MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Mrs. Kirchner approach to Malvinas issue infuriates Jewish community
Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner strong lobbying for support from the Arab League in its dispute with Britain over the Falkland Islands is proving to be a short lived pyrrhic victory since she involved Argentina in the Palestine question and infuriated the Jewish community. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIf Taiana is “sincere when support the ojective of two states for two peoples” , maybe a shift in the conflict is about to happen, and will turn from the handover of the sovereignty to a shared sovereignty.
Apr 02nd, 2009 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However islanders would not accept two states in the islands.
This webpage tends to be a newspaper but to be that it should not be with biased news. You should be impartial on any matter, even if the one who writes the articles are of malvina's origin.
Apr 03rd, 2009 - 03:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Begining with the tittle “Argentina mourns Alfonsin more revered in death than in life” its a disrespect for a man who was honored in life, but the hate of the people who make this cheap webpage where every article regarding Argentina is writed with hate, with biased comments, while when they write about chile or the uk they praise them as the best nations of the world, what kind of asshole lose time on lobbying for the “falklands cause” .
There are no Angels or deamons, Argentina with all their problems only want progress as any other nation. Like the uk has its problems, they are still looking for weapons of mass destruction on iraq (a former sovereign nation).
Maybe if Argentina was a successful country with NICE people in it, then the falklanders would want to become Argentine. They are free to become Argentine if they want to. But they do not, they choose to be British.
Apr 03rd, 2009 - 04:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is not a successful country but it has nothing to do to what is right or not and the people who lives in it is not better nor worse than those who live in the Uk.
Apr 03rd, 2009 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway you keep filling your mouse talking that we invaded malvinas, witch is our land, while the uk invaded iraq ( a sovereign nation) looking for weapons wich they never found with all the tecnology for warcrap british has, so why invaded a sovereign nation??? to destitute a dictator the us created in the past? why the uk expelled the inhabitants of Diego Garcia????? must we think they have not the same rights as the uk give to islanders in malvinas? . why the uk welcomed pinochet recently as an ally and was not extraditated to spain to be juged for crimes against humanity?.
Those kind of articles should “investigate” this webpage instead of degrading or lobbying against Argentina.
I dare who ever read this crap of webpage to response any of this questions. Shame on you Mercopress.
My apologies to all who read Mr Barone's comments. It takes all kinds to make a world, the saying goes, and so it is with countries. Not all Argentinians are like that, though I have to admit that, regretfully, there are too many like him. And being this vociferous, it's them who are mostly heard. As much as I would like to report his offensive behavior and have him censored, I feel it would be too much like playing by his own rules, and that is something I would loathe to do. So, I'll let it stand and pray you won't judge us all after him. That being said... well, I'll have to say just the same about our President! Ms Kirchner has proven once more that she is not a state-woman but rather the last produce of a stunted Democracy. Because Democracy is only as good as the people it serves, and we have to many vociferous ignoramus - reminds you of anybody? - for our own good. Thank you all and my apologies to the Jewish people.
Apr 03rd, 2009 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gosh, stealing the words of Professor Henry Higgins, “by rights he should be taken out and hung / for the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue”.
Apr 03rd, 2009 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the thing with Argentines is that they are extreme either way, some are extremely nice, some are extremely horrible. But really, it was the British defence of the falklands that removed that awful dictatorship. Malvinas has NOTHING to do with Iraq. If more Argentines had sensible opinions like Jorge, we would come closer to extracting oil from Malvinas and reaching agreement.
Apr 03rd, 2009 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Benito, Before the malvinas conflict, the Uk suported military and politically our awful military junta like they suported pinochet in recent years, so dont be so naive. Iraq is a good point of comparison, when the british says we invaded the malvinas, the common sense says you cant invade what is yours, but when they invaded iraq, british says they liberated them. So is wrong to invade some territory you believe belongs to you (malvinas) but is right to invade a sovereign nation(Iraq) which had a full embargo, foolling the world telling that iraq was conected to al qaeda and that iraq had weapons of mass destruction????. Im sure you would not like to be an iraqian.
Apr 04th, 2009 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0The point is we landed on malvinas with military force and it was wrong we had to give diplomacy the time it needed, but british invaded Iraq with false proof, invaded an ENTIRE NATION.
So tell me Benito in what part im wrong. Tell me if im lying. I write this with no bad intentions, but thats how world works, we are third world who invades, and they are the “liberators”, defenders of “freedom” and “democracy”.
