MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Mrs. Kirchner: “One day this century an Argentine president will visit Malvinas”
Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said that one day this century an Argentine president will be able to visit the Malvinas Islands to homage the Argentine soldiers who died in the war with Britain 27 years ago and are buried in the Falklands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe Argentine government will have to improve its attitude towards the Islanders a good deal if a President will ever be allowed to visit! Well done to the Falklanders for their continued kind and compassionate attitude towards the Next of Kin - now lets see some similarly grown up behaviour from the Argentine government
Oct 04th, 2009 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whoever you are, you didn't understand argentine president's words. She meant one day, one president will be there as a president of those islands too. None president will go there if they have to get a permission before.
Oct 04th, 2009 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'd would like to say that I watched all the ceremony broadcasted live from darwin at c5n news channel and I'm glad that all the people who e-mailed and posted comments on c5n webpage were supporting the national claim as usual. Happiness for the families, but bitterness and almost hateness towards the british.
By the way, you need to grow up. One day you'll see the light.
Cheers.
one day argentina will learn that it has the ultimate weapon at its disposal - time.
Oct 04th, 2009 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Simply negotiate an accord with our friends in south america and impose a total embargo on the Falklands.
Absolutely no contact by air or by sea.
The Falklands will be forced to beg the british taxpayer to pay for regular air and sea services and economic support.
the islands are british so let the british support them.
A total embargo and we have all the time in the world.
Five years and the falklands will be happy for the president of Argentina to visit.
She can come next Saturday if she likes and there is a plane seat. No reason why she cannot come quietly as a private citizen to support the families and share in their loss. All she needs is her passport - and that is in her name - not her job - so no real political compromise. But it would earn her some respect. After all a previous Arg Foreign Minister even came here on holiday with his family - no problem,no trouble,private visit.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 03:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - strange then that person after person of the families here yesterday personally thanked the people here for their support and compassion - these families are the people whose opinions matter.
NR - just who are these friends -when the chips are down? Not much sign of them in 1982! We have not needed basic economic support from UK since the 1870s actually. We do not have, nor ever have subsiised communications links to UK. OK UK pays for the military charter flights for military needs- but we pay full seat costs as passengers - no subsidy.
Ah Mr Rogers, pretending to be British or not?
Oct 05th, 2009 - 04:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dream on. All you ever hear from Argentines seems to be these absurd fantasies as to how to force the Falkland Islanders to bend to your will. In case you ain't noticed they're not interested. They'd rather eat Mutton'n'potatoes, as you put it.
we are not interested in ,as you put it; to ''bend the islanders to our will''
Oct 05th, 2009 - 07:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0When the islands are internationally recognised as south american territory and european imperial military occupation of the Islands ends, the islanders can decide for themselves. We dont care.
The islanders will then have the opportunity to restore their links with Argentina like they did prior to the 1982 conflict. They will once again send their children to schools in Argentina,spanish will once again become the Islands' second language.Islanders will have the best argentine medical services available and they will enjoy a better standard of living through the easy availability of a vast choice of products imported cheaply and quickly.
Like they had before Argentina's misguided and misled attempt to restore the islands to south america.
We wont even ask them to surrender their british citizenship after all, many argentines possess dual nationality.
Yes, “Neil Rogers”, I'm sure every Falkland Islander would love the opportunity to be associated with a third rate “democracy” like Argentina. The arrogance of Argentines never ceases to amaze me.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 08:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0what can I say to you neil?...Britain is becoming a grossly overpopulated country with a collapsing infrastructure administered by the most incompetent and corrupt government in Britain 's history; that cares only for its own demented marxist-based agenda funded by unregulated corporate fascism; to create a weird egalitarian society where everyone has a degree in brain surgery, comes from a single parent family and has mental health issues and believes in no god but celebrity and hair care products.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0And soon, you will be again ruled by Tony BLiar once he ascends to the presidency of the european parliament.
His official residence is under construction as we speak.
Oh dear.
NR a couple of corrections.prior to 1982 kids had been withdrawn from Argentine schools- they were fed up with the brainwashing,also it was causing embarrasment in Argentina as people were saying “why are our taxes paying for these kids to come to top schools we cannot afford to send our own Arg kids to”! The medical, FI paid for in hard currency - same as they do to top hospitals in Chile today. The fresh produce was often poor quality as we got “national”grade - from Uruguay we got Arg “export” grade. Today we would get none as Arg Govt would certainly refuse to issue the standard international biosecurity health certificate - without which fresh produce cannot enter here - nor any other country. 2009 we have a wide range of products imported cheaply by modern container shipping from Europe/USA/AND S America. Spanish is the second language you hear most- some 10-20% of our population actually come from S America and lots of folks here holiday there - even in Argentina!
Oct 05th, 2009 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0hospital´s in Chile!!?? hey...you have no helth service!!
Oct 05th, 2009 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0poor fresh products...no comments...ruin life
were is your development?? where is your fredom??
Sure and they are internationally rated as ver good.Of course we have our own good health service but with 3000people you cannot have every specialist facility.Development- we have plenty of it-its all on file at Un actually! Freedom - that to ,as we elect our Government that makes OUR laws-UK does not make laws for us here.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0jaja...what a joke...not your laws UK wrote....but yes your law...your constitution...do you vote or debate the supreme law??
Oct 05th, 2009 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0you are a joke as society...you call yourself free but you are a prisoner of the situation created by your masters. wake up...don´t you want to live in the free world??
keep your own goverment; that´s not the point between us; it´s your right to choose your own goverment, we are not a challenge for this.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the point between us is your colonial situation and the presence of your british masters ruling in malvinas...why don´t you rule there??
Hey islander, do you know how to read? Many of you didn't know in 1982 and I certainly think some like you never learnt. In my last comments I was talking about people watching tv in argentina nor the families being there. You said that the only opinion that matters was families's opinion and that is not true. 40000000 opinions matters. Do you know the word democracy?
Oct 05th, 2009 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By the way, some of you are already eating only mutton because they seem to have mental deficiency. Eat right people, it means eat more fresh fruits and vegetables because your brain isn't working.
Cheers.
It's sad, but not unexpected, to see these trips for the fallen being used for political purposes by the Argentine president. By contrast, the compassion shown by the Islanders to the Argentine next of kin (taking into account Argentina's invasion in 1982) is quite remarkable and something which deserves immense respect.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Neil Rogers seems to only read the Daily Mail (ignoring the bits about the Falkland Islands obviously) for ideas of what life in the UK is like.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The same 'Neil' who was on a thread not so long ago pretending to be British... At least he's being consistent with Argentinian state policy regarding their reworking of history to suit their spurious claim to the Falklands - very much of the 'let's just make stuff up' ......
Oct 05th, 2009 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah I see Jorge notes that there is the usual hatred and aggression directed toward the British. I guess the Argentine propaganda machine is still working its magic, generating hatred. What kind of nation brings its children up to hate people they've never met, over what, an imagined sleight 200 years ago.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So Jorge the opinion of 40,000,000 Argentines trumps the self-determination rights of the islanders? No it doesn't, you would object most vociferously if 65,000,000 Brits decided that Argentina was British.
But then Jorge I assumed you had mental health problems a long time ago, the ability to construct a cogent argument is clearly beyond you.
And I see Mr Roger's mask slips ever further, slipping further into the most ludicrous diatribe. I'd rather stick with British democracy than the basket case that passes for it in Argentina.
Oh and tears in her eyes? Crocodile tears more likely, its purely for domestic politics. The most unpopular leader in South America.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Another crown subject who doesn't know how to read. I was talking about families' opinions among the rest of the country opinion. I wasn't comparing opinions between argentina, uk and bennys. Sorry I mean islanders. LOL. Second of all, we don't teach our children to hate you. They learn the truth about the piracy history.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ask those 65000000 british if they know what Falklands is, and you'll see why I say they don't give a s**t about you.
And you say “cocodile tears more likely, its purely for domestic politics. The most unpopular leader in south america.”
if she is the most unpopular leader it means people don't believe her. And why she had tears in her eyes tough? The answer is malvinas is not for domestic politics. If it were, she would be popular. People are not idiot here. She could even be the most unpopular in the world, but when it comes to Malvinas 95 % of argentines think the same way no matter who the president is.
Finally, stop eating only mutton because your brain has been seriously damaged. I hope there is turning back for your brain. By benny! Sorry again, I meant justin.
Cheers.
Welkin, you know very little about reality. here we have full internal self government and the constitution is ours.Only our elected deputies vote on laws,no UK officials not even the Governor.Yes UK has final responsibility to see that we operate as a democracy and checks that our laws are fair and just, and no books are fiddled here - like they are in B Aires - your inflation levels for one eh! UK has responsibility for foreign affairs(in which they accept our wishes) and defence. Only reason we have a strong military defence base is because of Argentina,s aggressive position. It was not here before 1982 only a small token then.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islander - you speak of Democracy????
Oct 05th, 2009 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who elected Gordon Brown? -nobody ! Gordon Brown actually INHERITED the crown from Tony Blair. The British people were never asked who they wanted as next Prime Minister after Tony Blair...not even Gordon Brown's OWN party. If Britain actually had a written constitution which it doesnt - the present british government would have torn it up !
You speak of Democracy ?? you have an UNELECTED Prime Minister chosen by nobody except Tony Blair. Even the Labour party members were not allowed an election to choose him !
