MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina appeals to “types of force” that pre-empt peaceful solutions
Statement before the United Nations General Assembly 63rd Session, Special Committee of 24 on Decolonisation by the Honourable Janet Robertson, member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, 18 June 2009. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesJanet, go home, to your real island: Great Britain, where self determination applies to you.. Dont spend words & fantasy things to keep in Malvinas, Remember: .these islands will be forever Argentinian !!
Jun 19th, 2009 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas are part of Argentina and South America not UK nor Europe
Jun 19th, 2009 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Self detemination is a more polite term used nowadays by the British to hide the real term, COLONY OF THE OLD EMPIRE, MALVINAS ARGENTINAS.
Jun 19th, 2009 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nitrojuan,
Jun 19th, 2009 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Janet Robertson was actually born in Argentina!!! Do try to get your facts straight old chap.
See:- http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assembly/Ms_Janet_Robertson.html
By the way are you going to send all the immigrants in Ushuiaia and Argentina back to their origins? Maybe you are one yourself?
I see the Mercopress comment-section trolls are out in force...
Jun 19th, 2009 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for another really helpful comment Nitrojuan. It's what we have come to expect from you. Actually, apart from getting your facts wrong about where Janet was born, you might like to know Robertsons have been on the Falklands for several generations.
Jun 19th, 2009 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many generations have your family been in Argentina? Did they come from Italy in the 1940s perhaps?
From the usual hardline Argentine comments above is it really surprising that few of your continental neighbours really like you either! They may offer you a bit of paper support in th UN and OAS for obvious reasons - but that is about as far as it goes.
Jun 19th, 2009 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Justin R,About your comment “How many generations have your family been in Argentina? Did they come from Italy in the 1940s perhaps? ”
Jun 20th, 2009 - 06:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0However they did not claim the land for their country of origin, nor the British (tens of thousands) living in mainland Argentina.
Juan,
Jun 20th, 2009 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not sure what your point is? Argentina did not choose to remain Spanish so the Falklands by default are not allowed to remain British?
Argentina had a choice, and the Argentines were allowed to exercise their self determination (no matter what their heritage was, Anglo, Swiss, German, Italian etc). Whatever situation Argentines were allowed to choose for themselves, independence or remaining Spanish, or whatever, is irrelevant - the fact is they were allowed to make that choice.
However, Argentina wants to deny exactly the same choice to Falkland Islanders. Why should Falkland Islanders not be allowed to decide their future?
Saludos
Remember Hong Khong? Why HMG didn`t mind about the Hong Konger's “wishes”? Was the Iraqui People wish to be “bombed” (with more than 600 000 civilians killed, according “Lancet”? Hypocrits! Yolur's in notheing different than a criminal imperial policy.
Jun 21st, 2009 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hong Kong?
Jun 21st, 2009 - 06:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Leased from China, returned as promised. Nice try, no cigar.
As regards Hong Kong, a mainly Chinese population who identified with China. Your point is exactly? I can't see it.
The island of HK and Kowloon Peninsula had been ceded in perpetuity by China (at gunpoint, of course). The “new Territories” were leased.
Jun 21st, 2009 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0How do you know they identified with China? HMG “forgot” to ask them about their “wishes”.
The old crown territory of HKong Island and Kowloon were and would have been unviable on their own without the leased new territories. It was never considered an option to seperate the two. I never heard any call at all from Hong Kong Chinese to stay british- they seem to have a reasonable deal as a “special” part of China - and China welcomed them as part of the negotiating team! Argentina has NEVER regarded us as entitled to any human rights at all!!
Jun 21st, 2009 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0HMG didn't asked their opinion because HMG doesn't care. The islanders whishes are only a mere pretext. Where was Irak self determination when you decided to change government there? Where when you toppled Mosadegh in Iran? Why did you split Ireland in two? What about the self determination for Diego Garcia islanders, natives expulsed by HMG to make roomk for a US base? Yours is pure imperial policy. Call it as you want, but it is a colonial enclave in the Americas.
Jun 21st, 2009 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islands will return to Argentinaeither either like Hong Kong or like Goa. With or without the islanders.
Dear islanders, self-determination right does not apply to malvinas population because people from the argentine continental side is not allowed to set and live in the islands so there is a fact of nationality discrimination very anacronic and unbelivable at present in 2009.
Jun 21st, 2009 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, I agree that the interests of falklanders in the islands must be carefully respected in future sovereignty negotiations.
HMG did ask the people of Hong Kong, I suggest you do better research before commenting.
Jun 22nd, 2009 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0The pretext of self-determination? Lets look at the facts for a second. The FCO desired better relations with Argentina, considered the islands to be worthless and would have handed them over in a heart beat to get rid of them. The islanders regard the Government of Argentina and the FCO as “equals”.
What stymied the FCO was the effective lobby organised by the islanders themselve.
And listen to yourselves. “With or Without the Falklanders”. Do you plan a spot of genocide perhaps? The Falklanders don't enjoy the right to self-determination, tell me where in the UN charter is the right prescribed? It clearly states “all peoples have the right to self-determination”.
There is no discrimation, actually thats not correct there is. But the people doing the discriminating kid themselves, like all racists, that they're justified.
You're not justified in the slightest.
