MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, February 7th 2023 - 18:56 UTC

 

 

Falkland Islands government: “We wish to remain British”

Tuesday, March 31st 2009 - 05:20 UTC
Full article 63 comments

“We wish to remain British and the sovereignty issue is not for negotiation” was the Falkland Islands government statement in response to last Saturday’s meeting in Chile of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Cybernest

    “Whilst Britain and the Falkland Islands have moved on to a new relationship based on democracy and self-determination, our Argentine neighbors remain in a time warp... ”

    Remaining in a time warp seems to be a hispanic trait... when it suits them! We've had the problem for over 300 years now!

    It's about time both Argentina and Spain matured, came into the 21st century and started to respect and accept the democratically expressed wishes of both the Falklands and Gibraltar in our respective expressions of self-determination!

    My best wishes to our Falkland brothers in arms!

    Saludos!

    Cybernest
    Blogging at A Gibo's Tale (http://agibostale.blogspot.com)

    Mar 31st, 2009 - 07:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • juan

    What a stupid “Thought” of Cybernest...! Invaders in Malvinas have repeated the same robotic phrase: “ The Self Determination ” since 1833. They think that they justify their ocupation repeting that. I live in Ushuaia (Tierra del Fuego & South Atlantic Islands Province) and we were a penal colony (like in Autralia) now we are a prosperous province with 120.000 inhabitants.... Ushuaia the capital, the southermost city in the world and the door of Antartica... Stanley dont exist with the British Ocupation !!!!! It is a colonial enclave in the XXI Century ! For the world Malvinas are forever “Argentinian”.

    Mar 31st, 2009 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos

    Self determination will matter little to none when Britain seeks right compensation (natural resources) in return for the islands. Flaklands are perceived in England as a mine infested sheep farm that bring enormous costs to mantain. When the islands return to Argentina, Britain will no longer have an enemy, and I'm sure that in the deal they will include arms for Argentina... we will become customers for arms dealing, probably some intel will be performed by Brits to disturb Argentina and Chili relations too. I'll take some of those Tornados please, do they come in silver?

    Mar 31st, 2009 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Juan

    Visité las islas hace poco tiempo, es un lugar espectacular y la gente es muy cálida y trabajadora.
    La tierra es de la personas que la habitan. Como argentinos no tenemos ningún derecho a reclamar la total y completa soberanía de las islas, simplemente porque nunca fueron nuestras en su totalidad.
    Que sigamos discuentiendo este tema a 27 años del conflicto es tán ridículo como que ahora vengan los españoles a reclamar las tierras argentinas como suyas.
    No seamos tarados, miremos hacia delante y apuntemos a mejorar las relaciones entre los argentinos y los isleños.
    Luchemos simplemente porque una bandera argentina ondee sobre el cementerio de Darwin, ese sería el mayor honor para las personas que murieron peleando por su patria.

    Mar 31st, 2009 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Juan

    Juan, no justifico para nada la guerra, pero los que estan en Darwin no murieron en vano, murieron por una razon que es el de la mayoria de los Argentinos, nos arrabataron un pedazo de tierra descaradamente y no podemos justificar su presencia por la libre decision de ellos, seria lo mismo que invadaramos la isla Tasmania en Australia y despues de varios años digamos que son Argentina por la libre determinacion de sus habitantes, es ridiculo.

    Mar 31st, 2009 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Expat Kelper

    The Argentine dead are buried at Darwin Cemetery because they were consigned there by their idiot Generals. Their deaths have nothing to do with the ‘recovery’ of the so-called Malvinas. They were there because they had no choice in the matter, not for patriotic reasons, but on the orders of incompetent Generals to further their greed for political survival.

    The dead remain at Darwin because the Argentine Government refused their repatriation in order to make crass political points for base political reasons in support of their illegal territorial expansion claims.

    You are very privileged that the Falkland Islanders permit them to remain there out of respect in spite of the insults continually heaped on them by the Kirchners and their kind. Yourself included.

    The Falklands deserves the worlds support in its quest for self-determination.

    Mar 31st, 2009 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands has been comprehensively rejected by a catalogue of facts gleaned from original sources in Argentine and United Kingdom archives by two British researchers, Doctor Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper.

    http://en.mercopress.com/2008/05/14/new-british-research-dismisses-argentina-s-falklands-claim

    Mar 31st, 2009 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Are you going to give back the land you stole in your inglorious 'Conquest of the Desert' ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert

    Remember who it was who got Spain to recognise Argentinian independence - oh yes. That would be those awful Brits that you go on about. The Falkands are British - as is South Georgia. Your leaders have lied to you and your history books are 'written' to support the lie.

    Mar 31st, 2009 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Read the truth here. Argentina has NO legal claim to the Falklands or South Georgia.

    http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

    Mar 31st, 2009 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Peter Shaw

    If Argentina was so sure of its claim to the Falklands and South Georgia - why did they repeatdely refuse to allow the ICJ to adjudicate the dispute. Why did Argentina refuse to allow this yet the UK was happy to let the court decide? If Argentina was SO SURE about their claim - Why did they refuse. Just what were Argentina scared of? The truth perhaps?

    ”Following the Argentine claims, the UK repeatedly (in 1947, 1951, 1953 and 1954) offered to take the matter to the International Court of Justice in the Hague but this was turned down by Argentina. When Britain took the issue to the court unilaterally in 1955, Argentina declined to cooperate, citing a lack of jurisdiction.”

    Mar 31st, 2009 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Luqui

    I am argentine and have visited the islands a few times. Things seem to run pretty smoothly, people are happy and friendly, wildlife is protected, Stanley looks very nice, and just imagining them being argentine makes me worry.. Think of the corrupt-kirchnerista-politician in charge , stealing and making a mess of things like they do here.. The islands belong to the islanders...
    Soy argentino y visite las islas varias veces. Todo parece funcionar muy bien, la gente es cordial, la naturaleza se cuida, Stanley se ve muy cuidado... imaginar a las islas argentinas mete miedo.... piensen en el politico-de-turno-amigo-K... afanando y lleno de corrupcion, . Las Islas son de los Isleños que las habitan ...

    Apr 01st, 2009 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Luqui, you are an honourable individual and I bet you reflect the views of many Argentines. Live and let live. Good luck to you.