Tony Blair misled the british people and forced your country into TWO illegal wars ! AND YOU DENOUNCE ARGENTINA AS A WAR MONGERING BULLYING NATION!!!!!!
And now, Tony Blair will become President of the new European Superstate - and you british are paying $40 million a day to help build his new presidential palace provide him with a staff of 40 servants, 200 security guards, a fleet of limousines and a salary of $500,000 a year...which will be on top of his income of $2.8 million a year from his jobs with American banks !!!
Maybe this is why Tony Blair refused to allow the british people a referendum to decide their integration into the European Union !!! - so he could be president of it !!!
SO MUCH FOR TONY BLIAR THE GREAT SOCIALIST !!!!
Democracy????
The Falkland Islands are NOT a democracy.They are a british colony with a Governor appointed by the Queen and ratified by Parliament.
Every bit of legislation you islanders produce has to be scrutinised by that Governor before you may enforce it. And that Governor constantly refers to his masters in London before making any decision.
And very soon, over 80% of all legislation that passes through the british parliament will be either created in the European Parliament, or ratified by it !!!
Who elects those people in Europe who will decide how britain is run? NOBODY !
Who are they accountable to? - NOBODY.
Democracy????? - its just e memory.
islander, you said “ but with 3000people you cannot have every specialist facility”...that´s the problem of your underdevelopment; it´s a matter of number. You are 3000 because of your colonial situation, your lack of democracy and because of the conflict; 3000 mean infradevelopment...no infraestructure & business according your minimal size. Look around, look your neighbourhood; look other cities, all have the same resources availables, fish, tourism, oil & sheep; and all have between 30.000 & 60.000 people; the difference is that all the region interacts; but you don´t and this explains most of the situation. Now you are choosing minimal business and infradevelopment but british; why don´t you choose the free option? why are you so afraid of interact with the region like normal people and no masters; like free people, like citizens no subjects.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I find it extremely dumb from the Argentine government to have such a dubious relationship with the Falklands. They seem to say : Héy, we went to war, we lost it , but héy it belongs to us anyway so never mind the war. While Brazil is becoming a worldpower, argentina is still egocentrically looking to its glorious past. I believe that, in the best case, the Falklands will be shared by Argentina and Britain, but claiming something “back” that was , nevertheless first established by The british, named after a French name,. Well, I think one has to be quite dumb to beleive in that possiblity.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's quite pathetic to read all the comments above, between Brits and ARgentines. The level of conversation is a dumb and constructive as the war that was fought. THe ARgentines have posses almost half of south american, and still, they only thing that Presidents seems to think about is a tiny island with No argentines on it. Well, it might have oil and be rich in Fish..; but there is no doubt in my mind that if they can't become a developing nation wiht half south america as their territory, that tiny island wouldn't make a difference either; THey should maybe look more towards brazil and start to develop what they have in stead of claiming a tiny island, most Argentines will never go to in their lives. ARgentines seems to have this continuous hatred and jalousy in their discours, but you can't blame them.. it's the only nation that went from a developed nation to underdeveloped within half a centuray. Its not about the Falklands, its about their frustration of knowing they were rich, could still be rich.... so it's frustration. Again, you can't blame them.. but they should satisfy themselves having already half of the continent and be more critical to what they have achieved wiht that ,in the meantime.
Oct 05th, 2009 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Philip...you say; ''but claiming something “back” that was , nevertheless first established by The british, named after a French name,. Well, I think one has to be quite dumb to beleive in that possiblity.''
Oct 05th, 2009 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can you see the contradiction here? Here is a brief history of the Falklands -
France established a colony at Port St. Louis, on East Falkland's Berkeley Sound coast in 1764. The French name Îles Malouines was given to the islands – malouin being the adjective for the Breton port of Saint-Malo. The Spanish name Islas Malvinas is a translation of the French denomination.
In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east, explored Saunders Island, in the west, named the harbour Port Egmont, AND CLAIMED THIS AND OTHER ISLANDS FOR BRITAIN ON THE GROUNDS OF PRIOR DISCOVERY .
UNDER PRESSURE FROM SPAIN In 1766, France agreed to leave, and Spain agreed to reimburse Louis de Bougainville, who had established a settlement at his own expense. The Spaniards assumed control in 1767 and re-named Port St. Louis as Puerto Soledad.
As a result of economic pressures stemming from the upcoming American War of Independence, Britain unilaterally chose to withdraw from many overseas settlements in 1774. On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Lt. Clayton formally took their leave of Port Egmont, while leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands.
So you see, the british actually surrendered their sovereignty of the Falklands but even so,the british never established any civilian settlement on the Islands until well into the middle of the 19th century.
Thanks for the history lesson “Neil Rogers”. It's interesting that you think since the Falklands did not have “civilian settlement” until the middle of the 19th century that somehow strengthens Argentina's claim.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0The irony that Argentine provinces such as Neuquen, Rio Negro, Chubut, Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego were not even part of Argentina at that time seems to escape you. Most of these territories did not have a “civilian settlement” until later than the Falkland Islands did and some did not even become provinces until well into the 20th century.
The usual old Argentine attitude of we want our cake AND we want to eat it...
welkin/neil, Of course the UK lawyers scrutinise our laws as passed- UK has very high standards of democracy(evn if some MPs in westminster maybe not so straight I agree)and applies them. Perhaps Argentine laws could benefit from the same independent legal checking. As for the Governor-sure he is nominated - that is why he does NOT have a vote in politics here -unless a tie when he has the casting vote. The Gov General of Australia is appointed by the Queen also - are you suggesting they are not an independent nation - he and UK still approve all their laws as well.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for population and developm,ent - before 1982 we were indeed a dying and politically insecure community - Arg stupidity changed all
that- since then civilian population has grown by over 50% and development with it - come and take a look - you will find a pretty modern sophisticated society, albeit only 3000strong. And yes we do eat a healthy balanced diet with more and more of it grown locally. Many live hear because they do not want to live in big cities - dont forget our streets are still safe for anyone at night, doors and vehicles usually unlocked, no drugs,no muggings etc - and the great majority of our youngsters go away for higher education and still want to return.We are lucky to have what is good of the 21st century and have kept out what is bad-so far.So compare us with similar please-not-continental cities.
Civilian settlement of Nequen can be traced back to 1670.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Civilian settlement of Chubut can be traced back to 1779. The first civilian settlement in Chubut was La Candelaria.
Civilian settlement in Rio negro can be traced back to 1782
Civilian settlement of Santa Cruz can be traced back to 1778
Tierra del fuego was disputed territory until the treaty of 1881 with Chile.
Hello! first of all sorry for my poor english... I just can´t believe you´re all figthing when we´re so close to each other. What about letting the Falklanders decide what they want to do with their lives and stop pushing them to make a choise. Talking about freedom and all of you just want the others make whatever you decide... thats not the freedom I know. Come on folks be friends... we can be just like other countries in south America, like Brazil or Uruguay or Chile, but with other name the Falkland Islands. I´m from Argentina and all I want is peace and I hate to be hated... and it seems that everybody hates Argentines... and of course that makes me sad. Wake up Argentina let us be friendly with the world!!!
Oct 06th, 2009 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Neil, (or is it Dr. Goebells reincarnated)
Oct 06th, 2009 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why don't we look at the facts as they are now and not what was happening in the 18th and 19th centuries?
Argentina lies in its teeth to it supporters and fellow travellers. It pretends that it is in compliance with UN Resolutions and Charter and the UK is not. The opposite is in fact the truth.
The Menem government on the other hand was in compliance. It talked with the UK on Fishing, Oil etc. and its development in the interests of the Islanders and made the 1999 Madrid agreement with the UK.
All agreements and discussions must bear in mind the interests of the inhabitants of the Falklands in the terms of UN Resolutions and the UN Charter.
The UN also calls for all options to be considered in the discussions to peacefully end the sovereignty dispute.
Argentina has one outcome in mind only and will countenance no other outcome. So it is totally insincere and without merit in its present approach which is totally against the interests of the inhabitants of the Falklands.
It enrols restrictive practices in trade and communications and conspires with others in South America against the interests of the inhabitants of the Falklands.
When the UK and the FIG progress enterprises that are in the interests of the inhabitants and thereby fulfilling its obligations to the UN Argentina protests that the UK is introducing new elements into the equation.
I guess as the mouthpiece of the Agentine Chancellory you have job to do, but of course we do not have to believe a single word you say.
Hello Sergio, well said, thats all we want, to live in peace with each other as neighbours.some differences like sovereignty probably have no solution, so lets get on with being neighbours and agreeing on what benefits both places and putting to one side what we know we cannot agree on.Give it a generation or two and it may fade away and become irrelevant anyway.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0here, some of us visit your country too and we know that most of you are good people, its just the politicians and a minority that spoil it.
Ah yes Neil, pray tell why did you forget to include the fact that Vernet sought British permission for his venture in the Falklands? And pray tell why does Argentina persist in claiming the British expelled Vernet's settlers when they did no such thing? I note you even ignore the fact in your own post that the British never renounced their claim and the French were forced to yield by Spain. Ah yes, most objective.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 03:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sergio, no one hates the Argentines, it makes a pleasant change to hear someone with a reasonable approach for once. I fear that too many people like Mr Rogers, or should I say Luis perchance, give the wrong impression of Argentina.