Javier, you are correct that HMG does not care. They never did care much for the Falklands, especially the FCO. HMG was trying to give the Islands away and got very close to doing that in the early 1980s (the navigation agreement was the start of that process), but the Argentine invasion has made that politically impossible for HMG. The best thing Argentina can do is park their claim and start talking to the Falkland Islanders about issues of common interest. That is what was happening until the first Kirchner was elected.
Jun 22nd, 2009 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whatever HMG really wants to do, does not change the fact the Islanders wishes are not a pretext, but actually a right, and this should be respected by the British government as much as the Argentine government.
Mossaddeq was toppled in 1953 (by the CIA, not the British), Irish partition happened in 1920 when Ulster CHOSE to remain part of the UK and not join the Freestate. We are in 2009 Javier, perhaps everyone (including Argentina) should be learning from the mistakes of previous generations.
The Chagossian situation is a massive scandal, I could not agree with you more, and I am very pleased they are starting to get justice of some kind. I have signed many petitions in their support. The irony is, though, this is exactly how Argentina wants to treat the Falkland Islanders, riding roughshod over their rights, and yet you see no problem in using the Chagossian plight as justification for Argentine sovereignty in the Falkland islands. How very odd...
I don't see how Hong Kong or Goa (which was actually Portuguese, not British) have any relevance to the Falkland Islands? Please explain.
Cossimo, the Falkland Islanders have an undeniable right to self determination, no matter where they were born or what your personal opinion is. Please read Chapter XI, article 73, of the UN charter. It's not just their interests, but also their wishes which have to be taken into account. You are incorrect that Argentines are not allowed to live in the Falklands. They can apply to live there, subject to the same conditions as any any other foreigner (or British citizen for that matter).
There is nowhere in international law which denies the right to self determination because a sovereignty dispute exists.
Let's face it, without getting into the argument whether the Falklands are argentine or not, it would be disastrous for the islanders' economy to be ordered around by the chronic incompetence and corruption of the argentine government. If the islanders never had indigents, wait until the central government in Argentina sends a governor to run the islands and all the drama in Pandora's box will become innocent. If it happened tomorrow, most probably the Kirchners would try to tax the islands' economy to the point where nothing would be economically viable there. Probably the islands belong to Argentina, but people are more important than politics. A study of how argentine laws and politics would affect the islands if taken over by Argentina, would be enough to prove that they would return to be the way they were in the 1300's...
Jun 22nd, 2009 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cossimo, several Argentine familes have moved here since 1982 and are very happy here and are treated the same as everybody else. you must get the facts correct. Argentines have no problems anytime as visitors, veterans or bereaved families.
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Genocide? Do you mean by hunger like in Bengal in 42/43 under HMG or by gassing the islanders as with Irak “natives” in the 20? Do you mean a genocide like that carried out by Britain in South Africa under good old Lord Kitchener? Perhaps you mean an ethnic cleansing like in Ireland or like with the Acadians under HMG? . I don’t even mean expulsing them as HMG did with our people in Malvinas (or like million Poles from eastern Poland under the auspieces and proposition of good old Winston Churchill).No, I mean that their opinion has null importance. They are just a population implanted by the colonial power. They are not a people, that’s why there is no self determination right. They can remain living among us or they can leave, with no consequence, like their wishes.
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 05:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0By the way, I forgot to mention the Irish genocyde.
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 05:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder what would you say should we aplly the islanders a Law like HMG established for Ireland from 1691 on:
1) “No catholic will have a seat at the Irish parliament”
2) “No catholic can be 'procurador' , ranger or policeman”
3) “No catholic may HAVE A HORSE of a value superior to 5 pounds. Any protestant who has that sum can take over the work or hunting horse of his catholic neighbour”
4) “No catholic can attend university, have a school or send his children abroad to be educated. There is a 10 pounds reward for the discovery of any catholic school teacher”
5) “No catholic can live in Limmerick and Galway or to buy properties inside their city walls limit”
6) “No catholic can buy land or accept them as a present from a protestant”
7) “No catholic can be a child's tutor. The catholic orphans must be raised as protestants”
8) “No catholic is allowed to have a gun.”
Islander, según el último censo solo 29 argentinos viven en Malvinas y varios de ellos en realidad son kelpers que nacieron en Argentina simplemente por una cuestión hospitalaria, por ejemplo Janet Robertson. 29 es un un número absurdo y es el dato mas elocuente que habla respecto de la política de no contaminación y aislamiento de la población kelper con fines políticos.
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 06:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islander, I ask you a question, if in Tierra del Fuego now lives 150.000 people; how many people do you think may live in malvinas withot the conflict with Argentina??
50.000??
who wins from that hypotetical situation?? the argentines, the kelpers or both??
Lets us examine Argentine history for 1 second.
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The War of the Triple Alliance, in which Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay effectively eradicated the male population of Paraguay.
The Conquest of the Desert, that many modern historians class as a genocide, in which Rocas effectively annihilated the indigenous peoples of Patagonia.
We could of course mention more recent history such as the Dirty War. But that is not in any way a cogent argument, they're irrelevant in relation to a modern and democratic Argentina.
What relevance do 17th Century laws have to the Falklands dispute? Perhaps a balanced viewpoint would include the Huegenot refugees, my ancestors among them, that were given refuge in Britain when fleeing Catholic persecution in Europe. They have no relevance to modern day multicultural Britain.