    Apr 01st, 2009 - 02:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • jorge

    There is no justification for keeping the illegal occupation of the islands. British people stolen them and they have to give them back, just that. listen very carefully, Future argentine goverments are NEVER, NEVER, NEVER going to give them up because of the claim is on the constitution. so, while britain is doing nothing about it, the situation will get worst for the islanders because each time more and more countries in the world are supporting argentine position and when argentina has more power as a country will press to islands together with other southamerican countries through economic sanctions. We can make life more difficult to them playing the same game of imperialist(Block Them). You know it, it's just a matter of time!!! Malvinas will become again part of the argentine terretory. Give up now!!! Later would be unpleasant. Do it for your future generations. It would be hard for them. Bye

    Apr 01st, 2009 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • jorge

    I forget it. There are some known islanders who realized that sooner or later you(islanders) will have to recognize some of the argentine claims. This situation cannot go ahead for much more time.

    Apr 01st, 2009 - 04:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • jorge

    Your fears are understandable but, just try it. I don't have anything against you. Argentina is not the best country but through out the time things are easier and your life would be easier. It's just some advice. bye

    Apr 01st, 2009 - 04:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • David

    Little Jorge, get in the real world. The FI's are British and don't forget it.

    Apr 01st, 2009 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • juan

    Chris/Peter: If you are falklanders: You and your people will always live with the fear that the land that you occupied does not belong you. We,the Argentinians are calm of it and you (as people) does not interest UK. Your people, as colony, did not achieve anything interesting in these 175 years of invasion .. Here in Ushuaia we have a wonderfull city, with University, good development. Uk only is interested in washes your brain and them to have a future claim in the Antartica, you (kelpers) were never interested. The real Constitution is the Constitution of the province of Tierra del Fuego Antartica & South Atlantic Islands, the Farce that your people have created now, are a couple of papers that serve for the bathroom. I have studied International Relatinships & I have a degree in International Trade, so, dont tell me about international laws and UN. You have a limited idea.

    Apr 01st, 2009 - 04:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Justin Kuntz

    Interesting comments aren't they from Jorge, an Argentine contributor, all of which are basically threats saying do what we want or else. Do you really think that coercion is the best way to persuade the Falkland Islanders? All you can think of are threats and wild schemes to force the islanders to their knees and buckle to Argentine demands. Very 19th Century, very colonial. The rest of the world has moved on, the rest of the world is not interested in Argentina whining about what Carlos Escude called its myths of “Lost Territory”.

    I also note the pretence at intellectual superiority, well all I can say is you've shown little knowledge of International Law. Article 73 of the UN Charter grants the islanders the rights to self-determination and before you preach about “territorial integrity”, Article 103 is quite specific that Article 73 cannot be subplanted by other UN declarations.

    Apr 01st, 2009 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos

    Question for the islanders... what will you do when the British resolve to lift the military presence in the islands and cut funds for the islands. Do you believe you can make it in the real world as a self-determined independent nation?

    Apr 02nd, 2009 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • juan

    Here in Ushuaia & rest of Argentina, tomorrow we celebrate de Malvinas Day. Our President Cristina, celebrate it in London to the World.
    The Malvinas Anthem says:
    “Tras su manto de neblinas
    no las hemos de olvidar
    ”Las Malvinas Argentinas“
    clama el viento y ruge el mar.
    Ni de aquellos horizontes
    nuestra enseña han de arrancar,
    pues su blanco está en los montes
    y en su azul se tiñe el mar.
    Por ausente, por vencido
    baja estraño pabellón
    ningún suelo más querido,
    de la Patria en la extensión.
    Rompa el manto de neblinas
    como un sol nuestro ideal,
    Las Malvinas Argentinas,
    en dominio ya inmortal.
    Y ante el sol de nuestro emblema
    pura, nítida y triunfal
    brille, ¡Oh Patria! en tu diadema
    la perdida perla austral.
    Para honor de nuestro emblema,
    para orgullo nacional,
    brille, ¡Oh Patria! en tu diadema
    la perdida perla austral.”

    Apr 02nd, 2009 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Alejandro

    Im an Argentinian, and i think that in respect for the people who died there, in the south, it should be solved with reasson, without nationalism or patrotics feeling, just reason. Im agree with some comment over there, the HistoryBooks were rewritten by the governaments, also probably the historical evidence are in the books of Spain or French, even the British;
    For other side, what Argentina has to offer to the Islanders, in matter of human development, not much, actually a lot of provinces are in a emergency state and malvinas(falklands) shouldnt be our priority, actually BuenosAires had real problems of sanity and security.
    And what about of our veterans of war, actually no governament gave help or real support to them, to many of them kill their self. And what about our actually army, proyect cancelled, reduces in support, actually chilenian can kick our asses if they wanna with those F16.
    But at the same time, want to know what would happend if the Islander wanna be independent of UK, this is not a simple thing to talk.
    I think if an Argentinian governament really wants to claim for Malvinas/Falklands first it should work on the problems of Argentina, I know here will be a lot of comentaries about it, but I enter to this page because I want to see other points of view, may some of us(argentineans) obstinate about it(i was one of them), but here are very good people.

    Apr 02nd, 2009 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Justin Kuntz

    There is simple answer for Alejandro, the British Government is already committed to independence for any of the British Overseas Territories that ask for it. The British Government modernised the relationship with its overseas territories 25 years ago. They are all self-governing relying on the UK solely for defence and diplomatic representation.

    And just as a comment Cristina Kirschner celebrating “Malvinas Day” in London is more than a little insensitive and needlessly provocative. The British Embassy in Buenos Aires would never celebrate June 14 in the same way.

    Apr 02nd, 2009 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • jorge

    Justin Kuntz: stop saying the british overseas terretory because they are not a british terretory and how could you talk about international law when britain ignore the UN resolutions AND britain is THESE days in Irak and afghanistan. You have nothing to do there. You and US are the Biggest disrespectful countries in whole world. You cannot talk about international law. What a Shameless!!!. Do me a favour RESPECT for the rest of the world.

    Apr 03rd, 2009 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Justin Kuntz

    Jorge,

    The Falklands ARE a British Overseas Territory, thats a fact and they have been self-governing for a very long time. The Falklands and Britain have moved on while Argentina remains in a time warp obsessed with a 19th Century imagined sleight, amplified by various politicians who've exploited the issue for internal political reasons. Its no co-incidence that Cristina is banging the Falklands drum right now, when her poll ratings are so low.