Justin - Vernet only consulted the British representative in Buenos Aires AFTER being warned that there were conflicting claims to the sovereignty of the islands. Vernet did NOT recognise British sovereignty of the islands but went first to the government of the United Provinces Del Rio de la Plata - later to become Argentina - and in 1823 was granted fishing rights around the islands. In 1828 he was awarded the rights to exploit all natural resources of East Falkland by the same government of the United Provinces of the Rio Plata (Argentina) Again - Vernet never sought formal permission from the British; his actions in consulting the British were purely diplomatic.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0It was only in 1829, when Vernet was appointed Governor of the islands that the British finally lodged an objection with the government of the Provinces of the Rio Plata (Argentina) but they still did not make any real effort to re-assert their claim to sovereignty over the islands. By 1831 vernet was actually advertising for more migrants to come to the islands.
It was not until 1841 that Britain re-instated the Falklands as a Crown colony - which is why,even after LT.Henry Smith was installed as British resident on the Islands in 1834; he had no jurisdiction to prosecute the rebellious Gaucho Antonio Rivero after the killings at Puerto Louis.
Neil, its all old hat,and somewhat irrelevant in the 21st century where the world and the UN recognises the rights of people who live in a territory when it really comes down to it.Otherwise why the blue helmets in various countries in the last 50 years? Go back far enough and either side can make a case of some sort on whichever version of history it chooses - so what.Argentina as it is today did not even exist then - why dont we claim southern Argentina - it was people from here who were the first european settlers there-today their descendants are Argentines of course as that is where theylive. My ancestors were from England - but I am not English - I am a Falkland Islander. Your side wants to force us to belong to Argentina, we want Argentina to drop its claim to us. neither is going to happen in reality - lets just accept it and look for a middleground where both sides can get along together.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 07:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you islander, we need middleground; for me middleground is that you say goodbye to your british masters, became a republic, you became a citizen instead a subject; and then we accord the terms in wich we recognice your independence and we drop our claim; and then we will live in peace and prosperity for ever.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Welkin, sadly the Argentine government would never allow the Falklands to declare independence. There is only one possible outcome as far as Argentina is concerned...
Oct 06th, 2009 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks “Neil Rogers” for another history lesson. You omitted the fact that civilian settlement in the Falkland Islands can be “traced back” to the late 1600s. One fact which is indisputable though, is the Falklands have been British for much longer than many adjacent parts of Argentina became part of Argentina. Tierra del Fuego did not even become a province until the mid 1950s but somehow you contend the Falklands were part of Argentina since the early 1800s. Argentina did not even exist until the 1850s. Go figure?
Oct 06th, 2009 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0welkin you make an excellent point that touches on the fundamental issue driving this dispute which is the simple fact that a group of islands just a few hundred miles from the coast of South America are under the dominion of Europe.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Should the islanders ever achieve independence then the Falklands will in effect,once more become a part of South America.
If this Independence was established through a UN agreed resolution then the islands' sovereignty would be protected under International law.
In such a scenario it would be impossible for Argentina to continue to pursue its claim to sovereignty of the islands.
It is obvious that Neil Rogers has no idea what he is talking about, and is completely out of his depth. I would ignore what he has to say.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is nice to see that Neil Rogers though admits “the killings”. It is proof of the fact that Argentina only kill people on these islands.
well Neil, sometimes it seems that british nazionalism is more frightened with the possibilitity of a free Malvinas than with Argentina´s claim. Beacuse of that they need to create the figure of the Evil Argentina so they can sustain british presence & dominance.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When Cristina says that : “One day this century an Argentine president will visit Malvinas”; she is saying that there are two possibilities: a president visiting Malvinas Argentinas or a president visiting the Falklands/Malvinas Republic. The british falklands options means perpetual conflict, that´s a fact of reality.
Ok, islander, let´s compare Stanley with non-continental cities; why don´t we start with Usuhaia??
Welkin, you are so sadly out of touch or terribly naive.
Oct 06th, 2009 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British government has time and again said that whatever the Falkland Islanders want is what they can have. If the Falklanders want total independence then it is theirs for the taking and they will not be the first British non-governing territory to gain independence, there are many examples. Under UN resolutions total independence is an acceptable option, which the Falkland Islanders are are perfectly entitled to exercise under international law.
The only problem is Argentina: The Falklanders know only too well, from past experience, that if they were to declare independence and the British garrison was withdrawn within hours the Argentine military would arrive to “recuperar” the islands and rule from Buenos Aires would be imposed against their will.
jajaja
Oct 06th, 2009 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you confirm what I´m saying...jajajajaj
evil argentina will invade!!! you need your masters to defend you from the forces of the dark!!! muejejejeje...you need your masters to dictate your constitution!!!...you need your masters to control your laws!!!...you need your masters because the evil is outside and you can´t rule for yourself and selfdetermination can wait!!!
Thank Mr.Roberts to illustrate what I´m saying and don´t worry I understand your feeling, the idea of a free Falklands/Malvinas, integrated with its continent, like any country, frightens you more than anything.
Yep Welkin, you sum it up pretty well yourself: “evil argentina will invade!!!”
Oct 07th, 2009 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Welkin, the idea of independence could be a possibility -in time.It would certainly defuse the deadend of the current situation. But with 3000 population its a bit much. Some here have thought about it and it could be a logical way forward in future- but only if we knew that Buenos Aires would recognise it otherwise J>A>R is right. I am not sure about all the way to a republic though - probably more like a mini version of Canada or Australia. With only 3000 people half the population could end up as overseas diplomats in embassies! I think that logic would then prevail and if our independence guaranteed by Argentina and UK the perhaps Arg would represent us in S America and mercosur and UK elsewhere. But I emphasize all this is some years away yet. before there would need to be a change of attitude from B Aires to more co-operation and live-let-live(sovereignty issue aside) instead of the present agressive position, so we could start to regain some trust and confidence in Arg. over time.
Oct 07th, 2009 - 04:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ushuaia - I have been there and a nice little city in a beautiful part of the world. I recall about 30 years ago the Governor of T del Fuego suggesting to some Islanders at a party that we need to all get together and declare the Ind Republic of the Southern Isles - Tierra Del Fuego from Buenos Aires and us from London!
Seriously though - yes - in time a definative answer has to be found - but one that is fair to all, in the meantime somehow a change to a more peaceable approach is needed. Under the Menem Government their approach to the question was indeed starting to build a level of confidence from us in Argentina - but now with the Kirscheners we are back to a 1982 attitude again.
Sergio,
Oct 07th, 2009 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your honest remarks are very much appreciated by me. I have to agree with you. You seem however to be a lone voice in the wilderness. Most Argentines I have met or communicated with whilst appreciating the position of Falkland Islanders only see a solution within an overall Argentine context. So it is refreshing to see your point of view expressed.
Welkin,
You are probably right that a solution does exist in the progression of the Falklands to full self-determination though it is for the inhabitants to decide the where and when of such actions.
I would also agree that it would be good for the Islands to be more inclusive and expansionist in its ambitions rather than taking an exclusive point of view.
Jolly Roger,
Rivero was simply a multiple murderer seeking his own ends and committed his henious crimes at a time when the only authority extant in the Islands was Vernet's agent and manager Brisbane.
Get your facts right.
Wrong again Kelper. Rivero Killed Brisbane.In 1833. One year AFTER the killing, Lt.Henry Smith was appointed British Resident on the islands and authority passed to him under the refreshed British claim to sovereignty, to pursue Rivero and bring him to justice. Smith arrested Rivero but discovered he could not bring him to trial because the British government had not actually formalised their jurisdiction over the islands and thus, Henry had to release Rivero. Henry was in reality, powerless as Governor of the islands until 1841.
Oct 07th, 2009 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islander, cooperation is a fine idea but it has a different meaning for you and for us. For you it means economic prosperity & sustainability; for us it is one path to achieve the resolution of the conflict, one path not the only one.
Oct 07th, 2009 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the 90´s, during Menem, we gave you 10 years of cooperation where you gain economics goals; but for Argentina it was useless in its purpose to achieve something that represent a step towards the definitive resolution. That´s the cause the cooperation ends, and not beacause of the K or beacause we are evil, because for us it was fruitless.
Perhaps in the future cooperation will be again posible when you and your colonial masters offer to Argentina something that could represents a path towards the definitive agreement. It´s a matter of business; we can give you cooperation but...what do you offer?? That´s the question your politics must answer when they ask Argentina for cooperation. In the 90´s we gave you 10 years of cooperation for free; it´s difficult that this will be repeated without a fine offer from your side.
Islander - you are obviously intelligent enough to see the obvious solution to this dispute. Independence for the islands would finally free them from British dominion and dependence and open the door to full membership of the states of south america bringing great opportunities for your development as a prosperous nation.
Oct 07th, 2009 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If this independence was guaranteed through an accord hosted by and mediated by, the United Nations, then your independence would never be threatened by any future claims from Argentina.
I applaud your good sense.
Islander, talking about Usuhaia. 30 years ago when you visit that tiny city, there were living 5000 people in the 70´s, now there lives 60.000 people, no more a tiny city; it´s a prosperous city with the same resources you have available in Malvinas. They increase their population and their economic activity in 30 years x12.
