who also receive our visiting delegations.

Will that do you for a start?
50 Terence Hill (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 04:43 am Report abuse
38 A_Voice
I'm not doing anything other than showing you what a legal expert's view is. Gravelle's commission was to give the U.S army the legal parameters of the dispute. This is not my opinion, but that of the U.S army's point man, who doesn't give a rats ass about your emotionally indoctrinated hang-ups. His charge is to deal with reality, not the imaginings of a politically immature entity. This is what he has done, he has no personal stake in the mater. I believe that he has stated the legal picture correctly, if Argentina doesn't want to accept it, well who cares she can go on lamenting her imaginary grievance, like Marley's ghost until eternity. It is not going to change the respective legal situation one iota.
51 Pete Bog (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 10:24 am Report abuse
@13

“ also was not recognized by anyone.”

All of the EU is no one? You need lessons in maths. the EU praised the Falkland Islands for good governance-which is central to the referendum.
@45
“Malvinas: what legal value is the referendum?””

The Falkland Islands Government is the legally appointed government in the Falkland Islands, democratically voted in by its population who legally ran the referendum.

If the FIG had organised a referendum in Argentina to decide on Argentina's status, that would have been illegal as Falkland islanders are not Argentines and have no right to impose their political will on Argentina.

If the Argentines thought the referendum was illegal, they should have contested it in a court. They did not, thereby accepting it.
@33
“?.........No! The British Title only pertains to West Falkland and no more!”

Spain gave up their claim in 1863.

” The (Spanish)expedition's two frigates spent six weeks in Stanley harbour from 27 February to 9 April 1863; they fired a salute to the British flag and received Governor James Mackenzie on board, and the expedition accepted gifts of scientific specimens. They were official representatives of the former colonial power, Spain, and clearly accepted the Falklands as British.”

@38
“because we seized it by force”

What force? A letter is an act of force?

The fact that most of Pinedo's sailors were British nationals has no bearing on 1833?

It does have a bearing, that's WHY the UP did not fight the British-a bit stupid using British mercenaries in this case wasn't it????-Rather like if the UK task force in 1982 had been composed of Argentine mercenaries only to find out (surprise surprise) when they got down to the South Atlantic, they didn't want to fight their own people.

@40
“ Ours by right of Conquest..........”

Which is exactly what Argentina are claiming. Britain had not surrendered her claim from 1690/1775, so the UPRP were not claiming an uncontested territory. Therefore it was conquest.
52 lsolde (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 10:39 am Report abuse
l'm past arguing with these stupid malvinistas or indeed providing any proof to our ownership.
lts enough for me that we own the land & they do not.
Enough already & they can go whistle over the hills & far away for all l care.
lts like trying to reason with a mad person.
Round & round we go, in ever decreasing circles, to finally disappear up our own backsides with a puff of smoke.
53 Simon68 (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 01:04 pm Report abuse
52 lsolde (#)
Jul 17th, 2013 - 10:39 am

It IS trying to reason with a mad person!!!!!

That is exactly the result of brainwashing!!!!!!!
54 Islander1 (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 01:44 pm Report abuse
Reality is:
Falkland Islands Govt and peaople carried out the referendum- which they are entitled to do - with impartial International supervision who confirmed it was just and fair and democratic etc etc.

Falkland Islands Govt and people are happy with the result and its acceptance level internationally to date. Reality is that Govts of 3rd party nations do not change their Foreign Policies overnight - but gradually - and we have good signs of that.
So here we are all Relaxed.

Argentian - is most upset and concerned and continues to rant and shout childish innuendo as they know they are going to gradually loose - which convinces us even further that we did the right thing in having the referendum!
55 José Malvinero (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 04:26 pm Report abuse
52

There are not “the owns of the land.”
They are the necessary accomplices of pirate Crown to stay with Argentine Islands whose owners are all the Argentine people.
Especially you who were not born in the islands. Only thieves.
56 HansNiesund (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 04:27 pm Report abuse
When your only argument is that your opponent has no right to be heard, you have lost. Also, you suck.
57 Terence Hill (#) Jul 17th, 2013 - 06:30 pm Report abuse
55 José Malvinero

Unfortunately for you humble opinions don't count, only the precepts of international law.
58 screenname (#) Jul 18th, 2013 - 02:01 pm Report abuse
@55 José Malvinero: “ owners are all the Argentine people”

Let's say the UN totally changes its current position and allows one country to travel over the sea and annex another country, with total disregard for the views of the long-term population.