    I seem to remember Argentina ignoring UN resolutions back in 1982 that called for it to remove its troops, UN resolutions didn't seem too important back then. And whilst I don't claim to be an expert, I'm pretty sure International Law looks down upon unprovoked acts of aggression like invading a small and barely defended island community.

    If you want to raise the Red Herring about Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Britain or America has any intention of staying there permanently, never did, unlike Argentina did back in 1982. Nor do they intend to impose an alien culture or force the adoption of a foreign language.

    Talking of respect smacks of a deep hypocrisy when Argentina's foreign policy is to refuse to recognise the islanders have any say in their own future. Where is your respect for them? Your first response a few days ago was simply to threaten and cajole. You don't see them as a people, you don't recognise them as human beings.

    The reality is that Argentina is the architect of its own misfortune, whatever opportunities it has had to build bridges with the Falklanders it has squandered. Instead of rapprochement it has pursued a policy of confrontation that does nothing but further alienate the islanders. Kirschner tore up what little agreements were achieved, again for internal political consumption but that simply pushed the islands further and further away.

    While many people called Di Tella naive when he sent Christmas cards and presents to the Falklanders, in reality he was one of the few Argentines who understood the if Argentina was to have any chance of gaining the Falkland Islands it would first have to win the hearts and minds of the Falklanders. Your threats and grand schemes to force people to bend to your will are all doomed to failure, they're counter productive and simply alienate the Falklanders and the islands creep ever further away.

    Apr 03rd, 2009 - 06:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Mike Britain williams

    The Malvinas Islands are ARGENTINIAN

    Apr 03rd, 2009 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos

    “They are all self-governing relying on the UK solely for defence and diplomatic representation.” Forget about the millions of pounds in military expenses for the Falklands Justin? Your self determination scheme is irrelevant, since no exploitable oil has been found you are nothing but a budget problem for Britain, with nothing but fish and wool, maybe some tourism as income. Just barely enough to self finance... but if the military presence is removed, the money they spend in the islands is lost. They are the best consumers there aren't they? Think about it... meeting between Broon and Kirchner is the first step towards the inevitable, a peaceful resolution... with the islanders being relocated to GBR, AU, NZ, etc. But gentlemen, no more war... peace is the only way. In these days memory should be with the brave men who fell, but for the wrong reasons... both from UK and AR.

    Apr 03rd, 2009 - 06:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • jojo

    I'm sorry Marcos, but you have no idea. What you seem to forget is that we have been living here for many generations, and so this is our homeland, our “patria” as you would call it. It would be silly to just think that we can be relocated to some other country within the commonwealth! Along those lines, just think if the descendants of all those murdered Mapuche (I can show you some pictures of less than 100 years ago, or if you want me to recall the “clearing of the deserts” by de las Rosas?)won a courtcase against Argentina about their lands, would the current Argentine occupants of that same land be relocating back to Italy? I don't thinks so.
    The one and only solution is for Argentina to give up this wrongful claim, and focus on the vast area they have. Sort out your poverty, corruption, injustice, and aim to live as good neighbours!

    Apr 03rd, 2009 - 07:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • juan

    Tierra Del Fuego, Australia & other prosperous places in the world, was born & have grown first like a penal colony. In 1833 the British Invasion in Malvinas didnt get to us the opportunity of that. Without that brit invasion, now Malvinas (like Ushuaia) maybe have a lot of people with better development, education variety, fluid transport, better turism and people who lives without resentments & wrangle. An other federal province like Chubut, Santa Cruz or Tierra del Fuego.
    People of other nationalities have chosen to live in Argentinian territorries: Italian in BA Province, Welsh in Chubut Province, German in Cordoba, Jews. In the Arg. Patagonian, a lot of chilean live here, for better condition (health & education) other Chilean (from Punta Arenas) goes to Rio Gallegos for be attended in its Hospital , and other chilean in Chilean lands (like Chaiten) wants the Arg Nationality, see this chilean article: http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=343415.
    If kelpers wants to live in Argentinian lands they have to choose too.

    Apr 03rd, 2009 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos

    Jojo, I agree with you... unfortunately atrocities commited to people whos culture is “outside” the establishment... this sordid “order” written in treaties and acts going back hundreds of years, falls out of jurisdiction every time. Mapuches and other indigenous people have been nearly exterminated all over America. Tha Malvinas/Falklands were inhabited by Argentinian citizens in 1833, when they were evicted from there, they had an Argentinian Governor. So that is why we are having this problem... you see, if the islands were inhabited by natives (the real ones) back in 1833, when you arrived, then your presence would be absolutely legal. Is it fair? Not for native americans all over the continent, it is just the way it is... the islands were part of the “Virreinato del Rio de la Plata” and upon Spanish defeat by our Indepence War, they became under Buenos Aires jurisdiction de facto.

    Apr 04th, 2009 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-establishment_of_British_rule_on_the_Falklands_(1833)

    Apr 04th, 2009 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Read the link here as it gives a more accurate description of events in 1833 - it contradicts much in Argentinian 'history' books

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-establishment_of_British_rule_on_the_Falklands_(1833)

    Apr 04th, 2009 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Peter Shaw

    If the Falkands were not recognised as British prior to 1833 why did Luis Vernet,in 1826 and 1828, approach the British Consulate in Buenos Aires to seek permission to form a settlement on the Falkland Islands? He got that consent and he agreed to provide regular reports to to Britian. He also expressed the desire for British protection for his settlement. Why do that if it wasn't recognised that the Falklands were British?

    Of course later the United Provinces made Luis Vernet Governor of the islands. This resulted in British diplomatic protests at his appointment but these, along with British declarations of sovereignty were ignored.

    Of course Britain was going to take back its rightful sovereignty of the Falkands in 1833 - though there is much dispute and some evidence that the Argentinians were not forced to leave as Argentina so often claims.

    I expect these questions will be ignored as being too difficult and awkward to answer just as my previous questions have been.

    In the 21st Century the moral and mature view would be that - The Falklands are not Britains to give away nor Argentina's to claim - they belong to those that live there and have done so for generations.

    In fact for longer than many Argentinians have lived in some of Argentina's territory - e.g. that taken in the genocidal 'Conquest of the Desert'.