Oct 07th, 2009 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now you can see Stanley and Malvinas economic & social potential; if Usuhaia could achieve that growth in 30 argentine years; think about your potential growth if you could liberate your economy from the colonial & conflict ties. That´s money my friend.
Welkin,
Oct 07th, 2009 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are no colonial ties that prevent progress in the Falklands. The UK could not care less if the Falklands opted for independence to morrow.
The conflict was invented and is maintained by Argentina which conspires with other South American countries against UN Resolutions and Charter which calls upon Argentina to look after the interests of the inhabitants of the Falklands. Argentina ignores its UN obligations completely and actively works against those interests.
Jolly Roger, X
You haven't got a clue about the historical context or timing of Rivero's depredations nor Smith's position.
Smith never had any authority or even a thought to try anyone and sent the murderers to the UK. He was simply a military administrator with a boats crew for backup. I can see why your country did not feel strong enough to take him on! I mean one Lieutenant and 8 marines obviously too much for you between 1834 and 1838.
There was no legal framework established in the Falklands until 1841 hence Rivero had probably broken Spanish law if any at all.
Why not study the real history you may just find it interesting.
kelper - you persistently refer to the United Nations and its resolutions concerning the dispute between Britain and Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falklands.
Oct 08th, 2009 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you missed this one:
''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)''
This resolution was an invitation to Britain to free the Falklands of its ''colony'' status and offer the islanders independence regardless of any counter claim from Argentina.
Britain could then have simply pledged to support the islands in the evnt of any military threat from an aggressor nation, but it chose not to ;instead preferring to keep the Islands as a colony. Why?
Perhaps Britain saw the Falklands as a strategic asset and future source of revenue from Oil exploitation?
The comments about Rivero are utterly wrong. In the British Empire, each colony had its own distinct legal framework and independent judiciary established by letters patent. The letters patent wasn't established till 1841.
Oct 08th, 2009 - 05:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Rivero should have been tried in the Falklands under a military tribunal led by Lt Smith. Lt Smith was inexperienced and instead sent him to be tried in London. However, the London courts did not have jurisdiction, that lay in the Falklands. The formal legal framework in the Falklands needed a letters patent to establish it.
So Rivero basically got away with murdering the five senior members of Vernet's settlement. Including Vernet's deputy and the man who did more than any single individual to establish Vernet's settlement. With those murders he effectively put an end to Vernet's enterprise.
But this is interesting. Allegedly the British expelled Vernet's settlement in January 1833, yet here they all are, settlers brought by Vernet involved in a massacre in August of 1833. Funny how the two are obviously contradictory but they sheer chutzpah is incomprehensible.
And the man who put an end to Vernet's enterprise is lauded as a hero, though he was nothing more than a violent thug. The man who had lived a remarkable life, who showed great courage and did more than anyone in the early history of the settlement is dismissed in his adoptive country simply because he was born in Scotland.
And Vernet did not consult the British representative, he asked for permission, he also requested that the British establish a permanent garrison and provided regular reports to the British on its progress.
Further, all British Overseas Territories are self-governing and the British Government is publicly committed to grant independence to any BOT that requests it. In the same vein the Argentine Government is publicly committed to refusing to recognise Falklands independence. The only reason the Falklands are not independent is because the islanders are happy with the status quo, it is their choice, their right to self-determination.
The Falklands are not a strategic asset, the British Government would prefer not to maintain any sort of military presence there. The current garrison is there purely because of the threat posed by Argentina.
Neither is it about oil revenues, any oil revenue belongs to the Falkland Islands not Britain.
And yes 10 years of co-operation, building ties and confidence only to snatch it away because you didn't get your own way. Every single agreement that has been achieved has been torn up by Argentina.
Argentina is the chief architect of its own misfortune, it created and sustains the conflict over the Falkland Islands. Yet it blames everyone else and never accepts responsibility for its actions. It has so many opportunities but prefers to behave like a spoilt child just as it did in Spain recently.
Britain doesn't need an evil Argentina, as anyone in the Falkland Islands would freely tell you the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would happily rid itself of the Falkland Islands. Argentina overtly aggressive actions toward the Falklanders is the issue and the problem.
The Falkland Islands are not a colony and have not been so for some time.
And I see Mr Rogers mask has slipped further.
Justin
Oct 08th, 2009 - 07:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly: Luis Vernet was NOT Scottish. He was either German or French. Nobody is really sure but he certainly wasn't Scottish. I would have thought his name would have indicated that, unless he had changed it from McVernet.
Secondly: Vernet never asked the British for permission to establish a settlement of the Falklands, because the British could not have granted such a request as they had no jurisdiction over the islands.
I will remind you again that Vernet acquired permission to establish a settlement on the islands from the government of the Provinces del Rio de la Plata. Vernet consulted the British resident in Buenos Aires because he was hoping to be given the protection of the British who Vernet knew had a frequent naval presence in the islands. Vernet actually asked the British resident in BA if he could depend on British protection if he required it.
The rest of your post is too disjointed to warrant a reply from me.
Welkin,I agree it was 10years when Arg got not much from us other than the right for passport holders to come here and also a direct flight connection with Rio Gallegos. But you must realise we were recovering from the shock of when Arg invaded here in 1982 and all the distrust and dislike that was caused. It will take a good generation at least for those memories to start to fade and a feeling of some trust and confidence in Arg to return, and for this to happen Arg has to be more peacefull towards us and patient. After 10years it was starting to work, there was a proportion of younger folk then who were starting to think somethings positive about Argentina. But all that was then instantly destroyed in 2003 and will now take even longer to regain- but it is not impossible.
Oct 08th, 2009 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I recall Ushuaia of the 1970s and of today - but you have the benefit of a deep natural harbour and closer to Antarctica and a less windy climate. If there were linl;s between TDF and the Islands your and our tourism would grow even more - we both could offer a “” 2 Country one international distance airfare tourist destination” as we both have different but complimentary attractions. This is the sort of thing that could have been happening by now with interchange of our peoples and business etc, if the policy had not suddenly changed.
Islander. I again applaud your good sense especially the fact that you recognise that Argentina's policies have been designed to contest the British counter-claim and not to hurt the islanders. Argentina has never imposed a ban on Islanders visiting or even seeking residency or employment in Argentina since 1982 and any Islander travelling to Argentina enjoys exactly the same privileges as any other visitor.
Oct 08th, 2009 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A scheduled air-service between the islands and Argentina would have been created many years ago had it not been for a devious campaign of xenophobic propaganda in the islands' driven by British ex-patriot contractors within your government and administration.
You are quite right.It is time to end this nonsense and restore fully your links with not just Argentina but South America, as your future prosperity and security will come from your membership of the developing and flourishing free nations of South America not the fading glory of an imperial Europe.
Remember Islander, Britain only decided to rescue you from the Galtieri dictatorship and aggression because Margaret Thatcher's popularity was collapsing and she saw the opportunity to restore that popularity through a military victory.
If Britain was so committed to the Islands why did they abandon you to your fate prior to 1982? Why did they deny you the right of residency in Britain? Why did they never assist your economy or help build a better infrastructure?
Jolly Roger, X
Oct 08th, 2009 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I quote you << I again applaud your good sense especially the fact that you recognise that Argentina's policies have been designed to contest the British counter-claim and not to hurt the islanders.>>
This is typical of the distortion of the facts we have come to expect from Argentine propagandists over the years. As always your penchant as a nation for misjudging the situation shines through.
The Falklands/UK relationship at any time in the history of the Islands and its people is now and always absolutely nothing to do with you and is and was a matter for the Islands and the UK. Keep your nose out of domestic business.
You must recall to your cost that you misjudged the situation then (1982) just as you are misjudging it now. It would be a good start if you stopped treating Islanders (and indeed Islander!! Though he/she speaks uniquely) as idiots and refrained from patronising them.
I believe that Falkland Islanders know ultimately which side their bread is buttered on and its not your side.
In 1982 the British Parliament approved the recovery of the Islands from Galtieri’s Imperialistic and piratical attack, and indeed the result may well have been the recovery of Thatcher’s position but this was incidental and not germane to the decision to recover British territory under foreign occupation. No British Government could have survived the humiliation of acquiescing to an attack by a third world force.
You need to give your researchers a kick up the backside or we will begin to think you have lost your marbles.
neil, I disagre on the aims of Argentina,s actions - they are aimed direct at us and our economy, that,s why it is called economic warfare and thats why Arg does it - they know it affect us and slows down some development. Actually it was us- the people if the Islands- who would not automatically accept a commercial Argentine airlink - we know that it would be subsidized heavily by Argentina to try and make Lan loose trade so they would then pull out when they lost money - and then Arg would have total control over our communications again. After 1982 we will not let that happen again. That was why in 2003 we suggested an end to the airlink impasse by an open sky policy to charter flights - they could come from anywhere by anyone - as a first stage - it is confidence and trust that has to slowly be built up. perhaps one day there could be an airlink with B>A> - it is a direct route to europe - but there is a lot of better relations, trust and confidence years needed first.
Oct 08th, 2009 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You and I both know that pre 1982 yes UK was quietly pushing us away- quite foreign office policy all part of getting rid of the odd little red bits left where possible. All that changed totally on 2nd April 1982 - that was a total afront to long established British principles and UK has gone to war for democratic principles in defence of people,s rights many times. Effectively Arg lost its right to claim on that day. We both know that but for Galteiri,s stupidity and rush - had he waited another 5 years or so and the Islands would have fell into his grasp as we would have been pushed there by London.