What relevance do any of the distorted examples you purport to have listed. There are many examples of the morally indefensible that were done in the name of Empire, equally there were many aspects of the Empire that were good.
But lets be honest about this, you care nothing for any of those people whose examples you quote. You quote them solely to create a negative impression of Britain, nothing more. Your comments are little more than a racist diatribe to justify your personal prejudices.
You denounce expulsions yet a few sentences later advocate that the Falkland Islands can either submit to Argentine demands or else be expelled. I don't suppose for one second that the utter hypocrisy in your statement struck you for one second.
They are a population who have lived in the Falklands for 9 generations. Most Argentines are descended from late 19th Century immigration to put that into perspective. Few have more than 5 generations in Argentina.
And were we to apply your “argument” to Argentina. Patagonia was seized by armed conquest, you have populated it with an implanted population of European immigrants. Clearly, if we follow your argument that since this was done in the late 19th Century that Argentina has even less right to be there. That simple example shows those views are little more than naked racism.
Your quote: “Your comments are little more than a racist diatribe to justify your personal prejudices.”
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 07:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who are the racists?
“Todo viene de la Providencia Divina. La tarea de crear esas colonias y celar por ellas fue tan inequívocamente confiada por la Providencia al pueblo de este país, que deberíamos renunciar al nombre mismo de ingleses si fallásemos en ese deber” (Prime Minister Gladstone)
“Everything comes from the Divine Providence. The task to create these colonies and to care for them was without possibility of error entrusted by providence to the people of this land, that we should renounce to the name of Englishmen if we fail in this duty” (British PM Gladstone).
_____________________________________________________
“There is a destiny now possible to us, the highest ever set before a nation to be accepted or refused. We are still undegenerate in race; a race mingled of the best northern blood... Will you, youths of England, make your country again a royal throne of kings, a sceptred isle, for all the world a source of light, a centre of peace... This is what England must either do or perish: she must found colonies, as fast and as far as she is able, formed of the most energetic and worthiest men, seizing every piece of fruitful waste ground she can set her foot on, and there teaching these her colonist that their chief virtue is fidelity to their country, and their first aim is to advance the power of England by land and sea...”
John Ruskin’s inaugural lecture at Oxford University, 1870.
_____________________________________________________
“The idea gleaming and dancing before one’s eyes like a will-of –the wisp at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not form a secret society with but one object, the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for THE RECOVERY OF THE UNITED STATES, for the making THE ANGLO-SAXON RACE BUT ONE EMPIRE?
What a dream, but yet it is probable, it is possible”
Cecil Rhodes, “Confession of Faith”
British hero Cecil John Rhodes added nearly a million square miles to his country’s African Empire and gave his name to a country larger than England, Germany, France and the Low Countries combined – Rhodesia.
“I walked between earth and sky, and when I looked down I said, 'This earth should be English' and when I looked up, I said 'The English should rule the earth'”( Sir Cecil John Rhodes, British hero and empire builder).
“I contend we are the finest race in the world and the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race” (Sir Cecil John Rhodes)
“ I believe that the German People are called by the divine destiny to be leaders of the world for the glory of the German being as well as for the benefit of the human race” (Adolf Hitler, any similarity between both ‘heroes’, their nations and concentration camps is a mere coincidence).
I know they will never admit it, but Brits somehow share all those statements (except Hitler's: after all, German cousins are not as good as the English and should be ruled by them too).
They cannot conquest the USA, they cannot 'make the anglo-saxon race but one empire'...but FOR THE TIME BEING they can keep the Malvinas British.
Keep dreaming in peace. Argentina will always be here in the South Atlantic caring for you. Sooner or later, we'll help you to wake up.
The following are quotes to Sir Winston Spencer Churchill’s “The Second World War”, volume 5 “Closing the Ring”, book two “Teheran to Rome”, chapter 20 “Conversations and Conferences”.
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 07:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0QUOTE A: “I suggested that we should discuss the Polish question. He [Stalin] agreed and invited me to beguin (...) Personally I thought Poland might move westward, like soldiers taking two steps ‘left close’. If Poland strod in some German toes, that could not be helped, but there must be a strong Poland. (...)” [END OF QUOTE]
[including the issue in the agenda of the Conference] QUOTE B: “We agreed to look at the problem. Stalin asked wether it would be WITHOUT(*) Polish participation. I said ‘YES’(*), and that when this was all informally agreed between ourselves we could go to the Poles later. (...)”[END OF QUOTE]
QUOTE C: “I then demonstrated with the help of three matches MY(*) idea of Poland moving westwards. THIS PLEASED STALIN(*), and on this note our group parted for the moment” [END OF QUOTE]
The following are quotes to Sir Winston Spencer Churchill’s “The Second World War”, volume 6 “Triumph and Tragedy”, book 2, Chapter 22 “Russia and Poland: the Soviet Promise” and to Chapter 39: “Postdam: the Polish Frontiers”
QUOTE D: “I then said it was my duty to state the position of His majesty’s government. I had repeatedly declared in Parliament and in public my resolution to support the claim of the U.S.S.R. to the Curzon line as interpreted by the Soviet Government. That meant including Lvov in the U.S.S.R.” [END OF QUOTE]
QUOTE E: “Russia had advanced her frotier to the Curzon Line. This meant, as Roosevelt and I had realised, that the three or four million Poles who lived on the wrong side of the line would have to be moved to the west” [END OF QUOTE]
That is a wonderfull example of respect for self determination (which as every Kelper knows, is paramount for HMG!)