    Apr 04th, 2009 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos

    It is a quite convenient part of the story, that wiki article, don't get me started on the content. The most important thing for you to consider is that history of the islands begins before 1826, or 1828... or 1833. The islands were under jurisdiction of the Spanish, who cleared a british illegal settlement in 1770 by order of Governor of Buenos Aires Buccarelli, who comissioned Captain Don Juan Ignacio Madariaga with the task (1400 men, 3 Frigates). Britain's Captain Farmer surrendered after a two day resistance on June 10 1770. The British settlement had been established in 1766. So you see.. it doesn't matter if the Captain of an US vessel declared the islands “free of governmet” ... that doesn't make it so, the United Provinces had a functioning Government in the islands at the time of British arrival. I feel this argument is pointless and far away from constructive, colonialism is not a profitable model these days (Falklands are not precisely making money for London, right?) Surely our countries will find the way to reach an agreement satisfactory to both sides. Cheers.

    Apr 04th, 2009 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Neil

    Juan you are small minded - why should Argintina ever get back the FALKLAND islands - you think its ok in the modern world to walk in and take - you will never fly your flag when such a reckless act by Argentina took both british and Argentine young lives .Get over it ....... and let the people of the FALKLANDS decide on its future - its call democratic

    Apr 05th, 2009 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Juan

    Neil, which democracy are you talking about? Malvinas dont know that word since 1833. Read this article (from a british) about Falkland Regime: http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=27877. Argentina is a democracy country which respect UN demands. UK only want Antarctic resourses dont interested Kelpers, they are only a toy... You have not idea !

    Apr 05th, 2009 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Juan - Britain and the British have a huge place in their hearts for the Falkland Islands - especially after they lost good people ousting Argentina from its illegal occupation and act of war. For you to say that we have no idea just makes you appear even more illinformed. You are wrong - sorry if that bursts your ballon but there it is.

    As Peter Shaw has said “In the 21st Century the moral and mature view would be that - The Falklands are not Britains to give away nor Argentina's to claim - they belong to those that live there and have done so for generations.” Only an immoral, self centred fool would think otherwise.

    Apr 05th, 2009 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Marcos - with respect I am well versed in the long history of the Falklands and South Georgia etc.

    But to your question - “Surely our countries will find the way to reach an agreement satisfactory to both sides. ” There are THREE sides. Britain, Argentina AND, by FAR the most important, the Falkland Islanders themselves.

    In the 21st Century the answer would be to take a mature outlook and leave the Falklands to the Falkland Islanders. To deny them their own sovereignty of their own homeland is immoral. Argentina isn't an immoral state is it?

    And besides - Argentina's claim to the Falklands is tenious as best and Argentina knows that or else it would not have turned down - FOUR TIMES - Britain's offer to let the ICJ sort it out.

    All I have read so far is but sophistry on Argentina's part. And jejune sophistry at that.

    Apr 05th, 2009 - 03:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • juan

    Chris, “Surely our countries will find the way to reach an agreement satisfactory to both sides. ” In 1833 There were TWO sides. Argentina AND, by FAR the most important, the Malvinas Islanders in 1833 with Vernet, BUT THE BRIT INVASION IN THAT YEAR DIDN´T INTEREST IT.

    Apr 05th, 2009 - 08:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Juan, Vernet had sought permission for the settlement from Great Britain - the rightful holders of soveriegnty. It was the United Provinces illegal action that prompted the response from Great Britain which was NOT an invasion ,as the Falklands were and are British, it was a police action. There is, despite what Argentina continues to say, there is evidence that the population at the time wasn't kicked out but were allowed to stay if they chose. “Argentina claims that the population of the islands were expelled in 1833,[4] however sources from the time suggest that the colonists were encouraged to remain under Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane”

    I repeat it was not as you claim an invasion by Britain but, as Britain holds soveriegnty of the Falklands, a legal police action by Britain.

    Apr 05th, 2009 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • juan

    THE TRUE HISTORY FOR MALVINAS: ”En 1766 Francia accedió y reconoció la soberanía española sobre el archipiélago, con la condición de que se diese una indemnización a Bougainville por su esfuerzo al pagar la expedición y el establecimiento de la colonia. Los ciento quince colonos franceses quedaron bajo el gobierno de Felipe Ruiz Puente, que procedió a construir una capilla consagrada a Nuestra Señora de la Soledad (de donde derivó el nombre de la isla principal) y varios edificios comunes como cocinas y cuarteles. También se estableció en la isla la Gobernación de las Islas Malvinas. La sede de gobierno inmediata se encontraba en puerto Nuestra Señora de La Soledad, denominación que dieron los españoles al Port de Saint Louis; aunque luego prevaleció para este puerto el nombre de San Carlos. Paralelamente, los británicos intentaron crear un establecimiento en la isla Trinidad (isla Saunders) de las islas Sebaldinas (Sebaldes Islands) también conocidas con el nombre Jasón, llamado Port Egmont. España logró la retirada de los británicos en el marco de los acuerdos llamados Convenciones de Nutka o de San Lorenzo. Con estos acuerdos, entre otras cuestiones, el Reino Unido reconocía la soberanía hispana en los archipiélagos del Atlántico Sur próximos al continente americano a cambio de asentarse en la isla de Nutka, adyacente a la de Quadra y Vancouver (actualmente conocida sólo como Vancouver, en Canadá). ” source: wikipedia. MALVINAS WILL BE FOR EVER ARGENTINIAN.

    Apr 06th, 2009 - 02:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Well Juan - you can put whatever desperate spin and sophistry on it as often as you wish. The Argentinian claim to the Falklands, South Georgia etc is tenuous at best - but then Argentina knows that hence why it refused FOUR times to take up Great Britain's offer to have the matter settled by the ICJ. The Falklands are British and are recognised as such - deal with it and grow up. Though I doubt that you will and when bested in argument, and your revisionist history shown up as the sham that it really is, the threats so often surface from certain quarters within Argentina.

    Given your own colonial past and land grabbing I do find it rather hypocritical for Argentina to lay the charge of colonialism on Great Britain.

    Anyway - look after yourself and be of good health.