Kelper, I am glad you agree with me concerning the decision of Margaret Thatcher to seize the opportunity to confront the dictator Galtieri for political advantage.
Oct 08th, 2009 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kelper, had you been in the Falklands prior to 1982 you would have been somewhat irritated by the fact that:
Every home in the falklands was supplied with gas for their heating and cooking.....from Argentina.
Every vehicle in the islands was filled with gasoline from Argentina.
Every generator on every estancia in the Falklands used Gasoline from Argentina.
Produce from Argentina could be found on the tables of every home in the falklands.
Islanders were denied British citizenship or residency rights and thus had greater freedom to travel or work or live in Argentina.
Islanders went to hospitals in Argentina.
islanders went to schools in Argentina.
Islanders bought land and property in Argentina when they were denied that right in Britain.
But the islanders stayed loyal to Britain and even gave their hard earned money to buying fighter planes for Britain in WW2 and volunteered for service in the British military.
What was Britain's response when the islanders asked for the right to earn revenue from their own fishing resources? Britain refused and the islanders had to watch helplessly as foreign fishing fleets stole their future !!
And where was Britain when the islanders found themselves facing their own ''darkest hours'' ??
Britain abandoned the Islands to the tyranny of a Dictator and his overwhelming invasion force !
And as you said yourself; if the Thatcher government had become so weak, had not become so hated by the British public and was not threatened by extinction in the looming general election; then i am sure the Islanders would now be living a very different life.
islander, that period of 10 years of cooperation was called in Argentina seduction policy; for us it was a failure, we couldn´t achieve any goal.
Oct 08th, 2009 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But that period gave us some taughts. The first taught is the fact that for us it´s difficult to seduce you, almost imposible.
The fact that Argentina´s policies & influence over Malvinas are crucial to determinate your way of life.
The last taught is that we & you could see the benefical effects of Argentina´s cooperative face.
Perhaps that facts are saying that in the future, instead of blaming and seing evils, you must start your own seduction policy towards Argentina. Perhaps you can do what we can´t and your seduction is a success.
I give you an idea, instead of spending millons of pounds in a fruitless lobby in London, why don´t you spend some bucks and rent an office in Baires, so you can talk to us and you can listen?
Jolly Roger, X
Oct 08th, 2009 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once again you deliberately misinterpret what I have said, probably due to your instructions and nothing to do with a lack of command of English.
Yes I was in the Falklands before 1982.
All the items you mention were available as far as I know but of course the transactions were of a commercial nature and not donated by Argentina. There were some individual donations to say church organisations of things like gas fires after they had been exhibited in the Church Hall to allow people to see what
was available. Everything of course was under the control of the Argentine military at that time. I did not notice anything free or cheap like flights or hotels (except courtesy of your rampant inflation at the time) on the occasions I travelled through Argentina.
Nor did I have any problem entering the UK or buying property with land. Even foreigners can buy property and land in the UK and conduct business freely. Your assertion to the contrary is simply a lie.
In the 1950’s and 1960’s there was plenty of Argentine produce on Islands tables too, imported via Uruguay. It was economic to import such items this way because your inflation and the exchange rate was to our advantage even in this convoluted way.
The gas I use to heat my home probably comes from Russia or Saudi Arabia. Do I care? No I choose to buy it at the most competitive rate I can get. I am not grateful to them, we simply have a mutually advantageous agreement. So here you are patronising again and trying to gain advantage through what should also now be the norm if a normalised relationship existed with mainland. However you impose restrictive practices to attempt to gain political advantage.
When and if gas/oil begins to flow from the Falklands the people who use it will not be interested where it comes from if it is at a competitive rate.
You are living in the past just as your governments do.
Come into the real civilised world and stop trying to impose 19th century imperialism on the Falklands.
It was the wholehearted support of the British Parliament and people that saved the Falklands from you country’s dastardly imperialistic ambitions. Thatcher had no option than to do what she did. The credit belonged to the people who fought and died for our freedom, as they still do, supported by the British people.
You and your kind are simply modern day Imperialists looking to grab other peoples birthrights.
Welkin,
Oct 08th, 2009 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When Falkland's representatives went to Buenos Aires in the 1970's they were hounded out with threats and agressive actions. What's changed?
Again the fear factor to justify inactivity and to victimize kelpers.
Oct 08th, 2009 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps is more difficult to listen than to speak, and perhaps the possibility of confrontate ideas is seeing by narrowminded british nazionalists as threats and agression.
Poor kelpers, perhaps one day they could escape from the nazionalistic speech trap and interact for themselves in the modern world.
Welkin, I agree the Islands need to do more direct ourselves in making our views overseas in countries where it matters - it is difficult for UK as they are viewed by many countries as the “old colonial power still”.Also we have the problem that Argentina officially refuses to recognise us and does not even acknowledge that we exist - therefore we would not be able for example to go and talk to the OAS. Nor can we invite delgation groups here from mainland S American Countries - the flak they would get from Buenos Aires for daring to come and have a look at our side of the argument is more than it is worth to them. I for instance would welcome a fact-finding visit by some people from the OAS, and from the UN.It would be usefull to have a Govt Office in Buenos Aires like we have in London - but that would mean Buenos Aires recognizing that we exist and that so far does not appear on the horizon.
Oct 09th, 2009 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islander, to be recogniced by Argentina or by any country first you have to be an equal; now you are a colony, you are colonial subjects of a monarchy and your goverment is a domestic goverment of a colony.
Oct 09th, 2009 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0I´m not talking of a goverment office, i´m talking of an office, a simple office. An office from where you can talk to the media, organice events, press conferences, talk to ONG´s, talk to politicians, talk to the people; and in the meantime also listen. And then, when you progress towards being an equal, a republic, a citizen, then you could be recogniced as a free country; not before.
Luis Vernet was a German of Huegenot descent born in Hamburg.
Oct 09th, 2009 - 04:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0But I was of course talking of Matthew Brisbane another naturalised Argentine citizen, a man of immense courage who was murdered in the most cowardly manner by Antonio Rivero and a bunch of thugs.
But Jolly Rogers you knew that and were just being a plonker.
And Mr Rogers, the reason that the British Government prevented the Falkland Islanders from exploiting fishing revenue is entirely down to the fact that it wanted to avoid the inevitable crap from Argentina that would result.
As to the rest, that was nothing to do with philanthropy but naked self-interest. It was a collusion between the FCO and the Argentine Government to make the Falkland Islands dependent on Argentina to encourage closer ties so that the FCO could one day maybe dump the islands on Argentina. As to the rest of your ill-informed diatribe it is so full of fundamental errors it is not worth composing a reply.
Welkin, the Falkland Islands Government did go to Buenos Aires, they were hounded, harangued, abused and so they left. The FIG has also offered direct talks with Argentina; Argentina has refused to talk to them. 10 years of a seduction policy? Pray tell how is that supposed to undo 40 years of denouncing the islanders as untermenschen and do you really think overtly and aggressively working to damage their economy will win friends and influence people?
There is no “fear factor” used by the British Government, the British Government would dearly love to have the problem of the Falkland Islands off its hands. Its the action of Argentina, like the farce in Spain, that create the attitude in the Falklands. The most stupid petty crap like creating a diplomatic incident because the Falkland Islands Cricket Club was due to tour Chile.
If you want to talk to the islanders fine, go ahead. The obstacle is not British.
Once again I have to correct you Justin.
Oct 09th, 2009 - 07:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina actually suspended its claim to sovereignty of the Falklands in 1971 and embarked upon a ''hearts and minds'' initiative in the hope of winning the Islanders over. This phase saw the most dynamic period of development in the islands, in its history.
Argentina built a new airport at Port Stanley.
An Alginate processing plant.
A fuel depot.
Regular air services between the islands and Argentina.
This new detente would have continued had Britain not refused to act in accord with the 1973 UN resolution 3160 calling on Britain to enter into negotiations with Argentina to find a peaceful resolution to the dispute.
As a consequence Argentina refreshed its sovereignty claim.
As for your claim that Argentina is hostile to any Falkland islander visiting Argentina to speak to the Argentine people on behalf of the Islands. Well, I shall remind you of the 1995 visit by Graham Bound and Janet Robertson, both sponsored by the Falklands' government and financed by the FIDC (Falkland islands Development Corporation).
They enjoyed a successful lecture tour visiting many Argentine towns and cities and were generally welcomed wherever they went, even when they met government officials.
I refer you to the edition of the 'Penguin News' that carries Graham and Janet's report of their visit.
Jolly Roger, X
Oct 09th, 2009 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear, Oh dear…what a pack of lies. You simply use this Mercopress site as a platform for the propaganda of the Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio Internacional y Culto of Argentina.
<<Argentina actually suspended its claim to sovereignty of the Falklands in 1971>>
Total fabrication. It simply pursued its ambitions in a new way with the collusion of the British Foreign Office to take control of all communications with the Islands and to control their means of obtaining fuel and essential supplies in order to coerce the inhabitants into eventually accepting Argentine sovereignty. Islanders were forced to accept this arrangement whether they liked it or not. Many did not like it and left, by 1982 the Islands in other respects had achieved no commercial development whatsoever in the 10 years of Argentine putative wooing and hegemony. It was a thoroughly miserable place with everyone other than a few collaborators looking over their shoulders in my opinion. Others may see it differently.