Good old Sir Winstor (HM Prime Minister at the time) generously forwarded his nice ‘idea’ (1) of moving Poland westward. Of course, the FORCED DISPLACEMENT of SEVERAL MILLION Poles & Germans from their homes was just a triffle. Colonialist forum members will probably think that Germans had no rights because they were to be vinced – thus behaving exactly like the nazis and impulsing an ethnic cleansing.
What about the Poles? Oh, they were their most beloved allies. So much so that the Polish forces were been sent to the most desperate actions of the war, like in Monte Cassino and Arnhem. Again, as self determination was paramount, Sir Winston decided to discuss Polish new frontiers and the forced desplacement of MILLIONS of her citizens WITHOUT THEIR PARTICIPATION.
Well, if Britain (and good old Sir Winston, the ‘last Lion’) not only didn’t objected but proposed such a thing as shifting to the west of a whole nation, which implied (“as Roosevelt and I had realised...”) the forced displacement of “three or four million” civilians of his own ally (please note: three or four: a million more or less made no difference to HMG), I wonder he wouldn’t had objected to the displacement of the Diego Garcians.
By the way, how many are the Kelpers?
Regards – J
PS: HMG promoves the ethnic cleansing not only of enemies (Germans) but of allies (Poles) and peoples under their ‘protection (Diego Garcians) as well. NOBODY IS SAFE
(1) The british seem to fe full of nice ‘ideas’: Rhodes was another good example!
(2) Are you going to insist in the hypocrital argument that you refuse to negociate because “self determination comes first”?
(*) the capitals are mine for everybody to note the ‘detail’
Hong Kong and Goa were colonial enclaves in China & India. The UK returned HK after China made it pretty clear that if there was no negiciated solution, she would proceed unilateraly. HMG got the message and retired. At Goa (1961), the Portuguese refused to “understand” and so they were expelled “manu militari”. What I mean is that in the long term there no other way out except by any of those examples. Argentina will always be in the South Atlantic, it is just a waiting game.
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 07:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Javier,
Jun 23rd, 2009 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You really are quite confused, throwing us quotes from people in power when the UK was at the height of Imperialism. Argentina also has colonial baggage - the Conquest of the Desert - and even more recent. Tierra del Fuego only became an Argentine Province in 1990! Did anyone ask the Yaganes or the Telhuelches if they wanted to be colonised? I don't think so... Cecil Rhodes DIED in 1902. Can I remind you again. We are in 2009. What the British (or any other colonial power) did in the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries is of little relevance to the Falkland situation TODAY.
Did Poland not spend 50 years subjugated under the Soviet Communist yoke? Somehow you forget that, but focus on Churchill's efforts to save Poland - in some form. What relevance does this have to the Falkland Island situation today? Nothing.
As for the Chagossians, you still quote what happened to them, but fail to see the irony. Argentina wants to treat the Falkland Islanders in EXACTLY the same way, walking all over their rights, and yet somehow that is OK? I think the Diego Garcia card is nothing more than an Achilles heel for you.
You Argentines always trot out Hong Kong as a justification for getting your hands on the Falklands, but apart from Hong Kong being a former British colony, their situations have nothing in common. There is no relevance, and this is even more so for Goa, where the Goans WANTED to become part of India.
Most chilling of all: You seem to believe acquiring territory by military means, in 2009, is acceptable? Shame on you!
Argentina might always be in the South Atlantic, but so will the Falkland Islands...
You pretend your colonial policies are just in past tense. You invaded three times Afghanistan. As you have not learned, you are again devastating that unhappy country, half a world appart of your land. Of course you do it either in the name of self determination, free trade, freedom or same other pretext. The fact is you are spreading death and destruction, as you have just done in Irak. How many wars have HMG taken part in this XXI century? You are still a colonial power trying to play world influence. Please don't “help” the world anymore!
Jun 24th, 2009 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0How many children has HMG killed today?
Hola Javier.
Jun 24th, 2009 - 01:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Iraq, another example on unilateralism and old policies of an old empire. Now Justin if empire policies are over, show me the evidence that justify an invasion of iraq territory. Links with al qaeda? never proved. Weapons of mass destruction? never proved. Im waiting you justification on that war of the 21 century.
Luis and Javier
Jun 24th, 2009 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unilateralism? Colonial policies? Sorry, but whatever the legalities, and those are still being debated, the UK was part of an international coalition during the Iraq invasion in 2003. In case you have not read the news for a while - it seems you only care about things that happened 50 years ago or more - there are no longer any UK combat troops in Iraq (there goes your colonialism argument up in flames). For your information the coalition included Spain, the US, Australia, Denmark and Poland (and boom, there goes your unilateralism argument).
The UK might have invaded Afghanistan in the past, but again, that was when the India was British and the UK was at the height of its imperial powers. For the current war in Afghanistan the UK is also part of a coalition: US, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Poland, Netherlands, Australia, Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, Denmark, Turkey, Belgium, Norway, Czech Republic.
Before you say these countries were coerced into joining the coalitions for Iraq and Afghanistan, don't forget, they are all democracies and capable of choosing for themselves. There is an example of this: Spain withdrew from Iraq.