If you really think CFK would be giving out equal shares of any profit from a new land conquest you are living in a dream world.

You already sit on enough land to be rich, where has all the money gone?
59 Pete Bog (#) Jul 18th, 2013 - 05:45 pm Report abuse
@55
There are not “the owns of the land.”

You have no proof to suggest you are the owners-by the way you kicked most of the native population out of Argentina or killed it so by your own logic, you implanted European colonists don't own Argentina ether.

See by using logic I can say that Argentina is not a legitimate country , but unlike you I live in the real world rather than 'Malvinas fantasy fairy land' so I realise that history is NOT PRESENTLY 1833 BUT 2013.

If I told the Argentines they have to get out of their land, because the Indians own it or that the British settled Ushuaia first, they are probably not going to take any notice, regardless whose land they usurped AFTER 1833.
Apply this same logic to the Falkland Islanders and....... they're still there, and will stay there, and they are no more Argentine than the Japanese.

@55
“necessary accomplices of pirate Crown”

No Jose, that would only work if NONE of the Falkland Islanders were born in the Islands, and had links to several generations.

If every single Falkland Islander were BORN in Northern Ireland Scotland. Wales or England, you would have a case, but as you cretins don't even know the BASIC EASY-TO-UNDERSTAND DIFFERENCE between the UK and England, you are going to be struggling with that one for the next 1000 years of Kirchener's Reich.

“Only thieves”

The pirates and thieves were shipped back in shame to Argentina from June 1982. They refused to comply with resolution 502 (MANDATORY) so the UK carried out that resolution (see, we do help comply with the UN).

@56
“When your only argument is that your opponent has no right to be heard, you have lost.”

Briefer and more effective than my statement, but hey, I enjoy telling Malvanistas how it is, knowing they have no, or very weak counter-arguments.

It is more fun when they make a stronger case, which calls for more historical research, usually strengthening the Falkland Islander's/UK position.
60 Briton (#) Jul 18th, 2013 - 06:29 pm Report abuse
we gave up arguing with brain dead zombies ages ago,

the truth will be forever a lie, in the argentine eyes.

thats why they will forever live in the past..
61 Brit Bob (#) Jul 18th, 2013 - 07:37 pm Report abuse
@55

On what basis do the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina?

I'm afraid that you are completely away with the fairies with your assumptions and can only assume that you have been subjected by brainwashing from an early age. I suggest that you need to do some independent research and then sit down in a quiet, dark corner.
62 redp0ll (#) Jul 19th, 2013 - 12:12 am Report abuse
So much history. Does it matter what happened centuries ago? The present belongs to the living not the dead. In the referendum only three people voted no, one of whom was probably the renegade Best. Funny that the voters born in Argentina voted not to be part of thier country of birth isnt it?
63 malen (#) Jul 20th, 2013 - 10:45 pm Report abuse
62 Instead of 18 or 13 or er I dont know how many but less than 20 sure, let 1.563 live in the islands and then make a referendum and lets see the results. We let all britains come and live here freely.
64 Anglotino (#) Jul 21st, 2013 - 07:57 am Report abuse
2013 and the Falkland Islands are still part of the UK.
By free choice!

2013 and the Falkland Islands are not part of the Republic of Argentina.
By free choice!

As a micro-nation I fully expect the Falkland Islanders to eventually declare their independence.
By free choice!

My money is on 2033.

I think about the name it might use rather than Argentina's manufactured claim from the 1940s.