<<This phase saw the most dynamic period of development in the islands, in its history.>>
Sorry, I was there to see some of this so called advance, the only advance in reality was the easing of communications with Argentina and a restricted normalising of relations. But of course the previous lack of contact was contrived by Argentina itself for its own political purposes, as it is now. What happened in reality was restricted normalising of relations totally controlled by the Argentine military. This sort of situation without the military and the coercion to be totally tied to Argentina in all respects for fuel and communications could be achieved any time Argentina is prepared to lift its restrictive sanctions.
<<Argentina built a new airport at Port Stanley.>>
Ja, Ja, Jaaaaaaaaaaa….. I don’t think so. You built a military style temporary airstrip with aluminium sheeting for a landing surface at Hookers Point which eventually blew away in a gale in 1978. R.I.P. It hardly qualified as an Airport. It was temporary strip which was used by the military’s LADE’s Fokker F27’s from 1972 to1978.
The British Government funded the building of a professional and fully functioning Airport at Stanley and this was built between 1974 and 1979 by Johnson Construction with many local people involved in the building operation.
<<An Alginate processing plant>>
News to me, I was aware of some research into Alginates; it must have been a miniature plant because I certainly missed it.
<<A >>
Storage tanks and a Gas Station to sell your fuel. It would have been a good investment for yourselves apart from the subsequent developments.
I guess the new gas station was quite swish at the time but the old FIC Garage pumps dispensed exactly the same grade Gas Oil and Petrol. But it was your business and your investment.
<<This new detente would have continued had Britain not refused to act in accord with the 1973 UN resolution 3160 calling on Britain to enter into negotiations with Argentina to find a peaceful resolution to the dispute.>>
This is a lie of course. Argentina and the UK discussed a number of options all on the basis that any agreement had to be ratified by the Falklands inhabitants in their own interests. Unfortunately in direct contravention of the options offered by the UN Argentina refused all options other than what amounted to an immediate transfer of sovereignty to themselves.
The British Parliament and the inhabitants of the Falklands both declined to agree to a transfer of sovereignty and subsequently the Argentine military with the full approval of the Argentine people invaded the Falklands.
The UN calls for a peaceful solution to the dispute not a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina as you quite rightly say.
<< I shall remind you of the 1995 visit by Graham Bound and Janet Robertson, both sponsored by the Falklands' government and financed by the FIDC (Falkland islands Development Corporation)>>
Graham and Janet can speak for themselves of course but I would remind you that 1995 was a time of hope for a rapprochement between the Islands and Argentina unlike the present time of imposed sanctions and restrictions.
Welkin,
Oct 09th, 2009 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you have an FI office in BA unconnected with the FIG or any official Falklands connection what would that actually represent or mean?
I fully approve of good intercourse between Islanders and Argentina on the basis of developing friendship and understanding leaving aside all the Sh!te that Jolly Roger is spouting.
A fully funded office in BA with a practical purpose other than being a Zoo to display a couple of Islanders in would fully meet with my support. A reciprocal office in Stanley for an Argentine representative would also be good. Perhaps you could persuade your Government?
I do not think it would be possible to have one without the other.
Ah I see Jolly Roger is enjoying hoisting more fantasy to keep the main sail billowing. EK demolished that nonsense fairly effectively, so I will only add that in 1973 the return of Peron heralded a new form of relations that eschewed rapprochement, which was leading to tangible results for Argentine ambitions, in favour of the usual confrontational nonsense. It had nothing to do with the British Government who were busily engaged in a policy of convincing the islanders their future lay with Argentina but they were having none of it.
Oct 09th, 2009 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sure Mr Bound had a lovely trip to Argentina in 1995, I doubt he would receive any such courtesy under a Kirschner Government. (must learn to spell that with a small g). Equally in the early 1970s when the FIG did visit, they were treated to such a hostile reception they chose to leave.
The trip by Graham and Janet is perfectly in line with the FIG policy of dialogue with Argentina. Unfortunately with the Kirschners it appears to be a dialogue of the deaf. Notice that its the FIG willing to talk, not the other way round.
No matter whatever excuse you invent, the cause of the current situation and its perpetuation lies squarely with the Argentine Government. The ludicrous spin that its British Government conspiracy to keep a “colony” in the South Atlantic for the simple purpose of keeping Argentina down is simply an absurd fantasy. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity would dismiss it as tripe of the highest order. It is fundamentally sad that Argentines will accept the most absurd distortions of the truth to avoid accepting the culpability for its own actions.
Fortunately for the families visiting this weekend, the Falkland Islanders have a greater sense of both humanity and humility.
Justin:
Oct 09th, 2009 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You said:
<<The ludicrous spin that its British Government conspiracy to keep a “colony” in the South Atlantic for the simple purpose of keeping Argentina down is simply an absurd fantasy.>>
Any one who has not done so should read the following article on this site and the comments attached to it…very revealing about the Argentine psyche…
What Happened to Argentina? NY Times
(*) A century ago, there were only seven countries in the world that were more prosperous than Argentina (Belgium, Switzerland, Britain and four former English colonies including the United States), according to Angus Maddison’s historic income database.
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/10/07/what-happened-to-argentina-ny-times
Islander,
Oct 09th, 2009 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A few words. I don´t think it´s healthy to keep looking backwards and to look all the time to Argentina; look at yourself and act in consequence according to your interest. You seem to have a psique fixation with Argentina that prevents you to advance towards development and freedom and tied you to Argentina´s will and luck.
You talk most the time that you want to be in a future like Australia, New Zeland, Canada or Kuwait. That´s fine; but you know to achieve that you need to make a previous and necessary step, to cut your colonial-political link with UK, there is no other option.
But I think you miss a country in that list. You have all the potential and the most fantastic and powerful opportunity to became the next Uruguay in South America. Uruguay is a great developing and stable country; with greats opportunities. You can be like them, with a similar economic and political position in the concert of our countries, keeping your own identity and way of life but enjoying the beneficial effects of the modern world. Now you are outside the world; you are nothing but a small community unconnected with your region. That´s your choise?? That´s selfdetermination? Do you have children??
I´m sure that in 10 years of freedom your growth would be 15x. You would became a tiny nation of 25.000-35.000 people. I know that most of you have shares of FKL, DES, FOGL, etc. in your pockets. How much they will worth in that scenario?? Say freedom, buy shares and make business, that´s life; that´s is defend your interest´s; you will be the owners of that growth; who else??
I give you an idea for free.
Say goodbye to the british and became a nation. Sell your oil to Argentina and Mercosur, sell you’re the fish licenses you don´t use to Argentina and Mercosur. Buy Argentina, Mercosur & the world everything you need. Agree with Argentina an open skies policy. Give Argentina Darwin as an Argentina National Park, so we can have a flag, a museum and a church next to our cementery. Let´s write a common history. Write by yourself your republican constitution and your laws, organize your justice with independence from UK. I´m sure and I can bet that if you offer all this things Argentina will accept your presence, will recognize you as a free country, the region will accept you as an equal; and the claim will be a matter of the past.
Now you have no University. I imagine the Falklands/Malvinas Republic with the most important English University in South America where hundreds or thousands argentines, chileans, uruguayans, brazilians, etc. could go there and study english, literature, teaching, etc, and the Falklands/Malvinas would be a lighthouse of freedom, peace and Englishness in the south atlantic.
That day Cristina´s words will be a reality and a president of Argentina will visit Malvinas.
You know the other option to Cristina´s words and I suppose you don´t like it.
Remember and inspire yourself in Albert Clifton, great man, and rebuild the Falklands Progress Party and be free.
Welkin,
Oct 10th, 2009 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fine word, we'd love to see it.
One fly in the ointment. Argentina has already stated as a matter of policy it would never accept Falkland Islands independence. It has also enshrined its colonial ambitions over the archipeligo in its constitution. It also states the only solution it will accept is sovereignty transfer to Argentina. There are no obstacles to what you suggest from the British side, the only obstacle is a recalitrant and petulant Argentina.
BTW the FIG already proposed open skies for charter flights, including Argentine carriers. What it wouldn't accept is Argentina's insistence on only Argentine carriers.
Welkin,
Oct 10th, 2009 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sure many Falkland Islanders agree with you and would be interested in doing many of the things you suggest above.
Why does Argentina not drop it's claim to the Falklands and allow them to join the S. American community as an independent nation?
If Argentina dropped its claim that would allow the Falklanders to take that step towards total independence with confidence.
Confident that Argentina will not invade again...
Friends,
Oct 10th, 2009 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you say that the islanders to take the step forward, the step towards progress and freedom, they need to wait for Argentina to drop her claim, well, you can wait for ever, and in last stance you are saying that the real sovereign that rules over Malvinas is Argentina. According to your vision you are saying that Argentina is in command of the situation.
I say that the sovereign of Malvinas are the people of Malvinas, people not subjects like now; and the step forward, the independence, is a prerrequisite to allow Argentina to drop her claim.
First you offer to Argentina the king´s head, then we accept it and so we can agree the terms of neighborhood.