    Chris

    Apr 06th, 2009 - 04:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Juan

    Chris, I dont put the charge of colonialism on Great Britain, Everything opposite, I really admire how Hong Kong is now thanks UK, the development of commonwealth countries, I dont understand why, after a treaty (Ultrich), Spain protest Gibrabaltar land for them. I am respectful of the international law (cause that I have a degree of Int.Trade) , but I cant understand “The shameless usurpation” of Malvinas in 1833. There were not a treaty, there weren´t a negotation. Imagine Argentina had put 200 inhab. in Tasmania Island, invaded them and expel the people there, 150 later we have 2000 inhab. in that Island, I justify that ocupattion and take the island for my country , because the self-determination (washing the kelpers minds), THAT IS RIDICOLOUS FOR THE CURRENT WORLD.

    Apr 06th, 2009 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Juan - The only shameless usurpation of the Falklands in 1833 was that caused by the United Provinces when THEY violated the sovereignty of Great Britain. You are trying to spin it your way but it doesn't work as it is illogical and flies in the face of the facts. Vernet had sought permission for the settlement from Great Britain - the rightful holders of soveriegnty. It was the United Provinces illegal action that prompted the response from Great Britain which was NOT an invasion ,as the Falklands were and are British, it was a police action - despite what you say people there were allowed to stay if they wished. There is evidence to show that there was no mass expulsion - though this is always ignored by Argentina. Though Britian would have been within its rights to have expelled them given the illegal actions of the United Provinces. The Falklands are British and frankly your desperate interpretaion of events is at best spin. Again - if Argentina's claim to the Falklands is tenious as best and Argentina knows that or else it would not have turned down - FOUR TIMES - Britain's offer to let the ICJ sort it out.

    And for you to simply say that self-determination is nothing but mind washing shows how immoral your 'argument actually is. Especially given that Self Determination is enshrined within the United Nations. And for you to deny self determination is what is actually ridiculous in the current world. It is talk like yours that drives the Falkland Islanders further away from Argentina. In fact - it could be argued that is your own countries actions that is actually pushing the Falknad Islanders closer to Britain and further away from you. And, despite your oft mentioned degree in Int.Trade - which I can only take your word for but will do so - it doesn't give you a 100% correct view of events - as your posts so often show you are actually wrong not right. You ignore points or facts put to you that are inconvenient and instead repeat the same lies over and over again. This is where Britain stands - if the Falkland Islanders asked to have soveriegnty transfered from the United Kingdom to Argentina - she would do so. British overseas territory have modern constitutions that allow for such changes if the population wish it - including independence. Argentina is the expansionist colonial power in the case of the Falkland Islands and Soth Georgia - were Argentina's claim to that Island is even more spurious and pathetic. If you are only going, in response to my post, is to repeat the same lies then please - don't waste your time.

    Again - I wish you no illwill and wish you good health,

    Chris

    Apr 06th, 2009 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Justin Kuntz

    Ah I see someone has seen fit to re-iterate Mike Bingham's accusations against the Falkland Islands Government. If you want to read an unbiased account refer to the Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/oct/11/johnezard. The facts; the truth is somewhere in the middle, Bingham claimed to have a degree when he applied for the job but in fact he got it after he had started. A routine Interpol check apparently showed up a conviction, it was shown to be a mistake. A lot of recriminations subsequently arose with Bingham blaming the FIG for everything including the breakdown of his marriage but there you go, I suppose those with an anti-FIG agenda will seize upon such things.

    Just a few comments for those re-iterating Argentine claims of an explusion of the residents of Vernet's settlement. Indeed, Vernet did ask the British for permission, in 1826 and 1828. He also provided the British with regular reports and urged the British to set up a permanent garrison. He also denied his appointment as governor, insisting his interest was purely commercial. However, the reality is that he was hedging his bets playing of the British Government against the Government of Buenos Aires. Another point to make is that for various reasons, Vernet didn't establish a permanent presence till 1828, previous expeditions were frustrated by one reason or another.

    Just for comment, if the British did expel the settlers in January 1833, could someone please explain how they're still there in March 1833 when Darwin and Fitzroy visit. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/oct/11/johnezard. for the complete works of Darwin and Fitzroy. Could you also explain how they're still there in 1834 when they visit again the following year.

    And in March 1833, could you explain how Captain Matthew Brisbane is able to return as Vernet's deputy to be encouraged by Fitzroy to continue with Vernet's enterprise. Could you explain how in August 1833 Thomas Helsby, another settler brought by Vernet, is able to record in his diarythe murder of Brisbane and the other four senior members of Vernet's settlement, all settlers brought by Vernet, by a band led by Antonio Rivero, a gaucho in the employ of Vernet. Could you also explain Helsby's accounts of the survivors of the Gaucho massacre fleeing to Bird Island to a man, woman and child all settlers brought there by Vernet.

    In fact according to Helsby's narrative after the Clio left on January 7 there was a grand total of 24 residents on Port Louis.

    Captain Matthew Brisbane (superintendent), Thomas Helsby, William Dickson, Don Ventura Pasos, Charles Russler, Antonio Vehingar (known in Buenos Ayres as Antony Wagner), Juan Simon (Capitaz), Faustin Martinez, Santiago Lopez, Pascual Diego, Manuel Coronel, Antonio Rivero, Jose Maria Lune, Juan Brasido, Manuel Gonzales, Luciano Pelores, Manuel Godoy, Felipe Salagar, Lattore; three women: Antonina Roxa, Gregoria Madrid, Carmelita and her two children.

    Again to a man, woman and child all settlers brough by Vernet. Of those Manuel Coronel goes on to become a major figure in the early history of the islands until his untimely death in 1841, upon his passing his contribution to the Falkland Islands was noted by the Governor. Antonina Roxas goes on to become a rich lady and a major landowner in Stanley. Carmelita Penny and her sons, widow of Juan Simon are still there in the census of 1851. Santiago Lopez is the St Jago of Darwin's diary.

    Not that for one second I expect anyone to listen or to consider that there is many points in the Argentine claim that are historically dubious (to be generous). I fully expect that as I have found many times before, the Argentine claims are more one of faith and like most religious zealots they will shout me down as a heretic. I note that already some comments are trying to ignore the inconvenient fact that what Argentina claims and what happened differ. The obvious question is that if the Argentine claim is so sound, then why does it feel the need to resort to a distortion of historical events. But then we have already had the answer, it has been pointed out elsewhere that when Britain offered a route to a solution through the ICJ, Argentina refused that offer. And the question that arises from that refusal, is why, if Argentina is confident in its case would it do so? And the all too obvious answer is that it refused because Argentina knew it would lose.