I am fully aware that the UK supported Vidella etc... as the UK supported Pinochet. But the UK prevented the military junta going any further, when the drunk Galtieri invaded the falklands. The difference between Iraq and the falklands is that Iraq was run by a mad dictator, the falklands was/are a democracy. Do not be naive and say that the government of the falklands could have been compared to saddam hussien. The Falklanders are not muslim and thus civilized and were invaded by an uncivilized military Junta. The UK was not a military Junta that invaded Iraq. A dictatorship invaded a democracy in Malvinas. A democracy invaded a dictatorship in the falklands. The falklands were due to be handed over to Argentina in 1983, but then Argentina invaded a democracy. Tell me Jorge, pretend you live in easter island, you know you are part of chile, but currently a dictatorship is running Chile (1980's), easter island was going to be handed over to chile in 1983 but then then pinochet invades in 1982... would you want to be part of Chile?
Apr 04th, 2009 - 04:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Correction# line 9, should read 'iraq' and not falklands.
Apr 04th, 2009 - 05:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0This caught my eye: “The Falklanders are not muslim and thus civilized” ... You are a man who expresses in such manner and you call yourself civilized Benito? Please... you show your true colours with that one uh. If Iraq was being directed by a terrible dictator, it was the Iraqi people that were going to, eventually and naturally, revolt and demand change. Your intervention has proven negative... and has generated more violence and guaranteed supply of future extremist wings of terror against UK, USA and others who took part. You PM followed directions by the most idiot president the US ever had. Not so bright... PEACE is the answer, positive and constructive... Saddam had no WMD and US & UK knew it, I just cannot believe such irresponsabilty! So many lives lost...
Apr 04th, 2009 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Benito, civilized, uncivilized , democracy or dictatorship none of them has the right to invade a sovereign nation, nomatter if its run by a military junta, saddam Hussein or the devil in flesh.
Apr 04th, 2009 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Im not going to defend a military junta, but our soldiers went there to recover our islands, the british went to iraq for what?, i dont know, i only knows that there is no iraqui corporation extracting its oil.
that's the respect british and us citizens give for iraq's people. And about democracy, let me quote what the president of the United State told to the world “ or you are with us or you are with the terrorists” very democratic.
About Israel i suported Israel and i admired them, all the suffering they have been trough, becouse they were a pacifist people, but now i dont know, they have the right to defend themself but with israel's nuclear weapons they are giving the right to iran to obtain its own nuclear weapons, its just the rules of the game. what gives the idea israel can have nuclear weapons and its neighbor cant.
Marcos - Insults are used by people who can not have a 'civilized' discussion with others, take note. George Bush is in the past. I really fail to see how Iraq is linked to the falklands. Everyone in Argentina believes the falklands are Argentine. Everyone in the UK believes they are British. So nobody talks about it and it gets us nowhere. The Iranian president threatened to 'wipe Israel off the map'. When did the Israeli president threaten to wipe Iran off the map?.
Apr 04th, 2009 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Benito, George Bush is not the past, is the now!!!, Iraq is ocupied illegally by the United State, that means a foreign power. Its natural resources are beign administered by the allies.
Apr 05th, 2009 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas and iraq share the same faith, they both are ocupied illegally for the same foreign power.
About Israel, stop beign naive, nomatter if iran says “they're gonna wipe israel off the map” , i mean what safety have iran that israel is not going to wipe iran off the map? , its just words nobody cares about words. Rules of this world is that if you make weapons of mass destruction your neighbor will do the same. It is called an arm race. And dont misunderestand me i dont think Israel is going to use its nuclear weapons but even if israel promess not to use them iran has the right to make the same kind of weapons. I dont know how else explain that to you. Every nation has the right to defend itself we might like israel we might hate iran but its fair that iran make those weapons.
PD: all i said i did with respect to all, those silly things said like “axis of evil” or frase like “or you are with us or with the terrorist” are the kind of things that dont represent democracy,or freedom in the case of iraq, or liberty in the case of malvinas. Those are fact that your polititians in the north makes you believe. Iraq before the invasion had en embargo imposed which killed 500.000 or more children for not having medicine or food. While the sky was controled bye harriers and us aircrafts.
The Malvinas are not being occupied by a foreign power. Like I said they choose to live under UK rule. Iraqis do not choose to live under rule of America. Letting Iran have nuclear weapons is like letting a lunatic prisoner have a gun, because the police have guns. All this fighting over some island full of sheep shit and overpriced hotels. (and lots of profitable oil). When falklanders want to be Argentine, they will be Argentine.