Welkin,
Oct 10th, 2009 - 02:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0You cannot control the outcome of democratic choice. The Islanders will decide their own future as and when they wish to make that choice. If and when they do the outcome may or may not suit the Argentine psyche and mindset. That is unimportant, the choice will be democratic without the threats and coercion you imply having an influence.
If you really believe in democracy why not try and support its universal implementation, not just where it suits you.
Your argument is becoming circular and unproductive. Have you got any real ideas that do not contain implied threats?
Welkin, many Islanders want Independence from Britain. In 1998 when the Islanders believed they had discovered Oil around the Islands many
Oct 10th, 2009 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islanders stated openly that they believed the Falklands could become an Independent nation if it was economically strong enough to negotiate a wealth and defence sharing agreement with Argentina.
Cuncillor Mike Summers was particularly favourable of the idea (see Penguin News for the year 1998)
So you see, there are many Islanders who would be very happy to become Independent from Britain but only if they had sufficient wealth to entice Argentina into recognising that Independence, abandoning their claim to sovereignty and in exchange, take an active part in the development of that wealth and benefit from it.
Kelper, when you scoff at Argentina's stormy economic and political history and draw a comparison with countries like Britain and the Estados Unidos you must not forget to mention that:
Britain placed one fifth of the world's surface under its dominion and exploited those people of its colonies at the point of a gun.Britain pillaged,enslaved,subjugated,tyrannised and murdered its way through history and eventually became the world's largest Empire.
The USA only built its wealth from a never ending series of European civil wars until WW2, which gave it the opportunity to exploit a devastated world economy and build monopolies over manufacturing and food production and economic colonisation.
And where are Britain and Estados Unidos now? Ruined by corrupt bankers and duplicitous politicians so addicted to their own egos and the corporate will that they lie to take their nations to war,throw away the wealth of future generations of British and North Americans to pay for their own connivance and incompetence and now face total ruin as more stable nations abandon the $dollar.
You may indeed scoff at us......but we will have the last laugh.
Jolly Roger,
Oct 10th, 2009 - 03:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you have anything constructive to say? Apart from the usual bluff and bluster, what escapes your notice is that the economies of those countries you malign are on the up, while Argentina's is headed down the toilet for the same reasons in that article.
Islanders, reading through your comments here and elsewhere, have you ever thought that your stance and intransigence could one day trigger a confrontation that could get you all killed?
Oct 10th, 2009 - 03:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0YankeeDoodle, their stance and intransigence? Argentina denies they have a right to exist, what do you expect in response. Not to mention the fact that whilst the islanders are willing to talk, Argentina refuses to reciprocate.
Oct 10th, 2009 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well we seem to have come full circle on this one, but some interesting points have come out, I had not seen the concept of Independence discussed before, yes it is and has been a possibility for some time - but really has little support in the islands for the simple reason that Argetine Govt maintains that the only solution is out integration into Argentina - full stop. Still it is good to learn that there are some of you over there who are a bit more openminded on it., one day we might see it happen in some form. But why the insistance on the republic bit? Is anyone saying Canade,Australia etc are not fully independent nations just because the have the Queen as Head of State? Come on - it depends on your constitution - in republics the president is usually the effective ruler and and elected. In UK and many Commonwealth nations - the elected Primeminister is the ruler - but “above” him/her is the monarch who offers advice and experience - which primeministers often take into account but whilst correctly carryiong out the basis of their elected mandate. The monarch,s power is not real day to day - its advisory and traditional. Much the same as the Islands Governor - he can only overrule our elected assembly on issue of defence/foreign affairs and good governance(he can intervene if he thinks our politicians are being dishonest and undemocratic). It is very different from all S American systems I know - but the real day to day effective power is still with the elected governments.
Oct 10th, 2009 - 05:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0I dont expect Arg to drop the claim - but a return to the system where both side could communicate directly with each other(under the sovereignty umbrella where nothing is compromised ) could be the breakthrough we all need, to then - gradually in time - lead on to other things.
I agree Islander. It has been a wonderful debate and I thank everyone for contesting my comments.Vaya con Dios. Paz
Oct 10th, 2009 - 06:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0N Rogers, maybe next time if you tried to keep the lies to a minimum it might even be more interesting. You came onto these threads not so long ago claiming to be British - this turned out to be a complete lie. As a result you can hardly expect anyone to actually believe much that you have to say.
Oct 10th, 2009 - 06:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0islander, I say republic you say no republic but we say independence.
Oct 10th, 2009 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0You know that this is a double way independence. Independece for us and independence for you.
Because of that we must agree the terms of the new situation.
For you and for us it will be an effort.
For us to drop the claim, heavy my friend, we have deads.
For you the reward, you win, but britain pays leaving. There must be no doubt that britain leaves south atlantic; and with republic we make this for sure. There must be no doubt that you cut all politicals links with your metropolis, like all others countries of the region.
For you independence must be your exit from the conflict, the goal of your move might be the close for eternity of all the conflict with Argentina.
Welkin,
Oct 10th, 2009 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The number of dead in war does not enhance any claim it is simply the unfortunate expression of conflict, it does not strengthen or weaken an imaginary irredentist claim but as an outcome highlights its foolishness.
You said: <<There must be no doubt that you cut all politicals links with your metropolis, like all others countries of the region.>>
This is not true or even necessary, French Guiana, on our continent, is a Department of France and as such part of the European Union and has representatives in both the upper and lower houses of the French Parliament. It also has the Euro as its stable currency. It still retains its right to independence also if it so wishes.
This status is fully recognised by the UN and the territory is not considered a case for decolonisation by the UN either.
Just to repeat myself for the millionth time the Falklands has no conflict with Argentina. Argentina initiated and sustains the present conflict entirely by its modern utterences and aggravating actions.
Just clear your head and try and think constructively with logic and support normalisation as a first step between the mainland and the Islands.
Thanks anyway for at least thinking outside the normal rhetoric we so often see on these sites.
french guayana?? are you serious??
Oct 10th, 2009 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina & Malvinas region is Mercosur.
Normalization is a fine word, but I don´t think it´s the first step.
First step goodbye britain.
John S. Mill said; a flourish democracy must have a party of orden and conservation; and a party of progress and building. Perhaps for you that´s the first step; democracy, debate, ideas.
Well soon I expect Venezuela will be part of Mercosur, next door in any terms to Guiana.
Oct 10th, 2009 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0John Stuart Mill also said: <<The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. >>
and again: <<The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest. >>
I leave you with those thoughts...............
Hello my name is axel, im from buenos aires, and im a profesor of geography, what i really think about the problem of sovereignty of the malvinas, or falklands, is that we must be objetive, i know that its very difficult to be objetive when you are talking about some thing that belongs to you, but we must do it.
Oct 14th, 2009 - 02:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0For being objetive i recognize that the islands are british, because the population of malvinas belong to the british culture, and they feel identificated with the u.k.
But i recognize too that our rights on malvinas are totally legitime, not only because of geografic terms, we dont have to forget that argentina was despoilled of the archipelago by the u.k and further bretain was victorious in 1982 ,it doesn't mean that we lost our legitime rights on the islands, that's why we must found a fair solution for all of us, for argentina, for the islands and for the u.k., i think that the best solution woul be to compart the soveriegnty of malvinas-falklands with the u.k., in other to respect the wish of the islanders if being british, and to respect our legitime rights on the islands.
What i see too is a very big intolerance and egoism betwen the goverments of argentina, the u.k. and the islands, our goverment doesn't want to include the islanders in the negotiation, that's a very big mistake, and the goverments fron the u.k. and the islands don't want to recognize our legitime rights on malvinas, that's why we wont never find a fair solution for all of us with this actitud.
Axel, you repeat the claim that Britain expelled Vernet's settlement. This did not in fact happen, were you aware of that?
Oct 14th, 2009 - 06:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0justin, i am just saying what i have studyed in my whole student life, obviously no body knows what really happened in that time, because we were not there, the oficial story says that there was an small garrison of argentine people with luis vernet as the governor, and they were despoilled by john onslow the third of janory of 1833, if is it true or not, no one can asure it, and no one can asure either what bretain says about this. The point is that that we inherated the archipelago when we got the independence in 1816, there are documents wich prouve it.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Any way what is really important is that with the attitude of the three goverments we wont find a fair solution for all of us and for the future generations of people from the three parts, beside when you negotiate, you are not going to get everything you want, you have to cede a fifthy porcent, but you are going to get another 50 porcent wich benefits you, in this situation no one can cede anything, the egoism and the haughtiness is so much more biger in the three goverments, tham the will of finding a solution to the conflict, may be in 100 years the situation changes.
Axel,
Oct 15th, 2009 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have a read of the document below. Like most Argentines I'm sure there is a lot in there you were not taught, especially the bits which don't chime with official claims.
You say we don't really know what happened, but there is still a lot of documentary evidence, much of it in the Argentine national archives, which proves British sovereignty. By the way, one thing Argentina did not do was inherit the islands, there is absolutely no basis for that.
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
Luis Vernet wasn't there in 1833, he left the islands along with his family in 1831. The small Argentine garrison in the Falklands, who landed despite protests by the British consulate, were in anarchy. The commander, Mestivier, had been murdered by his own men. He'd been there less than a month before he was murdered.