    Anyway to drag my rambling comments to a focused conclusion. I do believe the dispute between Britain and Argentina has an origin and that revolves around the duplicitous behaviour of Vernet; he played both ends against the middle. But whilst it does have an explanation it doesn't have a solution whilst Argentina clings to a one-sided version of events that leaves no room for alternate viewpoints.

    A final comment is that Argentina frequently dismisses the views of the Falkland Islanders as only that of 2000 people. It bases its claim on the basis of a settlement of only 24, 176 years ago and a settlement whose founding was based upon the duplicitous actions of one man.

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Justin Kuntz - well said Sir. I have been trying to get some of the same points over - as I have in other forums - but they are always ignored and never addressed. The truth is of course rather inconvenient for Argentina. Your final paragraph is also a point well made. I hadn't thought of it that way but you do seem to negate the Argentinian dismissal. Self determination is enshrined within the UN - so the self determination of the Falkland Islanders is paramount. Expect the usual denials, that is if they are nor simply just ignored, and lies in response from the usual suspects.

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jorge

    Justin Kuntz don't be such fool. there is no excuse for you to be there unless something had happened in 1883. the grand-grand-grand fathers of yours stolen the island. Everyone in the world know that, everyone recognize that but britain and you that have your brain colonized since a long time ago. On the other hand Argentina can grow up peacefully with its neighboors but you cannot do it for much more time without keeping good relations with argentina, chile uruguay and brasil. This countries are having more and more good relations with argentina and ONE DAY, OOOONNEEE DDAAAYY, well I think you can imagine what could happen! I'm not talking about war, I'm talking about sanctions from every south american country against the uk in Malvinas. I'm not a bad guy but when something is about my country, uk and Malvinas I will always support my country's position as the majority of the population. That's the reason you'll never be in peace there unless of course UK negotiate. UK will not keep the expensive bridge air with you for ever JUST THINK ABOUT IT!!!. You have to calm down and THINK VERY CAREFULLY what you are gonna do in the next decades. The islands has no economic future without Argentina/South american countries. Once again THINK ABOUT IT. When your children or grand-children negotiate they'll see that was the right thing to do. Las Malvinas FUERON, SON y SERAN Argentinas!!!!! Saludos a todos. Respetuosamente Jorge.

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    And, as expected and idiot by the name of Jorge rushes in to ptove me right in my claim as to how the responses would be. Well done Jorge! You have won the 'Idiot of 2009' prize. Well done to your goodself at having taken the prize so early in 2009. Now all you have to do is give your acceptance speach - which you will do in your usual Blah Blah Blah, lie lie lie manner. Is it any wonder that you are thought of with such contempt?

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 05:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • jojo

    Jorge, is this the same uruguay you have been blocking for more than a year now with your silly protests over the supposed illegal construction of a woodpulp factory? Is this also the same Chile that you nearly went to war with in the early 80's, ah just before the generals changed tack and diverted public opinion from what their murderous military were up to suppressing free speech and killing a torturing? give me a break! But it is typical that you in the end resort to threats and bullying behaviour, just as we are used to here in the islands by our big bullying neighbour. You cannot see reason when a proper argument is very well documented (thank you gentlemen Justin and Chris) and properly researched. I guess if Argentina was full of idiots like Jorge the world would be very much worse off, but thankfully I am an optimist, and believe that there are lots more people in that country that do not believe in the nonsense that he spouts, but unfortuinately they are afraid to speak out perhaps, because perhaps idiots like Jorge would turn on them too, (help my mates beat them up or something along those lines. No Jorge, I don't think the Falklands will ever be Argentine. Britain was thinking about doing some deal back in the seventies, but I'm afraid Galtieri spoilt that for all of you, and thankfully democracy and self determination is what will shape the future of these islands!

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • juan

    Jorge, you are right, all the time they occupy Malvinas they live with fear, resentment, anger,isolated, because (Internally) they know that land is occupied, doesnt belong them. Thanks god, Tierra del Fuego is Argentinian, here we are 120.000 inhabitant, with a lot of service & live in peace in a democratic system. Why UK dont create a prosperous city in Malvinas like Ushuaia? The answer is simple: “they are not sure how long can keep that occupation”. While they occupied those islands the Int.Community (without UK colonies) knows that Malvinas are Argentinian. Sooner or later they will return these islands to Arg. & Maybe they could find the self-determination in their real island: Great Britain, where it applies.

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • juan

    To close my contribution in this forus I recommend read this brit arcticle in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands.
    People we live in the XXI Century. Dont forget That. Good Luck !

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Well Juan - I read the article. He makes a few claims but doesn't offer up any proof. I also read the many responses that were made to it further down the page. They successfully destroy the article and its claim. I can see why you would reach out to it though instead of addressing the points made and the questions asked of you on this page. I was right to say that, as is always the case, these points and questions are ignored because to answer them honestly would see your own argument destroyed. Keep clutching at straws by all means, Juan. They still want save your argument from drowning in a sea of FACTS.

    Talk care - I wish you good health.

    Chris

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

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

    http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html#Article 1.1

    Why does Argentina think that this is wrong?

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Juan - you do know that there is no truth in your assertion that the whole world knows that the Falkland Islands are Argentinian. You do know that there is zero proof to that claim. You say that you have a degree in International Trade - you need to take it back and get a refund as it seems valueless if you have really been taught that. Also - your debating skills are zero.

    Take care and I wish you good health

    Chris

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Juan - you obviously don't know anything about the Falklands. If you did you would know that the Falklands Islanders have a high standard of living and a thriving successful economy. One that could be even greater but for all the childish threats from Argentina. Don't worry about the Falkland Islanders - they are doing rather well thank you - not because of you but inspite of you. This reminds me of what the Argentian soldiers expected to find when they invaded. They expected, because of the lies told to them in school, to be treated as liberators and were very surprised when they found the opposite to be true. There is also evidence for war crimes as there was mistreatment of the Falkland Islanders by Argentinian forces. You were not welcome and you are not welcome in the Falklands if you threaten as you do. The Falkland Islanders are a warm, fair and friendly people. Come as tourists and in peace and respect and you would be welcomed. It would also ,hopefully, open your eyes to the truth of the Falkands.

    Will Argentina be giving back the lands they stole and occupy? The ones they took in the Conquest of the Desert? Because if we follow your logic - you should do so.