From your comments I take it you think the Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein and the Afghans had a better life under the Taliban? One of the stated reasons for the 2003 Iraq invasion was to get rid of Saddam Hussain. I think that was justification enough.
Whether the coalition were legal in invading Iraq and Afghanistan is not for me to say, but how that is at all relevant to the Falkland Island situation I have no idea? Please explain.
Sorry, but you guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find reasons why Argentina's very weak claim trumps the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination.
You seem to conveniently forget that Argentina also has a brutal history of colonialism, invading territory and subjugating indigenous populations. The “conquest of the desert” by Roca. Some of this even more recently - the Napalpi massacre of 1924 comes to mind.
Javier,
Jun 24th, 2009 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have been peddling this nonsense in other forums for years past on the basis of academic pre-eminence. It makes no more sense now than it ever did.
I guess there is probably nobody left alive now who remembers the old British Empire that you harp on about.
Your aim as always it to obtain the Falklands and any potential resources; the whys and wherefores of the merits of any claim are really of no interest to you. It just the smash and grab mentality.
You said it elsewhere your ambition is to take the Falklands with or without the Islanders about whose future you care not a jot.
This is the real and official policy of Argentina, all the rest of the garbage is just for show to people who couldn't care less one way or the other.
The Justins have it about right!
Justin dont be so naive, you think that becouse there was a coalition forces you can justify the war?. You think that becouse Sadam hussein was a murderer that justify the invasion? you think that becouse your forces left you left?. Just search in your oil companies and find out if they are on iraq or left withing your military forces.
Jun 24th, 2009 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Justin, Unilateralism has nothing to do with the coalition, the US presented false proof and without waiting for un resolutions they prepared the invation and colected allies for its cause. Now you think El Salvador presented proof against iraq to participate in the coalition or is it more a political favor to the us?.
Well in Iraq, contrary to the un, you went there and destroyed all of it just becouse you didnt wanted Sadam Hussein. The same happens with malvinas, you dont care about sovereignty, the un, International rights, you just made a consitution for islanders and thats it, they think they are independent becouse of that.
Justin, about the legality is not for debate, you think the weapons of mass destruction can be found after all this years? or its conection with al qaeda?. Those proof were made by the US for political purpose and it was investigated by them.
Expat, Empire is gone but its habits are back.
Luis,
Jun 24th, 2009 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our new constitution was made and drafted by Islanders , it was led by an islander born elected councillor with input from the other councillors,the general public, and then the lawyers in the end to get the words correct and was then finally approved by UK - it was not made by them. I guess some of you will just never accept or understand that in the 21st century we run our country - not UK. They only have responsibility for defence and foreign affairs.
Luis,
Jun 25th, 2009 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why are you so quiet about Argentina's crimes? The conquest of the desert by Roca (which many consider to be genocide), the taking of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. Do you have any comments about the Napalpi massacre, or do you just prefer to ignore the bits which you don't like (or perhaps feel embarrased about)? What are your comments? You call me naive, however it's naive of you to think the UK is the only country which indulged in imperialism in its past.
Your view of the events in Iraq and Afghanistan is exactly that, a view, an opinion - and I am quite prepared to concede that my views are only an opinion. You are no more correct than I am, which is why I continually repeat that the legality etc is still in question and that the historians will figure it all out in the future. We may not know the truth in our lifetimes. The invasion was not only about WMD, there were more complex reasons for the invasion. You also conveniently forget about the earlier aggression and invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
British oil companies are not the only ones currently in Iraq, despite what you think, it is not a free-for-all for British companies. You seem to conveniently forget about companies from other countries. For example the Chinese state oil company just signed a deal with the Iraqi government. I still don't see how Iraq has any relevance to the Falkland Islands?
“The same happens with malvinas, you dont care about sovereignty, the un, International rights, you just made a consitution for islanders and thats it, they think they are independent becouse of that.”
Well, the facts prove otherwise Luis: The FI constitution is as a direct result of the UK's obligations under Article 73 of the UN Charter. Also, the Islanders have an undeniable right to self determination, under international law, enshrined in the UN charter, yet the only country trying to deny that right is Argentina - talk about not caring about international rights.
Ah yes, I see the usual crap is raised about Iraq.
Jun 26th, 2009 - 06:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Iraq was incredibly divisive in the UK, it provoked the biggest protests this country have ever seen. I will not justify it, as I was one of those who protested against our involvement. It was not justifiable.
But to claim it was colonialism is farsical. The British have all but pulled out of Iraq.
As regards the Falklands, you're now being utterly ridiculous. The Falklands are of no value to the British, they maintain a base there purely to defend the islands against Argentine aggression. Prior to 1982 there was no presence; it is solely a product of continued Argentine aggression.
Javier, you post is constructed of the most bizarre twisted logic. It is not worthy of a riposte, it is its own criticism.
Sorry guys, but we are going nowhere if you dont even recognize you have nothing to do in iraq. You dont even know why you are there in first place and im sure you are not going to tell me. so you try to justify it comparing it with the conquest of the desert.
Jun 26th, 2009 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Justin R, i have the links that indicate the US admited the proof were bad handled if you really want to read it. So its not only my opinion. So how if you tell me whats your opinion about what made the uk took the desition to invade?( i hope you answear it)', dont let historians to figure it out.