Apr 05th, 2009 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Benito thats the biggest problem you have, there are no police nations or criminals nations, every nation should be equal, those criminal nations are no diferent as those you think are the police nations. For example the usa, with the school of the americas helped create a doctrine of torture to our dictators in south america. The usa, is implicated in the Coup d'état in chile with the intervension of henry kissinger. the us and the uk suported military regimes in southamerica training them in torture against the so called “evil” commys (but then they washed their dirty hands). Not forgot to mention the creation of Saddam Hussein, the training of Bin Laden,the invasion of cuba,the invasion of iraq, the invasion by the uk of malvinas in1833, and so on.
Apr 05th, 2009 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0But in the north they fight for freedom, democracy and liberty. I know you think this is all propaganda but neither of you cant denie any of the above. The only honorable and admired thing the usa and the uk made for the world in the last century was ww2 with the end of hittler.
Argentine history is not better than yours, we do our best to improve every day, to fight against corruption and poverty, but i cant tell you that malvinas will never be forgotten. Everyone who wish to live in Argentina can have free medical care, free education, beautifull places and a bunch of 3000 people in the islands who control the density of population to be mainly of british origin to maintain the status quo will not prevail for justice.
Resuming to get the idea, every nation on earth have the same rights, nomatter what they say or what you feel they are. Police nations does not exist only its own interest like it should.
Like the Presidenta you are mixing apples with pears here Luis. I agree with Taiana the two state solution is best. A separate Falklands state, which by the way already exists as an autonomous overseas territory and the Republic of Argentina.
Apr 06th, 2009 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you know from exercising these arguments in the past Argentina only had an ambition for the Falklands to part of its territory it never actually achieved that ambition in reality in any way that would be satisfactory in international law.
Saying that the UK was wrong in certain instances can in no way reinforce an argument that has an entirely different premise as its base.
Expat kelper, look im going to explain it to you, i guess you are from malvinas islands so you could be well informed. the census made in the islands in 2001 like in 2006 show 48% of inhabitants of malvinas were born in Great Britain or Commonwealth members and only 45% is originate from the Islands. The remaining 7% was born in third countries. thats without taking account the mount pleasant military base personnel and its civilian workers. So this proof there is no original population in the islands, they are mostly born in the uk and other overseas territory. So mr Taiana was right this is a dispute of two parties , the uk and Argentina. if we include the inhabitants of malvinas it would be to include a second british party with the obvious end to the dispute. It would be like Argentine-british-british part, which is a nonsense. the british who live in malvinas do not represent a separated entity from the uk.
Apr 07th, 2009 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0About malvinas history i cant believe most of islanders or british compare malvinas invasion of 1833 with the killings of natives in Argentine continental territory. who is teaching you history???
Luis,
Apr 07th, 2009 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The numbers do not actually matter, though no doubt you are accurate. It still shows that a substantial number of inhabitants are of original descent. Your argument ignores that factor.
I wonder how many Argentines were not born in Argentina or only arrived there in that large 20th century wave of immigration (mainly from Italy). Does that disqualify them from being Argentines? Not to menmtion the large number who for whatever reasoning cling to dual nationality. Should we disqualify them also?
I think you are pulling the old Argentine double speak trick here. One rule for Argentina and a different one for the rest of the world.
My ancestors were in the Falklands around 1840. Whendid yours appear in Argentina? Straight answer now.....
By the way I will be the judge of what I believe. I do not donate that task to you to generalise about under any circumstances.
Expat kelper, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Apr 08th, 2009 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas is a dispute between the uk and Argentina. British point of view is that to discuss sovereignty it should be included inhabitants of malvinas as a third party. But those inhabitants,as i made clear in my last post, does not represent a separated entity from those living in the uk.
Nomatter your economy or that paper you call “constitution”, the governor of malvinas is apointed from the uk, the migration control mantain 90% of its population of british origin, and the fact more than half its population were born elsewhere but in malvinas, make the best definition of a colony. So in the dispute of sovereignty islanders have no partie.
Of course those islanders lives in malvinas and its interest should be respected, as Argentine is willing to respect, the wishes of those inhabitants represent no more than the wishes of british living in the uk.
Argentine inmigration has nothing to do with it, Argentina accept any people of the word who wish to live here. Any inmigrant in Argentina have a right to free education, free medical care, a right to a home and a job.
Luis,
Apr 08th, 2009 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see you still maintain one rule for Argentina and a different rule for the Falklands.