    Chris

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Justin Kuntz

    You know what I should have made a bet on the response I got, except that somehow I doubt anyone will give me odds.

    I posed a series of simple questions, referring to documentary evidence, simply asking for an explanation for the difference between what Argentina claims and what the historical records shows. So again, if as Argentina claims Vernet's settlement was expelled, then please explain why there is a wealth of documentary evidence contradicting that.

    There are many other contradictions in the Argentine claim. For example they claim to have continuously protested against the British presence in the islands since 1833. That is simply not true, Argentina in fact abandoned its claim when it signed the Convention of Settlement in 1850. It ceased all protests for nearly 35 years until the claim was revived in 1885. And the claim has been periodically revived ever since, it was seized upon most recently by Peron but even he cheerfully admitted to the British Diplomat Bill Hunter-Christie that he didn't really believe in it but it was “useful to unite the people”. And yes I'm aware that certain Argentine historians have tried to refute the lack of protests but they have to be pretty inventive about what constitutes a protest to do so.

    But as I predicted I was merely shouted down as a heretic, no attempt at a riposte or any meaningful attempt to engage in a dialogue. Simply shouting that Argentina has a monopoly on the truth and its what it says it is, mmm, OK!

    And the immediate response is once more to threaten and announce grandiose plans how Argentina is one day going to coerce the British into handing over the islands to it and, well, thats just tough on whatever the people living there actually desire. There is a word for people who seek to dominate and subjugate a people against their will, imposing a alien culture and subverting their resources. Its not a word thats used that much anymore, particularly as the British got rid of their Empire over 50 years ago. Its colonialism, yes colonialism. The Argentines may preach sanctimoniously about the former British Empire and dismiss the Falklanders as mere settlers but its ambitions would create a colonial situation; particularly as the islanders have moved way beyond their former colonial status to a vibrant and thriving democracy.

    And one contributor even goes to far as to crow that they “live with fear, resentment, anger,isolated”, ah yes that might be explained by the bullying and confrontational policies pursued by Argentina. Not for one second considering that the only way Argentina will ever win the Falkland Islands is if it first wins the hearts and minds of the islanders.

    From what I have read of the Falkland Islanders they do desire closer ties with the South American mainland. They are prepared to talk to Argentina but for all its loud protests about negotiations, Argentina has absolutely no intention of negotiating. As Chris points about above, the Falkland Islanders are a warm, fair and friendly people. Come in peace and respect and you will be welcomed, continue to pursue the policies you have done and the islands merely slip ever further from your grasp.

    And mentioning that editorial by Gott, please, are you that desperate. At least do some research about the man. But in riposte let me quote Carlos Escude, an Argentine historian who spent many years studying Argentina's claims but eventually concluded they were groundless.

    “I spent many years studying the nationalistic content of educational textbooks and the doctrines which generated those texts. And it's very clear from those texts how we got the idea of the sovereignty of Argentina over the Falklands. The notion that right was on our side was absolutely irrefutable and nobody could reasonably doubt it.”

    “After studying the history of the Argentine claims on the islands, I would say they were absolutely without foundation - it's more of a habit than anything else.”

    But Escude must be a heretic as well, he was sacked for not toeing the line.

    And as a parting shot why should any South American country wish to impose sanctions on Britain and damage their own economy, simply to satisfy Argentina's macho pride about an illogical irredentist sovereignty claim? Particularly so, when Argentina is not even prepared to defend it in the ICJ.

    Apr 07th, 2009 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Luis Barone

    Justin Kuntz, where did you studied????did you met vernet or what? , those comments of yours are all lies. Read more like bbc, the foreign office, encarta, your own goverment admited in 1833 england expelled the Argentine settlement. I can give you the links if you want to continue studying.
    May be you can read about Duque de Wellington (prime minister in 1834), Sidney Spicer(Department of América of the Foreign Office in 1910), R. Campbell(secretary asistance of the Foreign Office in 1911), Sir Malcolm A. Robertson(british embassador in Buenos Aires in 1928), George Fitzmaurice(legal adviser of the inglish cancillery in 1936), John Troutbeck, they all had doubts about british sovereignty so may be they didnt read as much as you did.
    About inhabitants of malvinas, we argentines do not have to wins the hearts and minds of the islanders becouse they do not own those islands, they are not a separated entity from those british living in the uk, they are not originate from malvinas.
    About the Icj i would like that to happens, but first to make sure the Icj works impartially, i would wait until the us and the uk are trial for war crimes against iraq's people. I guess you agree with me that both the uk and the us commited war crimes. So when that happens i will be happy to support that initative.
    And another thing i dont get from you guys, the uk expelled the inhabitants of diego garcia islands who were in the same situation of malvinas inhabitants, so my question is why the uk expelled them???. I thought that they aplly for the same rights.

    Apr 09th, 2009 - 02:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chris Ball

    Luis, I'm afraid the facts that Justin, and others, have posted are just that FACTS! Inconvenient for you, yes. Lies, no! Documentation exists as does other proof to back up what Justin says. You try to negate his post by asking if he had met Vernet. Well, given that you haven't either - just what is your point?

    If Great Britain wasn't recognised as holding rightful sovereignty - why did Vernet approach Great Britain for permission to set up a settlement? Great Britain did not expell the settlement. They were encouraged to stay if they wanted and some did. There is proof of this - OK it upsets your argument but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. Get used to it. Anyway - given that Great Britain was the rightful holder of sovereignty of the Falklands, as acknowledged by Vernet when he sought permission from Great Britain, she had every right to expell them if she so wished. Given the actions of the United Provinces and Vernet when they violated British sovereignty. The fact that we didn't shows just how sporting we are as a nation. But all this is unimportant really - even if Britain had expelled them we were within our rights to do so. But given that we didn't... (this is where you post the usual sophistry and repeat of outdated information in response - as if your repeating the same lie long enough will make it true. Kinda reminds me of someone who used that same method around 1939 in Germany.) TO REPEAT - even IF Britian had expelled Vernet and his settlers - it WAS WITHIN HER RIGHTS TO DO SO as she HELD sovereignty as accepted by Vernet when he sought permission from Great Britain. Sorry for having to repeat things but it appears to take such a method to make it sink into your skull.