Justin Kuntz, Is not necesary to keep military forces to maintain a colony. As long as you control the economy and its polititians. About the economy its obvious there was no iraq's aproval to british petroleum have acces to iraq's oil, and about polititians, the current “president” of iraq were living in the us and was brought by the allies (should i substantiate more). And if your response is that there was an election i ask you if the Ba'ath partie participated on the elections?.
Islander, i sincerely interested in your constitution. Why the uk had to aprove your constitution if they only take care of defense and foreign office? why your constitution does not include your own governor?, Is the constitution equally to those of Walles, England, Scotland or NorthIrland? or equally to those of commonwealth? i ask you without intention to offend you, but from my point of view your constitution does not change at all your current status quo.
Guys, when the mayor combats ended, you didnt helped iraq's inhabitants to develop its oil resources, americans corporations and british oil corporations were waiting to extract oil since the first day mayor combats ended.
Justin, your quote: “From your comments I take it you think the Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein and the Afghans had a better life under the Taliban? One of the stated reasons for the 2003 Iraq invasion was to get rid of Saddam Hussain. I think that was justification enough.”
Jun 27th, 2009 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, dear! Surely, those millions killed by your war feel better killed under your bombs than alive under Saddam! Those mutilated and those who have lost everything they had are now very happy because they are “free” now. And they surely granted the control of their oil to US and British interests as a prove of their eternal gratitude…
There is a mention in the comments to a coalition. The coalition of Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria invaded Yugoslavia in 1941. So according your reasoning, as it was a coalition that was pretty good…
It was your “coalition odf the willing” who laugh on the UN, on international Right, on written treaties and the world by unleashing your brutal carnage of 100000 people and destruction of a country which YOUR GOOD TONY BLIAR accused of being able to launch WMD in an hour, (proven ABSOLUTELY FALSE), as all other reasons which has been invoked by HMG and USA. It was YOU who defy the UN and the world by the commission of that CRIME AGAINST PEACE, like those commited by NAZIS . You laugh on the Geneva convention, too.
There are many tyrants in the world, like your good allies in Oman, Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Pakistan, Egypt, KUWAIT, etc. When are you going to allow them (that is, those who survive your ‘liberation’) to walk free? NOT while their governments let you suck their oil or are functional in ant way to your interests. You will commit ANY CRIME to control oil.
Which is the nature of your present Afghan war? This war is just a battle for world oil supply, a new version of the “Great Game” played in Central Asia and the Middle East during the XIXth century, though Britain seems to play now a more humble part. The Russian bear is ill and in the cave; USA cannot go for it (it is still a bear...) but you will take the opportunity of conquering all that you can while she is in her cave and there is no world balance.
The destruction and control of Afghanistan (most of the country is controlled by ‘good warlords’ allies) will allow you to build the pipelands to take out the Central Asian oil. The proven reserves of Kazakstan are 17.6 billion barrels (the USA are 22 billion barrels) and Turkmenistan has the fifth largest gas reserve in the world. There is a president for life there, but he seems to be a “good dictator” to make bussiness with... On the other hand, in Kazakhistan there were “free elections” but the main opposition leader was barred from running... But who cares? They are willing to make buissiness. You will provide them with chemical weapons, given the circumstances.
There is a dictatorship in China at least since 1949 (previous to that, we must remember that Chiang Kai Sek was a “good dictator”). When are you going to harrase and occupy China, so they (that is, those who survive your ‘liberation’) can walk free? How on earth could HMG have handed over Hong Kong to that dictatorship without obbeying “the wishes” of the 5 000 000 Hong Kongers themselves? They cannot walk free nowadays! To defend their “right of self determination” with weapons in hand would have been a good start for the ‘liberation’ of the other 1000 000 000 Chinese... GO AHEAD! Oh, don’t tell me that China has no oil and plenty ammunition? That has no bearing, you kill just for principles, not for interests...
For those who doesn't see the relationship between Irak & Malvinas, please note tha HMG invokes for Malvinas the same principle she bombs in Irak.
Jun 27th, 2009 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The invasion of Irak is a perfect example of violation of self determination, as everybody knows who appointed the present puppet government there (in the same way Hitler appointed Mr Quisling in Norway). In spite of everything the US and Britain had stated, there were no WMD. Let’s suppose –for exercise sake- that it was just a mere “mistake”. How many people have being killed and injured? How many cities had been reduced to rubble? Who is going to pay for that “mistake”, both pennaly and econommically? When will Mr Bliar be trialed and under wich court?
Anyway, it looks like the Irak war was not a mistake, but just a simple and brutal war of aggression, that is, a “crime against peace”. What does that figure mean?
The following is a quote to the Rules for the International court at Nurenberg, that trialed the nazi leadership
QUOTE:
“II - JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article 6
(...)
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsability:
a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the acomplishment of any of the foregoing;
b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill tratment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory , murder or ill-treatment of prisioners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity,
c) (...)
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”
[END OF QUOTE] (1)
Many nazi leaders were condemned to the death penalty by the Nurenberg Tribunal, including Messers Goering, foreign minister Ribbentropp, Marschalls Jodl and Keitel, etc. But of course, that happened ONLY AFTER THEY LOST THE WAR.
A) and C) seem to be precisely what has been (and still is) done in Irak, does it not?
Best,
We know Britain is a champion of freedom. All of us should have a look to some recent ‘truths’ we have been told by the ‘champions’:
Jun 27th, 2009 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 01) Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
2) He can use it against them with just 45 minutes notice.