You attitude is ridiculous and your facts inaccurate. The UN recognises the inhabitants of the Falklands as a separate entity over which the UK is the admnistering power with an obligation to ensure good governance in the interests of the inhabitants and to advance them in the direction of self determination. The Argentine claim is recognised as an impediment to achieving this aim and a problem that needs a peaceful solution as outlined in Resolution 2065 (XX), This did not call for a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina this interpretation is simply a figment of Argentina's imagination. What do you think the C24 is talking about? If the interests of the 'inhabitants' are to be taken into consideration it is incumbent upon all the parties to establish what those inhabtants see their interests to be. These are clearly already expressed and do not require you to patronise them in this respect by your wild imaginings as to what they should be. They are perfectly capable of deciding what their own interests are. You should stop talking to yourself and be prepared to listren to others.
You are in reality just talking complete rubbish when you say their interests should be respected. You simply lie because you do not believe this at all.
Argentina itself is an immigrant country that usurped its land from the natives, this completely exposes your double standards. Your desires to control the Falklands is just a national lie that you have convinced yourselves is the truth. I feel sorry for you in your self-deception.
By the way why do you still use the French name for the Islands, have you not got one of your own?
expat kelper, you are still confusing things, when you said and i quote “”“”I see you still maintain one rule for Argentina and a different rule for the Falklands.“”“”“ what do you mean?.
Apr 08th, 2009 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0where did you get the idea the UN recognized the islanders of malvinas as a separated entity?
When you said ”“”“”“”The Argentine claim is recognised as an impediment to achieving this aim and a problem that needs a peaceful solution as outlined in Resolution 2065 (XX)“”“”“ Now i know you didnt went to school. Resolution 2065 invites the TWO parties,Argentina and the United Kingdom,to negotiate sovereignty bearing in mind the ”interests“ of the population of malvinas islands.
Two things, first inhabitants of malvinas are excluded from negotiation and secondly, it say bearing in mind the ”interests not its wishes” which is a very very different thing which i agree islanders live in malvinas and its interest should be respected. Read again what you wrote about resolution 2065.
Comparing malvinas with the killings of the natives again????.
Our french name for our islands are malouines, malvinas came after in spanish. If you are from the islands you should be aware of history, even if we agree on disagree, you should be on top of the history of the land you Supposedly born.
Luis,
Apr 09th, 2009 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0I see you have not read the said resolution.
There is only one valid invitation it says:-
”Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);“
Questions for you:-
1. Where does it say 'hand over sovereignty to Argentina'?
2. Where does it say the inhabitants of the islands are specifically excluded from the negotiations?
3. Where does it specifically say what you say ”interests not its wishes“
How can you establish what the interests of the Islanders are without them expressing their wishes on the matter?
The form of words you are using are just your self-serving propaganda interpretation on the subject very much divorced from the reality of the matter.
Regarding the name of the islands that you use, it is specifically your bad pronunciation of the French name of the Islands that gives you the name Malvinas. Sadly like everything else about the Falklands it is another thing you have stolen or are trying to steal.
To answer your questions, you claim privileges for yourselves you refuse to grant to others.
The UN specifically recognises that any negotiations must be within the terms of their Charter and resolutions e.g. ” bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);” They are also listed by the C24 and de-facto are a separate entity under UK and international law.
About history I would challenge you on that subject regarding the Falklands any day.
ok i will write all the resolution and i will explain it for part so you could not misunderestand it.
Apr 09th, 2009 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Resolution 2065
“””Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);“”“”
first part:
“”“”Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations“”“” this quote means that there is only two parts on this conflict ok?. The british insist in include inhabitants of malvinas as a third partie.
Second part:
“”“”recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples“”“”“” This is the name of the special committee.links Available.Is the committee who study the situation with regard..... Argentina is not forced to give independence nor the uk.
third part:
“”“””with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);“”“”
So the third part means that in the solution of the dispute we shall respect human rights of inhabitants of malvinas and its interests. i remind you again the british claim that wishes of islanders are paramount. But interests and wishes are two diferent words.
Resolution does not mention wishes. Do not confuse wishes with interests, they are two different things.
interest is to preserve its way of life, its wishes is to remain being british.
Regarding the name of the islands you said “”“it is specifically your bad pronunciation of the French name of the Islands that gives you the name Malvinas. Sadly like everything else about the Falklands it is another thing you have stolen or are trying to steal”“” .Malvinas name derives from the french name of malouines like you have the name “san carlos” to name the port of “san carlos”. About Steal that word remind me even before the invasion of malvinas by your grand grand grand father they invaded Buenos Aires in two occasion and in the same time they stolen our gold remaining in Buenos Aires, so give it back. well you didnt gave back malvinas which were stolen 10 years later what can i expect?