    I wish you good health - if we met I am sure we would get on and only disagree on the matter of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

    Chris

    Apr 09th, 2009 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Luis

    Hi Chris, To mantain your view that the argentine settlement were not expelled is to go even against your own nation agenda or history review, your “proof”, lack support from your own country.
    when you said it was within her rights to do so (expell them) you are wrong, british recognized argentine independence when we had full sovereignty of malvinas and made no claims about it. That means recognized Argentina with all its territory and people in it as part of the same republic.
    Chris, i feel the same way, good luck.

    Apr 09th, 2009 - 03:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Justin Kuntz

    As I said earlier, I should have made a bet but I'd have never got the odds.

    Again I posed a simple series of questions, linked to documentary evidence that shows that contrary to what Argentina claims the settlers were not expelled in 1833. The question I posed was to please explain the inconsistencies in the Argentine version of events and the documentary evidence. Not one person has chosen to do that.

    Instead I've had at least one person posting quotations from Angel M. Oliveri-Lopez's book. Like so many Argentine publications on the Falklands its a flawed document in that he only quotes those foreign officials who express doubts about the British position. A balanced work would have included those officials who expressed strong opinions of the opposite persuasion. And indeed to have considered the Argentine position where doubts about Argentina's claim are expressed; like the Argentine foreign minister who considered the British case to be exceedingly strong. I would point out, however, that the British don't sack people for expressing contrary opinions about the merits of the British case.

    And the equivocal response to the ICJ is to be frank utter nonsense and confuses the matter with the ICC. For reference http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php and http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php The ICJ is of course an impartial organisation, Argentina refused to consider that route as if its case is examined in detail in simply collapses.

    And if you're interested where I've studied, its largely been a private matter, in many cases going back to original sources. When I started my studies I'll be honest enough to say that I assumed that there was some merit in what Argentina had to say, given the brusque and arrogant manner the British Empire often operated. However, as I studied it more and more I gradually came to a realisation that was not the case. Rather like Escude I came to realise that Argentina has created a national myth about the Falklands. In particular I remember the moment of clarity when things clicked in my head, I was reading Darwin's account of the 1834 visit of the Beagle when I realised that these were the people supposedly expelled a year before.

    So if you're saying I am wrong, then please offer an explanation for the contradiction between the documentary evidence and the claims of Argentina.

    Telling isn't it that once again you assert that the 9th generation Falkland Islander has no rights on the grounds they are not “original”. Well living in a country that Spain tore from its aboriginal inhabitants, that Argentina expanded in its own right in the “Conquest of the Desert”, neither is over 90% of the population of modern day Argentina. By your own argument modern day Argentina has no right to exist, which is not to deny Argentina but a simple reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the utter fallacy of the logic, the double standard and hypocrisy.

    Regarding the expulsion of the population of Diego Garcia. That was utterly wrong, immoral and against the UN Charter. UK courts have agreed and it remains a stain on the UK Government that they have not resolved the situation. I don't shy away from that. But does doing the wrong thing there justify doing the same thing to the Falkland Islanders?

    As a final point, your post is everything that is wrong with the Argentine approach. It dismisses the rights of the people there as unimportant and a matter only of territory. That is straight out of the 19th Century, its called colonialism. We've left that behind a long time ago.

    Apr 09th, 2009 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • David

    As a Falkland Islander I would like to tell the Argentine people who wish to claim our islands to GET LOST. THE ARGENTINE FLAG WILL NEVER FLY IN OUR LAND - BRITISH LAND.

    Apr 09th, 2009 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos

    I have revisited this article to find NOTHING but pointless argument and agression between fellow south americans. Shame on all of you. It is clear at this point that both sides have different entries in their history books, that is the way that has been for ever, countries always “document” ther claims in the history books. You have to read between lines here, it is a complicated issue and it should be addressed in the UN (when Britain finally accepts this negotiation, which is what it should do being a nation respectul of international law) This eventually will take place, we just have to wait the next British interest in Argentina, and then we are back there, of course they will keep some islands in order to support their claim of Anctartica, as far as kelpers... they will realize that they are a bargaining chip and they can do whatever they want at that point. You feel British is that right? Well, then you know that UK colonialism is at an end... and that, to make it worse, you are a huge defense expense. Analize this in a cold manner, as if you had no interest in the issue.... then you guys will see that future of the Falklands/Malvinas has some interesting developments coming in the next decades, and there's little thing you can do about it. Peace above all... Cheers.

    Apr 10th, 2009 - 08:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Luis

    Justin Kuntz the uk's government as their own newpapers believe that england expelled the Argentines of malvinas.
    sources of british sources which i dont agree but they prove that Argentine settles were expelled.:
    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=4884

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=4884

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=4884

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=4884

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=4884

    so why dont you? Of course there were some Argentine left, may be they thought they were chileans.
    About comparing Malvinas invasion of 1833 with Argentine killings of indians its such a foolish, acording to law on those times, unfortunally there were no aboriginal inhabitants, no human rights for them, like the uk use to have slaves. But when malvinas was invaded there were legally and recognized by the british empire, an Argentine settlement. So legally Argentina didnt broke the law killings the aboriginal inhabitants.
    About the population of Diego Garcia and, may i add, the banaban island's inhabitants, are refused to selfdetermination,the same rights you want to impose on malvinas. You are right doing the wrong thing there does not justify doing the same thing to others. So instead of starting with malvinas why dont you start with them, or iraq's people who suffer an invasion for who knows why? do you know?.
    And in response to your last Paragraph you said you abandom colonialism a long time ago but, acording to the United nation, malvinas, in this century, continue to be a colony, a british colony.
    Thats what happends with you people i cant believe you call us colonialist, we only colonized patagonia, you colonized half of the world.
    You like it or not invaded iraq and tranformed it into a colony where you stole their gold, their oil, and their future.
    I will not forget to mention iraq becouse you have no excuse to be there, if i ask you why did you invaded, you have no clue. Thats what should worry you about becouse you dont see iraq' deads, you see your soldiers dead, you see liberty not ocupation, you see democracy, not a pro-british government imposed.
    Shame on you.

    Apr 10th, 2009 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • MercoPress

    Due to the high user participation, we are moving this discussion to our Facebook page. You just need to become fan and join the debate under the “Discussions” tab. Please keep it civil. Thank you.

    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=139220750082&topic=7754

    Apr 11th, 2009 - 03:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0

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