3) UN weapons inspectors are deceived by Irakis and so they cannot find the WMD; but Britain has sound proof of them and her intelligence knows where to look.
4) The opinions of UN (in general) and UN Security Council (in particular) are ‘irrelevant’.
5) Britain invaded Irak to defend freedom and democracy.
6) This invassion is pretty legal.
7) The Iraki people will receive them as liberators.
8) The US-British coalition uses intelligent weapons and against military targets only (no explanation was given about super intelligent weapons that hitted wrong countries, including “axis of evil” [Iran] or a close NATO ally [Turkey]).
9) Any reports of hospitals, schools, markets or civilian areas in general destroyed are just Saddam’s propaganda.
10) Cassualties on HM armed forces were caused by friendly fire and not by Irakis.
11) The mothers of Iraki children dead or injured will thank God because they will be free (HMG Minister of Defense dixit).
12) The cause of the invassion was not Irak’s oil (a truth said with deep indignation!).
13) The fact that Basra has STILL NOT running water is caused by thechnical problems. The fact that in the meantime IRAK OIL IS BEEN PUMPED for BP (British Petroleum) and Shell is a happy coincidence!
14) Mr David Kelly committed ‘suicide’...
We all should consider again those ‘truths’ and OOOOPPPS! I almost forgot one!!! Self determination and the islanders whishes are paramount for HMG! In the meantime, a HMG will carry out a “change of regime” in Irak...
Let’s keep good memory of all that in order to alway give HMG THE CREDIT IT DESERVES.
Best - Javier
PD: the use of capitals doesn’t mean any shouting; it is used for emphasis only.
Luis, Britain had to approve our Constitution for 2 reasons - UN recognises UK as administering power, so UK has to answer to UN if we act like a dicatorship inside the islands and do not have fair laws and respect for private citizens and property etc, we have to have a constitution that upholds the priciples of the UN - democracy,human rights and selfdetermination etc.
Jun 27th, 2009 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Also as the Adminisering Power UK has responsibility under EEC Law to make sure that all the European type laws and practises of good government are maintained here. Also at the ultimate point we are british territory-even if selfgoverning - so Britain has to make sure we have our laws etc that meet british standards of democracy and individual rights.
As for where the Governor comes from - maybe one day we will have a Governor who is born here. But do not forget he has no direct power inside the Islands, only our elected councillors control that. He is the figure representation of the Queen as Head of State - but inside the Islands all his power is to advise and sign laws - same as the Queen does in Britain, and like the Governor General in Australia - he is the representative head-of-state there as an example, the only difference is that they are independent so make their own foreign policy as well.
Javier,
Jun 27th, 2009 - 05:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0What on earth are you rabbiting on about? We all know what you think and say. The Falklands will be Argentine “with or without the Islanders”.
There is no relevance to the Falklands in any of your quotes and they are simply examples of diversionary propaganda designed to muddy the waters and impress with your pseudo academic brilliance and grasp of the so called facts. Goebbels is probably cheering in his grave.
Congratulations on being the most irrellevant and overtly anti British propaganist poster on this site.
Don't you see the relationship?
Jun 27th, 2009 - 06:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Self determination is invoked by HMH for deniyng Argentinean right.
Self determination is conveniently forgot by HMG while she makes ballant aggression wars with millions killed and countries harassed.
Don't see the point? The reasons invoked by HMG are simply lies. Britain is still a colonial power, Britain is still a brutal power, Britain is still killing people like ants for her lust of sacking.
Javier,
Jun 27th, 2009 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The rights and wrongs of British actions outside the Falklands arena have nothing to do with that case, you simply use them as a diversionary tactic to muddy the waters. Either that or you are confusing the issue of the rights of non self-governing territories with those of the sovereign states to which you refer.
There is actually no great battle between the UK and Argentina it is all in your mind, as far as I know they are the best of friends in all other arenas.
The right of self determination is enshrined for the Falklands by the UN and was re-iterated by the UK in 1964 in front of Argentine claims at the UN (the wrong body to solve your claims by the way) it is nothing new and reflects the movement in international attitudes in the 20th century whilst your attitudes are still fixed in the 19th century.
Britains support for self determination applies universally to all its Overseas Territories so I do not see how in can possibly be invoked as you say to deny Argentine rights. It does however negate all Argentine claims which are spurious and invented in the extreme in nearly all arenas.
The proof of the existence of the Commonwealth of Nations is testament to Britains modern acceptance of the end of Empire and support for the rights of all peoples of all races.
Yes we make mistakes as does Argentina, but you conveniently forget that Vernet's brief from BA was to establish a viable COLONY in the Falklands within three years which he demonstrably failed to do. The British presence and US visitation came after he had abandoned his post and left the Islands and his putative COLONY to its fate.
So presumably any return to Argentina would be to Colonial status as it was then designated so then again presumably you would grant self-determination to the inhabitants whose rights are so fully recognised and confirmed as such by the UN in their charter and resolutions.
Give me a break!!!
Javier,
Jun 27th, 2009 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sorry, I don't see the relationship. The UK's involvement in Iraq, whether it was right or wrong, does not in any way strengthen Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands.