Oct 15th, 2009 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We do know what happened, there is plenty of documentary evidence to support it. Thomas Helsby kept a detailed diary, which is still available, which documents the events of 1833. Not to mention the log of the Beagle, which visited in March of 1833 and again in 1834, the diaries of Charles Darwin and Fitzroy. All of which document that the population were not expelled, indeed the population that survived the Gaucho murders of August 1833 all went on to be important members of the early settlement. Their presence is still documented in census records of 1851.
“Despoiled” by Onslow. The only “aggressive” act of Onslow was to deliver a polite note, requesting that Pinedo remove the garrison and Argentine flag from British territory. Not only that but Onslow went to the measure of presenting the flag to Pinedo to avoid humiliating the garrison by forcing it to surrender its colours.
Argentina's claim to have inherited the islands are nonsense. There is no measure in international law that would recognise it, even applying the Utis Possidetis principle (which by the way is not international law but was an agreement between former Spanish colonies achieved at the Conference of Lima in 1848). would confer a claim upon Uruguay since the islands were administered from Monte Video when abandoned by Spain in 1810 (after withdrawing the Spanish Governor in 1807). Spain never recognised Argentine independence till 1859 and had already recognised British sovereignty by then.
All of which is immaterial in any case, as Argentina formally relinquished its claim in the Convention of Settlement in 1850, that Argentina has periodically sought to revive its claim does not confer rights upon Argentina. The claim in its current form dates from the 1930s and was revived by Palacios and his cronies, then eagerly adopted by Peron who sought to use it to advance an anti-British agenda. Peron is on record as saying he didn't believe in the claim but it was “useful to unite the people”.
All of Argentina's claims are what Escude calls the myth of lost territory that modern day Argentina has developed for itself. It seeks to explain Argentina's descent from the 5th richest nation to a 3rd world country upon malign outside influences that are keeping a nation that should be great down. In reality, throughout its existence Argentina has only accrued territory.
Its ludicrous that Argentina seeks to impose a colonial situation in the Falklands, ignoring the will of the people who live there and their clearly expressed wish to remain British. The domination and subjugation of a native people against their will is the very antithesis of colonialism.
justin, of corse that spain didn't recognize our independence untill 1859, but by the ninth of july of 1816, we dindn't recognize already the spanish kingdom as our goverment.
Oct 17th, 2009 - 05:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0There were some esporadic french and english invasions, i dont remenber the years exactly, but i will find out for next week, when french invaded tha islands, in that time, the whole argentine territory, including the islands, were under spanish goverment, when spain knew about the invasion, the spanish kingdom claimed to france, and give them back to spain.
When we got the independence, it sopose that all those territorys which were under spanish goverment, would be inherated by the new provincias unidas del rio de la plata ( that was the name of argentina in that time), that's why luis vernet was ordered as the goverment, beside you said he wasen't there in 1833, he left the islands with hes family in 1831, it shows that it was true that he existed and he was the governor.
Any way i will serch a document that i saw once about our right on the islands, i will tell you were i got it from.
The islands were never under Spanish control. Spain maintained a small penal settlement at Puerto Soledad, that is all. Your own archives confirm that the islands were swarming with British sealers and whalers, that the garrison was completely unable to stop. Right from the 1770s the islands were a free for all.
Oct 17th, 2009 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0The islands were not Spanish, that Spain bullied France into giving up Port St Louois doesn't change anything. When they tried the same with the British, they found the British weren't a push over and backed down.
And Vernet was proclaimed a governor, to British protests. In correspondence with the British, he asserted that his interest was purely commercial. Not only that but in 1826 before setting out to the Falklands, Vernet visited the British Consulate seeking permission for his venture, an exercise he repeated in 1828. He provided the British with regular reports and urged the British to set up a permanent garrison.
Vernet wasn't ordered to the islands, he went there as a private business venture. In 1829, he requested a warship support from both the British and Argentina (well actually the Republic of Buenos Aires not the United Provinces of the River Plate). Neither responded, the Government in Buenos Aires made a fuss about proclaiming him Governor - to British objections. And as we've noted he denied the appointment to the British.
What is also interesting is that the Government that proclaimed him Governor was in fact illegal, the succeeding Government declared all proclamations of it illegal.
Who said he didn't exist, whats missing from the Argentine history is his dealings with the British. This explains wht the British didn't object to the settlement, it was there with British permission and that is why they were not expelled as Argentina claims.
The Argentine pamphlet you refer to is riddled with holes, do look it out, I'll enjoy pointing them out to you. The Argentine Government has been peddling a mendacious version of history for years.
As to your assertion that on independence all former Spanish territories became yours, that is false. Argentina took independence it was not granted. The only territory it had was what it could take by force of arms. There is no method in International Law that would recognise a transfer of sovereignty in this way.
Axel, once again, I urge you to read the document below:
Oct 17th, 2009 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
Argentina did not “inherit” the Falkland Islands from Spain. If you believe that then you have to accept that any of the parts of the former Viceroyalty of the River Plate would have the same right to “inherit” and that includes Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, etc. In fact, the Islands were controlled by Spain via Montevideo so it could be argued that Uruguay has a much stronger claim of “inheritance”...
Dear friends,
Oct 17th, 2009 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why you do not stop having your eyes in the back of your head and think about future. Why you do not think how prosperous the islands could be under a share sovereignty between UK and Argentina under the protection and support of the UN where all rights of the islanders be protected. Try to focus next discussions on this subject, all of you have reasons but all of you have to yield something. What you do not have to negotiate are the rights of the islanders to live as british but in a shared territory and make their own bussiness. Imagine new things.
J.A. and Justin, i will read that document you told me about, i respect very much your arguments, our truth is not the only one, yours is also important, it's really great to have a mature debate about the conflict, this is what we study in our history books.
Oct 17th, 2009 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The militar command of malvinas was created on june 10 of 1829, but in 1831 the american fregate called lexington, ransaqued por soledad (east falkland), in 1832 juan ramon balcarce sent the sarandi schooner commanded by jose maria pinedo, because luis vernet was in buenos aires, on janory 3 the english fregate clio, obliged pinedo to leave the islands, pinedo didn't resist, because many of the men he had were english, beside the capaciti of fire of the british was superior, he decided to weigh anchor on janory 5 because of the bad climatic conditions, when he came back from the islands to buenos aires, he was judged and separated of the marine.
On the other hand i didn't express my self correctly when i said that all those territorys wich were under spanish goverment would be inherited by the new provincias unidas when we got the independence, what i wanted to express is that spain knew about the existence of the islands, when in 1694 french man boungainville took posssession of the islands and called them malouines, because there were a few populators from saint malo, spain pacted to recover the islands and submited them to the jurisdiction of the virreynato del rio de la plata in 1696, argentina took posesssion of the islands in 1820, that's why i said that the islands were inherited by argentina, there is a very good documental about the conflict called, hundan el belgrano, may be you know it, it's spoken all in spanish, you can find it in you tube, i will read that document you told me about thak you both.
Axel,
Oct 17th, 2009 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's very obvious from what you have written just above that you have not read the document I gave a link for.
Cossimo,
You talk about the Islander's rights being protected. They have a right to self determination and have chosen to remain British. Should that not be the end of the matter? Why must there be join sovereignty if the Islanders do not want that?
As for being prosperous, the Islands ARE prosperous. Why change that? Anyway, Argentina is no example for economic prosperity - more like an example of economic disaster!
J.A.Roberts,
Oct 18th, 2009 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0I haven´t said the islanders are not british if they want to be but if you ignore that exist a sovereingty dispute you resemble me the argentine militars of the 80´s that did not listen UN resolutions. In relation to economics I did not mean that the economy of the islands has to be ruled by Bs. As. Your prosperity can be increased because you will have more trade with the continent, more comunication, better fish and oil agreements, more turism and more confidence between people of the islands and Argentina.
Cossimo, but why is a “shared sovereignty” option even necessary? What can't Argentina just accept the Islander's democratic wishes and trade with them like any normal country.
Oct 18th, 2009 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0J.A. Roberts,
Oct 18th, 2009 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Shared sovereignty means that the islands belong to U.K and Argentina ruled by the islanders. Britons and Arggies can visit the islands and make bussiness, passports of these countries are not neccesarilly, only id documents used in UK and Argentina are accepted in the islands. In public buildings the flags of UK, Argentina and Falklands should be exposed. Argentinians has the same rights as the islanders in the islands and islanders should be consider with the same rights as argentinians in the continent. All differences are gone!!! We should think more about these ideas.
J.A. Roberts,
Oct 18th, 2009 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Shared sovereignty means that the territory belong to U.K. and Argentina ruled by the islanders. Public buildings should expose the flags of U.K., Argentina and the Falklands, britons and arggies can enter in the islands with the home id´s documents, arggies and brits will have the same rights as the islanders , the islanders will have the same rights as argentines in Argentina. We should think about these ideas !!!
J.A.Roberts,
Oct 18th, 2009 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Shared sovereignty means that the territory of the islands belong to U.K. and Argentina. The territory will be ruled by the islanders. Public buildings should expose the flags of U.K., Argentina and the Falklands, britons and arggies can enter in the islands with the home id´s documents, arggies and brits will have the same rights as the islanders to make bussiness , the islanders will have the same rights as argentines in Argentina. We should think about these ideas, no more claims between people of both sides, everybody happy and investors will not have doubts in the future.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!