Luis,
Apr 09th, 2009 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am glad to see you have a sense of humour.
Specifically 2065 (XX) refers to the implementation of 1514 (XV) which it insists must be born in mind as well as the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands.
So here we see that the UN recognises the population of the Falkland Islands as a Colonial people worthy of all the implied rights and protections as designated by the UN and having those interests that are assigned to them specifically in the provisions and objectives of the UN Charter and most specifically those assigned to them by 1514 (XV) to which it refers twice in 2065 (XX) to quote :-
“Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),”
Those interests are outlines clearly in 1514 (XV) as follows:-
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation,… (THIS MEANS YOU)… domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; ..(THIS MEANS FALKLAND ISLANDERS 2065 (XX) SAYS SO!!).. by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development... (THIS MEANS YOU ARGENTINES DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DICTATE TO THEM WHAT THEIR INTERESTS ARE)..
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence… (SURELY THIS MEANS ARGENTINAS INADEQUACY IN DEALING WITH THE SITUATION?) ..
4. All armed action …(BEEN DEALT WITH)… or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected…. (SO WHY DON’T YOU STOP YOUR REPRESSIVE COMMERCIAL MEASURES?)…(BY THE WAY INTEGRITY OF THEIR NATIONAL TERRITORY REFERS TO THE FALKLANDS NOT TO ARGENTINA)..
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, ..(E.G. ACCORDING TO THE WILL AND DESIRE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS NOT ARGENTINA)… without any distinction as to race, creed or colour,… (NOTHING HERE ABOUT THIS RERFERRING TO ONLY INDIGENOUS / ORIGINAL PEOPLE AS YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE IT)… in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and their territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. ….(BY THE WAY NATIONAL UNITY AND THEIR TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF A COUNTRY REFERS TO THE FALKLANDS NOT TO ARGENTINA, THIS RESOLUTION IS ABOUT THE NSGT‘S NOT INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES)…..
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity… (WELL SO WHY DON’T YOU SHOW SOME RESPECT????)..
So Mr. ‘Tini (I can’t say the ‘A’ word here I expect) why don’t you comply with 1514 (XV) as 2065 (XX) invites you to so do?
Why not put up in truth and honesty or just shut up. I expect you will keep on trying to pull the wool over our eyes by quoting out of context but just for your information we had that wool clipped off a long time ago as far as your deceptive ramblings are concerned and can clearly see where we are going. You are the one who keeps changing the route to suit yourselves and getting bogged down in the mire of lies and deception as a result.
Expat Kelper, i was giving you the time correct so you can check what you wrote. As you said “”“the UN recognize the population of malvinas Islands as a Colonial people”“”“”” which i fully agree with it. But the fact you are a colonial people does not mean you are a different entity from those living in the uk.
Apr 10th, 2009 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Look im going to be very simple, the UN recognize there is a colony in malvinas so Argentina, a colony of british origin, so the Special Committee invites only two parts to negotiate, Argentina and the uk, inhabitants of malvinas are included in the uk part.
As i said before, Un resolution 2065 does not recognize malvinas islands as a third partie in this resolution.
When you talk about selfdetermination, yes everybody have the right to selfdetermination if you are in your own land.
I dont know how else explaining to you,suppouse that we invaded lets say ascension island in 1833 expelled the inhabitants and for 150 we implant 2000 people, and those 2000 want selfdetermination while the uk say they belongs to the uk, should they have selfdetermination?. If you think they should you are not respecting the law, invation is against the law and if law is not respected what keep us now from invading each other??.
I personally im in favor of selfdetermination, but in the case of malvinas england broke the law, we had sovereignty over malvinas when they recognized us as a new nation and no claims were made, beside that population in malvinas its a controled population. Not even half its population are born on the islands and its inmigration policy is controled with the end of mantain british control.
thats why is not ups to you who inhabitate malvinas to resolve this dispute. once Argentina and the united kingdom resolve this historic conflict, if uk is right you have the right to selfdetermination, if Argentina is right inmigration control will stop, Argentina will regain control of the islands, and in the future if the natural population on malvinas ask for selfdetermination then they can apply for resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.
Just read the god d.... paper, selfdetermination come after resolution of the dispute. Uk control the wishes of islanders becouse most of them were born in the uk or Commonwealth members so its wishes naturally will be to mantain the status quo.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!