Justin R, You dont see the relationship but still have no idea what you were doing in iraq. So you denie to the death any colonial aspiration in the 21 century but you have no idea why your oil corporations are still in bagdad while your troops are going home?.
Jun 27th, 2009 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islander, about your constitution i wonder if it represent your selfgovernment as you say, why is that her magesty have powers to make laws in the islands, quote in page 3, last paragraph of your constitution. Why is that her magesty can change the governor power as her pleasure, quote in page 21, last paragraph?. And again in page 33 with the tittle “the governor to consult the executive council” where it says :
The governor shall not be obliged to consult the executive power-
a)When acting under instruction given to him or her by her magesty through a secretary of state pursuant of section 23.
In page 33 with the tittle “the governor may act against advice of the executive council” says in point 4:
whenever the governor act against the advice of the executive council, any member of it may require that there shall be recorded in the minutes any advice or opinion he or she gave on the question at issue and his or her reasons.
Islander as long as i read it several times i can only figure it that:
- The executive council can only advice the governor.
-Her majesty can decide the term of the governor seat.
-Her majesty can change law or make new laws.
-The governor can grant lands on behalf of her majesty under the public seal. quote in page 35, point 73.
-Under page 25 the government can dissolve the legislative assembly by proclamation published in the gazette.
-Her Majesty can dissalow any ordenance of the legislative assembly as quote in page 30 point 54 (2).
Islander my natural language is Castellano so i'll be glad if you can give me further details on those point i mention to see what if the little part of the constitution favor the queen or your selfdetermination.
Link of the “falkland” constitution:
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assembly/documents/The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008.pdf
Javier,
Jun 28th, 2009 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Whether I like the FI Constituton and how it works or not is my business entirely.
It does not matter at all wheter you like it or not as it is really none of your business.
The Governor is the representative of the Queen who is the Sovereign and Head of State of the Falkland Islands which is a self-governing British Overseas Territory with a symbiotic relationship with the mother country for the time being exactly the same as the other territories of the BOT group. Nothing designed at all to frustrate Argentina but to support the legitimate rights of of British Overseas Territory Citizens who are all also British Citzens as well as Citizens of their own respective territories. I know Argentina understands dual nationality as about 50% of Argentines reputedly keep up dual loyalties. The speed of progress to full autonomy, or indeed not as the case may be, is in the hands of the Islanders themselves who share such powers as they will with their sovereign as it suits them as as is their own business.
This has no bearing on your claim whatsoever and the constitution is a matter for the Islanders and the legal administering power the UK which as it is presently obliged to do has reported the change in the constitutional status to the UN.
I fully expect that the Falklands will formally report its satisfaction with its degree of self government to the UN through the administering power and request its removal from the UN listing of NSGT's as is the approximate position of Gibraltar.
If my expectations are correct, happily for you and your country, you will then be able continue to talk to the wall without contradiction from the FIG.
By the way there is the precedent of the Sovereign using her powers through the Australian Governor General to sack their Prime Minister and I think nobody would question the fact of self government in Australia.
I do hope you understand this post.
Expat, calm down a little bit. No need to be angry.
Jun 28th, 2009 - 03:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Luis, The Sovereign also has the right to dissolve the British Parliament as well, and more. But in practise and tradition that is done on the advice of the primeminister of the day - same in the Falklands, yes as the Queen is our head of State she has all these powers(in theory) and thus the Governor has them as her representative, but in practise he does not nor would exercise them - unless we started trying to do some very undemocratic things.
Jun 28th, 2009 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0British constitutions have always been a bit like this as we have an unelected monarch as Head of State and thus with all the final powers in principle - but as democracies its done differently in reality with the Head of State as an advisor and accepting the decisions of the elected representatives and signing the papers. Its all part of our slightly crazy - but often envied - history and traditions.
Believe me, I live here happy to know that today real effective power in the Islands lies with the people I can vote for every 4 years. Your constitution is different and maybe much clearer to follow as to where real power lies.
Too many posts here. I read the posts above and I realized that we are not going to agree. It's OK to read opinions, but discusions among posters are pointless. It's just my opinion. The only thing I can say is ISLANDERS: If UK don't sit on the table to discus the sovereignty question, then, our goverment is not going to talk about fisheries, oil exploration, air link, etc.
Jun 28th, 2009 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, think very carefully about it, think in long-term policy.
UK don't sit on the table to discus the sovereignty question, then, our goverment is not going to talk about fisheries, oil exploration, air link, etc.
Jun 28th, 2009 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your current government might not, but hopefully a future one will.
It's just as much Argentina's loss, and don't kid yourself that the Islands can't live without you.
Just a quick observation.
Jun 29th, 2009 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you notice how this report concerns a comment that Argentina always uses coercion to attempt to influence the islanders, never mind that its utterly counter productive. And then an Argentine comes along, states that discussions are pointless then demands talks or else.
I think the original point is proven. QED
It was Argentina who walked away from and broke international signed agreements on fisheries conservation and oil exporation in the areas.Not the Islands nor UK. It was Argentina also who banned charter flights to the Islands - and as a result it is their fault now that their 1982 families association has to come on LanChile flights. Not our fault.
Jun 29th, 2009 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course it would be better for our economy(and much better for international fishery conservation), and better in the future long term for Argentina if we could co-operate more and be friendly normal neighbours. But the bottom line is we can survive quite well without it. We have not torn up any Agreements - somebody else has.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!