My money is on the Commonwealth of the Falkland Islands.
65 Clyde15 (#) Jul 21st, 2013 - 11:26 am Report abuse
#55
Do you consult a book called “the 1001 clichés of Argentinian Imperialism” before you post, and, could you direct us to it.
I need a good laugh.
Thank you in anticipation.
66 Pete Bog (#) Jul 21st, 2013 - 11:43 am Report abuse
@63
Malen
“let 1.563 live in the islands and then make a referendum and lets see the results”

This may have escaped you, but do you not think that the Argentines on the Falkland Islands live there because they PREFER living there to living in Argentina?

As with the 11 South American civilian settlers in 1833 (and the Uruguayan gauchos in the 1850s ) who chose to stay in the Falkland Islands as it was their home, under British rule;

you haven't taken in to account that they preferred living in the islands to living in the United Provinces.

They probably in reality considered themselves more 'Islanders' than British , but if they had objected to British rule they would have returned to South America surely?

Any Argentines moving to the Falklands have to accept they will live under Falkland Island laws, and I would suggest they are unlikely to vote for Argentine administration, as they move to the Falklands to enjoy a better standard of living than Argentina can offer.

“ We let all britains come and live here freely”.

It is noted that the British are welcome in Argentina, however they have to live under Argentine laws, the same as Argentines moving to the Falkland Islands have to obey Falkland Islands law.

I suggest that British people who move to Argentina do not do so to numerically influence the population in Argentina to become British, they go there because they like Argentina otherwise they would be deported, as Argentina is intolerant of views that oppose its own.

Therefore, people from Argentina move to the Falklands, because they WANT TO and are going to enjoy a SUPERIOR standard of living than they can get in Argentina , are even MORE UNLIKELY THAN THE ISLANDERS to vote for Argentine sovereignty as it will lower their living standards and impose the ineffective government they went to the islands to ESCAPE from.
67 lsolde (#) Jul 21st, 2013 - 10:16 pm Report abuse
@63 malen,
We do not want to be part of your country, we are quite happy living on our own land.
Thank you.
68 dab14763 (#) Jul 21st, 2013 - 11:24 pm Report abuse
-62 Instead of 18 or 13 or er I dont know how many but less than 20 sure,

Malen,
Compare situation in Argentina:

2010 Argentine Census
40091359 Total Population
42454 Born rest of Europe (including UK, excluding Germany, Spain, France, Italy. Probably includes children born to Argentine parents living abroad)
0.11% Approx % of population born rest of Europe

with situation in the Falklands:

2013 Falklands Census
2931 Resident population
38 Born in Argentina
1.29% Approx % of population born in Argentina
A greater % than the % of UK immigrants to Argentina

22 Born in Argentina not Falkland Islanders or Chileans
0.75% Approx % of population born in Argentina not Falkland Islanders or Chileans
A greater % than the % of UK immigrants to Argentina

5 Adults with Argentine citizenship that don't have British citizenship
0.17% Approx % of population adults with Argentine citizenship that don't have British citizenship
A greater % than the % of UK immigrants to Argentina

- let 1.563 live in the islands and then make a referendum and lets see the results.

An increase of about 53.32%. That's the equivalent of Argentina letting in 21,379,322 people from the UK. And the majority of voters would still vote for the Falklands to remain British.

-We let all britains come and live here freely.

No, Malen, you don't.

Immigrants to Argentina from the UK and other countries have to comply with Argentine immigration law. They have to get the required permit(s) depending on their type of stay, permanent, temporary, transitory.

The Falklands are the same. Immigrants from other countries, including from the UK, have to get the required permit(s) depending on the type of stay, permanent, temporary, transitory.
69 Anglotino (#) Jul 22nd, 2013 - 03:59 am Report abuse
Considering the massive emigration OUT of Argentina these days, it should come as no surprise that there are more Argentineans able to vote in other countries.
70 malen (#) Jul 22nd, 2013 - 11:53 am Report abuse
davidab there are 25 arg in the isles.
And in Arg more than 1.500 brits. For sure. Not interest in searching numbers. Inmigration laws in Arg arent so restrictive as in the isles.
Facts.
Any way build a bridge to Africa or UK. And waste money.
71 Anglotino (#) Jul 22nd, 2013 - 12:27 pm Report abuse
Poor malen.

Can't comprehend per capita.

A product of the Argentine education system.

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

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!